Conquerors of Iraq: World's most powerful nations!

Assyrians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Turks, Mongols, ... were all the most powerful nations when they conquered Iraq, do you agree?

I don't understand very well your post,

1. Do you say that these powers was in the highest point when conquered Iraq?
2. Or do you say that these powers become so powerful because they conquered Iraq?

American and english can be added to your list, but selyuks conquer it and they weren't specially powerful, equal can be said for Safavids; other superpowers since chinese to spanish and french don't conquer this region.

and England

I quite like the statement: "Middle East is the center of the world". I'm sure Zoulou or Aztecos would agree�

If you are saying they are the most powerful in the world, then the Romans, Arabs, Turks are all questionable, since contemporary China or Mongolia is more powerful than all of them. We can actually say the same with a few other regions, like Afghanistan or Vietnam(or rather how many great powers failed there, like the Mongols, the Ming, the Qing, the Americans)

Actually, I'd have to agree with the earlier that Mesopotamia (Iraq) can be considered the center of the world, not literally the geographic center, but the crossroad of historical empires. Thus, many empires that expanded did expand into Mesopotamia as natural geographical goals, as also mentioned above. The only major series of empires that did not come to Mesopotamia was the Chinese Empires, which was far away.




Edited by Imperator Invictus - 10-Jun-2006 at 12:14

Originally posted by Kapikulu       Turks conquered in 16th century, during that era, they were the most powerful together with Karl V 's Holy Roman Empire.   And please let's not get into comparison between Han Dynasty and Romans

Edited by hydro - 12-Jun-2006 at 03:36

Originally posted by hydro   And the world's economic center in history(the net monetary sink) since the 1st century A.D.(and possibly before) up to 1800, as Andre Gunder Frank in his "Re Orient" showed us, is in China and India, not in Mesopotamia.

Originally posted by hydro   As for Mesopotamia been the "center" of the world. Its purely relative. The isolation of places like East Asia and South Asia is only a Eurocentered perspective, since the Greeks didn't know the Chinese, moderners call China isolated, but China has been in trade with India from Burma since at the latest, 4th century A.D. and there are no prove that the Greeks traded with India in a greater quantity. Since India and China combined has almost half of the world's population, the center of the world can easily be said to be in India or central Asia.

The hellenistic trade with Orient was very importante, but you forget the strong trade relations between the roman empire (Principate) and India, many more important that the chinese trade at that time. China wasn't isolated, i totally agree, but always the relations of India was more closed with Persia and indirectly with the "West", economical, ideological, political, than with far Orient, at least was a relation of two and not mainly from one (India) to other (China) Of course, the nature of this relations must be toned.

And the world's economic center in history(the net monetary sink) since the 1st century A.D.(and possibly before) up to 1800, as Andre Gunder Frank in his "Re Orient" showed us, is in China and India, not in Mesopotamia.

Althoug i totally agree (again) with your previous argument about the importance of Central Asia, i can't agree with this last assertion. Is possible that during the Song dinasty China can be claimed economic center of the world, at least the most important without doubt. But, this fact don't exclude the historical evidence about the existence of multiples centres of the world, equally economical than political, in the entire process, i think there are three main centers in Eurasia: China, India and the Mediterraine (specially the eastern) For many times, for example I-VI centuries AC the eastern Mediterraine is equal to the others centers two centers i think. In the middle, crucial intermediaries like nomads and more or less persians. I didn't read that book, but search a "center of the world" before 1800 is a futil work.
Final: Around 1500 christian Europe can't be put behind the other centers, in fact grow quickly to the highest point at 1600, when the quality and quantity of her economical live is without doubt the first.

bye

Originally posted by Ikki Althoug i totally agree (again) with your previous argument about the importance of Central Asia, i can't agree with this last assertion. Is possible that during the Song dinasty China can be claimed economic center of the world, at least the most important without doubt. But, this fact don't exclude the historical evidence about the existence of multiples centres of the world, equally economical than political, in the entire process, i think there are three main centers in Eurasia: China, India and the Mediterraine (specially the eastern) For many times, for example I-VI centuries AC the eastern Mediterraine is equal to the others centers two centers i think. In the middle, crucial intermediaries like nomads and more or less persians. I didn't read that book, but search a "center of the world" before 1800 is a futil work. Final: Around 1500 christian Europe can't be put behind the other centers, in fact grow quickly to the highest point at 1600, when the quality and quantity of her economical live is without doubt the first. bye

" Japan alone contributed 8 thousand out of this 28 thousand ton total, or almost 30 percent, and therefore perhaps fully one quarter of total world production, including that of Persia, etc., during this critical period -- and more than that ended up in China, since it received an unknown part of the remaining silver as well. ....

Thus between 1600 and 1800, continental Asia absorbed at least 32 thousand tons of silver from the Americas via Europe, 3 thousand tons via Manila, and perhaps 10 thousand tons from Japan, or a total of at least 45 thousand tons or nearly 40 percent of the world production of 116 thousand tons that did not remain in the Americas, apart from its own production. A still unknown but large share of this silver ended up in China, which also received silver over the trans- and circum- Asian eastward bound routes. China received significant parts of the silver exported from Europe via the Levant, West-,South-, and Southeast Asia. .....

The historical/empirical sections of the present essay demonstrated that the real world during the period between about 1400 and 1800, not to mention also the past before that, was itself also very different from what is alleged by received theory. Eurocentric history and "classical" social science, but also still Wallerstein's "modern world-system" suppose and/or allege e European predominance, which simply did not exist. Still until about 1800 the world economy was by no stretch of the imagination European-centred nor in any significant way defined or marked by any European-born [nor European borne] "capitalism," let alone development. Still less was there any real "capitalist development" initiated, generated, diffused or otherwise propagated or perpetrated by Europeans or the West. THAT occurred ONLY by the stretch of European-centric imagination, and even that only belatedly since the nineteenth century, as Bernal has already emphasized. Instead, the data in the preceding sections have shown unequivocally that the world economy was preponderantly Asian-based. "

Edited by hydro - 12-Jun-2006 at 07:02