Other Asian Countries that Could Have Pulled A Meiji?
- Thread starter Meerkat92
- Start date
Korea (kinda sorta) tried to pull off a Meiji but by that time it was too late. If they're started earlier they could've done SOMETHING especially with the iron and coal in the north, but it would've been hard due to a smaller and poorer population, less trade and a lot of political divisions.
Meerkat92
Banned
Any other countries where this is possible? I'm sure China had the resources to modernize, but by the mid-1800s they were just too far gone IMO. What about somewhere in Southeast Asia? If I recall my WWII history, don't Vietnam and Thailand have plenty of resources they could use (tin, iron, petroleum, etc)?
Meerkat92
Banned
No! No! You don't understand. I'm working out my first TL and I'm trying to establish a workable yet unique Japan-analog: an East Asian country that modernizes scary-fast and begins its own small empire in Asia. Japan can pull a Siam, but I still need somewhere else to pull a Japan.
Burma, Korea, Atjeh, Vietnam with an earlier POD. All I can think of at the moment.
Cambodia did'nt exist as a country at the time, having first been divided between Siam and Vietnam, then divided between the latter two and France and finally fully part of the French Empire before achieving independence in the mid-20th century.
Japan was exstremly unique. And even with the benefits that Japan have its not a give that they would have industrialisation. It`s just very likely. Now this all depends on when your pod is sett. No if we look at Japan, and turn away from the romatic narrative of Meiji, the country actually started on its path in the 17 century. They did not just wake upp one morning and deccied too get som industrie. (Just look at states that tried that).
Given an early enough pod there are plenty of candidates. Korea, or a Indian statelet or a chines statlet are the best imho.
wolf_brother
Banned
Korea or China would be your best bet; they had the material resources, the human capital, and the infrastructure for such, but internal policies kept them from truly maximizing their potential.
People say Vietnam, Siam, or Burma had the chance, but I'm doubtful. Siam managed to stay independent as long as it did due to colonial politics; it had very little to do with the Siamese themselves. Southeast Asia is particularly resource poor, at least for the resources one need to rapidly industrialize, and the area in the 19th century wasn't exactly known for high standards of education or a strong middle-class. Add on to that the fact that you're dealing with a tropical environment and it gets particularly trickery; we don't really have any examples of states in analogous situations pulling ahead of their competitors, let alone achieving great power status.
Outside of that I think you'll have to look further than the traditional definition of East Asia. Aceh might be able to pull it off, as could some of the Indian princely states.
People say Vietnam, Siam, or Burma had the chance, but I'm doubtful. Siam managed to stay independent as long as it did due to colonial politics; it had very little to do with the Siamese themselves. Southeast Asia is particularly resource poor, at least for the resources one need to rapidly industrialize, and the area in the 19th century wasn't exactly known for high standards of education or a strong middle-class. Add on to that the fact that you're dealing with a tropical environment and it gets particularly trickery; we don't really have any examples of states in analogous situations pulling ahead of their competitors, let alone achieving great power status.
Outside of that I think you'll have to look further than the traditional definition of East Asia. Aceh might be able to pull it off, as could some of the Indian princely states.
Assuming that the potential PoDs occurred within the 19th century in order to minimize butterflies, I still think that it would be highly unlikely.
China could probably have been able to modernize somewhat by 1900 with a PoD before 1870 or so, but its general ethnocentrism had historically prevented it from looking outward, and its size would have prevented it from enacting changes on a widespread scale. Also, the Qing was ruled by the Manchus, although most of the population was Han Chinese, which could have caused ethnic tensions during industrialization, while other minority populations, mostly located in the north and west, could have caused further difficulties if they made more direct attempts to assert independence.
On the other hand, Korea, under the Joseon dynasty, had been a tributary of the Ming and Qing for over 500 years, which limited its ability to grasp the situation outside its borders, even after the Opium Wars greatly weakened China. France sent an expedition to the peninsula in 1866 due to religious reasons, and the United States sent some warships in 1871 due to the General Sherman incident. However, due to Korean resistance, and Europe's general disinterest in the area, it was not until 1876 when Joseon was forcibly opened after Japan forced it to sign the Treaty of Ganghwa. Neither the Heungseon Daewongun, who had been ruling as regent for his son since 1863, nor the Andong Kim clan, which he had overthrown in order to restore power to the monarchy, would have been willing to accept Western intervention.
