The difference between our perceptions is simple to explain. You are a self-admitted Byzantophile while I am a (henceforth self-admitted) Byzantophobe.
In my view, China and Byzantium share the following characteristics:
- An aloof Emperor surrounded by myriad scheming servants and eunuchs.
- A bureaucratic form of statecraft.
- A succession of dynasties with generally violent transitions between one and the next.
- A constant struggle against outside invaders
- A superiority complex based on the idea that everyone else is a "barbarian"
- A highly developped ideology-cum-religion rooted in a class of litterate scholars and justifying the status quo (Orthodox Christianity, Confucianism).
- An army headed by professional generals (as opposed to feudal lords), always at risk of claiming the throne if they become overly successful.
I believe this is enough to warrant at least a comparison ...
If the comparison is deemed close enough, I believe it explains why I think Byzantine culture does not have a Weberian influence on its subjects. A China-like empire is fundamentally risk-averse. From its own point of view, it already has everything one can possibly desire. So the focus is on trying not to lose what one has rather than take risks to obtain better or more things. Only territorial expansion obtained through war and in already well known areas is deemed a risk worth taking.
Furthermore, the constant intrigue that surrounds the person of the emperor breeds mistrust among the upper classes. This is not a climate conducive to investment in risky private ventures. Such things require a higher level of trust to develop; one like the one which slowly appeared when protestantism spread throughout northern Europe.
I don't know much about the Byzantines, so I can't say if they have these characteristics that you're ascribing but a few of your stereotypes are overly-broad generalizations.
- Quite a few Emperors were involved in conflict, and others were actively involved in running their government. Eunuchs were significant but their importance shouldn't be overstated. For example, in the Tang Dynasty during the time of your point of divergence, they weren't that significant.
- Again, it depends on your time period. During the Tang, the government wasn't dominated by bureaucrats yet. A lot of power was held by military-oriented nobles.
- As for dynasties, some dynastic changes weren't short, violent transitions, but long protracted affairs. Some of these lasted for over a century, but they grew shorter later.
- Constant is a strong word, but this is otherwise true.
- A lot of times, yes, but the Tang Dynasty wasn't one of those times. Even in other time periods, the Chinese had no problem with adopting
- Confucianism is actually almost backwards, constantly looking back to the periods of the early Zhou period. Its religious aspects shouldn't be exaggerated, but I can understand the argument.
- This is one of those things that are true at one point, but mostly not. I can only think of a few times where professional soldiers managed to take the throne or where in a position to, so this is a rarity as opposed to a norm.
Also, discussing a "risk-averse" China ignores the historical expansion that it did undertake.