Is the reason there hasn't been a comparable continuous European society for 2500 years really because druids/anglo-saxons had a society that was more open to c

Is the reason there hasn't been a comparable continuous European society for 2500 years really because druids/anglo-saxons had a society that was more open to change? I'd argue not. I would also argue that China's "5000 years of uninterrupted continuous society" is less continuous and uninterrupted than might be implied here. The concept of "China" is more or less a modern, retroactive, political invention, somewhat comparable to identifying the Holy Roman Empire and the Roman Empire as a continuous entity. There is a shared heritage, writing system, and some overlapping territory -- just like Chinese dynasties. If the Habsbugs did a better job of consolidating and expanding their control of the continent in the sixteenth century then maybe we would talk about the continuous, unbroken Roman society. The metaphor is far from perfect, but I hope my point is clear. The difference between a continuous civilization and whatever the alternative would be called is, in my opinion, just a matter of our perception and a few historical happenstances.