AHC: Japan East Indies Company

Lemme try this again with Japan.
How would a Japan East Indies Company emerge? POD must be at late 1700s. Japan opening up, obviously, is a factor- but what would spur such policy? Would the JEIC survive the economic competition between other Companies during the time? What should it do to survive?
This is probably easier than the first AHC I've posted....

East Indies. You mean America?

Kome said:

East Indies. You mean America?

Click to expand...

I meant SEAsia. Maybe including the Indian subcontinent. But I believe the Caribbean was called West Indies?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_indies

I think it was supposed to be a joke about how from Japan's perspective, the East Indies wouldn't be to the East.

Japan did have regular trade with the region circa 1600, though of course not on the scale the East India Company eventually reached. It's not out of the question for this trade to grow. It was quite profitable, and Japan had the ships and the navigators. You don't need to "re-open" Japan, you need it not to close in the first place--all of this was pre-sakoku.

I would look for PoDs that prevent the Imjin Wars, the conversion of Japanese people to Catholicism in Kyuushuu, and increase the centralization of government.

The conventional view of the rationale behind the Sakoku policy was that it was based on fear that Christian Japanese were disloyal and upset the existing social order. But more recent historical scholarship promotes the idea that it was in large part a power play by the Shogun to centralize power. The Shogunate may have been afraid that foreign trade in the south of Japan would give an advantage to those daimyo (e.g. a new Tanegashima gun), and by blocking that he not only prevented rivals from gaining power, but could centralize power by claiming sole control of foreign policy for all of Japan. It is worth noting that it was in fact the Satsuma domain, which benefited from "Dutch learning" in Dejima, that did eventually help lead the overthrow of the Bakufu. But of course some have argued that this is putting the cart before the horse--that is, arguing that the Shogunate would've been afraid of foreign trade because foreign trade eventually did help overthrow them, but they might not have known that 200 years earlier. At any rate, I think more centralized government would be both less afraid of foreign trade, and more likely to benefit directly from it, so that's a good way to have Japan increase foreign trade instead of cutting it almost completely off.

zeppelinair said:

How would a Japan East Indies Company emerge? POD must be at late 1700s.

Click to expand...

As always, you first need to understand events in the OTL in order to make plausible changes.

The Portuguese and later, after the Jesuits interfered with internal Japanese politics, the Dutch acted as Japan's "East India Company". Traders from those two nations handled most of Japan's external trade allowing Japan to "trade by proxy" with China, southeast Asia, Europe, and the rest of the world.

Please note I said "most" of Japan's external trade. Japanese traders, mostly operating out of Tsushima and Satsuma, deal directly with Russia, Korea, Ryukyus.

All that needs to happen is for Japan to decide Dutch proxies are no longer needed and to begin trading directly. In other words, Japan replaces the Dutch monopoly with a quasi-private Japanese monopoly.

Japan opening up, obviously, is a factor...

Click to expand...

No, it isn't. Japan wasn't as closed as people like to think and, as I already explained, Japan under the Shogunate traded directly with neighboring nations. A Japanese "EIC" replacing the trade conducted in the OTL by the Dutch doesn't require all of Japan's port to be open to foreign shipping.

... but what would spur such policy?

Click to expand...

A desire for increased revenue, justifiable paranoia concerning Dutch intentions, any number of things.

Would the JEIC survive the economic competition between other Companies during the time?

Click to expand...

If the Japanese "EIC" receives the same official monopoly the Dutch enjoyed, there's no reason it cannot last up through the end of the Shogunate or Japan being forced "open" to foreign trade.

mcdo said:

I would look for PoDs that prevent the Imjin Wars, the conversion of Japanese people to Catholicism in Kyuushuu, and increase the centralization of government.

Click to expand...

Maybe Japanese look to South instead of Korea?
So they would conquer Formosa and make Luzon under their influence. This could lead to establishment of state sponsored East/West Indies Company for merchants.

MonAngel said:

Maybe Japanese look to South instead of Korea?
So they would conquer Formosa and make Luzon under their influence. This could lead to establishment of state sponsored East/West Indies Company for merchants.

Click to expand...

At the risk of sounding immodest, might I point you to my thread on the subject? It's true that, like you say, Toyotomi Hideyoshi considered striking South instead of into Korea. The likely targets would have been what you say--Luzon, Formosa, etc--the big trade centers.

MonAngel said:

Maybe Japanese look to South instead of Korea?
So they would conquer Formosa and make Luzon under their influence. This could lead to establishment of state sponsored East/West Indies Company for merchants.

Click to expand...

mcdo said:

At the risk of sounding immodest, might I point you to my thread on the subject? It's true that, like you say, Toyotomi Hideyoshi considered striking South instead of into Korea. The likely targets would have been what you say--Luzon, Formosa, etc--the big trade centers.

