Ancient China: A Civilization That Once Left Europe Far Behind

We are accustomed to thinking that “the West has always been ahead of China,” but this is actually a historical illusion shaped in reverse by the outcome of the Industrial Revolution.

I. The “Rear-View Mirror” Illusion of History

Today, many Chinese people have an almost unconscious belief: the West seems inherently more advanced than China.

But this is a typical historical illusion, “reverse-engineered” by the outcome of the Industrial Revolution.

We are used to looking back from the pinnacle of modern civilization, thus applying a filter of “the West was destined to lead” to history.

In fact, if we view human civilization as a marathon, China was the front-runner, far ahead, for most of the race.

It wasn’t until after the start of the Age of Discovery in the 15th century that the scales truly began to tip.

For the sake of comparison, let’s set our coordinates to the year 1100 AD—the mid-to-late period of the Northern Song Dynasty.

You will find that in terms of:

• Urban scale
• Institutional efficiency
• Financial system
• And even the freedom of ordinary people

On these hard metrics, the Song Dynasty of that era was like a “dimensional strike” from the future.

We misjudge history because we look back at the process from the standpoint of the outcome.

II. Cities: Commercial Civilization vs. War Fortresses

Want to understand the cities of the Song Dynasty? You don’t need tedious data, just look at one painting: Along the River During the Qingming Festival.

The protagonists of this painting are not emperors or myths, but:

• Bustling merchants
• Resting citizens
• Busy boatmen on the Bian River
• Rows of taverns and pharmacies

This isn’t just “lively”; it’s a highly mature urban economic structure.

A Quick Comparison

Northern Song’s Bianliang vs. Contemporary Europe (e.g., Paris / London)

In a nutshell:

The cities of the Song Dynasty were “living societies,” while European cities were merely “components of feudal lords.”

III. Institutions: A Mature State Apparatus vs. A Fragmented Feudal Puzzle

In 1100, the Song Dynasty operated a centralized system far ahead of its time.

Civilian Governance:
Officials were centrally appointed, assessed, and rotated, virtually eliminating local hereditary fiefdoms.

A Unified Nation:
A unified tax system, laws, and household registration allowed for the efficient cross-regional allocation of finances and grain.

Meanwhile, contemporary Europe was more like a fragmented “jigsaw puzzle”:

• The king was often just the “largest lord.”
• Power was carved up by the nobility and the Church.
• Peasants directly faced harsh private lords,
• not national law.

While the Song Dynasty governed by institutions, Europe was held together by bloodlines and feudal contracts.

Europe didn’t begin to truly form nation-states until the 18th century.

Whether a country can function long-term depends on whether it relies on institutions or bloodlines.

IV. Talent: The Imperial Examination vs. Bloodline Theory (The Truth of Social Mobility)

This is the most “modern-feeling” aspect of ancient Chinese institutions: the imperial examination system.

In 1100s China, a poor scholar from a remote village could, through study and examination, eventually enter the core of power in Kaifeng.

This logic of “fair competition and merit-based selection” broke the monopoly of bloodlines on power.

In contrast to contemporary Europe:
which practiced an extremely rigid system of hereditary aristocracy.

Europe:
If you were born a peasant, you remained a peasant for life. The path to advancement was locked by bloodline, leaving the lower-class elite with no hope.

China:
“A farmer’s son in the morning, an official in the emperor’s court by evening.” The examination system provided continuous social mobility, absorbing the nation’s brightest minds into its administration.

While the Song Dynasty governed with “brainpower,” Europe relied on the “lottery of birth” to determine one’s fate.

V. Military: A “Great Power War Machine,” Not “Poor and Weak”

For a long time, we have seriously misunderstood the military strength of the Song Dynasty.

The “weakness” of the Song Dynasty was not because it wasn’t strong, but because it faced the most brutal and sophisticated peak of nomadic military power in human history.

Organizational Power:
The Northern Song had a standing army of 800,000 to 1.2 million soldiers, fully supported by the state treasury.

Logistical System:
A systematic supply of military rations, payment of soldiers’ salaries, and standardized weapon manufacturing.

This was already the prototype of a modern national war machine.

In contrast to contemporary Europe:

• There was no national standing army.
• The military core consisted of feudal knights.
• To wage war, a king had to “beg and plead” to mobilize his lords.
• Actual forces typically numbered only a few thousand.

