Is "Pulling an Meiji" truely unique?

been thinking for the last couple of days about the several reasons why Japan succeded in its rapid industrialization duing the Meiji Restoration, and the just as several reasons why it can't be done in [inset country], but is it truely unique in Japan (and if so is it mainly due to geo-political issues or social issues or?) or could it be pulled off somewhere else (with how many butterflies if any?) ?
 
Well, Japan had a lot of advantages and a fair amount of "luck" (for a given value of it). However, to a lesser degree Egypt pulled an earlier "mini-Meiji" for some time, before the staggering debt and other issues reversed it. Arguably Burma and Siam, maybe Vietnam, could have done it if given more time. To a point, Siam did, although nowhere near as successfully as Japan. Ethiopia is another possible candidate; although, again, its starting conditions are a lot worse, Menelik and Haile Sellase did a lot to modernize the country, and Menelik's poltical parable can be even described as very rough parallel to Mutsuhito's one in some aspects.
In Male Rising, the Ottomans more or less do it.
 
Last edited:
I know precious little about their circumstances in the 19th century, but could Persia have done it with a few butterflies? Might require super-competent balancing of British and Russian influences. Did they have accessible mineral resources for the time? Or does the oil really only happen with 20th century tech? Am I right in thinking of them as similarly urbanized and literate as Meiji Japan?
 
I would recommend reading 'Importing the European Army: The Introduction of European Military Techniques and Institutions in the Extra-European World, 1600-1914 by David Ralston. Very interesting read and enlightening on the ripple effect that such modernizations have thru out society.

A borderline nation to also consider would be Russia and the great 'Meiji' era it had under Peter the Great.
 
Ottoman Empire was certainly on board on this. But in contrast with Russia and Japan, it had way less strategic depth and resources, and it had the unique feature of capitulations(which would then grow as a template for the west to conduct relations with non-European countries), so it was perennially cash-strapped and ever vulnerable. Had it managed overcome those, it will become one more successful example alongside Japan of adoption of European institutions and adaptation thereof into the indigenous culture, providing muslim world a model to emulate.
 
The Sikh Empire could have done so. It was already under considerable western influence, and their army was western-trained.
 
Am I right in thinking of them as similarly urbanized and literate as Meiji Japan?

Less so than Meiji Japan, I think, but with potential. Persia was pretty vibrant culturally in the 19th century. Their geopolitical location doesn't help though.
 
Qing, by the start of the 20th century, had a degree of success, but their New Army just received all the training and equipments to turn against the government, proving the fear the Qing had all along.
 
The Meiji Restoration is of course completely unique to Japan, due to the unique circumstances of the monarchy and the shogunate.
 
been thinking for the last couple of days about the several reasons why Japan succeded in its rapid industrialization duing the Meiji Restoration, and the just as several reasons why it can't be done in [inset country], but is it truely unique in Japan (and if so is it mainly due to geo-political issues or social issues or?) or could it be pulled off somewhere else (with how many butterflies if any?) ?

Well countries like the Ottoman Empire, Burma and the Sikh Empire are going to have a difficult time doing Meiji because of their religious/ethnic diversity. All industrialization has the potential of unleashing centrifugal forces that tear countries apart (like nationalism) - even ethnically homogenous Japan had significant class and anarchist issues as it industrialized, so there is only so much ruling classes in the former states can do before they begin to negatively affect stability in their own realms. Military modernization is of course possible, but without social change the 'Westernization' process is always going to be a bit of a sham.

Qing China also had ethnic diversity, but it largely solved this through Sinicization and massacres (of sorts). The Qing, however, was hobbled by the tradition and the desires of the Confucian gentry in a way that Japan was not, and of course the fact that it was dominated by an ultraconservative class by the late 19th Century didn't help. They came pretty close in the 1860s with the Self-Strengthening Movement, but ultimately progress on social issues was too slow and the whole process became a 'sham' that was exposed by the Sino-Japanese war of 1894-95. The Late Qing Reforms of 1901 were a necessary step but unfortunately, especially with the death of strong leaders in 1908, were far too late.

Egypt and Tunisia could have done it I suppose, but a lot of what they did was funded on foreign debt which, considering that their main income would have been cash crops (like cotton), was risky and subject to macro-economic conditions.

