AHC: Five modernised Nations in Asia by 1900
ben0628
Banned
Don't really think that the original poster considered Russia to be an Asian country, especially since the majority of its population is European.
Anyways this thread is interesting. So far, nations that most posters consider are capable of modernizing are the Ottoman Empire, Maratha Confederacy, Persia, and Bengal. Nations that have the potential but also have problems are China, Korea, Oman, and Siam. Other nations that are unlikely but still fun to talk about are Nepal and Burma.
What are we forgetting? I believe someone mentioned the Philippines but there hasn't been any discussion on it. Someone also mentioned the Sultanate of Brunei which at one point occupied all of Borneo (coastal areas at least). Other areas in Asia that hasn't been discussed yet is Central Asia (Afghanistan and Kazakh Khanate) and the islands that make up Indonesia. I'm assuming that you need an earlier pod though for the Indonesian sultanates and central Asia lacks a lot that's required for the area to modernize
Last edited:
Strange that nobody yet has suggested Vietnam?
It had the a population of around 13 million throughout the 18 and 19th centuries, a medium sized territory, and a centralized government.
It had the a population of around 13 million throughout the 18 and 19th centuries, a medium sized territory, and a centralized government.
If Vietnam hadn't been absorbed by the French, it could maybe have modernised.
Let's say the Tourane siege goes as OTL in 1860, France seizes Cochinchina for itself. We even get to 1873 with Francois Garnier's expedition in Tonkin as OTL.
Except this time, the Emperor and the mandarins actually enforce the treaty of free circulation, maybe even ask the help of the French to clear the area of the chinese influence in return for full sovereignty (maybe a preferred nation clause but no full protectorate) and free trade with France, which would mean an easier access to Southern China.
Sure it's not the most likely scenario of all but it is possible. Vietnam had a learned elite and France was only marginally interested in actually conquering the place. It is a wretched land for Europeans, so I can imagine an arrangement like England and Egypt.
Oman is another strong candidate if they can move away from the slave trade. Maybe slave manned factories? Importing coolies? They had a very very strong base to operate from, and a modern army. If they move away from the slave trade (or refocus their power base on Mainland Africa to limit the possibility of English ingerence) they could last longer and end up very powerful.
Third candidate I'm gonna go for Siam to stay in South-East Asia. Don't know enough to elaborate, just seems fairly likely.
Let's say the Tourane siege goes as OTL in 1860, France seizes Cochinchina for itself. We even get to 1873 with Francois Garnier's expedition in Tonkin as OTL.
Except this time, the Emperor and the mandarins actually enforce the treaty of free circulation, maybe even ask the help of the French to clear the area of the chinese influence in return for full sovereignty (maybe a preferred nation clause but no full protectorate) and free trade with France, which would mean an easier access to Southern China.
Sure it's not the most likely scenario of all but it is possible. Vietnam had a learned elite and France was only marginally interested in actually conquering the place. It is a wretched land for Europeans, so I can imagine an arrangement like England and Egypt.
Oman is another strong candidate if they can move away from the slave trade. Maybe slave manned factories? Importing coolies? They had a very very strong base to operate from, and a modern army. If they move away from the slave trade (or refocus their power base on Mainland Africa to limit the possibility of English ingerence) they could last longer and end up very powerful.
Third candidate I'm gonna go for Siam to stay in South-East Asia. Don't know enough to elaborate, just seems fairly likely.
Didn't Oman invested in an overseas ""colonial"" empire of sorts in Zanzibar? With the PoD being pushed this far in time, I'm sure we can work with a scenario in which the Omanis, for whatever reason (commercial interest and religious zeal) make a more dedicated effort to colonize and bring the eastern coast of Africa into their political and demographic context. I'm not sure if the Horn of Africa and the Erytrean Sea were very populated before the 19th Century, but Zanzibar coast presents an interesting option perhaps. Going even farther, during the 17th or 18th Century, as the Omani panick with the Portuguese/Dutch expansion in the Indian Ocean, they try to make a landfall in Madagascar. Of course with such little manpower they won't be able to conquer it, but they might follow the Portuguese example and set trading posts to foment the economy. With some century-old adjustments, I guess Omani population (or better, the population of whatever empire they are trying to build) can reach more substantial levels.
