I'm not downvoting because I disagree. I'm downvoting because you're spouting a bunch of blatantly Orientalist "the four nations lived in harmony, but everything changed when the ~~Fire Nation~~ West attacked" bullcrap.
When you talk about the "rich Eastern world" of pre-industrial history, you are primarily talking about civilizations who considered Europe too poor and ignorant to colonize or exploit when, after all, they could be colonizing and exploiting each-other.
Honestly, I do not have points to down-vote you but I wish to down-vote since you abused the power of down-voting without adequate knowledge on cultural differences or intentional differences and blindly followed what some authors might have told/wrote by looking just at superficial level.
There is a quality called "contentment". Ask yourself a question? If Europe was poor/ignorant/weak and East can exploit them, then they could have been used as slaves, right? After all, that was easy. Isn't it? Why that did not happened? Because there was no interest/intention in the so called "world domination" or "we are better than you" ...etc attitude.
This is the mindset/weakness of some part of west where you get confidence of your power only if you colonize/destroy other country. But if you are self-aware of your powers, then you do not need to exhibit them unless they are needed.
Concept of Colonization/exploitation intentionally was not part of Eastern mindset/attitude. If you want to speculate, you can but that cannot be truth.
>There is a quality called "contentment". Ask yourself a question? If Europe was poor/ignorant/weak and East can exploit them, then they could have been used as slaves, right? After all, that was easy. Isn't it?
The Arab and Ottoman Empires invaded Europe from the East, repeatedly, which is actually what brought Classical literature back to Europe, triggering the Renaissance and leading to Europe going on an expansionist streak to fight back (and then for power and gold, of course).
Your lack of knowledge is shown by your generalizing over "the East", as if Indian, Japanese, Chinese, Arab, Persian, Turkish, Russian, and Byzantine empires all had some "essential Easternness" in common.
And then of course there's the issue that the Chinese Empire did have many expansionist periods, which were only really blocked from reaching Europe by such barriers as Mongolian armies preventing them reaching through Siberia and several different mountain ranges to their south and west, which were easier to trade through than to invade through. Oh, and of course we mustn't forget the Indian and Middle Eastern empires that would try to block a Chinese colonization of Europe on grounds that it was their turf.
I never included "Arab, Persian, Turkish, Russian, and Byzantine empires" in my comments. I specifically excluded Mughals who are of Turkish origin. If you can include Russian empire in your logic, you can include America and Europe also. Nothing will stop you if you want to twist the facts.
>>> Oh, and of course we mustn't forget the Indian and Middle Eastern empires that would try to block a Chinese colonization of Europe on grounds that it was their turf.
Please provide proofs. An Indian empire thinking Europe as their turf? Are you serious?
>How can you included Middle East as part of East?
Well, how can you draw a completely arbitrary, undefined boundary around some part of the world and declare that people Over There are just morally and spiritually better than everyone else, in the complete absence of historical evidence or even of specifically stating whom you're actually talking about?
When you talk about the "rich Eastern world" of pre-industrial history, you are primarily talking about civilizations who considered Europe too poor and ignorant to colonize or exploit when, after all, they could be colonizing and exploiting each-other.