Western Europe diverged because Emperors didn't bring in nomadic light cavalry and so there was an armoured heavy cavalry instead. This meant that the nomadic mercenaries didn't turn themselves into Sultans. For three or four generations these dynasties or clans had esprit de corps. Then polygamy, the intrigue of eunuchs, and fratricide …
Western Europe diverged because Emperors didn't bring in nomadic light cavalry and so there was an armoured heavy cavalry instead. This meant that the nomadic mercenaries didn't turn themselves into Sultans. For three or four generations these dynasties or clans had esprit de corps. Then polygamy, the intrigue of eunuchs, and fratricide turned not just Imperial Courts but every other Satrap's fortress into a den of intrigue. Good people turned to Sufism which was less into paideia of a conventional sort than the Catholic Church.
In West Europe, poorer Kings- like Henry the Navigator- looked to the sea. The debauched Sultans, fearing only their brothers or sons, were least bothered with increasing their revenue by raising productivity or establishing new trade routes. The great divergence was between the Christian culture of monogamy, the younger brother supporting the elder brother rather than trying to kill him, and the Church teaching useful stuff. After the Church, it was the turn of the Inns of Court and then even Parliament turned out not to be useless.
Ultimately it was the working people of Western Europe who showed a genuine work ethic and desire to raise 'general purpose productivity'. In the 'Orient', there were always particular patches of territory which were similar but then they too would succumb to the general malaise of mysticism/debauchery as global trade routes and markets reconfigured. Still, Mexican silver did create a degree of enterprise and affluence in India and China etc. But the rotten habitus of the ruling class would always kill off enterprise and such productivity gains as had been made.
Western Europe diverged because Emperors didn't bring in nomadic light cavalry and so there was an armoured heavy cavalry instead. This meant that the nomadic mercenaries didn't turn themselves into Sultans. For three or four generations these dynasties or clans had esprit de corps. Then polygamy, the intrigue of eunuchs, and fratricide turned not just Imperial Courts but every other Satrap's fortress into a den of intrigue. Good people turned to Sufism which was less into paideia of a conventional sort than the Catholic Church.
In West Europe, poorer Kings- like Henry the Navigator- looked to the sea. The debauched Sultans, fearing only their brothers or sons, were least bothered with increasing their revenue by raising productivity or establishing new trade routes. The great divergence was between the Christian culture of monogamy, the younger brother supporting the elder brother rather than trying to kill him, and the Church teaching useful stuff. After the Church, it was the turn of the Inns of Court and then even Parliament turned out not to be useless.
Ultimately it was the working people of Western Europe who showed a genuine work ethic and desire to raise 'general purpose productivity'. In the 'Orient', there were always particular patches of territory which were similar but then they too would succumb to the general malaise of mysticism/debauchery as global trade routes and markets reconfigured. Still, Mexican silver did create a degree of enterprise and affluence in India and China etc. But the rotten habitus of the ruling class would always kill off enterprise and such productivity gains as had been made.