If Bengal modernises, I think Burma will likely do so too if it can get a strong ruler. It definitely won't be colonised, since Bengal was Britain's route into India. It could end up like Thailand did OTL. However, there is the issue that the Burma-Siam Wars will keep continuing throughout the 19th century, when OTL they stopped not long after the British moved in there. It'll mean each side will have as modern of a military as they can get, but will hinder development in most other fields. Latin America and late 20th century Africa is a decent example of this.
What does Vietnam have besides a couple of seaports on the route to China? No real need for something like French Indochina to emerge, especially since Vietnam was historically a major power in the area. I could see it doing as well as Siam did OTL and keep independence.
The trick for Oman is basically creating something like modern East Africa by promoting Islam, the Swahili language, etc., and building an empire that way. Sadly, that'll probably end with Oman being marginalised in favour of the territories centered around Zanzibar.
Somalia is probably not a good option for Oman (since even the Europeans couldn't hold the place down until the 1920s), although maybe they could try getting some ports there.
What does Vietnam have besides a couple of seaports on the route to China? No real need for something like French Indochina to emerge, especially since Vietnam was historically a major power in the area. I could see it doing as well as Siam did OTL and keep independence.
The trick for Oman is basically creating something like modern East Africa by promoting Islam, the Swahili language, etc., and building an empire that way. Sadly, that'll probably end with Oman being marginalised in favour of the territories centered around Zanzibar.
Somalia is probably not a good option for Oman (since even the Europeans couldn't hold the place down until the 1920s), although maybe they could try getting some ports there.
Hmm lots of interesting replies. I must admit Vietnam escaped my mind though now that I think about it does have a lot of the requisites i.e.
-centralized administration
-educated elite bureaucracy
-strong population base
- no stronger neighbour threatening their lands
Vietnam has much the same issues Korea does.Being dominated by China, especially an outward looking one, while does give them some manor of protection, also inhibits their growth.
As for the Afghans and Kazakhs, they have their own issues. Their tribal structure makes it far more difficult for them to reform, especially when you see that for the Afghans, it worked pretty well. The Durrani Empire was kicking butt well into the 18th century.
Basically this AHC is about these countries actually having a imperative to reform when there is still time. As seen in Egypt's case, reform is costly and dangerous business. There really needs to be direct benefits from modernizing to convince people to actually go through with reforms
-centralized administration
-educated elite bureaucracy
-strong population base
- no stronger neighbour threatening their lands
Vietnam has much the same issues Korea does.Being dominated by China, especially an outward looking one, while does give them some manor of protection, also inhibits their growth.
As for the Afghans and Kazakhs, they have their own issues. Their tribal structure makes it far more difficult for them to reform, especially when you see that for the Afghans, it worked pretty well. The Durrani Empire was kicking butt well into the 18th century.
Basically this AHC is about these countries actually having a imperative to reform when there is still time. As seen in Egypt's case, reform is costly and dangerous business. There really needs to be direct benefits from modernizing to convince people to actually go through with reforms
Deleted member 67076
Iran is a good option under the Ascarid dynasty. Should Nader Shah not go into madness and continue his string of military victories (concluding with Iraq being ripped apart from the Ottomans), followed by a smooth transition to his capable administrator of a son, you've got an Iran with: nearly 7 million people in ~1760, a variety of natural resources and coal, a culturally tied nation (the Iranosphere), a strong military, and an interest in getting into the Indian Ocean trade, which would put pressure on the Europeans, weakening their position there. It will also give other Asian states breathing room.
Yea, Oman is lucky to have done as well as they did, if I was betting in the 1500s, I would've guessed that they would become controlled by a state out of Iran.
Oman is simply an impossibility.
Ottomans were far more economically underdeveloped than China, as was Persia and to a lesser extent virtually all of India.
Last edited:
RousseauX
Donor
Actually China realized this as soon as the first Opium war was over and tried to buy an entire fleet from England within a few years of that
It's that that state capacity in China was far lower for any sort of modernization program
Did Japan actually have much of a military elite by the 1850s or so, they did in 1600 but to what extent did they exist by the tail end of the shogunate era?
