Why Did Japan Modernise and China and Korea Didn't?

Basically what the title says.

I'm very curious as to why Japan's modernisation worked out with a modern, Western-Oriented state in almost twenty years whereas China's attempt to do the same thing ended up in an awful clusterfuck of Boxer rebellions and things like that.

Both Japan and China had internal struggles against modernisation - Japan had the civil wars against the Shoguns, while China had its own Boxer rebellions and things like that. They're coming from a very similar kind of government, too.

So whats the big difference? Why didn't Europeans come trying to break off parts of Korea and Japan as well? There weren't any European concessions in Edo or Kyoto or Nagoya or anything, (or Seoul, for that matter) and Japan didn't have anything like the unequal treaties.

I guess what I'm asking is, A) why did Japan successfully modernise while China and Korea (or any other East Asian country) didn't and B) what are the necessary requirements for an East Asian nation to modernise and do what Japan managed OTL?

Much as people like to think Japan magically just created industires all the sudden the real reason it was able to modernize as successfully as it did is because it already been building small industries since the late 18th century, in fact at one point IIRC Japan had a larger firearms industry than Europe since they'd been making guns since the 17th century.
In reality the Meiji Restoration that lead to the downfall of the Shogunate was not about Tradtionalism vs. Modernism, it was a matter of political control.

Now, when we look at China, well they did'nt really have any industries like Japan had and literally tried to modernize from the ground-up, which did'nt work for multiple reasons including ideology (the government was anti-west/though China could never be surpassed), population size and the fact that when China did try it their was a coup d'etat and the reforms and modernizations were halted for several years.

In the case of Korea, whole they did'nt have the pre-existing industrial base like Japan did, they did have the chance to develop and modernise much better, however societal, political and ideological reasons kept this from happening.

In fact there were serious efforts by reformists in the Qing court to build industries. The late Qing Dynasty wasn't uniformly one of stagnation and decline; that was a narrative built up by subsequent Republican governments to justify their revolution (as with all revolutions in history). And if anything, Japanese culture is even more conservative and Confucian than Chinese.

By the 1880s, China had the largest shipyard, the largest navy, a rapidly improving army, the largest steelmill, the biggest industrial output, outside of the west, and was building railways at a rapid pace. Latent conservatism played a big role in delaying some reforms, like reforming the imperial academy system which only occurred in 1905. And yes, Cixi was a manipulative *censored*. But until 1895 when Japan sank China's larger and more modern navy into the Yellow Sea against all expectations, China was considered more likely to successfully modernize.

And the reason the Chinese navy was destroyed against a smaller and weaker opponent? Factionalism. The navy was controlled by General Yuan Shikai, who through his simultaneous control of the most modern Qing Army units had other ambitions. The Chinese army and navy simply failed to fight as one against foreign opponents. Perhaps this is where Japan strongly differed from China.

I'm not an expert on Korean history, but as historically the most loyal tributary state to China since at least the Song Dynasty, by the 19th century the Joseon court was torn by infighting between conservatives and modernists, who often were supported (or supported) a foreign power. Korean modernizing on its own and not on the coattails of either neighbour requires handwaving.

EternalCynic said:

And the reason the Chinese navy was destroyed against a smaller and weaker opponent? Factionalism. The navy was controlled by General Yuan Shikai, who through his simultaneous control of the most modern Qing Army units had other ambitions. The Chinese army and navy simply failed to fight as one against foreign opponents. Perhaps this is where Japan strongly differed from China.

Click to expand...

While certainly factionalism was a major detriment to the fighting efficiency of the Qing Navy, by far their biggest handicap was corruption, closely followed by the almost none existent crew morale.

Kinda hard to fight battles when your gunpowder has been sold on the black market by the crew. And then there is that notorious incident where a Chinese Admiral sold one of his guns to scrap metal dealers and tried to disguise the sale by having a wooden replica put in its place, painted black.

A factor might be relative position in the greater scheme of things shaping deep-seated mentality:

China: millenia of civilization and being the regional hegemon making for a preponderance of conservative thinkers among the elites who believe that there is little worth learning from the West and/or that minimal changes were necessary.