A more direct approach from the Western powers would have probably turned Korea into a colony or a protectorate, which would be out of the question in terms of the OP. The latest possibility for reform that I can think of would be the Gapsin Coup in 1884, in which a pro-Japanese faction attempted to enact structured reforms on a widespread scale, although it was suppressed a few days later when the queen decided to oust them with backing from the Qing. At the time, the monarchy's policies were focused on balancing the different factions supporting Japan, China, and Russia, so it would have been very difficult for Korea itself to concentrate on reforms with set goals in mind. By the First Sino-Japanese War in 1894 and the establishment of the Korean Empire in 1897, it would be too late for Korea to escape Japanese influence.
In addition, Joseon would need to maintain a population of around 20 million during the 19th century. For comparison, its population had tripled to 18 million within 150 years or so from 1600 to 1750, mostly due to the importation of cash crops as a result of the Columbian Exchange. However, the population actually decreased to 12-15 million by 1850 because of overcrowding due to the lack of major cities, and the capital/largest city had no more than a few hundred thousand inhabitants by 1900. In other words, reorganizing and building new infrastructure would be necessary for changes to be made on a widespread scale and have a greater impact on society, which would be extremely difficult due to Joseon's generally negative stance on foreigners at the time.
The countries in Southeast Asia would also be difficult to industrialize. Siam had occupied what is now Laos, Cambodia, and parts of Burma, Vietnam, and Malaysia by the 19th century, but due to gradual incursions from the British in the west and the French from the east, it lost almost half of its territory and was eventually surrounded and maintained as a buffer state between the two. As a result, Siam probably did its best to enact reforms and industrialize given the conditions at the time. Although having more states established in Southeast Asia by the mid-19th century could lead to a different outcome, it would still be a double-edged sword as the European powers could set them against each other by creating rivalries, as it had done with other colonies.
China could probably have been able to modernize somewhat by 1900 with a PoD before 1870 or so, but its general ethnocentrism had historically prevented it from looking outward, and its size would have prevented it from enacting changes on a widespread scale. Also, the Qing was ruled by the Manchus, although most of the population was Han Chinese, which could have caused ethnic tensions during industrialization, while other minority populations, mostly located in the north and west, could have caused further difficulties if they made more direct attempts to assert independence.
On the other hand, Korea, under the Joseon dynasty, had been a tributary of the Ming and Qing for over 500 years, which limited its ability to grasp the situation outside its borders, even after the Opium Wars greatly weakened China. France sent an expedition to the peninsula in 1866 due to religious reasons, and the United States sent some warships in 1871 due to the General Sherman incident. However, due to Korean resistance, and Europe's general disinterest in the area, it was not until 1876 when Joseon was forcibly opened after Japan forced it to sign the Treaty of Ganghwa. Neither the Heungseon Daewongun, who had been ruling as regent for his son since 1863, nor the Andong Kim clan, which he had overthrown in order to restore power to the monarchy, would have been willing to accept Western intervention.
A more direct approach from the Western powers would have probably turned Korea into a colony or a protectorate, which would be out of the question in terms of the OP. The latest possibility for reform that I can think of would be the Gapsin Coup in 1884, in which a pro-Japanese faction attempted to enact structured reforms on a widespread scale, although it was suppressed a few days later when the queen decided to oust them with backing from the Qing. At the time, the monarchy's policies were focused on balancing the different factions supporting Japan, China, and Russia, so it would have been very difficult for Korea itself to concentrate on reforms with set goals in mind. By the First Sino-Japanese War in 1894 and the establishment of the Korean Empire in 1897, it would be too late for Korea to escape Japanese influence.