If I recall, they (the Edo period samurai) were mostly people who trained/studied at the military arts and were always prepared for a war that never came (until the Boshin War, of course).
Ok, I will take some shots at this.
Assuming that we do not go too far in the past, I would say there are some areas more likely than the other, obviously....
1. Korea is almost certainly a no, as far as I know, it lacked the population base and power relative to its neighbors to achieve such modernization. It would be possible if Korea was off by itself, but it is almost inevitably forced to capitulate and kowtow to one of its neighbors, likely China. 3/10
2. Oman is an impossibility, it lacks the manpower to achieve modernization without oil and massive immigration. It's growth historically and in modern times has to do with the competence of its rulers and steadfast stability seemingly inherent in their political system. This however, is not near enough, even when at their height, they were exceedingly minor, one would have to go far in the past to change river systems and ecology to change Oman's growth or some sort of tech advantage. 2/10
3. The hordes of Central Asia are a dead breed for obvious reasons. They are condemned to play the great game unwillingly whilst they attempt to preserve a backwards culture and lifestyle. This would include Khiva, Bukhara, etc... Assuming we do not go far enough back to do the rising Shaybanids, but it still is mute, it would only stand to be a more formidable opponent for Russia and butterfly the Mughals. 0/10
4. The Durrani is an interesting possibility, however it, despite being a colossus in the 1700s, is doomed essentially. They were simply a hyper Khiva, with some modernized military, their system of governance and intellectual produce was primitive and steeped in traditions of the past pushed further and further. They also were decentralized, but in a terrible way, not in the good way with merchants. Decentralized in the way of exceedingly backwards khans and imams ruling the cities and bandits ruling (often at state permission) ruling vast swathes of countryside. Progress in any way other than progress in destruction of the regime is possible. 2/10
5. I am not too familiar with Punjab/Sikh empire, I assume they could possibly, but their power is of course hampered by the powers to their west and by a lack of an effective port. 4/10
6. Yemen is also an impossibility, it was an area of extreme Ottoman interest and lacked stable rule as that of Oman. However, it has the manpower to possibly create industry without oil, especially in Sa'naa. It would need changes to maritime practices and a removal of Ottoman interest, either in complete butterfly of the Ottomans or some sort of complex Yemeni-Burji-Portugese alliance. Also Yemenhas the possibility to control Red Sea trade and expand into the areas of Harer, gaining subjects and more base to its state. However I would say it is still highly unlikely. 3/10
7. Iran's best bet is simply a long strand of effective Safavid leadership, without such a disastrous diplomacy with the Ottomans. Possibly, an Iran that focuses on trade, rather than playing geopolitical games against Ottoman and Russian powers. The Afsharid is an overrated dynasty, whether one likes it or not, the Afsharid is less likely, it was built only off the conquest of a single ruler who got lucky in India, gaining cast riches. The Safavid however, as decadent and intellectually outrageous they were, gave Iran the first serious growth and stability since the 900s.
ways to give the Safavids more of a chance would be:
- lessen the importance of religious legitimacy. The reason this is a problem is that the Safavid throne became exceedingly decadent in its reign leading to a worse and worse relationship with the Ulema and disillusionment. If there is less direct responsibility on the Shah to be so pious, the Shah's decadence can be more easily hidden and not so treasonous.
- the Qizballi should be empowered and given or have certain powers over provinces and have interest in power, more so than otl. This could create a militarist regime that understands disadvantage or the Qizballi becomes overtime, with a peaceful Safavid regime, a trade or cultural entity like the Samurai did in Japan. This could give incentive to locals to accept modernized methods of rule and decentralized trade without the problems found in Durrani and Khiva.