Click to expand...

1. Have Gambang of Tondo win against Ragam Bolkiah or have Brunei ignore Tondo, this means Japan won't have any competition in that area but in this case Luzon remains called as Mayi by the chinese and Selurong by the Malays and in the same time also make Aparri prosperous, I think the Japanese might call Luzon as Bahi or Bashi .
2.Have the Wokou settle Taiwan and swamp the Taiwanese Aborigines

mcdo said:

At the risk of sounding immodest, might I point you to my thread on the subject? It's true that, like you say, Toyotomi Hideyoshi considered striking South instead of into Korea. The likely targets would have been what you say--Luzon, Formosa, etc--the big trade centers.

Click to expand...

I remember that thread....

mcdo said:

Japan did have regular trade with the region circa 1600, though of course not on the scale the East India Company eventually reached. It's not out of the question for this trade to grow. It was quite profitable, and Japan had the ships and the navigators. You don't need to "re-open" Japan, you need it not to close in the first place--all of this was pre-sakoku.

Click to expand...

of course. But please understand, I have placed some emphasis on "the POD must be in the later 18th century". I'm trying to make the situation in Japan as similar to Korea as possible, as nobody really can answer the question of having a "Korean EIC". (through my plan with POD in the late 18th century, Japan will perhaps have only a slight advantage in shipping infrastructure compared to Korea.)

mcdo said:

The conventional view of the rationale behind the Sakoku policy was that it was based on fear that Christian Japanese were disloyal and upset the existing social order. But more recent historical scholarship promotes the idea that it was in large part a power play by the Shogun to centralize power. The Shogunate may have been afraid that foreign trade in the south of Japan would give an advantage to those daimyo (e.g. a new Tanegashima gun), and by blocking that he not only prevented rivals from gaining power, but could centralize power by claiming sole control of foreign policy for all of Japan. It is worth noting that it was in fact the Satsuma domain, which benefited from "Dutch learning" in Dejima, that did eventually help lead the overthrow of the Bakufu. But of course some have argued that this is putting the cart before the horse--that is, arguing that the Shogunate would've been afraid of foreign trade because foreign trade eventually did help overthrow them, but they might not have known that 200 years earlier. At any rate, I think more centralized government would be both less afraid of foreign trade, and more likely to benefit directly from it, so that's a good way to have Japan increase foreign trade instead of cutting it almost completely off.

Click to expand...

this. This intrigues me, as I was also thinking of a scenario where a large rebellion occurs during the 1830s in western Japan. (the 1830s were hard times for Japan- famine, earthquakes, more western ships, what not.) A second shogunate that arises from the rebellion and, using technology that they learned from the Dutch, maintains a presence for a long period time would be interesting. If possible, that is. this is obviously not about a Japanese IEC. But it seems to me that opening up of Japan in the POD I have presumed will have interesting effects.

Flubber said:

As always, you first need to understand events in the OTL in order to make plausible changes.

The Portuguese and later, after the Jesuits interfered with internal Japanese politics, the Dutch acted as Japan's "East India Company". Traders from those two nations handled most of Japan's external trade allowing Japan to "trade by proxy" with China, southeast Asia, Europe, and the rest of the world.

Please note I said "most" of Japan's external trade. Japanese traders, mostly operating out of Tsushima and Satsuma, deal directly with Russia, Korea, Ryukyus.

All that needs to happen is for Japan to decide Dutch proxies are no longer needed and to begin trading directly. In other words, Japan replaces the Dutch monopoly with a quasi-private Japanese monopoly.

No, it isn't. Japan wasn't as closed as people like to think and, as I already explained, Japan under the Shogunate traded directly with neighboring nations. A Japanese "EIC" replacing the trade conducted in the OTL by the Dutch doesn't require all of Japan's port to be open to foreign shipping.

A desire for increased revenue, justifiable paranoia concerning Dutch intentions, any number of things.

If the Japanese "EIC" receives the same official monopoly the Dutch enjoyed, there's no reason it cannot last up through the end of the Shogunate or Japan being forced "open" to foreign trade.

Click to expand...

As always, thanks for the comment. What I tried to mean from saying "obviously opening up Japan is a necessity" was to be open to the possibility that having all Japanese ports, instead of a few, would be a more encouraging environment for the JEIC to grow.
Is it very easy and simple for the Japanese to simply replace a Dutch EIC with their own? never mind the angry Dutch, but do the Japanese still retain the infrastructure for it? Navigation skills, Boatmaking skills, etc? Because, by your statement, I think it is implied that it is quite so..

zeppelinair said:

of course. But please understand, I have placed some emphasis on "the POD must be in the later 18th century". I'm trying to make the situation in Japan as similar to Korea as possible, as nobody really can answer the question of having a "Korean EIC". (through my plan with POD in the late 18th century, Japan will perhaps have only a slight advantage in shipping infrastructure compared to Korea.).

