I really like this sort of thing. "How and why did the modern world and its unprecedented prosperity begin? Learned tomes by historians, economists, political scientists and other scholars fill many bookshelves with explanations of how and why the process of modern economic growth or ‘the Great Enrichment’ exploded in western Europe in the 18th century. One of the oldest and most persuasive explanations is the long political fragmentation of Europe. For centuries, no ruler had ever been able to unite Europe the way the Mongols and the Mings had united China. How did this work? In brief, Europe’s political fragmentation spurred productive competition. It meant that European rulers found themselves competing for the best and most productive intellectuals and artisans. The economic historian Eric L Jones called this ‘the States system’. The costs of European political division into multiple competing states were substantial: they included almost incessant warfare, protectionism, and other coordination failures. Many scholars now believe, however, that in the long run the benefits of competing states might have been larger than the costs. In particular, the existence of multiple competing states encouraged scientific and technological innovation. In early modern Europe, however, political and religious fragmentation did not mean small audiences for intellectual innovators. Political fragmentation existed alongside a remarkable intellectual and cultural unity. Europe offered a more or less integrated market for ideas, a continent-wide network of learned men and women, in which new ideas were distributed and circulated. If Europe’s intellectuals moved with unprecedented frequency and ease, their ideas travelled even faster. Through the printing press and the much-improved postal system, written knowledge circulated rapidly. In the relatively pluralistic environment of early modern Europe, especially in contrast with East Asia, conservative attempts to suppress new ideas floundered. The reputation of intellectual superstars such as Galileo and Spinoza was such that, if local censorship tried to prohibit the publication of their works, they could easily find publishers abroad." https://getpocket.com/explore/item/how-europe-became-so-rich?utm_source=pocket-newtab
One might argue that the Medieval Agricultural and Commercial revolutions that preceded the Modern Era were how and why this began, but really the answer is much more complex. Again, I don't think we can point to one thing and say this is why, when a multitude of factors contributed to what is a product of thousands of years of evolution.
Modern historians rarely point to "one thing." Clearly, there are a number of factors, which we've found out about from the work of historians. But for curious lay readers, a good place to start is Guns, Germs and Steel.
One way to better understand Europe is to compare and contrast with the history of China. A unified realm also inevitably led to absolutism and totalitarianism. Ever wonder why the Mongols were so easily able to invade China? It is because the central government kept all the provinces weak so they would not be able to rebel. European leaders, by contrast, could not become too totalitarian because they were in constant competition with adversaries. While this did not exactly lead to "economic equality", some of the wealth did get shared with knights and local lords, which helped spread out the political power and wealth a little bit. This might have better positioned Europe to advance in developments. If you look at the history of scientific development, many of these scientists were nobles who had been granted privileges. Excessive centralization of power, as was found in China, was ultimately not a good thing for the society. Even though it led to long periods of peace, when wars did finally break out, they were far more costly in lives than in Europe. Some of the smaller countries in Europe, like the Netherlands and Switzerland, even developed strong middle classes. This probably would not have been possible if Europe were centralized and an emperor was ruling over them.
Another big impact was the waves of plagues that swept the Continent in the 14th through the early 16th century. In many areas it decimated the population, which made a subsequent change in how the peasants were treated. At one time little better than serfs, afterwards human labor was much more expensive than even the land, and the aristocracy had to start making changes, or they risked losing their labor force. This started the trend to better treatment of the people, and gave them more of a say in how their countries were run. Also the advancement of early mercantilism allowed some commoners to rise up and achieve prosperity and power that only aristocrats had previously. This had a large impact on how Europe progressed, as smaller nations meant that if the people were mistreated, they could simply leave and find work elsewhere. In effect, those in more repressive areas voted with their feet, and left.
