AHC: Japanese republic

Is there a possibility of some sort of republican movement arising in japan before meiji restoration? Uniting japan in atl boshin war. Alternatively a shogunate reforming itself into a republic. It must control all of japan not some rump state like otl ezo republic.
 
Is there a possibility of some sort of republican movement arising in japan before meiji restoration? Uniting japan in atl boshin war. Alternatively a shogunate reforming itself into a republic. It must control all of japan not some rump state like otl ezo republic.

Well, considering China's influence on ancient Japan, if you created the foundations for republicanism to arise in China then it's not inconceivable that Japan could adopt some aspects of that. The godlike status of the Japanese Emperor is going to be a bit of an issue, though.

Anyway, in that vein getting Chinese republics aren't particularly difficult - during the Spring and Autumn Period many smaller states functioned basically like Greek poleis with monarchs. And given the long-standing tradition of Chinese philosophy to demand that rulers "serve" the people, one can imagine that some Japanese could derive from this the idea that monarchy is not justified in said philosophy.
 
If you want a 19th Century Point of Divergence, consider this:

After a ATL Boshin War, the new oligarchs decide that they don't want to share their power with the Emperor. Therefore, they cunningly convert the Imperial Court into a religious institution. Then they advocate secularism and separate court from state. That way, the patriots can be appeased, and yet Japan could still officially and effectively be a republic.

Before you cry ASB, understand that there is no good translation for Tenno, the Japanese title for their "Emperor". Wikipedia translates it as "Heavenly Sovereign". To make this clearer, the Japanese don't call the Chinese emperor tenno, they call him by their word for emperor. Therefore, it wouldn't be too difficult to turn the Emperor into some kind of High Priest instead, a Japonic pope.
 
Isn't modern Japan effectively a Republic? I think the Emperor is amongst the most limited in the world.
 
Isn't modern Japan effectively a Republic? I think the Emperor is amongst the most limited in the world.

Constitutional Monarchy. It works the same way as a republic, except that their official head of state is a monarch and not an elected figure.

Basically, what was said earlier, about turning the emperor into a pope of sorts and not a head of state would clear the conditions.
 
The closest that you got to a Japanese Emperor in a pope role would be the Emperors during the Sengoku period. The only way you could get a republic is if you had revolts against the feudal classes examples in the Sengoku where the city of Sakai and the Iga republic of Iga province.
 
As long as you have an Emperor, it's not a REPUBLIC.

The only way I see, is for some emperor to become a tool of a colonial power (probably Spain), and toady up to them. This discredits the whole Royal Family, and a dictator rises up to depose the Emperor and expel the Southern Barbarians. He tries to leave his power to his son, but fails (thus preventing his title (possibly Shogun) from becoming a hereditary one) and civil war ends inconclusively, with a Council of Daimyos ruling the country in place of a single man.
 
I always liked a Christian Japan, where the Emperor is overthrown as a pagan god-figure (preferably: murdered bloodily. Exile in China or Korea is also acceptable). The PoD here would need to be 16th Century, though.
 
Very easily imo.
Yes, the Japanese emperor was a god. But Shintoism is a native religion. It doesn't polysthetise and it traditionally tends to be pretty laid back about other religions on its turf- the Meiji regime recognised this as a problem and made an active effort to strengthen Shinto into something that resembled a world religion a bit more.

If you look at Korea... in the course of a century it has turned from one of the most proactively backwards and inwards lands in the world, more Confucianist than China ever was, into a christian republic.

True. In Korea they didn't have the same divine blood line ideas as Japan. But they did have a much stronger belief in the king (/Chinese emperor) being the one who called the shots.

Yes. A Christian Japan could really do the job eventually. Though it seems like a bit of a cheat. Too easy.
Perhaps if you have the Meiji government get worse with its anti-Buddhism campaigns and refuse to stop picking on christians...and of course make worse foreign policy choices...then you could maybe get the British or French helping to overthrow the emperor and install a republic.
 
Constitutional Monarchy. It works the same way as a republic, except that their official head of state is a monarch and not an elected figure.

The Emperor isn't legally speaking the head of state of Japan but "the symbol of the state and of the unity of the people". There have been suggestions from time to time to make his de facto role to de jure though. There has also existed an argument that the Emperor in the head of state "in the context of foreign relations" while not domestically.
 
Tyr said:
If you look at Korea... in the course of a century it has turned from one of the most proactively backwards and inwards lands in the world, more Confucianist than China ever was, into a christian republic.
South Korea, nor North Korea, is a "Christian republic". In the South, only 53% identify with a religion and the state is secularist. In the North, the percentage is even lower and the state religion is probably the Kim cult. Christianity is not even the largest religion in either Korea, in the South it's still Buddhism. Also, you sound like a crusader when you say that Korea has turned from a backwards state to a "Christian republic", but if you're implying that South Korea is successful because of Christianity then I don't agree. In fact, I think Christianity has only caused a multitude of sinister Korean cults. :p

South Korea is successful because of the Japanese occupation and post-war support from the United States. The Japanese modernized the country, and the Americans protected the South from Communism and helped secure a pro-Western and pro-capitalist leadership.
 
South Korea, nor North Korea, is a "Christian republic". In the South, only 53% identify with a religion and the state is secularist. In the North, the percentage is even lower and the state religion is probably the Kim cult. Christianity is not even the largest religion in either Korea, in the South it's still Buddhism. Also, you sound like a crusader when you say that Korea has turned from a backwards state to a "Christian republic", but if you're implying that South Korea is successful because of Christianity then I don't agree. In fact, I think Christianity has only caused a multitude of sinister Korean cults. :p

South Korea is successful because of the Japanese occupation and post-war support from the United States. The Japanese modernized the country, and the Americans protected the South from Communism and helped secure a pro-Western and pro-capitalist leadership.
Actually, if counting both Catholicism and Protestantism as one, Christianity is the largest religion.

Also, Korea was modernizing the nation pretty well before Japan occupied it, basically hiring westerners to assist with the modernization, with Christian missionaries also being helpful. The only thing Japan did was more quickly industrialize it while destroying many cultural aspects of the nation (even then most the industries were destroyed by the Korean War), though that didn't do much for the people of the peninsula. I will say, the threat of Japan was a big push but it was not the only one, and the threat of is not the same as the actual occupation. The largest impact of the occupation would be the division of Korea.
 
Also, Korea was modernizing the nation pretty well before Japan occupied it, basically hiring westerners to assist with the modernization, with Christian missionaries also being helpful. The only thing Japan did was more quickly industrialize it while destroying many cultural aspects of the nation (even then most the industries were destroyed by the Korean War), though that didn't do much for the people of the peninsula. I will say, the threat of Japan was a big push but it was not the only one, and the threat of is not the same as the actual occupation. The largest impact of the occupation would be the division of Korea.
That's not quite the case.
Japan supported the more fringe modernising faction whilst China supported the conservative, monarchist, hermit faction.
The reason the Japanese eventually took over Korea was because it was refusing to modernise itself.


South Korea, nor North Korea, is a "Christian republic". In the South, only 53% identify with a religion and the state is secularist. In the North, the percentage is even lower and the state religion is probably the Kim cult. Christianity is not even the largest religion in either Korea, in the South it's still Buddhism. Also, you sound like a crusader when you say that Korea has turned from a backwards state to a "Christian republic", but if you're implying that South Korea is successful because of Christianity then I don't agree. In fact, I think Christianity has only caused a multitude of sinister Korean cults. :p

South Korea is successful because of the Japanese occupation and post-war support from the United States. The Japanese modernized the country, and the Americans protected the South from Communism and helped secure a pro-Western and pro-capitalist leadership.

Rest assured I have noting but disdain for Christianity in Korea. You utterly misread what I wrote there.

I meant South Korea when speaking of the modern nation. Got to stuck in modern trends of Korea=South Korea without thinking that I was also speaking of old Korea in the same sentence. Sorry for not being clear there.

I'm pretty sure Christianity is the biggest religion in South Korea these days though. You say 53% yourself which is enough for a majority, and considering the remainder are irreligious.... It's really sad stuff.
 
kwonphilip said:
Actually, if counting both Catholicism and Protestantism as one, Christianity is the largest religion.
Sorry, that was stupid of me. :D
Also, Korea was modernizing the nation pretty well before Japan occupied it, basically hiring westerners to assist with the modernization, with Christian missionaries also being helpful. The only thing Japan did was more quickly industrialize it while destroying many cultural aspects of the nation (even then most the industries were destroyed by the Korean War), though that didn't do much for the people of the peninsula. I will say, the threat of Japan was a big push but it was not the only one, and the threat of is not the same as the actual occupation. The largest impact of the occupation would be the division of Korea.
To be honest I've always been somewhat skeptical of claims that the Japanese destroyed Korean culture, considering the lingering animosity between the two countries nowadays. Could you explain how they did?

@Tyr, I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.
 
Last edited:
The Emperor isn't legally speaking the head of state of Japan but "the symbol of the state and of the unity of the people". There have been suggestions from time to time to make his de facto role to de jure though. There has also existed an argument that the Emperor in the head of state "in the context of foreign relations" while not domestically.

??? The Queen is Head of State in Britain, and more importantly for this discussion, Canada and Australia. How is the Japanese Emperor NOT Head of State?
 
??? The Queen is Head of State in Britain, and more importantly for this discussion, Canada and Australia. How is the Japanese Emperor NOT Head of State?

Just because youre a monarch it doesnt automatically make you head of state. The status of elizabeth ii doesnt really have much to do with the japanese emporer
 
??? The Queen is Head of State in Britain, and more importantly for this discussion, Canada and Australia. How is the Japanese Emperor NOT Head of State?
because of the whole World War II thing, the Japanese were forced to reduce him to almost less than a figurehead.

The only reason he is still around is because the occupiers knew how much the Japanese respected their emperor and they felt a guerrilla scenario less likely if they didn't kill him.
 
I think people are getting confused here between Head of State and Head of Government. Monarchs are heads of state, whilst prime ministers are heads of government.
 
That's not quite the case.
Japan supported the more fringe modernising faction whilst China supported the conservative, monarchist, hermit faction.
The reason the Japanese eventually took over Korea was because it was refusing to modernise itself.
How was Korea refusing to modernize itself? The queen, later assassinated by Japanese forces, was making attempts to draw closer to Russia to modernize while also courting both factions. Regardless, like I said, the threat of Japan was a major push in Korea modernizing but that is entirely different from Japan actually taking it over. Hardly fair to say Korea wasn't modernizing when a flag was adopted, an anthem created (done mainly to align with the West's idea of a nation), introduction of electricity, and attempts, before Japan came in full time, to abolish social classes.

Could you lead me to the proof that Japan annexed Korea, a nation at no real threat of becoming a colony of any other nation (result of lack of interest and power projection from other imperial powers), because it was refusing to modernizing? I was lead to believe Japan merely felt like Korea was a threat (somehow?) and that Japan needed more natural resources. Both pretty selfish reasons, as opposed to altruistic one of forcing it to modernize.
 
Sorry, that was stupid of me. :D
To be honest I've always been somewhat skeptical of claims that the Japanese destroyed Korean culture, considering the lingering animosity between the two countries nowadays. Could you explain how they did?

@Tyr, I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.

I don't believe it necessarily destroyed Korean culture but I do feel it was attempted and led to some negative side effects; wanted to point out that in the beginning Korean history and culture, though at times distorted, was in fact being emphasized to more clearly make a distinction between Korea and China, and it was only in the late 30's that Japan than started minimizing both in favor of Japanese culture (time ranges depending on specifics). However originally I meant more to the physical affects; Japan destroyed a lot of buildings (like the palaces and walls) and took a lot of cultural artifacts, many of which are still in Japan (not saying all Korean artifacts in Japan are because of this way-others are there for different reasons, some "good"). Japan also tried to cleanse Korea's traditional religions and Christianity, the effects on the former being clear today. The effects on Christianity are clear too, just in the opposite direction.

Then there is the whole part where Japan tried desperately to paint Korea as backwards and unable to function itself. That, with the fact that Japan had occupied the peninsula for thirty years, made many, specifically in America, believe Korea could not be it's own nation. At least without some form of occupation beforehand. And so it was temporarily partitioned as a result of Japanese imperialism leading to the past sixty or seventy years.
 
Top