Click to expand...

IMO, problem for late PoD is Japan can't compete with already established European powers/companies. So Japan can't be same as Birtish or Dutch East India Company. As Flubber said it will be just replacing Dutch with Japanese, but this is not same European companies that promoted European interest, colonization and mercantilism.

Hrvatskiwi said:

I think it was supposed to be a joke about how from Japan's perspective, the East Indies wouldn't be to the East.

Click to expand...

This guy gets it. And its not like America still didnt have Indians in the 1700s/early 1800s.

zeppelinair said:

...but do the Japanese still retain the infrastructure for it? Navigation skills, Boatmaking skills, etc? Because, by your statement, I think it is implied that it is quite so..

Click to expand...

You did read Post #5 by mcdo, didn't you? You did reply to it after all.

You saw the nice big map mcdo posted too, right? The one with the various lines representing trade routes and various markers representing different types of Japanese overseas presence?

You read mcdo's post and you saw mcdo's map, yet you're still asking me whether Japan retained the boat making and navigation skills necessary to undertake overseas trade?

Actually without the Sakoku it would be easier to use language and religion to split japan, remember dialect of Kyushu where there were many Christians had a different phonology and grammar to central japanese at that time and at that time Central Japanese had not imposed its Phonology to the other Japanese dialect groups.

kasumigenx said:

Actually without the Sakoku it would be easier to use language and religion to split japan, remember dialect Kyushu where there were many Christians had a different phonology and grammar to central japanese at that time and at that time Central Japanese had not imposed its Phonology to the other Japanese dialect groups.

Click to expand...

Could you have an independent Satsuma or somesuch controlling southwestern Japan become a very seafaring, mercantile nation, kind of like an Asian Netherlands, and later establish a company for Indonesia and/or Indochina and/or the Philippines? Would it fit the terms of the challenge, or does Japan have to be unified? Maybe unified Japan could do this but then have North and Central Japan split off under either a conservative Shogunate, maybe with the Imperial Family fleeing to the southwestern nation, or another mercantile nation, probably somewhat more focused on Russian and trans-Pacific trade but still also doing a lot of trade with Europe and South Asia, sort of like an Asian Belgium?

Or is this all ASB?

Alternate History Geek said:

Could you have an independent Satsuma or somesuch controlling southwestern Japan become a very seafaring, mercantile nation, kind of like an Asian Netherlands, and later establish a company for Indonesia and/or Indochina and/or the Philippines? Would it fit the terms of the challenge, or does Japan have to be unified? Maybe unified Japan could do this but then have North and Central Japan split off under either a conservative Shogunate, maybe with the Imperial Family fleeing to the southwestern nation, or another mercantile nation, probably somewhat more focused on Russian and trans-Pacific trade but still also doing a lot of trade with Europe and South Asia, sort of like an Asian Belgium?

Or is this all ASB?

Click to expand...

Alternatively, you could have a Shogunate - just with the Shogun being from Satsuma or thereabouts.

Alternate History Geek said:

Could you have an independent Satsuma or somesuch controlling southwestern Japan become a very seafaring, mercantile nation, kind of like an Asian Netherlands, and later establish a company for Indonesia and/or Indochina and/or the Philippines? Would it fit the terms of the challenge, or does Japan have to be unified? Maybe unified Japan could do this but then have North and Central Japan split off under either a conservative Shogunate, maybe with the Imperial Family fleeing to the southwestern nation, or another mercantile nation, probably somewhat more focused on Russian and trans-Pacific trade but still also doing a lot of trade with Europe and South Asia, sort of like an Asian Belgium?

Or is this all ASB?

Click to expand...

Yes, a Split of Kyushu is possible if all or most of the noble clans of Kyushu became christians.

Flubber said:

You did read Post #5 by mcdo, didn't you? You did reply to it after all.
You saw the nice big map mcdo posted too, right? The one with the various lines representing trade routes and various markers representing different types of Japanese overseas presence?
You read mcdo's post and you saw mcdo's map, yet you're still asking me whether Japan retained the boat making and navigation skills necessary to undertake overseas trade?

Click to expand...

sorry. my mistake.
I was making an assumption that because there was a isolation policy, the Japanese would be quite a shadow of what they used to be, and along the years would be behind others in navigational and shipmaking technology. (I mean, there must be a difference between having and not having an isolation policy?) Also, the map says 17th century, which is quite different from the late 18th century that I believed I asked about. (the isolation policy was established in the 17th century, fyi.)

Kome said:

This guy gets it. And its not like America still didnt have Indians in the 1700s/early 1800s.

Click to expand...

apologies for not getting the joke.