18th century European countries: Could any defeat Japan?

You are fudging by mixing up the Seven years War, the ARW and the Napoleonic wars . . . In the case of Japan, England (not Britain in this case) had had a good connection since Will Adams had been Iyasue's naval adviser.

Aren't you now discussing how 18th century japan had a good connection because a man in the 17th century?

One just repeats the Indian, Malay and Burma experience. Local troops, stiffened by naval assets, a whiff of artillery and a couple of companies of grenadiers.

Japan was not India, Malay, or Burma. It was a centralized state with a strong (despotic) government.

This isn't that much different than saying you could invade 18th century Britain with help from the Earl of Cornwall.
 

Ancientone

Banned
You are aware that

1. Japs is seen as s slur

By whom? I worked for Japanese companies for half my life with Japanese bosses and colleagues and carried on business with Japanese partners for years more. I never met any Japanese who was offended by the expression any more than an American would be offended by Yank, or an Englishman, Limey. In informal setting they often used the word to describe themselves. That's what is so endearing about the Japanese, they don't have chips on their shoulders.
Are you perhaps Japanese, or are you being offended on their behalf?
 

Ancientone

Banned
Aren't you now discussing how 18th century japan had a good connection because a man in the 17th century?
No, I was pointing out that outside knowledge of Japan and vice versa still existed in the 18th Century.


Japan was not India, Malay, or Burma. It was a centralized state with a strong (despotic) government.
Indeed it was, but not without tensions. Loyalty maintained by holding families hostage, regional power undermined on a whim. The tensions that erupted at the end of the Shogunate may have erupted earlier (this is hypothetical after all)

This isn't that much different than saying you could invade 18th century Britain with help from the Earl of Cornwall.
What does this mean. if anything?
 
Indeed it was, but not without tensions. Loyalty maintained by holding families hostage, regional power undermined on a whim. The tensions that erupted at the end of the Shogunate may have erupted earlier (this is hypothetical after all)

But note that nobody tried to form a separate nation, or break off. This is different than your other examples.

What does this mean. if anything?

The British invasion of India involved manipulating a series of divided and warring states for their own advantage. Japan was a centralized state with a national identity.
 

Ancientone

Banned
But note that nobody tried to form a separate nation, or break off. This is different than your other examples.
The British invasion of India involved manipulating a series of divided and warring states for their own advantage. Japan was a centralized state with a national identity.

OK I concede. Japan is invunerable--come to think of it, they never have been invaded.

Who the F is the Earl of Cornwall?
 
OK I concede. Japan is invunerable--come to think of it, they never have been invaded.

I am not saying they are invulnerable; but I am saying it will take a lot more than a bunch of Europeans showing up and imposing terms. In the 19th century maybe...

Who the F is the Earl of Cornwall?

I chose a random title.
 
You are fudging by mixing up the Seven years War, the ARW and the Napoleonic wars. You are though quite right that Britain rarely depended on its own troops, but made good use of allies, mercenaries, levies and local settlers. Another misreading of history is that Britain went around "conquering" others, rather they took sides with local factions and usually ended up running the show.

I'm mostly casting about for any occasion where signifcant forces were deployed on enemy shores over transoceanic distances in the eighteenth century. The traditional method - obtaining a toehold and coopting natives - is really not viable here since the OP specifically says that the army mnust land on Japanese soil. From everything I have read about eighteenth-century naval warfare, that seems so close to impossible as not to matter. The problem is just compounded by Japanese contact with Dutch merchants because they will understand the capabilities of the enemy better.

Did any European power ever deploy more than ten thousand regular troops cross an ocean in one go before 1800? I have yet to find convincing examples.
 
Did any European power ever deploy more than ten thousand regular troops cross an ocean in one go before 1800? I have yet to find convincing examples.

http://www.revolutionarywaranimated.com/NewYorkAnimation.html

I'm not actually entirely sure how many of the troops were brought across the Atlantic - but I suspect it was over 10,000.

Not over 20,000 however if even that, though, considering that part of the force was from troops withdrawn from Boston earlier.

And that, it's telling, was a pretty much all out effort in terms of military manpower and logistics - to somewhere at least close to friendly bases or able to have one set up in relatively short order.

Doing something like this to Japan would be inconceivably more difficult, as you've noted.
 

Tamandaré

Banned
The Spanish seem to be the ones with the best logistics for this because of the Philippines. Wonder if Macau could be used by the Portuguese for this?
 
Top