Is "Pulling an Meiji" truely unique?
- Thread starter Sian
- Start date
It's not only good relations that matter, it's whether you're an attractive target for imperialism or not. No one wanted to colonize Japan because the far more attractive China was right next door. Unfortunately, the Ottomans would probably have to modernize before they find oil there. After oil is struck, great powers will rush to carve it up like a turkey (that was necessary) or at least turn it into a virtual colony via gunboat diplomacy. However, I do think that countries in between great powers usually have good modernization potential, because usually they are valuable buffers.
Ottomans were already modernizing. I don't know why people insist that didn't happen but it did. But they were indeed much more vulnerable. They were poor in resources, sparse and diverse in population, very exposed geographically, started 19th century with internal chaos, had this unfortunate position of being the traditional bogeyman of Europe, and had this funny arrangement with France that later became the basis for capitulations. Janissary did prevented reform for way too long, but even then Ottomans managed to overhaul its military and administrative systems and adjusted European institutions and ideas into indigenous society, even almost kick started industrialization. 1878 really was the bottleneck, but not only they could've won that, they even bounce back into shape until WW1 slam them down once again, now for good. What they needed was to avoid disasters like that.
With all the drawbacks and obstacles though, they were not going to be as successful at Japan, at least until oil money flows in.
With all the drawbacks and obstacles though, they were not going to be as successful at Japan, at least until oil money flows in.
Trust me, China is hardly the only violator of these principles in the world today.China seems not to have noticed, though.
The relative success that the Ottomans had was actually quite astounding considering the very difficult conditions which the Ottoman Empire found itself in at the beginning of the 19th century. The Ottoman Empire of 1808 (when Mahmud II came to the throne) was more or less a collection of affiliated regional rulers, owing little to the central government. Whereas the Japanese simply had to assert the authority of one ruler over another, the Ottomans had to take down a large number of separate regional rulers, and did a tremendously successful job in light of the fact that only one was able to make his independence permanent (if not fully independent in our understanding, as Egypt remained strongly tied to the Ottoman Empire during the mid-19th century).
When one looks at the Ottoman state of 1914 compared to that of 1814, one realises just how far they had come. From being a society where perhaps 2-3% of the population was literate, schooling had been greatly expanded, a modern bureaucracy had been built, and the government had been organized along a centralized model. Despite being popularly known as the Sick Man of Europe, and losing a string of wars, the Ottoman state had shown itself to be more capable of reform to survive than the Habsburg Empire.
What really prevented the Ottomans from "making it" was a combination of weaknesses carried over from the 18th century and before (which were at least partially a fault of the pre-Mahmud Ottoman State) and some terrible luck on the part of the Ottomans (assassinations at key points and what not). Issues such as ethnic violence, a lack of industrial resources and its geographical position all were contributing effects, though not to the extent of the two aforementioned ones.
Most of the traits that enabled Japan to industrialize quickly and protect its independence only applied to Joseon Korea in the period. Korea was on the far side of the world from the Europeans. Although not an island, as a penninsula it possessed defensive benefits. It had a highly skilled and educated elite. It even had two encounters with the West in 1866 which could have lead to an internal revolution. The difference was in the attitudes of the Korean elites compared to the Meiji reformers. Leadership matters.
It's not "unique" so to speak. There is potential for a lot of countries other than Japan to modernize and catchup following 1800, but it requires a forward-thinking leadership, more than a little advance warning (you'll never pull a Meiji if five years after contact, you've already been conquered and colonized), to some degree, a good starting position, and at least some luck.
scholar
Banned
Japan had almost no resources for industrialization. What resources it did have were on the surface, which allowed for the Medieval Era to be quite advanced by point of comparison to the West. After that, it had its restoration, it was a net importer of everything.
Another thing that mattered for the difference between Japan and Korea would be the economic strength and its disparity between the two nations. (While Korea had a technological and scientific superiority over Japan for a long time, Japan came to the same tier through Western Learning from the Dutch)
While both nations persued isolationism, Japan's territorial differences allowed different products to successfully be for sale(furs from the north, silk from the south) and allowed trade.
The second successful system that allowed Japan to have an economic superiority over Korea was the daimyo's wage system(paid in large amounts of rice). This allowed trade to grow, as frequent domestic trade meant development of transport infrastructure(also, as the daimyos were staying in their provinces for a long time, they typically stimulated commercialisation of agricultural products such as tobacco, for their own good).
The third was the rice tax- with a rump tax(same amount for everyone), farmers had incentives to produce agricultural products more efficiently.
