I have noticed my posts here initiated quite heated reaction, mostly negative, and some misunderstanding. Let me express my thoughts in a way which I believe would be clearer (and feel free to make your own opinion whether the following is based on diligent research and study, or just a fantasy and misconception):
GDP per capita is often considered the best figure (though not ideal) to indicate level of development. So, by GDP p/c, in 1444, the situation was following:
1. Italy and Flanders were on top, and quite clearly so.
2. Some parts of western Europe (Rhine valley and estuary, northern France, some parts of England, Germay, Denmark, Catalonia) followed, on par with western Anatolia (but not Greece) and some parts of China (roughly regions between Nanjing and Beijing).
Persia belonged among the latter, but Timur's campaigns caused permanent damage (irrigation systems). India, despite of old culture, lagged far behind, only narrowly above minimum level for surviving. The riches attributed to India are the result of huge population (larger than Chinese until Qing era), and intensive exploitation of majority by extremely rich and powerful minority.
As for development of GPD during second millenium, my observations are following:
Muslim countries reached their peak around the year 1000. Since then, population stagnated, GDP per capita steadily decreased, until turn of 19/20th century. This decline is often attributed to Mongol invasion, but others say it was apparent well before 1258 (conquest of Baghdad). Later on, many regions suffered from European take-over of the trade in Indian ocean (just like in Mediterranean in 11th century).
Anatolia and Syria were exceptions. Osman rule brought stabilization and moderate growth. Leading forces behind this growth were Christian minorities. (I am sorry, it really looks like prejudice, but facts are facts.)
India was poor and stagnated. Only during British rule we can observe population growth, and also modest growth of GDP p/c.
China experienced growth both in absolute and per capita numbers before Mongol conquest. Since then, China's GDP p/c - relatively impressive in the beginning - stagnated until the civil war (1911-1949) and Mao's rule, when it declined significantly to a level near starvation. However, there was a significant population growth during Qing era (1644-1912).
(Western) Europe is the only world's region where between 1000-2000 A.D. both population and GDP p/c grew steadily (except, of course, events like Black Death, Thirty-Year War, etc.). And this trajectory began in 11th century. Eastern Europe joined this growth later, from remarkably lower starting point and at lower pace in connection with overthrowing Turko-Mongolian dominance.
And here is what I actually say:
1. I do not insist that in 1444, Europe was more developed that any other part of the world. Only Italy and Flanders were, while many west-European regions were actually poorer than some regions in China, and elsewhere.
2. But I do insist that Europe grew steadily and with increasing speed during the whole second millenium, this development was generally unparalelled elsewhere, and that the word 'stagnation' is - with some minor exceptions - the most appropriate for describing what was happening in Asia.
3. The period starting in mid-18th century is historically unique in that a relatively small group of nations became powerful enough to enforce their will in any part of the world, against no-matter-how-populous nation. Uniqueness of this situation stems from HUGE difference in development between the West and the Rest.
4. The above does not mean that there was NO difference in development before mid-18th century. There clearly was, and it was gradually increasing. It was only not huge enough to enable, par example, British conquest of India.
5. And finally, when we ask WHEN this process began, when European society became different from the Rest - not yet in terms of production level, but in what we can call DYNAMISM - then my answer is: 11th century. It all began in 11th century, and reached its most spectacular results in Industrial revolution.
Hope you'll find this long reading of interest.
.
