Most powerful empires of each century

Mar 2017
130
US
Tulius

Do you sincerely believe England was stronger than Spain or than China in 1570? :rolleyes: I can´t imagine the "very rich" English kingdom expelling Spaniards from Antwerpen, Ostende, Brussels, Dunkerk....And who say in 1570 England had 1.143 GPD and the Spanish Empire (from Amsterdam to Chili from Texas to Philippines and from Milano to Guam had... "990" GPD) is (in the best of case) a naive person and very very and very polite.

Regards.
It was never about who was stronger. Ive seen that table before and it refers to GDP Per Capita, not GDP. GDP is the strength of the whole economy of the nation, GDP Per Capita is the quality of it and how wealthy each person there is.
 
Last edited:
Mar 2017
130
US
The table is a joke... a British Propaganda for their own home consume. It should add

Any resemblance to reality is pure coincidence

England richer than the Spanish Empire in 1500-1600-1700 is a joke.. that the reason because British Pirates tried and stealing the Spanish Gold...
So now a data table of GDP estimates is British propaganda? :lol:
 
Feb 2011
6,350
I cross-checked the Broadberry's two sources more thoroughly. It appears that at least a very significant part of the difference, is due to that he left out a lot of goods from the Chinese GDP count for his 2017 paper which were included in his 2014 paper.

The excluded goods are:
Gold, Silver, Coal, Lead, Tin, Cinnabar, Vitriol, Coinage, Paper, Porcelain, and Transport Equipment. (Maybe rice wine, tea, sugar)

What's still counted are:
Grain crops, cash crops, subsidiary agriculture (livestock, forestry, fishing), Iron, Copper, Salt, (Maybe rice wine, tea, sugar), Building, Commerce, Government (mostly salaries), Housing and domestic Service.

Basically, he took out a lot of the products from the GDP that aren't basic needs. You can find what's counted in his Appendix section of both papers. Perhaps because estimates for other places didn't include similar luxury goods?
Also, after checking for the source data for Italy (Long Decline by Paulo), the methodology is completely different. Whereas the Chinese data (not to mention British data) came from records of ancient output added together and divided by population, the Italian estimation came mostly from a series of equations and extrapolating backwards.

The most important equation of his is estimating the share of non-agricultural output. This is calculated by looking at the ratio of agricultural laborers and non-agricultural laborers, as well as the amount of agricultural products. By doing this he calculates the amount of non-agricultural products. (page 185)

With this methodology (minus all the assumptions required for it to be accurate), the Italian GDP per capita would be counting the ENTIRE GDP and then divided by total population. So I don't know why Broadberry's more recent paper excluded many products from China's total GDP in order to calculate GDP per capita, because this makes it a very skewed comparison in favor of Italy. You are comparing "entire GDP/population" vs "X percent of GDP/population". Broadberry should be including more products into China's GDP (including services), not less.

http://www.paolomalanima.it/default_file/Articles/The_Long_Decline.pdf#page=22&zoom=auto,-158,676
 
Last edited:

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
5,197
Portugal
Jamaica was actually a pretty good source of wealth with the sugar plantations. I suggest maybe you read more. Not me.
Correct me if I am wrong, but that importance of Jamaica (and the rise of importance fo sugar cane) was only after its conquest.

:lol: I wonder how he'll spin this one.
I
The question is not how to spin it, but how to interpret it. The analysis of the tables presented here, and that we begun to interpret is dedicated to the current borders, so other the territories are not included, but can give us a perspective of average income of the people within those territories. Because empires aside there were people living and working inside the current national borders. It is not also surprising to see that the richest territories in Europe, according to this study, were the North Italy and Holland (we still don’t have data for Flanders but I would bet on it). But if you want to Compare in the last tables the GDP/per Capita between Spain and England, it is pretty favourable to Spain in US relative prices (PPP) until 1700, even if in 1990 international prices it isn’t.

The notes that HackneyedScribe underlined about the products that are in and out are also quite relevant.
 

