I'm not going to remove this question as it doesn't technically violate our rules; however, I should warn you that "Eastern" is not a category that historians use. It's orientalist, in that it takes an immense, diverse, and ever-changing collection to peoples and places and reduces them to some essential element. That was seen as true in the nineteenth century, but that idea has long since been rejected on empirical and theoretical grounds. Hell, the whole point of coming up with an "East" was to define the "West"; historians rejected ideas of East decades ago, and for at least the last generation the idea of the West has also been rejected on empirical and theoretical grounds.

So, I strongly recommend that you rephrase the question and take out the "Eastern" stuff. You're much more likely to get a solid answer then.