- a relatively peaceful Safavid regime, without atogonizing the Ottomans, the Safavids could avoid conflict with external forces. It then, if decentralized enough with the Qizballi, could focus more on internal issues, like power conflicts, in the same manner as Japan. This would limit the possibility of foolhardy imperialism into backwards lands in Central Asia, which draws Iran into conflict with the heavy hitters (Russia, Mughals, Britain and Qing). Also, once a power struggle is limited, it could be possible for Iran to isolate itself relatively. 6/10
8. In terms of Egypt, it is exceedingly unlikely, after Ottoman conquest. A continued Burji might be possible, especially if framed a certain way. The problem is that despite the cultural flourishing during the Mamluk era, they were, especially the Burji, vicious in succession crisis and lacked stability. Furthe the Burji was so long ago, it is unknown to how they would develop, as well, their performance against the Portugese was not satisfactory. Likely Egypt would need a new Mamluk dynasty, but keeping the formulas that made their previous iterations culturally and scientifically the best in the Islamic world. Over all, Egypt has the population to support a good modernization effort, but the earlier the better, afterward it becomes very unlikely. 5/10
9. I am unfamiliar with Southeast Asia...
10. I have very little knowledge of India, outside of the Mughals. Who I find unlikely to modernize in any serious way, especially economically. Really you would just see the Mughals look like the Qing dynasty if empowered.
-tolerance is not a necessity for modernizing anything.... Mughals not having Aurangzeb disappear is only one part of it. It is far more difficult to change such a heavily entrenched court royalty culture, which sees itself beyond approach. The Mughals are likely doomed either way, elegance only goes so far, as the Qing learned.
10. The Ottomans were basically modernized.... I mean, just because they were deeply decayed, doesn't mean they didn't basically modernize everything. If you say they weren't modernized, then neither was Russia.
11. I will let RousseauX address questions relating to China.
Assuming that we do not go too far in the past, I would say there are some areas more likely than the other, obviously....
1. Korea is almost certainly a no, as far as I know, it lacked the population base and power relative to its neighbors to achieve such modernization. It would be possible if Korea was off by itself, but it is almost inevitably forced to capitulate and kowtow to one of its neighbors, likely China. 3/10
2. Oman is an impossibility, it lacks the manpower to achieve modernization without oil and massive immigration. It's growth historically and in modern times has to do with the competence of its rulers and steadfast stability seemingly inherent in their political system. This however, is not near enough, even when at their height, they were exceedingly minor, one would have to go far in the past to change river systems and ecology to change Oman's growth or some sort of tech advantage. 2/10
3. The hordes of Central Asia are a dead breed for obvious reasons. They are condemned to play the great game unwillingly whilst they attempt to preserve a backwards culture and lifestyle. This would include Khiva, Bukhara, etc... Assuming we do not go far enough back to do the rising Shaybanids, but it still is mute, it would only stand to be a more formidable opponent for Russia and butterfly the Mughals. 0/10
4. The Durrani is an interesting possibility, however it, despite being a colossus in the 1700s, is doomed essentially. They were simply a hyper Khiva, with some modernized military, their system of governance and intellectual produce was primitive and steeped in traditions of the past pushed further and further. They also were decentralized, but in a terrible way, not in the good way with merchants. Decentralized in the way of exceedingly backwards khans and imams ruling the cities and bandits ruling (often at state permission) ruling vast swathes of countryside. Progress in any way other than progress in destruction of the regime is possible. 2/10
5. I am not too familiar with Punjab/Sikh empire, I assume they could possibly, but their power is of course hampered by the powers to their west and by a lack of an effective port. 4/10
6. Yemen is also an impossibility, it was an area of extreme Ottoman interest and lacked stable rule as that of Oman. However, it has the manpower to possibly create industry without oil, especially in Sa'naa. It would need changes to maritime practices and a removal of Ottoman interest, either in complete butterfly of the Ottomans or some sort of complex Yemeni-Burji-Portugese alliance. Also Yemenhas the possibility to control Red Sea trade and expand into the areas of Harer, gaining subjects and more base to its state. However I would say it is still highly unlikely. 3/10
7. Iran's best bet is simply a long strand of effective Safavid leadership, without such a disastrous diplomacy with the Ottomans. Possibly, an Iran that focuses on trade, rather than playing geopolitical games against Ottoman and Russian powers. The Afsharid is an overrated dynasty, whether one likes it or not, the Afsharid is less likely, it was built only off the conquest of a single ruler who got lucky in India, gaining cast riches. The Safavid however, as decadent and intellectually outrageous they were, gave Iran the first serious growth and stability since the 900s.
ways to give the Safavids more of a chance would be:
- lessen the importance of religious legitimacy. The reason this is a problem is that the Safavid throne became exceedingly decadent in its reign leading to a worse and worse relationship with the Ulema and disillusionment. If there is less direct responsibility on the Shah to be so pious, the Shah's decadence can be more easily hidden and not so treasonous.