In addition, Joseon would need to maintain a population of around 20 million during the 19th century. For comparison, its population had tripled to 18 million within 150 years or so from 1600 to 1750, mostly due to the importation of cash crops as a result of the Columbian Exchange. However, the population actually decreased to 12-15 million by 1850 because of overcrowding due to the lack of major cities, and the capital/largest city had no more than a few hundred thousand inhabitants by 1900. In other words, reorganizing and building new infrastructure would be necessary for changes to be made on a widespread scale and have a greater impact on society, which would be extremely difficult due to Joseon's generally negative stance on foreigners at the time.
The countries in Southeast Asia would also be difficult to industrialize. Siam had occupied what is now Laos, Cambodia, and parts of Burma, Vietnam, and Malaysia by the 19th century, but due to gradual incursions from the British in the west and the French from the east, it lost almost half of its territory and was eventually surrounded and maintained as a buffer state between the two. As a result, Siam probably did its best to enact reforms and industrialize given the conditions at the time. Although having more states established in Southeast Asia by the mid-19th century could lead to a different outcome, it would still be a double-edged sword as the European powers could set them against each other by creating rivalries, as it had done with other colonies.
Last edited:
Burma is relatively easy, have them avoid the first Anglo - Burmese war which resulted in the loss of significant amounts of their most productive territory.
Avoid a couple of rulers that were incapable of leading the country in a changing universe. I briefly flirted with a Burma modernises TL, but RL intervened.
As for Cambodia it can achieve independence in the 19th century, but nowhere near industrialising at a rate comparable to Japan. The only way that you can achieve that is for a 16th century POD and we would be referring to the Kingdom of Lovek, rather than Cambodia. This would require Cambodia to hold onto the Mekong Delta as well and probably butterfly away one of my favourite Thai monarchs Naresuan.
Avoid a couple of rulers that were incapable of leading the country in a changing universe. I briefly flirted with a Burma modernises TL, but RL intervened.
As for Cambodia it can achieve independence in the 19th century, but nowhere near industrialising at a rate comparable to Japan. The only way that you can achieve that is for a 16th century POD and we would be referring to the Kingdom of Lovek, rather than Cambodia. This would require Cambodia to hold onto the Mekong Delta as well and probably butterfly away one of my favourite Thai monarchs Naresuan.
Dont want to necro that thread but i think thats a good idea. Particularly since 'pulling a Meiji' seems like its referring to the Restoration and civil war rather than any modernization.
I think Thailand was the one country that could have pulled a Meiji like Japan. At the time of the Meiji restoration in Japan, in 1868, there was a coronation of a new king in Thailand too.King Mongkut,Rama IV of Chakri dynasty who ruled from 1851 passed away and his son Chulalongkorn, Rama V, ascended the thrown on October 2, 1868. He was trained by the western teachers and was modern in outlook. He introduced many reforms during his reign from 1868 to 1910 and he is known as Chulalongkorn the Great. He faced the French to the east in Indo-China and the British to the west in Burma and south in Malaya. To maintain the independence of Thailand, balancing the two colonial powers, required great deplomatic skill in itself. If he had obtained more favorable circumstances Chulalongkorn might have gone for greater modernisation as carried out in Japan and we might have obtained a far advanced Thailand!
As said Japan didn't just wake up one day and decide to modernise whilst everyone else was too lazy.
Japan had a lot of advantages other Asian countries didn't and it got lucky.
I'd say that yeah, Korea is probally the best alternative. The trouble is Russia.
Thailand isn't particularly likely even resources aside. The reason Thailand was independent was it was balanced between the British and French spheres. Start having a tonne of foreigners coming in and building railways and factories and the balance falls apart.
Japan had a lot of advantages other Asian countries didn't and it got lucky.
I'd say that yeah, Korea is probally the best alternative. The trouble is Russia.
Thailand isn't particularly likely even resources aside. The reason Thailand was independent was it was balanced between the British and French spheres. Start having a tonne of foreigners coming in and building railways and factories and the balance falls apart.
I'd like to know more about that. I took a class on modern Japan (1800-2004), and vaguely remember the economic changes was undergoing at the time with increased industry, but it's all rather fuzzy to me now.
