Japan-style Westernisation

Are there countires in the World that could have followed a similar path to Japan regarding Westernisation?
 
In this forum, its usually called "pulling a Meiji." If you search for that, you should find some good discussion on those lines.
 
Many tried, more failed.

Iran certainly tried their darnest under the Safavid dynasty to modernize the military, centralize the government and create a parlaiment. But unlike Japan, who could modernize in relative issolation, Iran always had to contend with foriegn influence, rebellions in the east for not being such a homogeneous society and to an even greater extent Russia.
 
Last edited:
Iran certainly tried their darnest under the Safavid dynasty to modernize the military, centralize the government and create a parlaiment but unlike Japan, who could modernize in relative issolation, Iran always had to contend with foriegn influence, rebellions in the east for not being such a homogeneous society and to an even greater extent Russia.

Good point. So essentially you need an uncolonized state, with few desirable resources and little strategic value. Ethiopia seems like one of the few candidates to me.
 
Good point. So essentially you need an uncolonized state, with few desirable resources and little strategic value. Ethiopia seems like one of the few candidates to me.

I wouldn't say few desirable resources considering the iron and coal used to make their steel swords along with gold, copper, nickel and silver to finance the daimyos' armies, security plus other political function didn't come from importing scrap along with all those nice peices of art.

It was just next to impossible for any would-be colonizer from half way across the world to storm the beaches of a distant land and proceed fighting through hordes of samurai and mercanaries to overthrow the Shogun. For all the trouble people claim the Tokugawa Shogunate in holding Japan back from modernizing they certainly did a great job keeping order and preventing foriegners from funding an uprising. It certainly helped set the pace for Japanese to embrace Western economic and political culture at relatively their own pace (since much of it too was driven by fears of foreign manipulation if they don't act) setting the stage for the Meiji Restoration to take place.
 
I wouldn't say few desirable resources considering the iron and coal used to make their steel swords along with gold, copper, nickel and silver to finance the daimyos' armies, security plus other political function didn't come from importing scrap along with all those nice peices of art.

It was just next to impossible for any would-be colonizer from half way across the world to storm the beaches of a distant land and proceed fighting through hordes of samurai and mercanaries to overthrow the Shogun. For all the trouble people claim the Tokugawa Shogunate in holding Japan back from modernizing they certainly did a great job keeping order and preventing foriegners from funding an uprising. It certainly helped set the pace for Japanese to embrace Western economic and political culture at their own pace setting the stage for the Meiji Restoration to take place.

True, I suppose centralization is more important than a lack of desirability. Either way it amounts to a requirement that conquest is unlikely or impossible.
 
I always wonder whether Morocco could have done it, if they get British protection from France/Spain.

Even with British protection, I'm not sure they ever had the resources to industrialize, human or natural. Morocco never had a large population. Also they would need to be importing food, coal, iron wood, etc.
 
Asante {Ashanti} Empire maybe? They had a strong modern army, many resources, and a burgeoning middle class. Had they been left alone for just a while longer, perhaps they could have "pulled a Meiji".
 
What about Burma? They had a relatively high literacy rate for the time period and apparently had a highly evolved cultural history and was also relatively centralized(I think).
 
One could argue that the Soviet Union represented the kind of militaristic clique-ridden army-with-a-state pattern followed by the Meiji to create modern Japan in a European context. I've always been curious as to how people forget that pulling a Meiji meant civil war and replacing a medieval caste military dictatorship that was hereditary with a conscript military that in a direct emulation of German practice was immune to civilian control. The problem with other societies pulling this kind of thing is that in most other societies it was not the military that was the sole focus of power as in the Japanese shogunates.
 
Aiyah.

These discussions always seem to end up focused on piddling little isolates that were almost totally incomparable with Japan.

Let's look at what Japan had. It was a centralized, stable kingdom without any country on its borders. It was geographically as isolated from Europe as an island could be and in an excellent disease environment. It's concept of unified statehood is five times as old as Britain's, if not more, and its population advantage at contact was larger still. It was already one of the wealthiest nations in the world when it opened to foreign trade, fed itself, was more literate than many European countries, and sported a well-educated governing class. Until after 1600, the technological gap with Europe was almost non-existent, and in some places Japan had a clear lead. It was one of the most hygienic places on Earth, for example.

Madagascar, the Maori, Ethiopia, Ashanti, Morocco, the Inca, the Iroquois, even Burma and Iran - they never had a chance at this level of success. They could certainly have done much better, in certain circumstances, but Japan's level of success isn't feasible.