- the Qizballi should be empowered and given or have certain powers over provinces and have interest in power, more so than otl. This could create a militarist regime that understands disadvantage or the Qizballi becomes overtime, with a peaceful Safavid regime, a trade or cultural entity like the Samurai did in Japan. This could give incentive to locals to accept modernized methods of rule and decentralized trade without the problems found in Durrani and Khiva.
- a relatively peaceful Safavid regime, without atogonizing the Ottomans, the Safavids could avoid conflict with external forces. It then, if decentralized enough with the Qizballi, could focus more on internal issues, like power conflicts, in the same manner as Japan. This would limit the possibility of foolhardy imperialism into backwards lands in Central Asia, which draws Iran into conflict with the heavy hitters (Russia, Mughals, Britain and Qing). Also, once a power struggle is limited, it could be possible for Iran to isolate itself relatively. 6/10
8. In terms of Egypt, it is exceedingly unlikely, after Ottoman conquest. A continued Burji might be possible, especially if framed a certain way. The problem is that despite the cultural flourishing during the Mamluk era, they were, especially the Burji, vicious in succession crisis and lacked stability. Furthe the Burji was so long ago, it is unknown to how they would develop, as well, their performance against the Portugese was not satisfactory. Likely Egypt would need a new Mamluk dynasty, but keeping the formulas that made their previous iterations culturally and scientifically the best in the Islamic world. Over all, Egypt has the population to support a good modernization effort, but the earlier the better, afterward it becomes very unlikely. 5/10
9. I am unfamiliar with Southeast Asia...
10. I have very little knowledge of India, outside of the Mughals. Who I find unlikely to modernize in any serious way, especially economically. Really you would just see the Mughals look like the Qing dynasty if empowered.
-tolerance is not a necessity for modernizing anything.... Mughals not having Aurangzeb disappear is only one part of it. It is far more difficult to change such a heavily entrenched court royalty culture, which sees itself beyond approach. The Mughals are likely doomed either way, elegance only goes so far, as the Qing learned.
10. The Ottomans were basically modernized.... I mean, just because they were deeply decayed, doesn't mean they didn't basically modernize everything. If you say they weren't modernized, then neither was Russia.
11. I will let RousseauX address questions relating to China.
I'll respond to your points as much as to my understanding.
1. Korea's advantage is they have coal and iron, and a small area that was pretty densely populated, even in the premodern era. The main issue is that they're pretty much a puppet state of China, or Japan if the balance of power drastically changes. The Koreans (at least the Korean elite) even called themselves something like "Little China". If we go by the "France vs Britain" comparison which I think is inevitable for an AH China vs. Japan, then Korea is Belgium--their fate is determined by strong neighbours, but at the same time, they might catch on early to what's going on in neighbouring countries.
2. So Oman is somewhat like the Sweden of the Middle East, a country that because of skilled rulers achieved strength and power far beyond what their demographics or background might suggest? That seems reasonable, and another reason why an Omani Empire even stronger somehow which just end up being ruled from Zanzibar (I think the Malê Rising timeline shows that pretty well).
3. That seems about right.
4. The Afghans did decent OTL since they were never colonised, but I think you're right in that to get much further than they did OTL you'd end up plunging the country into a major civil war or end up with a palace coup against the powerful foes. But that was the risk of modernising lots of places like Madagascar and Siam, both of which could've gone the opposite. An Afghan state couldn't be a major power, but could they at least be as strong as Thailand?
5. If Ranjit Singh had a successor of his caliber (or even close to it), they might've succeeded, but that lack of a port makes things very, very hard unless they make war on their neighbours to the south. And of course the issue with the British. If I recall, Sikhism was spreading at a decent rate in that region, so it might not be as impossible as it looks. And once things settle down, they could basically have most of OTL Pakistan to themselves.
6. I can't really speak on Yemen, so your points seem logical and probably comparative to the issues any Arab state in the 18th/19th century faced.
