You took the development of the political system, technology, culture, openness of government etc. as important aspects for the separation of different periods. It seems that you find that all these items have a progression in Chinese history. This is quite understandable, since in the separation of epochs of Western history, these items play important roles.
However, pressing on these items, the separation is not very clear. For example, you say that Qin and Han are in the ancient times for China, it was the ânoblesâ who controlled everything. But can we say that the royal family of the Han Dynasty were nobles? Firstly, it is known that the first emperor of the Han Dynasty had a very modest origin. And all the important people in his team (except Zhangliang) were not elite either. After defeating Xiangyu, a descendent of the noble Chu, Liu Bang built the Han Dynasty. Han is therefore a dynasty built by the people, not the nobles. Second, an important thing in the definition of a noble is their refine education, in China as well in West (art, religion, literature etc.), but in the Han Dynasty, most of the royal family did not have a good education. In contrast, there were people from the public who mastered knowledge. Also, in this dynasty, they already begun to pick people from the population to govern (on the basis of this system, they created the imperial examination). The conflict between the Confucian intellectuals and the royal family, a phenomenon for you very symbolic of the next era, was already very acute. For example, at the end of westâs Han, Confucians have asked the royal family to give itâs place to WANG Mang.
On the other hand, it seems to me that you find that in the history of China all these develop: the system of the state bureaucracy is perfected, technical and economical development, the increasing openness of the government etc. But in reality, the developments of these items in Chinese history were not always in harmony. I wonder if we could use these items at the same time. For example, the Ming Dynasty, the economy was not bad, they had a powerful navy. It seems that this is a more âadvancedâ dynasty. In contrast, at the beginning of the Ming Dynasty, Emperor Zhu Yuanzhang removes the Prime Minister, in existence since the Han Dynasty. The importance of the intellectual is greatly reduced in the government. The state has become tyrannical. Can we say that it is a progress in bureaucracyâs system? In the Yuan Dynasty, the development of the technology was encouraged. The army of the state had great ability. But Yuan Dynasty expresses deep despised intellectuals: a this dynasty, the social status of intellectuals were lower than prostitutes. They were of the same level as a beggar. A state that has no respect to knowledge, can we say that they were more advanced? Furthermore, in this dynasty (Yuan) classifies people according to their colours and races. I do not understand why you find that this state is âopenâ. Only because people can walk the streets at night?
Anyway, Iâm not sure if we can separate the history of China in different periods in this way, one that is convenient to the Western history. I am not even sure if we can separate the history of China in different periods. Here I would like to quote a phrase from QianMu, one of the greatest Chinese historians of our time, to finish this text: the history of the West is like a tragedy, every act is very clear, but the history of China like a poem, the separation in acts are necessary for an tragedy, but it makes no sense in a poem.