It did not need to point it out. He had no BS agenda about making his favourite religious empire out to be the best one of all time.

He did, however, produce a graph of the development index, as I have mentioned a few times already. It has years on the X axis and bona fide quantitative numbers on the Y axis. You should be able to figure it out from there.

freediver wrote on Jan 28^th, 2015 at 9:57pm:


You'll have to explain it to me FD - its not there in the only thread you referenced. You don't seriously expect me to believe your wild claim that "The Roman empire vastly outdid the Caliphate economically" purely on the say-so of unstated "bona fide quantitative numbers" on a graph I have yet to see, and have no idea what it is even about - do you?

I'm guessing Mr Morris didn't say that the Roman empire "vastly" outdid the caliphate economically right? I have serious doubts he conducted any sort of quantitative economical comparison between the two - no?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 28^th, 2015 at 9:07pm:


You brought up the comparison of islam and Rome here, it is not mentioned anywhere in the thread you linked. The thread in questions has nothing to do with that. You'll have to explain to me where all this quantitative evidence that the islamic caliphate's economy paled in comparison to the Roman empire economy, and your ship-wreck data and so forth that supposedly proves all this.

freediver wrote on Jan 28^th, 2015 at 7:41pm:



You are knowingly distort what I have been saying -none of the great translators were Arab Muslims. They were either Christians, Jews or recent converts to Islam for a quiet life. They were not Arab Muslims.  The Arabs, who had Allah's own language, did not learn Greek and Latin or Syriac or other 'inferior' languages.

Morris himself cites multiple sources of evidence to conclude that energy consumption in the Roman Empire reached its highest levels between the 1st and 2nd centuries CE:

http://www.ianmorris.org/docs/social-development.pdf

pp39-49

The small and tokenistic democratic elements of the Roman Republic were systematically eroded throughout the 1st century BCE, and by the 1st century CE the path to complete dictatorship was complete, where even the oligarchical senate (itself representing a tiny unrepresentative privileged class) had become a rubber stamp.

Gandalf, societies do not fall apart as soon as a dictator takes over. The Russian communists managed some impressive improvements to the Russian economy, but their governance undeniably caused the same sort of 'frozen in time' stagnation that characterised the caliphate. It just happened a lot faster, as everything does these days. Likewise the Nazis achieved great things for the economy, but it is hard to imagine it would have lasted any longer than the Russian 'golden age' had it been allowed to remain in power. Roman society did not change overnight, and even Morris talks in terms of centuries, not years. The inclusive institutions would have been gradually wound back over time in support of the various tyrants. The economic trajectory matches the political one fairly well.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 28^th, 2015 at 10:06pm:


Yes, but ancient Rome was the next South Korea.

The Caesars were all about Freeeedom.

Karnal wrote on Jan 12^th, 2015 at 9:27pm:

Thank you, stupid/malicious.

You are always with us, unlike god. Not with us as in our side but with us like a lingering, tacky malvolence, a dread.

Karnal wrote on Jan 29^th, 2015 at 8:51pm:



Your dazzling intellect always amazes us, here on OzPol, Karnal.

[NOT really!]





Quote:


More inanity.

From, guess who ?

[........no prizes will be awarded for the correct answer.]