Korea: tributary ally of China sharing a land border. That China supported it in the 16th century against Japanese invasion lingered in memory. Push come to shove, China would rescue/preserve it as is if necessary.

Japan: island nation. Never wholly comfortable with the nominal status as tributary ally (the whole "Kingdom of Wa" business) to China. Isolated, with a nominal threat to the West and in the 19th century, additional threats from the north (Russia) and the West and South (the Europeans and the U.S.).

You could argue that Japan was the only one with a visceral motive to industrialize. The slogan of the Meiji era was Fukoku Kyouhei ("Enrich the country, strengthen the military" or "Rich country, strong army"). The stated goals in the slogan say much about their concerns and sense of insecurity.

Or desire for power, but either way, a drive to develop.

Elfwine said:

Or desire for power, but either way, a drive to develop.

Click to expand...

Near as I can tell, the desire for power is often rooted in insecurity.

Still, it was drive and motive enough to overcome some of the conservatism.

GrumpyOldPrinny said:

Near as I can tell, the desire for power is often rooted in insecurity.

Still, it was drive and motive enough to overcome some of the conservatism.

Click to expand...

Yeah. Whether it was ambition of fear or both - they had the drive to overcome the conservative elements, and the power to force that on the conservatives that actually fought back (the romanticized samurai revolt).

China very much lacks that second element, although part of that is more a matter of a weakening (in the usual ways) dynasty than stronger anti-modern elements per se.

It is heading for trouble of some sort from what I can tell. What kind and how hard may depend, but the Mandate changing would be likely even if one has more modernization.

I think, to address the idea of the "requirements', you need a reasonably well developed country with the economic strength to not drown in debt trying to buy modern stuff for starters.

Funny, I was thinking about this a few weeks back , considering writing a piece but I don't know enough of China.

GrumpyOldPrinny said:

A factor might be relative position in the greater scheme of things shaping deep-seated mentality:

China: millenia of civilization and being the regional hegemon making for a preponderance of conservative thinkers among the elites who believe that there is little worth learning from the West and/or that minimal changes were necessary.

Korea: tributary ally of China sharing a land border. That China supported it in the 16th century against Japanese invasion lingered in memory. Push come to shove, China would rescue/preserve it as is if necessary.

Japan: island nation. Never wholly comfortable with the nominal status as tributary ally (the whole "Kingdom of Wa" business) to China. Isolated, with a nominal threat to the West and in the 19th century, additional threats from the north (Russia) and the West and South (the Europeans and the U.S.).

You could argue that Japan was the only one with a visceral motive to industrialize. The slogan of the Meiji era was Fukoku Kyouhei ("Enrich the country, strengthen the military" or "Rich country, strong army"). The stated goals in the slogan say much about their concerns and sense of insecurity.

Click to expand...

This is a big part of it IMO.
China had the warped world image of it being the centre of the world and all others being barbarian kingdoms. Japan meanwhile has a world image where there are different, equal countries, they never bought into China's centre of the world crap- the emperor annoying the Chinese by calling himself emperor of the land where the sun rises and treating the emperor of the middle kingdom as an equal.
Throughout its whole history Japan has been used to being an underdog and having to take ideas from abroad to enrich itself.
So whilst China acted haughty and refused to deal with the Europeans as equals, prompting them to take matters into their own hands, Japan didn't attempt to directly fight European enroachment, instead hoping to turn the unequal treaties to its advantage.
Another factor to mention in why Japan modernised and not other countries is the time in which major European access started. By the mid 19th century the world was small and peaceful and there were lots of modern capitalist countries about. One European power couldnt just swoop in and incorporate Japan into its empire. Instead you had interests from lots of different countries at work, no one nation became the most dominant- and unlike China Japan was too small for there to be really much in the way of spheres (though there was to a degree- just look at the modern Japanese electrics system...)

Much as people like to think Japan magically just created industires all the sudden the real reason it was able to modernize as successfully as it did is because it already been building small industries since the late 18th century, in fact at one point IIRC Japan had a larger firearms industry than Europe since they'd been making guns since the 17th century.
In reality the Meiji Restoration that lead to the downfall of the Shogunate was not about Tradtionalism vs. Modernism, it was a matter of political control.