Japan was almost uniquely homogenous in ways few countries were at the time. The Qing and the Ottoman Empires were both ruled by an ethnic minority where unleashing social change could see the rulers tossed out. They had to balance internal threat against the external one posed by the technologically advanced West. Japan's internal division was tame in comparison.
Japan was also interesting in that it's "pulled a Meiji" more than once. After the 7th century defeat at the Battle of Baekgang Japan imported Chinese knowledge wholesale and this offers a template for the later Meiji Reforms. There's a built in confidence that they can pull this off because it's not without precedent. That psychological leap usually takes far longer in other societies.
Japan was also interesting in that it's "pulled a Meiji" more than once. After the 7th century defeat at the Battle of Baekgang Japan imported Chinese knowledge wholesale and this offers a template for the later Meiji Reforms. There's a built in confidence that they can pull this off because it's not without precedent. That psychological leap usually takes far longer in other societies.
I know.
Your depiction of the Ottoman modernization and its limits if fairly accurate as far as I can tell.
Japan was unique. And even with the benefits that Japan had it was in no way a give that they would have industrialisation. It was just more likely.
Now if we look at Japan, and turn away from the romantic narrative of Meiji, the country actually started on its path in the 17 century. They did not just wake up one morning and decided too get some industries. (Just look at states that tried that).
The economy of contemporary Tokugawa Japan, had a high degree of centralization, an integrated market, and a advanced transport network. The Japanese merchant did not have to cope with internal toll barriers. Two-way trade between town and country was an established fact of Japanese life already in the seventeenth century. Technological progress, helped by a very high level of literacy, was a feature of Tokugawa agriculture which had a firmly established rate of growth long before the Meiji restoration. And, in so far as relevant, the Japanese elite in the seventeenth century held an active curiosity about western science and technology, now all these do not add up to a possibility of spontaneous industrialization. But the society and economy of pre-Meiji Japan gave her a great potentiality to respond to the opportunity.
And this is what makes Japan unique, and something comparable that needs to be doe to "pull a Meiji". And even with these advantages, Japan was still only semi-industrialise when WW2 started.
Not quite true, while they might well have had an efficient coastal trade network, Japan is tough as hell to transport things across, specially before railways became common ... a often stated truism from that time was that it cost the same to transport stuff from Europe to Japan, as it did to transport the same stuff 50 miles inland. Reasons for this is many, most obious being forested mountains and few rivers that can be navigated
Eh, they did have a good and functioning trunk road type system. If you compare it with the standard of the time, it was.
China has the Grand Canal, turing the north-south land transportation into a marine one.
維新 can be used on its own to mean 'Meiji Restoration' however, the actual word 「維新」carries the same meaning as 'reformation', 'revolution' or 'renewal' in English, so often it's translated as 'Meiji Reforms'. As in a sense, the restoration of the imperial family, movement from Kyoto to Edo (which was renamed Tokyo for the purpose) and implementation of new laws, new armies and new methods of running the economy, education, government and a whole lot more, really is a reform / reformation of Japanese society. At the same time, it meant a whole sweep of reforms for normal Japanese people who for the first time (outside of the Samurai caste) were forced to take family names.
Notwithstanding the linguistic point, it's fairly unlikely that a similar kind of rapid industrialization would have happened or would have been permitted in another country. Other posters have noted that other countries were too close to the Western powers' spheres of influence and this is actually very true. However, one of the major reasons Japan was forced open by Perry's Black Ships was because the Western powers needed a refueling station in the Pacific for their fleets - nothing more, so it was forced open. Allowing Japan to create (rapidly) an industrial base helped with this and allowed the country to rapidly assist Western fleets, make repairs and more. The other reason of course is Japan's strategic location; by allowing it to modernize and sweetening up to the Meiji government, the West suddenly had a modern 'friend' in a strategically important region to act as a counter-balance to Russian expansion in East Asia (and don't forget that the 1850s and 1860s were the height of the 'Great Game').
No doubt many Westerners who had lived through the industrialization of Japan and were still alive at the time had more than a private snigger in May 1905 when the Battle of Tsushima happened, as it saved their countries perhaps the need to do something similar themselves.
And? We are talking about the larger structural points that allowed Japan to, over several hundred years, successfully industrialise. I.E big picture. Take as a whole, many of the parts that allowed the Japanese to do this can be found in other country's. But no other country had all of them, with the quantity and quality that the Japanese had. And even if those can be found or created, that does not guarantee it happening, it just makes it more likely and makes it possible. It also took a very very long time, something that is normally overlooked, especially as it is talked about in "Pulling an Meiji" type of frame. They fall of the shogunat had very little actual impact on it.
Faeelin
Banned
Of course, much of China had a lot of these elements as well, right? Especially the Yangzi delta.