7. But couldn't Nader Shah have had a successor close to his skill? This ruler might've lost a bit of India, but stabilising the Afsharid Empire would produce a real powerhouse. Especially right before the dawn of nationalism, where you could genuinely create a Greater Persian nation using the Persian cultural realm as a nationalistic base of things. And the Persian world united under one ruler would be a regional powerhouse with massive potential. It would at least be as strong as the 19th century Ottomans, and I think if they put aside their rivalry with the Turks to oppose Russia, good things would happen.
Although you are probably right about the Safavids being a better bet long term.
8. Weren't the Khedives pretty solid? They pushed far into sub-Saharan Africa and maintained claims as far as the modern day Central African Republic. And didn't Egypt have a stable textile industry comparable to Bengal, another country which could've ended up better? Granted, it might've been doomed like much of the Latin American textile industry once British exports flooded the market.
9. I think Siam did so well because of their geographical location, but avoiding British India means Burma gets a place nearly as good. But Burma and Siam will fight endless wars between each other. Vietnam is a solid bet, though they have issues like Korea (too close to China), the Malay states are bound to be colonised because of strategic location, Cambodia hadn't been a power of note since the Middle Ages, and the Lao states were too remote, too inland, and dominated by neighbours with little hope of resurrecting Lan Xang into a coherent state (plus landlocked).
10. But China did stay a coherent state, even if they had over 30 years of on-and-off civil war. Even if India suffered like China in the 19th century, that's still far better than what India got OTL. Like Egypt, the Bengali textile industry deserves some note, and it's pretty decently known how the British basically destroyed it. Isn't that why the British colonised Bengal first, since it was one of the wealthiest parts of India? Surely it could do better, and unlike Egypt, Bengal has far easier access to iron and coal since they're basically right next door (as well as some indigenous reserves). I don't know how well the southern Indian states might've done.
11. Yes, they were like Russia but maybe a bit lesser. Some of the 19th century wars could've easily ended up the other way with a Russian defeat. And Russia was an utter mess in the 19th century, that's basically why the first communist revolution happened there. I think if Russia could overcome the institutional issues their state had to the degree they were doing by the early 20th century, the Turks might be able to get something out of it and keep their state stable (keeping in mind that the issues afflicting Russia and the Turks were different, of course).
1. Korea's advantage is they have coal and iron, and a small area that was pretty densely populated, even in the premodern era. The main issue is that they're pretty much a puppet state of China, or Japan if the balance of power drastically changes. The Koreans (at least the Korean elite) even called themselves something like "Little China". If we go by the "France vs Britain" comparison which I think is inevitable for an AH China vs. Japan, then Korea is Belgium--their fate is determined by strong neighbours, but at the same time, they might catch on early to what's going on in neighbouring countries.
2. So Oman is somewhat like the Sweden of the Middle East, a country that because of skilled rulers achieved strength and power far beyond what their demographics or background might suggest? That seems reasonable, and another reason why an Omani Empire even stronger somehow which just end up being ruled from Zanzibar (I think the Malê Rising timeline shows that pretty well).
3. That seems about right.
4. The Afghans did decent OTL since they were never colonised, but I think you're right in that to get much further than they did OTL you'd end up plunging the country into a major civil war or end up with a palace coup against the powerful foes. But that was the risk of modernising lots of places like Madagascar and Siam, both of which could've gone the opposite. An Afghan state couldn't be a major power, but could they at least be as strong as Thailand?
5. If Ranjit Singh had a successor of his caliber (or even close to it), they might've succeeded, but that lack of a port makes things very, very hard unless they make war on their neighbours to the south. And of course the issue with the British. If I recall, Sikhism was spreading at a decent rate in that region, so it might not be as impossible as it looks. And once things settle down, they could basically have most of OTL Pakistan to themselves.
6. I can't really speak on Yemen, so your points seem logical and probably comparative to the issues any Arab state in the 18th/19th century faced.