Now, when we look at China, well they did'nt really have any industries like Japan had and literally tried to modernize from the ground-up, which did'nt work for multiple reasons including ideology (the government was anti-west/though China could never be surpassed), population size and the fact that when China did try it their was a coup d'etat and the reforms and modernizations were halted for several years.

In the case of Korea, whole they did'nt have the pre-existing industrial base like Japan did, they did have the chance to develop and modernise much better, however societal, political and ideological reasons kept this from happening.

Click to expand...

This too.
The all too common view is to see the Edo era as a period where Japan totally cut itself off from the world and stagnated, rremaining stuck in the 16th century.
This is nonsense though, they maintained an active interest in the outside world, they just controlled its access to Japan. Also- peace is good for developing a country. 300 years of peace really led to Japan developing very well indeed. It developed a sophisticated urban culture, cleared tonnes of land for farming, etc....

And Japan's access to it.

This may not have been a time of pure stagnation, but sharply limiting overseas commerce and the presence of foreigners seems like a focus on - and as relates to this point, only on - internal development, as opposed to engagement with the rest of the world.

Tyr said:

This is a big part of it IMO.
China had the warped world image of it being the centre of the world and all others being barbarian kingdoms. Japan meanwhile has a world image where there are different, equal countries, they never bought into China's centre of the world crap- the emperor annoying the Chinese by calling himself emperor of the land where the sun rises and treating the emperor of the middle kingdom as an equal.

Click to expand...

That's not true. There have been plenty of tribute missions from Japan to China, with the first dating back to 57 CE, when a local ruler in Japan sought recognition from the Han Dynasty. Then there were the tribute missions during the 5th century CE under the five kings of Wa, who were posthumously raised to the titles of Japanese Emperor. I'm not sure if Japan was united at the time, but it might already have been.

As to requirements:

Okay, this is dredging memory, but one of them, historically, was a literacy rate of atleast 30%. Why I haven't any idea.

A guess: some fluidity in employment. None or less of guilds and hereditary, sons being required to follow the trades of father stuff(which will lead to the imbalance of over supply of labor in various trades at a given time). This frees up labor to move where needed.

Again dredging memory: taxes. For pre-industrial economies, when tax rates get too high, growth and productivity get choked, no incentive for growth increase because the gain disappears into govt. coffers. An analysis of pre-industrial Japan said that the wall was 40% of income (the wall for industrial economies seems higher).

God knows: lower birth rate. Modern estimates of the birthrate prior to the Meiji-era are between 3 and 5, even for peasants. You see that in China only among the middle and upper classes. The pattern for pre-industrial economies is that economic growth is keyed to population growth, more kids, more labor for a farm. It seems with industrial economies, econ. growth is no longer keyed to pop. growth. I'm guessing that the resources poured into fewer kids that are healthier & better educated are still less than more kids living at subsistence, with the result of a net surplus that can be devoted to other things, making for markets for the merchant and artisan classes spurring their growth.

Don't know about China and Korea but, in Japan within a generation of the end of the Sengoku Jidai, there were periodic regulations and admonitions for commoners to "live appropriate to status" and to stop buying goods previously affordable only to the elites. This points to incomes rising relative to subsistence costs.

How it all ties together, I'm still trying to figure out.

WhatIsAUserName said:

That's not true. There have been plenty of tribute missions from Japan to China, with the first dating back to 57 CE, when a local ruler in Japan sought recognition from the Han Dynasty. Then there were the tribute missions during the 5th century CE under the five kings of Wa, who were posthumously raised to the titles of Japanese Emperor. I'm not sure if Japan was united at the time, but it might already have been.

Click to expand...

Tribute missions had ended by the 11th century CE. In that century, more than one embassy from China arrived in Heian-Kyo, was housed but never formally received by the Imperial Court. The only people going to China were merchants and students.

Nominal unification in Japan didn't really happen until the 6th c. CE (I think) and some form of real unification until the 7th or 8th c.

WhatIsAUserName said:

That's not true. There have been plenty of tribute missions from Japan to China, with the first dating back to 57 CE, when a local ruler in Japan sought recognition from the Han Dynasty. Then there were the tribute missions during the 5th century CE under the five kings of Wa, who were posthumously raised to the titles of Japanese Emperor. I'm not sure if Japan was united at the time, but it might already have been.

