In The European Miracle (1987), Jones argues that Europe’s political fragmentation proved advantageous for economic growth (while politically unified empires like China withered). And this political fragmentation is the result of geography; In comparison to China, Europe’s fertile lands are relatively dispersed and is cut apart by natural barriers. A counterexample for this theory is India which was also not unified from 5th to 16th century. Yet India did not experience the same growth-inducing effects as Europe. (I read all of this from an economic textbook - Weil, David. Economic Growth 3e (2013)).
Are there such theories using geography to explain the relative “success” of Ancient Greece compares to other ancient “civilisations" of the time?
The issue with India might be oversimplification. It might very well be bad history on the part of the author.
For example, the Indian share of world GDP is estimated to be somewhere around 25% in 1500 CE, when Indian share of world population was estimated to be 18%.
For example, To remain on par with the statistic today, Indian economy would have to be thrice the size it is. In fact, it was when India was governed by the Mughal empire, east India company and British empire that Indian share of world GDP gradually shrunk to about 3.6% upon independence.
Edit : Also, the main question itself is a bit loaded. Ancient Greece was eventually overrun by Romans. The quintessential empire builders. Could you clarify the question?