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
6,251
Spain
Correct me if I am wrong, but that importance of Jamaica (and the rise of importance fo sugar cane) was only after its conquest..
I correct to you. Jamaica belonged to Spain from 1494 to 1670. It was the Spanish settlers who introduced in Jamaica Sugar, Orange, Lemmon, Bananas, Pigs, Horses, goats, cats, dogs and chicken. As you can read here: The Spanish Jamaica.
So, Jamaica had sugar cane before British arrived there.
 

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
5,197
Portugal
I correct to you. Jamaica belonged to Spain from 1494 to 1670. It was the Spanish settlers who introduced in Jamaica Sugar, Orange, Lemmon, Bananas, Pigs, Horses, goats, cats, dogs and chicken. As you can read here: The Spanish Jamaica.
So, Jamaica had sugar cane before British arrived there.
I was not talking about its existence, it was known by the Europeans for more than two centuries; I was talking about its relevance and importance to the colonial economy. Talking by memory the big boom of the sugar cane (and so of the importance of the islands that produce it) was in the end of the 17th century, but even more and most especially in the 18th. Only in the middle of the 18th century the sugar was one of the most important and profitable commodities produced in America. Before that its economical importance was much more marginal. That is the idea that I have, and that is the idea that someone can correct me if I am wrong.
 
Mar 2017
130
US
Correct me if I am wrong, but that importance of Jamaica (and the rise of importance fo sugar cane) was only after its conquest.



The question is not how to spin it, but how to interpret it. The analysis of the tables presented here, and that we begun to interpret is dedicated to the current borders, so other the territories are not included, but can give us a perspective of average income of the people within those territories. Because empires aside there were people living and working inside the current national borders. It is not also surprising to see that the richest territories in Europe, according to this study, were the North Italy and Holland (we still don’t have data for Flanders but I would bet on it). But if you want to Compare in the last tables the GDP/per Capita between Spain and England, it is pretty favourable to Spain in US relative prices (PPP) until 1700, even if in 1990 international prices it isn’t.

The notes that HackneyedScribe underlined about the products that are in and out are also quite relevant.
I think sometimes people underestimate maybe how powerful the Dutch were during parts of the 17th and 16th centuries. I certainly did at least. I need to read more about it.
 

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
6,251
Spain
I was not talking about its existence,
Sorry, I thought you were talking about who planted the sugar-cane in America.


it was known by the Europeans for more than two centuries;
The fact, the reality is Sugar-Cane was not planted by Dutch, British or French.. but Spaniards.. exactly Don Pedro de Atienza in the island Hispaniola in the year 1501.


1493: Introduction and first planting of sugarcane on Hispaniola. By Christopher Columbus.
1501: First cane harvest achieved on Hispaniola by Pedro de Atienza.

Also it was a Spanish Mills the fist one in Caribbean:

in 1506 it was produced Sugar by first time in America (on Hispaniola) by Don Miguel Ballester and Don Domingo Aguiló (both catalanians)

In 1517, by first time on History.. Sugar produced in America.. arrived to Europe (but not to Southampton as you believe.. but to Seville. (as Potatoes, tomatoes etc etc). Exactly, it was brought to Sevilla by Juan Genovés (I guess maybe Italian frm Genoa) and Jerónimo Rodríguez.
In 1522, the Don Alonso de Algaba´s ship landed 25 tons of sugar in the Seville´s harbour.
In 1523 there were 30 Mills in Jamaica producing sugar. 3 Mills in Puerto Rico and almost 50 Mills in Hispaniola.
In 1523 it is stablished the first Sugar Mills in Cuba.

Sugarcane is not from America and it is not from Britain, France or Netherland. It was brought to Spain (from Southeast Asia) by the Muslims in Medieval Age.. and Spaniards brought them to America . As you know, the opinion is free but the facts are sacred.
100% sugar-cane in Jamaica, Cuba, Hispaniola, Puerto Rico, New Grenada, Venezuela etc came from Málaga - Motril Area..
 

Similar History Discussions