7. But couldn't Nader Shah have had a successor close to his skill? This ruler might've lost a bit of India, but stabilising the Afsharid Empire would produce a real powerhouse. Especially right before the dawn of nationalism, where you could genuinely create a Greater Persian nation using the Persian cultural realm as a nationalistic base of things. And the Persian world united under one ruler would be a regional powerhouse with massive potential. It would at least be as strong as the 19th century Ottomans, and I think if they put aside their rivalry with the Turks to oppose Russia, good things would happen.
Although you are probably right about the Safavids being a better bet long term.
8. Weren't the Khedives pretty solid? They pushed far into sub-Saharan Africa and maintained claims as far as the modern day Central African Republic. And didn't Egypt have a stable textile industry comparable to Bengal, another country which could've ended up better? Granted, it might've been doomed like much of the Latin American textile industry once British exports flooded the market.
9. I think Siam did so well because of their geographical location, but avoiding British India means Burma gets a place nearly as good. But Burma and Siam will fight endless wars between each other. Vietnam is a solid bet, though they have issues like Korea (too close to China), the Malay states are bound to be colonised because of strategic location, Cambodia hadn't been a power of note since the Middle Ages, and the Lao states were too remote, too inland, and dominated by neighbours with little hope of resurrecting Lan Xang into a coherent state (plus landlocked).
10. But China did stay a coherent state, even if they had over 30 years of on-and-off civil war. Even if India suffered like China in the 19th century, that's still far better than what India got OTL. Like Egypt, the Bengali textile industry deserves some note, and it's pretty decently known how the British basically destroyed it. Isn't that why the British colonised Bengal first, since it was one of the wealthiest parts of India? Surely it could do better, and unlike Egypt, Bengal has far easier access to iron and coal since they're basically right next door (as well as some indigenous reserves). I don't know how well the southern Indian states might've done.
11. Yes, they were like Russia but maybe a bit lesser. Some of the 19th century wars could've easily ended up the other way with a Russian defeat. And Russia was an utter mess in the 19th century, that's basically why the first communist revolution happened there. I think if Russia could overcome the institutional issues their state had to the degree they were doing by the early 20th century, the Turks might be able to get something out of it and keep their state stable (keeping in mind that the issues afflicting Russia and the Turks were different, of course).
Thank you for replies everyone. Another country that could have modernized was Mysore.
-They have a solid Kannada nationalistic base to work from with plenty of space to expand in the Deccan and in the south.
-They had an army of over 100,000 well-equiped and French trained troops with several artillery and rocket regiments (5,000 of these). I highly recommend looking them up on Wikipedia.
-They had strong competent monarchs (Hyder Ali and Tipu Sultan ) that with somewhat more luck could have successfully defended against the British. Hyder Ali had actually defeated them them in the first and second Anglo-Mysore wars.
- They had invested in education and unlike so so many Indian states had actually started to create a navy. In fact, captured the Maldives and seemed interested in overseas expansion.
-They have a plenty of natural minerals to support Industrialisation. They have bauxite, copper, manganese, gold, coal, chromite, mica and iron. They even had diamond mines.
Another country that deserves a mention is Travancore. Though they were too small, they were a perfect model for modernisation. Can't give a detailed response now so I recommend look them up on google.
-They have a solid Kannada nationalistic base to work from with plenty of space to expand in the Deccan and in the south.
-They had an army of over 100,000 well-equiped and French trained troops with several artillery and rocket regiments (5,000 of these). I highly recommend looking them up on Wikipedia.
-They had strong competent monarchs (Hyder Ali and Tipu Sultan ) that with somewhat more luck could have successfully defended against the British. Hyder Ali had actually defeated them them in the first and second Anglo-Mysore wars.
- They had invested in education and unlike so so many Indian states had actually started to create a navy. In fact, captured the Maldives and seemed interested in overseas expansion.
-They have a plenty of natural minerals to support Industrialisation. They have bauxite, copper, manganese, gold, coal, chromite, mica and iron. They even had diamond mines.
Another country that deserves a mention is Travancore. Though they were too small, they were a perfect model for modernisation. Can't give a detailed response now so I recommend look them up on google.
Kasumigenx : Majaphit moves a bit out of the time frame (1453-1900) though another power with roughly their borders could have westernised due their strategic location as they are important trade wise and are very easy to defend if most of the archipelago is united. Can't give a detailed response as I don't know much about Southeast Asia.