Although ancient China and Europe never fought directly, we can make an indirect comparison:

The Xiongnu, driven away by the Han Dynasty, became Europe’s nightmare (the Scourge of God) and shaped what would become Hungary.
The Turks, repelled by the Tang Dynasty, re-emerged in West Asia as the Ottoman Turks and personally brought an end to the Eastern Roman Empire.

What were “remnant forces” to a Chinese dynasty were “gods of war” in Europe.

VI. Well-being: Who Were the True “Freemen”?

This is the most perception-shattering point: the people of ancient China were likely much happier than medieval Europeans.

① Fuller Pockets (Tax Burden)

Song Dynasty:
Mainly state taxes, with a typical rate of about 5%–10%, and legally guaranteed tax relief mechanisms during disaster years.

Europe:
Triple exploitation, with a combined annual extraction rate as high as 25%–35%.

② More Personal Freedom (Personal Rights)

Song Dynasty:
Legally, there were no serfs. Tenant farmers and landlords had an economic contractual relationship, and tenants could freely migrate and change professions.

Europe:
Serfdom was rampant. Serfs could not marry freely, could not leave the land, and were not considered people but the “property” of their lords.

The conflict in the Song Dynasty was the “gap between rich and poor”; the conflict in Europe was “personal bondage.”

VII. The Turning Point: Why Did We “Lose” Later On?

Since China had such an early and stable start, why did it fall behind later?

The true turning point in history was on the high seas.

Zheng He vs. Columbus: Two Completely Different Logics

Zheng He (An Imperial Project):
Grand in scale, its core logic was “to show off.” The emperor paid for it to gain the prestige of having all nations pay tribute.

The result:
He brought back giraffes from distant Africa, bringing back prestige, but not sustainable profits.

When the emperor died, the system automatically shut down.

European Voyages (Capitalist Expansion):
Merchants paid, the state protected, and the core logic was “plunder and colonization.”

The result:
Silver and slaves flowed endlessly into Europe, trade was monopolized by European states and capital, and the Industrial Revolution was ignited.

It wasn’t until the sturdy ships and powerful cannons of the Western powers battered down the gates of the Qing Dynasty that the Chinese suddenly discovered that the world had, unbeknownst to them, already completed an epoch-making leap.

VIII. Deep Reflection: The Three “Constraining Bands” That Held Us Back

China’s eventual decline was, at its root, due to systemic differences in three dimensions. The first two were pointed out by young Chinese intellectuals as early as the May Fourth Movement a century ago.

① Technology Without Scientific Thought (A Difference in Mindset)

Ancient China had strong technological accumulation (like the Nine Chapters on the Mathematical Art and the Four Great Inventions), but it always lacked a systematic scientific framework.

During the Renaissance, Europe rediscovered the rational thought of ancient Greece. Historical Article: How Europe Once “Lost” an Entire Civilization—Why Did Ancient Greek Rational Knowledge Disappear in Medieval Europe?

This formed:

• Logical deduction
• Mathematical expression
• A spirit of falsifiable experimentation

Technology is the summary of experience; science is the explosion of logic.

② Unitary Power vs. Checks and Balances (A Difference in Political Logic)

Ancient China was a highly autocratic monarchy, with decision-making pressure concentrated on the emperor alone.

This is a “single point of failure” system:

• If the emperor is wise, the nation prospers.
• If the emperor is incompetent, the entire system collapses.

Europe, on the other hand, had a long tradition of republicanism and proto-parliaments.
Historical Article: Why Did Europe Move Towards Democracy? The Republican Tradition Was Not an Accidental Historical Choice

Though often chaotic, it established a self-correcting mechanism that did not depend on an enlightened ruler.

③ The “Path Dependency” of a Unified Empire vs. The “Evolution” of Multi-State Competition

China’s geography is enclosed and easily unified. Coupled with a highly uniform script and culture, it lacked internal competitive pressure for long periods.

A successful system would be endlessly replicated, eventually falling into the “dynastic cycle.”

Whereas Europe:

• Peninsulas, islands, and seas fragmented the space.
• Multiple states coexisted and competed with each other.
• Failed systems were eliminated.
• Successful innovations were imitated.

China won with stability but lost the impetus for mutation within that stability;

Europe lost in chaos but stumbled through that chaos to open the door to modernization.

Conclusion: Not Pride, Nor Inferiority, but Clarity

Looking back at this history is not about indulging in past glories or wallowing in self-pity, but about achieving clarity.

Modern China’s decline was not because we were “never capable,” but because during the critical window for a breakthrough, we were locked in by the very path that once made us proud.

To know where you are going, you must first see where you have been.