Why is that only Europe developed small local identities? I use

Feudalism. A local count/duke/whatever had more influence on a particular place than the king did. This didn't happen as much outside of Europe.

>>2995953

american education detected

>>2995953
>Feudalism
>tons of free towns and republics in that map
>less feudalism than in most other parts of Europe
Yeah, no.

>>2995960
Free towns and republics that subscribe to an Emperor.

Geography plays a big part. Europe's shape is defined by large rivers, seas, islands and mountain ranges which help to foster local identities. The major reason the Welsh have managed to sustain an identity and even a language is because they're a mountainous region which makes effective administration difficult, and therefore it wasn't simply subsumed into the larger English culture. Ancient Greece is another example of a small area being host to many different identities due to the divisive effect of its mountainous and island geography.
India and China by contrast are not such divided landmasses.

>>2995972
>Emperor
>that is largely a powerless figurehead
>most decentralized empire, likely ever
sorry mate, but your case doesn't get any better.

>>2995984
I thought HRE started as feudalistic as it can get, and that's where the name and tradition came from. But local provinces/towns/whatever got more and more power and the state became more and more decentralized.
A hugely decentralized state doesn't mean that, at least in theory, it isn't feudal. It started that way, at least. Obviously since the Protestant wars happened the Emperor had huge difficulties in maintaining power but the fact that the people continued to subscribe to him should mean something.

>>2995939
>Why is that only Europe developed small local identities?

Mesopotamia had its city states, so did mesoamerica, so did pre-dynastic China, so did Africa. Small local identities are the norm, not the rarity.

>>2995939
>Roman Empire exploded, so not enough time to create a large local identity (like China)
>Germanic tribes mixed with the local Romans, adding part of their language and culture in a specific zone
>The only empire who could unify Europe, the Charlemagne one, exploded too soon. For centuries there was chaos, so the local lords became indipendent from any king/large authority
>The new Kings created the feudal system for have some kind of control over the smaller lordships, because they weren't strong enough to complete annex them
>So for a long time a European would identify
himself more with his city/lord, rather than some kind of large national identity
>Nationalism began only in late middle ages, when the king power was strong enough to become identifed as the supreme overlords by all his subjects, direct or indirect
>Bonus point for have the Catholic Church, an unique indipendent religious power, who always opposed any large and centralized empire strong enough to subjugate it (the HRE was always a clusterfuck so was ok for them)
>Pretty much this is all

>>2995994
You really should read that stuff up, the Emperor, or even just German king was elected by the most influential princes. Free Cities and Church domains made their own thing, there is tons of republics in northern Italy and Switzerland, then full patched members of the HRE and monarchies in the Slavic areas.
Imagine it like some sort of medieval EU, like everybody plays their own game, but has a central institution to regulate things just a bit. Now there has been stronger and weaker Emperors, but in general not a single one ruled without considerable support from varying alliances within the empire.
The whole thing is a fucking mess and it takes some time to figure out how it works and who is who.

>>2996081
This was a pretty cool post, thanks, will read more about it.