Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Roman Empire, at its time, meant nothing to those parts of the world, no influence, economic, cultural, or otherwise Rome, China and the North Indian kingdoms traded. > They had their own empires, and often far greater development and refinement This is as silly as claiming Rome was the centre of the world.
> Rome, China and the North Indian kingdoms traded Yes, well established. But in limited amounts, and without much knowledge in either side about the other, not much influence, cultural, social, economic, military, and such. Which is way Marco Polo's journey, which happened close to a full millenium later after the final centuries of the Roman Empire, is still a landmark of the civilizational meeting between Europe a…
The list of largest cities tells the story succinctly [1]. Power went from the Levant and Egypt to China after the Bronze Age Collapse, returned to the Mediterranean with the rise of Rome, gradually traded away from Constantinople to China again through the first millennium CE (where it remained for much of the second millennium) before returning, suddenly and massively, to London following the Industrial Revolution.
There is no basis for claiming the various civilisations of the Mediterranean, ranging from the Hittites to the Egyptians and Greeks and Romans, both Western and Eastern, to say nothing of the Parthians, were less “developed” or ”refined” than China at their respective heights.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_cities_throu...