[geowwy]

  > Around the year 0 the Chinese culture was en par with the level of western
  > culture and technology - speak Rome.
  >
  > Only during the middle ages the west fell so far beyond and Chinese had indeed
  > a superior level of technology, knowledge and administration. Things reversed
  > again with the industrial revolution and the center of industrial GDP moved to
  > the west again.

I think you've got shifting definitions of the West.

The Roman Empire was on par with China, but the Roman Empire was centred around the Near East – Greece, Turkey, Syria, Egypt, etc.

Western European parts of the Empire were very under-developed, and only really served as a buffer for Rome. (Consider how quickly the Roman Empire gave up the West after moving its capital to the East.)

In the Middle Ages the West was behind, but it was in ancient times too, so no difference. And the Near East was still on par – no difference again.

It's only really modern times that have been difference, with the West exploding out of nowhere. But that is probably just a blip, and in the grand scheme we will probably end up with China and the Near East rising again.

[cygx]

That's not the impression I get from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/byzantine-philosophy/

Quote:

There was never in Byzantium anything resembling the autonomous universities of the Latin West. Higher education was designed to train officials of the state and church, not masters of the arts and sciences.

edit: I guess that's a reference to later developments, though...

[mdiesel]

I can only really comment on UK institutions.

The article is talking about between 730 and 1453. Oxf*rd wasn't teaching until 1096, so I think it's fair to say England was behind for at least 300 years. It wouldn't be until the renaissance (after 1450) that you started seeing a break from scholastic teaching and academics like Bacon.

[bra4you]

I think there is little doubt that Rome was en pare with China. I don't see me shifting definitions of the West. You could argue that I switch between Egypt and Rome. While not the same culture, they are interconnected and influenced each other (visit the Vatican if you have any doubts).

I looked up "ancient history": "Although the ending date of ancient history is disputed, some Western scholars use the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476 AD"

China was far inferier compared to Egypt of that time. For now, lets consider Egypt be part of my "western" argument.

So when between the Highs of Egypt and the rise of Rome was China superior in technology? I admit, out of my head, that Asia may have had the far greater GDP product based on the number ob people. But I don't see any Asian or Chinese superiority.

"with the West exploding out of nowhere." Ignoring the Cultures and Empires of Egypt and Rome is a bit of a stretch.

"But that is probably just a blip, and in the grand scheme we will probably end up with China and the Near East rising again."

Doubt it. The Chinese culture has tremendous strength. But, as often, it comes with tremendous weaknesses.

Since we talk about empires. I know what Rome, what the Soviet Union, what Islam, what "America" had or has to offer. What does China has to offer?