Who could have "pulled a Meiji?"

China, obviously, the Ottomans and Russia (though I'd argue that the latter two did pull them off, then went on to great reversals regardless). Korea, in sufficiently different circumstances. Several of the larger Indian states could have done the same, had European dominance come slower or been more divided.

Likewise, a very altered situation could potentially give some states the opportunity that couldn't turn around on a single POD. Iran is like this (if either the Ottomans or Russia were removed as a threat), as might be Burma, Thailand, or a centralized power in the East Indies. But this set have huge disadvantages in most of the critical areas: location, population, wealth, resources, et cetera. You'd need a dramatic point of divergence centuries before European contact to make it possible.
 

Delvestius

Banned
A huge factor was Japan's knowledge and mass production of relatively modern firearms. Isolation and modern technology were the single most important factors...

Ethiopia also had access to European firearms, but not nearly to the level of the Japanese. All the same, it kept the Italians at bay in 1896. I would argue that if Ethiopia was a either a tad less strong or a tad more rich, a stronger nation would conquer it simply because they could. At the same time, what spared it it's fate as a colony was also it's primary downfall: Nobody wanted to trade with it, and therefore no country cared to see it rise as an industrial state for better access to their goods.

I would argue the same with Iran. Perhaps if they had more internal resources then Countries would wish for them to Industrialize for better access to the goods. Instead, Russia and Britain just kind of poked around because that's all Iran was really worth to them.

If we remove the Mongol Invasions, we'd have a good deal of more candidates: China, Korea, and Java come to mind, or perhaps even an Arab state if it survived long enough until the discovery of Crude oil.

So basically we need countries with an inconvenience to the more powerful countries (distance, somewhat modern army) and enough incentives (luxury resources, exotic goods, industrial resources) you could have a situation such as Japan's.
 
Iran, too, for the "no Mongols" - that should make Iran a lot better off in the centuries to come, and possibly mean "Iran" means Iran+the 'stans sized power (and parts of Mespotamia?), which is a lot more serious. And even OTL, Iran apparently had/has oil - although that wasn't that significant until after the meddling pattern had started.

Also, wasn't Java one of the areas the Mongols didn't manage to conquer?
 

Delvestius

Banned
Not sure if that's quite as dire as having depopulation and devastation, but it probably hurt.

The invasion of Java was one of the last actions of Kublai Khan's reign. By the 1260s, the Javanese court stopped paying the tribute, and the Mongols sent a large army to Java, as they would. Although the result was catastraphic for the defeated Mongols, I'm sure it still screwed up the Javanese a good bit.
 
The invasion of Java was one of the last actions of Kublai Khan's reign. By the 1260s, the Javanese court stopped paying the tribute, and the Mongols sent a large army to Java, as they would. Although the result was catastraphic for the defeated Mongols, I'm sure it still screwed up the Javanese a good bit.

At least in the short term, I don't know enough on Java's history to guess the long term.

But Mongol armies being what they were . . .

One thing that would be interesting.

What about India? As in, could some subcontinental power have done this instead of OTL's conquest by Europeans?

Not just held off Westerners, but actually been a power equivalent to the European Great Powers in the greater scheme of events?
 

Delvestius

Banned
India's problem was the lack of central authority. It wasn't until the British Raj that India was ever truly united. Plus, many of the trade routs from China went through Transoxania and Iran, missing the heart of India by a wide margin, meaning less ideas, technologhy and wealth.

India's abundance of goods and resources and lack of centralization made it a prime target of direct colonization. Perhaps if India had been centralized under a court more progressive than the Mughals, maybe a bit more to the south, maybe they would have had a chance. However, their location was rather central, and this didn't help their case much...
 
India's problem was the lack of central authority. It wasn't until the British Raj that India was ever truly united. Plus, many of the trade routs from China went through Transoxania and Iran, missing the heart of India by a wide margin, meaning less ideas, technologhy and wealth.

India's abundance of goods and resources and lack of centralization made it a prime target of direct colonization. Perhaps if India had been centralized under a more progressive court, perhaps a bit more to the south, maybe they would have had a chance. However, their location was rather central, and this didn't help their case much...

Thus wondering if "a" power could have come from there, not necessarily one ruling all of India, just having something amount to this sort of thing instead of how OTL we see the Mughals rotting internally in the North (I anticipate correction by our Indian experts in 10, 9, 8 . . .) and the Europeans taking the place from the South.
 
Top