Click to expand...

That's before Japan was even worthy of being called Japan. Japan beginning to regard itself as an equal empire comes later.

GrumpyOldPrinny said:

(snip.)
How it all ties together, I'm still trying to figure out.

Click to expand...

One thing I'd throw in here: A generally working system of law and order.

If the roads see more brigands than merchants, something has gone wrong - and of course, it discourages the free and easy flow of trade(rs).

Neither of which are good for development.

I don't know enough about Korea or China to say if that's a barrier here, but it is relevant - peace is good for farmers. And in pre-industrial economies, what's bad for farmers is pretty much bad for everyone.

Elfwine said:

Yeah. Whether it was ambition of fear or both - they had the drive to overcome the conservative elements, and the power to force that on the conservatives that actually fought back (the romanticized samurai revolt).

Click to expand...

In fact the more conservative elements in Japan were the supporters of the emperor. They actually started as a force against the western world and the modernisation, but they were soon joined by people who were just against the western world but recognized modernization was necessary for Japan. In fact, whoever wins the civil war of this era would probably modernize Japan.

Elfwine said:

One thing I'd throw in here: A generally working system of law and order.

If the roads see more brigands than merchants, something has gone wrong - and of course, it discourages the free and easy flow of trade(rs).

Neither of which are good for development.

I don't know enough about Korea or China to say if that's a barrier here, but it is relevant - peace is good for farmers. And in pre-industrial economies, what's bad for farmers is pretty much bad for everyone.

Click to expand...

Truth(emphatic cough). Arbitrary behavior on the part of the authorities does nothing for them or the notion of The Law.

Imladrik said:

In fact the more conservative elements in Japan were the supporters of the emperor. They actually started as a force against the western world and the modernisation, but they were soon joined by people who were just against the western world but recognized modernization was necessary for Japan. In fact, whoever wins the civil war of this era would probably modernize Japan.

Click to expand...

So what would you call the other side of the civil war from the Meiji government?

Not trying to argue, as my knowledge is fairly rudimentary, but I'd appreciate seeing more.

GrumpyOldPrinny said:

Truth(emphatic cough). Arbitrary behavior on the part of the authorities does nothing for them or the notion of The Law.

Click to expand...

That too. I was more thinking "ineffective" than "arbitrary", but both are true.

You don't need something the modern, western, democratic world would call "just', but it needs to run fairly enough that people trust it.

And judging by Russia . . . you need a reasonable middle class. Artisans, small scale merchants, and townspeople in general need to thrive, not merely survive, to have the economic sinews necessary to develop more wealth than "take from the peasants".

Otherwise, the economy is basically "the peasants trying to survive" and "the elite trying to stay that way".

GrumpyOldPrinny said:

Tribute missions had ended by the 11th century CE. In that century, more than one embassy from China arrived in Heian-Kyo, was housed but never formally received by the Imperial Court. The only people going to China were merchants and students.

Nominal unification in Japan didn't really happen until the 6th c. CE (I think) and some form of real unification until the 7th or 8th c.

Click to expand...

I don't think the Tang and Song missions can be called tribute missions, because I'm pretty sure they weren't offering tribute.

Tyr said:

That's before Japan was even worthy of being called Japan. Japan beginning to regard itself as an equal empire comes later.

Click to expand...

Why is Japan unworthy of being called Japan because it's not politically united? Nobody would ever say that Italy pre-1870 or Germany pre-1871 are unworthy of being called Italian or German.

My point remains that up until 600, the states in Japan (whether they ruled all of it or not) followed the conceptions of the Sino-centric world-order.

Elfwine said:

So what would you call the other side of the civil war from the Meiji government?

Not trying to argue, as my knowledge is fairly rudimentary, but I'd appreciate seeing more.

Click to expand...

You could argue that it was conservative (in the sense of status quo, the Shogunate/Bakufu) versus pragmatic ultra-conservative or even reactionary (restoring the Emperor). If I recall correctly, the Imperial Rescript to His Majesties Soldiers and Sailors described the various Shogunates as "usurpers".