Tabriz under Mongol Ilkhanate rule commanded a global reach in the thirteenth-century Afro-Eurasian world. Tabriz functioned during this period not only as a commercial emporium and diplomatic center but as a seat of innovative artistic and intellectual activity. Consideration of Tabriz as a world historical city offers insight into the economic and social dynamics that shaped a critical passage in Eurasia's history including regions of the Mediterranean and East Asian zones.

Discussions of world history often focus on the pros and cons of thinking on large spatial scales. However, world history also tends to employ unusually large timescales, both for research and teaching; frequently it is framed around a teleology and a series of "revolutions" which mark milestones taking humans from a very distant past to "modernity". Moreover, world history usually rejects regionally specific period markers (e.g. Renaissance), making periodization within this long timespan especially difficult. This article surveys various approaches to these problems, and shows that any of them, if treated as sufficient by itself, introduces significant distortions. It argues for a world history that highlights this problem, rather than hiding it, and which uses the need to deploy multiple timescales simultaneously to clarify the distinctive intellectual contribution of historical thinking.

Examining the patterns of evolution of interstate systems in Asia, this article argues that the relationship of state-builders to nomads stood in much of continental Asia stood in sharp contrast to the relationships between rulers and mercantile-financial elites in Europe. Due to the productivity of wet-rice economies, continental Asian rulers were not dependent on merchants and bankers to raise armies to wage war or suppress rebellions unlike their European counterparts. Hence they had no need to grant bankers and merchants concessions, especially monopolies which is how large volumes of capital are accumulated. Geographic conditions however meant that while the lack of internal frontiers meant that large continental-sized states could be created in China, this was not possible in the Indian subcontinent where a more chequered equilibrium where nomads enjoyed a military advantage in arid and semi-arid tracts meant that trans-subcontinental polities enjoyed only a fleeting existence. In mainland southeast Asia, where dense forests and a difficult terrain insulated the region from nomadic conquests, a third variant of interstate relations emerged.

The second volume of the Iwakura Reports is the writing on Britain. What is interesting, here, is the fact that the mission had visited the large factories in the major industrial cities. The editor of the reports in particular recorded the productive processes of goods at many factories, and wrote his own impressions of the landscapes of those cities. Those records let us know the real situation of the British economy at the time. Japanese historians admit that the activities of the Iwakura mission largely contributed to Japan's modernization. But there are few studies that analyzed the second volume of the reports which had mainly described modern factories and industrial cities. The purpose of this paper is to summarize the records of the reports on the British industry, and to examine what they recognized from the industrial civilization. The Iwakura Reports would furnish important information to the notables that had initiated the early industrialization in Japan. After the mission's visit, some British companies' export to Japan increased rapidly. What is more important, however, is that the British economy was losing its own vitality in the late Victorian age in which Japan began to be rapidly industrialized. During the Japanese industrialization, some Japanese diplomats and factory-owners might have realized the decline of the British industry. Britain began to be overtaken by her rival countries such as the United States and Germany. The Iwakura Reports do not let us know the change of the British manufacture in the late nineteenth century. Later, the leading figures of Japan's industrialization might focus on the rise of Germany or America. As the Iwakura mission had visited Britain in the early stage of the competition between Britain and other rival states, they could not know the real situation of the British economy. Furthermore, with compiling his manuscripts, the editor of the reports could not help being based upon the factory-owners' explanations and their brochures. This is the reason why he focused only on the excellence and competitiveness of British manufacture.