Why do eastern countries get new names whenever the ruling dynasty changes but countries like France and England don't...

Except in Japan

China was far more homogenous than France or England

Nippon is close enough

What Gual? What is Frankia? What is various Duchies with different names?

Frances borders are relatively the same but the names in those borders changed pretty often.

Also what was Britainia? what is Scotland, what is Wales? What was Anglia? What is Great Britian or now the UK?

That's what the Han want you to think.

But iran was always called iran by its inhabitants

It's a result of 19th century nationalism with Europeans going through "national awakenings" and engaging in historical revisionism regarding their own history.

Wrong on both counts: it's dependent on the context.

In Europe, it tends to be because you hold a title of an existing, defined, place. Many european monarchs just called their realms by their chief titles (i.e. their highest position), even if they have a bevy of other titles and landholdings in lands outside their "main kingdom." But then you have shit like Hapsburgs ruling over vast swathes of diverse territory that instead of simply being called "Austrian Empire" the realm the Hapsburgs ruled tended to be named either the Hapsburg Empire, or simply the Empire. Until Austria ceased being an archduchy following the demise of the HRE at least.

In Asia its also depending on context: central asian and middle eastern states tended to be carved out by warlords wholesale. The dynasty's justification tends to be simply boiled down on "I can fucking protect you, trust me." While like europe, there are existing, defined, places, these were pretty small: sometimes within the boundaries of a city or a small province that existed during the caliphate/persian empire times. In addition the ruling dynasty tended to be foreign: like the cavalcade of Turkics who carved out small emirates, sultanates, and khanates all over the place. I would really like to discuss this in detail but this is about how much I can dumb down state polity formation in "medieval" middle east and central asia.

There are, however, some exceptions: ruling Dynasties who tended to adopt Iranic culture often ditched their titles and adopted an Iranian title: Shahanshah, or Padishah.

Because Asian ruling dynasties were rarely defined by the land or nation, and were more defined by their aristocratic coalitions of tribal leaders who were either semi-nomadic in some way having been planted in the area displacing the previous aristocracy from elsewhere, or they were very localized to a geographically limited ethnic group and territory which shared very little diplomatic, economic, or even linguistic ties with other groups in that state.

Rather than comparing it to France, England, or Germany which are countries based on direct crown control of and loyalty from aristocrats, free-cities, and commoners with some form of shared community besides having the same king, think of these eastern dynasties like you think of the Hapsburgs.

contd.

But then in Asia, you also have China's case. Like many in Asia, they were also heavily organized around the ruling dynasty. Unlike their middle eastern and central asian counterparts, there is a realm that that dynasty must serve. Though the idea was borne out during the Zhou period and the warring states, but the Qin-Han period founded the notion of China as an empire, a state entity. In addition, the Mandate of Heaven and later Confucian morality did point out to many imperial dynasties that there is a realm, and they owed this realm the best of their rule, least heaven casts them out of its favor and the people become obligated to throw them out and replace them with another.

As such, China was *never* named after the country after their ruling dynasties. True- China was not always known as China, as the current name of the country-Zhongguo- is relatively recent (started during Ming and Qing dynasties). But from the Qin period to the Qing period, China as a state entity was simply known as "Tianxia." That translates to "All Under Heaven," but in the Chinese context, simply means "Empire."

Chinese Dynastic names tend to lift their names from a quality they wish to posses (Ming = "Bright" dynasty, Qing = "Brilliant" dynasty) from an important piece of history of the ruling clan (i.e. the Han dynasty is named after the Hanzhang, a fiefdom near the Han river, where the first Han emperor, Liu Bang, started his rise to power) or in emulation of an earlier good dynasty (i.e. the number of Later Hans, Later Qins,Later Weis and so on). But never were they the country's name.

>Habsburg monarchy

Would I be wrong in assuming that "tian" and "xia" were different words?

Just for evidence's sake: consider how Zhu Yuanzhang - first Ming emperor- talked about his country in his 1372 Manifesto of Accession to the throne of the realm:
>"Since the Song dynasty had lost the throne and Heaven had cut off their sacrifice, the Yuan [Mongol] dynasty had risen from the desert to enter and rule over Zhongguo [China] for more than a hundred years, when Heaven, wearied of their misgovernment and debauchery, thought also fit to turn their fate to ruin, and the affairs of Zhongguo were in a state of disorder for eighteen years. But when the country began to arouse itself, We, as a simple peasant of Huai-yu, conceived the patriotic idea to save the people..."
>We have established peace in the Empire, and restored the old boundaries of Zhongguo. We were selected by Our people to occupy the Imperial throne of Zhongguo under the dynastic title of 'the Great Ming,' commencing with Our reign styled Hong-wu, of which we now are in the fourth year. We have sent officers to all the foreign kingdoms with this Manifesto except to you, Fu-lin [Byzantium], who, being separated from us by the western sea, have not as yet received the announcement. We now send a native of your country, Nieh-ku-lun [Fra. Nicolaus de Bentra, Archbishop of Peking], to hand you this Manifesto. Although We are not equal in wisdom to our ancient rulers whose virtue was recognized all over the universe, We cannot but let the world know Our intention to maintain peace within the four seas. It is on this ground alone that We have issued this Manifesto."

Note how Zhu Yuanzhang talks of his dynasty and his country as two separate things: Zhongguo, the Country, and his dynasty styled as "the Great Ming." In addition to how his dynasty was "rightfully chosen" by heaven and the people to rule over the country.

No? They are. Tian ( 天) means heaven. Xia (下) means under, subject to, inferior to which, beneath something, and so on.

But Tianxia (天下) is a word in itself.

Japan is a bit weird.

Sure, as a state entity, there has always been a Japan, but between the fall of the Emperors and the Meiji restorations, there were times when its provinces ruled and lived like de facto independent states. And we're not just talking of the meme Sengoku period: but even during times when Japan is under unified rule. For example: the Shimazus in Kyushu was virtually its own fucking kingdom during the Sengoku and Tokugawa periods, with their capital centered within their lands of Satsuma. The Date Clan were so independent they sent their own ambassadors to represent theirfuckinselves as opposed to representing all of Japan.

In addition provincial and fief cultures were so strong they resembled national identities. Like there's talk of Japanese identifying themselves not as Japanese but shit like "man of Mikawa )province" or "Man of the Northeast (Iwate)." There's talk in Japanese historiography of "fief/province nationalism" but personally I believe this is a case of layered identities.