How accurate is this chart of Angus Maddison?

How accurate is this chart of Angus Maddison?

considering some of those countries didn't even exist back then, not much

well

GDP clearly cannot be an indicator of success or IQ, you see how India had a relatively high GDP but was still equally shit back then and had no contributions to the world.

>Italy that low

Wasn't Roman Empire accounted for
30% of global gdp?

Because the Roman Empire was a hell of a lot more than just Italy. I imagine the remaining 30% would go to areas in the Roman Empire like Egypt, Anatolia, etc.

That's the wold share of GDP.
GDP per capita is the indicator. In pre industrial societies the differences in GDP per capita were negligible by today's standards.
>IQ
All free market baby. Commies and Nazis need not apply.

No. India was never rich. China because of its population could be conisdered wealthy though. As for GDP, its a worthless figure outside of the industrial age because the measures to count them did not exist. Making this chart an anachronism at best.

1 AD seems off

>No. India was never rich.
Are you sure about that, or you just can't accept that shitskins could have had a relatively advanced civilisation at some point?

Most ancient civilisations were shitskins you absolute brainlet. Countries who have yet to discover toilet paper and indoor plumbing should be IP banned from this website.

>Most ancient civilisations were shitskins you absolute brainlet.
But not India?

they did not have a civilization at any point in their history prior to British rule

What is Mauryas, Guptas, Mughals? Who made quadratic formula?

The first two didn't have a written code of laws. The last didn't have a state-organized religion. Hence they were civilizations

>1820
>1700

Doubt

Are you trying to be funny here?

Then that makes everyone else not a civilization since they invented toilets.

The region of India had one of the wealthiest kingdoms.

Not accurate but it is not a fabrication. The relative figures are probably correct.

In the 1500's France had a larger GDP than the German areas? Italy was a more important part of Charles V's empire than Germany?

GDP is not wealth. You could say the same for the savages in the cannibal empires of the Aztecs and they actually were poor, despite their wealth of Gold.

Not really. They certainly werent any poor or lived in worse conditions than their contemporary civilizations.

How the hell do you calculate India's GDP in 1 AD when the concept of a unified India didn't even exist until a few centuries?

Same goes for France and Germany, do you include the barbarian regions or just the roman ones? How the hell do you even calculate something like this?

I believe they are comparing the regions where modern day France, Germany, India, etc are