I've heard the argument before that China being very large without serious, nearby rivals created less drive for innovation than Europe with its smaller countries and frequent struggles. There was also more ability to move to a different country if people in your country didn't like what you had to say. Many European thinkers took advantage of this.
"than Europe with its smaller countries and frequent struggles"
I think old china had actually lots in common with old europe: lots of small kingdoms and warlords battling over their villages. China wasn't really one united nation either, for most of its time.
> China wasn't really one united nation either, for most of its time.
China had some small periods were it was splintered, Europe had some small periods were it was unified after Rome. It is very different. China is more like Rome never fell, it might have lost half some time etc, some rebellion splintering it, but always pulling itself together after a century or two.
China was splintered for a thousand years after the Eastern Han dynasty except for the Tang dynasty and wasn't really unified again until the Qing dyansty [1]. I wouldn't call those "small periods", it's been splintered for the majority of the common era.
I am talking about the past 1500 years. Also to me half of China being under one banner isn't "splintered", that is still an empire with a few belligerents, so your link there doesn't provide an accurate picture.
And if you compare like to like, Europe has never ever been unified since there were always many splinters regardless which period you look at. Some parts splitting off isn't the same thing as the empire not existing.
No matter how you slice it China has been far more unified than Europe, if you made a similar map of European dynasties for the same period it would be orders of magnitude larger.
If you look at the biggest empire on earth for different periods a part of the Chinese empire is almost always among the top, Europe was only there during Rome at its peak and after colonization. China is much closer to a single European country, for example it wasn't as splintered as the German states used to be but its much closer than comparing it to Europe.
'Germany' was under the banner of the Holy Roman Empire for 1000 years, but still deeply splintered. So much so that proper industrialization only happened after unification under the 2nd Reich 1871.
Yeah, as I said I'd argue Germany was more splintered than China, but its closer than comparing the soup of splinters that is Europe to China.
Point is that saying that China wasn't always unified so it is similar to Europe is wrong, Europe was so splintered that typically traveling 60 miles meant you would be in another country, that means it was very easy to flee to another country if your views weren't accepted were you are now, very different from larger countries/empires like China and its splintered factions.
"Point is that saying that China wasn't always unified so it is similar to Europe is wrong"
Good point, I agree. That is why I initially said "lot's in common". But I believe the concept of "flee to another country if your views weren't accepted were you are now" is also quite present in chinese folklore.
So yes, there was the one person you could not flee from in china, which was the emperor and his court. But I would argue that your views also could not really go against the catholic church and the pope in europe for a long time and in most parts of it. (In a point more on topic, I would argue, that the disempowerment of the Inquisition, was the main ingredient in the industrial revolution, see Galilei and co.)
Reformation was most popular in the northern countries of the Hanse trade union.
Freeing themselves from Catholicism also meant freeing themselves from the emperor and the tribute payed to him.
When the Protestant stronghold Magdeburg refused to pay, it was entirely obliterated during the 30 year war, to set an example for other 'rebel' cities
This is true and doesn't apply after 12th century from when on it was unified and which is the period during which the jump to industrialization probably would have been more likely. On top of that it was run by the well-organized Mandarin bureaucracy.
I find myself being cautious when it comes to reading characterizations of China's historical dis/unity, knowing the current government has some rather strong opinions about what narrative it would like to see in the history books.