I wonder if Korea could have been a successful example, had it opened up early. Vietnam could have been another one I suppose, though it is resource-poor (-ish) and it didn't have a large population.
 
It depends on what you mean, if you mean a country industrializing generally, then no, there were a few countries that could've done that as well, though nowhere to the degree Japan did without a pre-19th century PoD.

Japan did not magically pull industry out of its collective ass, rather the development of heavy industry was the result of natural techno-economic evolution; Japan had had cottage industries since the 17th century (they were at one point the largest gun maker in the world and had more guns than all of Europe combined) and had been developing light industry since the late 18th century, the Meiji government basically just removed alot of the laws holding industrialization back and offered alot of subsidies.
 
I think it's actually less unique than people think. Japan simply started industrializing and urbanizing not long after the West did, and was thus able to catch up fairly quickly. Other parts of the world that began this process later (say, China right now) have been just as successful, but haven't made it to 'developed' status because by waiting longer they let the already developed nations pull farther ahead.
 
One of the reasons why Japan was in a fairly good position to modernise was the high level of literacy in late Tokugawa era Japan. This was one advantage the Japanese had over powers such as the Ottoman Empire and Egypt where educated people were few and fair between, and enabled the Japanese to establish a modern bureaucracy more quickly than the Ottomans, despite the fact that the Ottomans started their modernization earlier. Japan was also unique in its ethnic homogeneity, though in my eyes this was less important than its high literacy rates.

Japan's success in modernization isn't due to some unique far-sightedness on the part of its leaders (most significant non-European nations attempted to modernize) but rather due to the favourable social, economic and geographical circumstances that it found itself in. And even then it was a struggle. The Japan of 1900 was more comparable with Russia in terms of its industrialization than Western Europe.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
In the 19th Century, and sucessfully?

been thinking for the last couple of days about the several reasons why Japan succeded in its rapid industrialization duing the Meiji Restoration, and the just as several reasons why it can't be done in [inset country], but is it truely unique in Japan (and if so is it mainly due to geo-political issues or social issues or?) or could it be pulled off somewhere else (with how many butterflies if any?) ?

In the 19th Century, and sucessfully?

And by a non-Western state?

Yes.

As others have said, the outcome has as much to do with Japan's unique geographic and political structure in the period as anything else; if nothing else, not having any land borders (paradoxically) allowed Japan the peace to actually develop its economic, military, and naval strength to "Western" levels that just was not possible for a continental non-Western (Asian or African) power that had unpleasant neighbors. The British precedent is pretty strong...

Likewise, the fact that once the conflict between the center and the periphery was won in Japan by the centralizing "imperial" power structure, going forward with building a nation state was (relatively) simple. There are several examples of nation states in this period where the same sort of internal struggle slowed growth significantly.

The fact Japan was a long way from anywhere the expansionist powers wanted to lay claim, and had strong demographics, helped as well.

Favorable geography may not be destiny (personally, I pretty much think it is, but I'm a Annales School type of guy, anyway), but it sure helps...

Best,
 
Last edited:
Something i've been considering as well is that a reason why it can't be replicated in the present day, is that they didn't have a United Nations (or the like) to beat them in the head, when they did stuff that weren't ethical correct from the western viewpoint (lacking democracy, de facto slavery of workers in certain businesses, rampant nepotism, aggessive wars for new territory etc). Nations that might try the same nowadays get very strongly written letters by UN and first world countries with threats of boycotts, both by governments and more unorganized by private citizens in the west.
 
To some extent, the Meiji Restoration was only possible due to somewhat friendly relations with European powers. In a lot of cases, westernizing in a manner similar to Japan would be pretty improbable. I'd say that, were an event like the Meiji Restoration occur, it would be in the Ottoman Empire (one that has made measures to get on the good sides of other European nations).
 
Something i've been considering as well is that a reason why it can't be replicated in the present day, is that they didn't have a United Nations (or the like) to beat them in the head, when they did stuff that weren't ethical correct from the western viewpoint (lacking democracy, de facto slavery of workers in certain businesses, rampant nepotism, aggessive wars for new territory etc). Nations that might try the same nowadays get very strongly written letters by UN and first world countries with threats of boycotts, both by governments and more unorganized by private citizens in the west.

China seems not to have noticed, though. :rolleyes:
 
Top