How many coins we have found from contemporary of Gupta dynasty in china? Han should be compared with Kushanas and it is fact that hans greatly outsperformed kushanas on any front so did contemporaries of gupta dynasty but the difference between gupta age and china in 300 to 550 is less than that between han and Kushanas. golden age is relative term and Fa hien found Gupta india very prosperous which means india was on par with china at that time but we can not say it for kushana ge where all we know is that " yuezhi became very rich" .
More meaningless BS. The difference between the Gupta age and contemporary China would be less than the gap between Han and Kushan empires because the Han empire collapsed and China was in chaos, not because Guptas made some great improvements over previous Indian states. In fact, India also declined from 300 C.E. onwards, but China for a brief period declined more, until it reemerged under Tang dynasty in 7th century. However, North India never reemerged after the collapse of Guptas, unless you consider Mughals as a "North Indian" empire (it was really a bunch of Mughals conquering North Indians easily).
Bharatpur has alone given 3000 gold coins and we have gupta gold coin in modern day bangladesh as well as indonesia.
You are probably referring to the Bayana hoard, which was IIRC 2100 gold coins, not 3000. And this is the greatest number of coins that we have found so far of this "Golden Age", lol.
Having a few coins found in backwaters like Bangladesh and Indonesia means nothing. We find Kushan coins from from Central Asia and Xinjiang to Deccan, Orissa, and eastern UP.
unfortunately for you, an estimate has been made on size of indian economy by Angus Madison who is expert unlike your marxist porn peddlers who are simply historians.
He computes indian economy of 1000 ad as 30-35 thousand million dollars. now tell me what is net worth of 42 tons of silver in this .
this is the problem with all trade supremacists like you , you people fail to acknowledge that trade had less than 10 percent share to GDP . Ofcourse I mean foreign trade which can not contribute anything more than that.
indian population was atleast 40 million at that time and divide your 42 tons of silver among them. How much an ordinary indian got per year?
one gram of silver equalling 5 kg of wheat. As i have already said , if you have 42 tons of silver you can mint millions of coins per year and compare that with a dynasty with no such stock, it would make a huge difference for coin collectors like you but its impact on a farmer is less than 20 kg at most.
So here we got everything, Kushana age is golden because an average indian of that time was getting 1 gram of silver annually whereas gupta age is not because it lacks that one gram of silver.
Ridiculous argument .
Per capita income of a typical peasant would have remained mostly constant until modern times. The average peasant probably did not live much better in Kushan age than in Gupta age, though in the Kushan age he may at least have had the opportunity to participate in the economy to a limited extent. In the Gupta "Golden Age", he could not even sell surplus crops to gain some money because the monetary system and local trade networks broke down. He lived in a closed, village-based economy which produced nothing in surplus. The only "trade" would be some bartering between villagers.
Trade acts as a stimulus and incentive for commodity production and offers a channel for surplus produce. Under the Kushans and Satavahanas, there was a "proto-middle class" of merchants, artisans, moneylenders, etc. who depended on trade for their livelihoods. These people were not as wealthy as the ruling class, but better off than the typical peasant. In the Gupta and post-Gupta period, this class of people shrunk considerably in size and there emerged just two basic classes: the wealthy landed elite/nobility, and the peasant masses. Many of the sreni guilds of the Kushan age turned into hereditary castes and migrated to the villages, where they no longer participated in international trade networks.
Also, the figure of 42.5 tons of silver is only for the trade balance with Rome. One also needs to take into account the bullion coming from Central Asia, Afghanistan, and Silk Road trade network under the Kushans, which would be no small amount.
With a lack of trade and low monetization of the economy, you see lower levels of commodity production and surplus production, and also a higher concentration of wealth among the ruling elite.
You have nothing to argue because you know this single ( thanks to soldiers of allah who destroyed bhoja's iron pillar of 50 feet) pillar is unmatched in metallurgy till 1750. OFcourse there is no difference between stone age and iron age .
I have nothing to argue because these pillars are totally useless and, if this if the "prime" scientific accomplishment of the Guptas, then it totally proves the argument that Gupta "Golden age" is nothing but overrated nonsense.
You are no one to point out what is useless or not but that stuff is much more than your kushana age.
Sorry, this stuff is indeed useless in every sense of the world. It had zero significance for anyone in India except a small branch of brahmins.
I would much rather have India be a major economic center than produce such useless literature.
No gupta age produced more literature than entire south east asia, korea, japan, parts of western and eastern europe put together and qualitatively even better than chinese and romans.
Lol, Gupta literature better than Chinese and Roman? It was comparable.
Since I have never claimed Gupta age technology as superior to chinese or Roman this is straw man argument.
You claimed that Chinese inventions were "useless" and had no impact on the economy. I proved you wrong.
I asked before what brahmins were doing with their mathematical knowledge. You have not provided an answer because it is a fact they did nothing with it, and the so-called "science" of Gupta "Golden" Age was little more than meaningless abstractions of some brahmins with free time to spare.
a typical Qing age chinese man was no advanced than an indian farmer of 12th century as benefits we know are of european application.
Wrong. Chinese agriculture was technically more advanced than Indian agriculture as it made use of numerous inventions like multiple seed drills and trip hammers which were not used in India. The Chinese were using waterwheels for efficient separation of grains since at least the Han dynasty. Please show me any Indian agricultural devices comparable to this:
Many Indian farmers were not even using wheelbarrow before British period and you are claiming that Chinese farmers were no more advanced than Indians.
hplease:
