To be fair, the same can be said of the Russian and Ottoman empires - as late as the 18th-19th century, they could easily be described as "medieval with guns", leading to their collapse in the early 20th century. Like China and Japan, they too exhibited a top-heavy social structure, and adherence to tradition for its own sake, allowing for next to no innovation unless it was literally at gunpoint. But when innovation was encouraged, Russia emerged as a global superpower, while modern Turkey is among the most powerful NATO countries.
Meanwhile, medieval Europe was far more diverse in terms of nations and ethnicities, leading to frequent clashes - which is one driver of innovation, another being trade of manufactured goods. European nations never got the chance to be isolationist, like the Russians, the Chinese, the Japanese etc. - so they had to innovate constantly in order to stay afloat.
And vice-versa, periods where China and Japan had to adapt to new circumstances, especially intra-cultural conflict - like the Warring States period in China, or the Sengoku era in Japan - saw innovation in fields from art to metallurgy and architecture, simply because those who didn't innovate, also didn't live long enough to leave a legacy. Now, whether that's a strictly cultural factor or it has an underlying genetic template, is a matter for discussion all its own.
To be fair, the same can be said of the Russian and Ottoman empires - as late as the 18th-19th century, they could easily be described as "medieval with guns", leading to their collapse in the early 20th century. Like China and Japan, they too exhibited a top-heavy social structure, and adherence to tradition for its own sake, allowing for next to no innovation unless it was literally at gunpoint. But when innovation was encouraged, Russia emerged as a global superpower, while modern Turkey is among the most powerful NATO countries.
Meanwhile, medieval Europe was far more diverse in terms of nations and ethnicities, leading to frequent clashes - which is one driver of innovation, another being trade of manufactured goods. European nations never got the chance to be isolationist, like the Russians, the Chinese, the Japanese etc. - so they had to innovate constantly in order to stay afloat.
And vice-versa, periods where China and Japan had to adapt to new circumstances, especially intra-cultural conflict - like the Warring States period in China, or the Sengoku era in Japan - saw innovation in fields from art to metallurgy and architecture, simply because those who didn't innovate, also didn't live long enough to leave a legacy. Now, whether that's strictly cultural factor or it has an underlying genetic template, is a matter for discussion all its own.
To be fair, the same can be said of the Russian and Ottoman empires - as late as the 18th-19th century, they could easily be described as "medieval with guns", leading to their collapse in the early 20th century. Like China and Japan, they too exhibited a top-heavy social structure, and adherence to tradition for its own sake, allowing for next to no innovation unless it was literally at gunpoint. But when innovation was encouraged, Russia emerged as a global superpower, while modern Turkey is among the most powerful NATO countries.
Meanwhile, medieval Europe was far more diverse in terms of nations and ethnicities, leading to frequent clashes - which is one driver of innovation, another being trade of manufactured goods. European nations never got the chance to be isolationist, like the Russians, the Chinese, the Japanese etc. - so they had to innovate constantly in order to stay afloat.
And vice-versa, periods where China and Japan had to adapt to new circumstances, especially intra-cultural conflict - like the Three Kingdoms period in China, or the Warring States era in Japan - saw innovation in fields from art to metallurgy and architecture, simply because those who didn't innovate, also didn't live long enough to leave a legacy. Now, whether that's strictly cultural factor or it has an underlying genetic template, is a matter for discussion all its own.