The Chinese split era not by "Ancient," "Classical," "Medieval," etc., but by dynasty. In China, their equivalent of Ancient Era was Warring States period and earlier, Classical Era being Qin and Han Dynasties, Medieval Era being Three Kingdoms to Yuan Dynasty, Renaissance Era being Ming Dynasty and the first half of the Qing Dynasty, Industrial Era being the second half of the Qing Dynasty, Modern Era being the (unified) Republic of China, Atomic Era being the People's Republic of China under Mao and Deng, and the Information Era being the People's Republic of China since the June 4 incident at Tiananmen Square.
Thanks. And from technological progress point of view, Chinese history must feel very different from European one too, with completely different periods of progress and stagnation. I guess.
----------------------------------------
@Zaarin I didn't want to discuss the credibility of "Tech progressing faster if Rome had stood longer" as it's all fiction, but I found myself thinking about it so here's why I thought it's somewhat credible, from my limited historical knowledge:
Nowadays science and technology are very closely tied. But back in Roman times I don't think it was the case. I'm not sure what you mean by "science" exactly, but I think it's not really scientists who were "teching" by then. It was workers and engineers however they were called. The very word "science" (also "arts") din't mean the same as today, because people viewed them differently.
It's trade, economic forces and what we would call today "development" that were teching and spreadin new techniques. I heard that it's for trading that people began to write and count. Dunno how true it is, but it's not scientists who invented the wheel, or caravels, or metallurgy.
Sure there might be more exceptions to this than I think, and later from Renaissance and Industrial eras the role of science in tech progress becomes huge. Also the role of maths in many techniques was certainly important.
I still tend to think most new techniques came from "eureka moments" of random people. And mostly that then the diffusion of these new techniques was essential, as technique is a cultural thing, even for chimps or so I was told. It's collective.
Romans were good engineers, and valued engineering. In all their empire they brought new techniques for construction, urbanism; shaping cities, building roads and sewers and aqueducts wich some are still standing. I also tend think their somewhat pacified empire was more favorable to exchanges and trade than the often warring kingdoms that followed. All that we'd call today development creates the conditions for technical progress.
You say that the greater cultural diversity of fragmented Europe has favored "progress" more than the Roman hegemony... it's interesting to hear and I want to believe it, I'm not fond of Rome and love the Middle-Ages. But I don't see how.
I know little about science in medieval Europe, but the image I have (with slight caricature) is people discussing Aristotle and the Ancients ad nauseam in Paris and Oxford universities (in the limits allowed by Church), making no significant progress until Copernic, and certainly not popping any tech. Is that terrible misconceptions? Probably, but how exactly?
Would my speculative long-lasting Roman empire have done better? Of course it would have it's fictional it can do anything we want.
I warned it'd be long! And I realize what I wrote is very schematic, I'm not saying it's true only credible to me so far.