Benefits of a Raj Style Colonization of Japan

That's really good points Socrates. Thanks!

Do you think the Spanish or the Portuguese had the potential to colonize them earlier, or was only Britain powerful enough?

Britain or France would be the best in position to START things, eg to inflict an overwhelming defeat on Japanese forces which is the only way I can see things happening - you have to discredit the centre.

But once that has happened, other European nations, plus the US, could come along and acquire their protectorates

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
That's really good points Socrates. Thanks!

Do you think the Spanish or the Portuguese had the potential to colonize them earlier, or was only Britain powerful enough?

The Spanish and the Portuguese were more focused on the Americas, and both got cut out of Asian trade pretty early: you can't really have Japan colonised plausibly until the late 18th Century. After the British, your best chances are probably the Dutch, who had early footholds there, and France, who were strong throughout the period.

In terms of another POD, I believe the Macartney Expedition wanted to go to Japan but couldn't find a translator in Jakarta so gave up. You could use that to have the British get their first unintentional step on the path to colonisation.
 

amphibulous

Banned
Oh please. There were plenty of times in India where Muslim soldiers were recruited to fight against other Muslim states.

Yes. But

1. This has nothing to do with the point you made and that I was answering - that yopu claimed Shinto was as divided as Hindus and Muslims were. I.e. you've forgotten the argument you were trying to make, as well as not being able to understand my reply!

2. That the British were able to use Muslims against each other is because India was - as I said - much more divided than Japan in MANY ways.

Comparing 20th Century events after modern nationalism had set in in Asia is not that relevant to what happened centuries earlier.
I didn't do this. I used C20th events - because you should be aware of them, and I'm certain you know nothing of India before this - because they're indicative of the longterm. You can't meaningful disagree unless you think India is MORE religiously divided now than in the C17-19th, which would be an extraordinary claim.

Of course India is more diverse than Japan, but, while that adds an extra difficulty, it doesn't make colonisation impossible. The French took Vietnam despite the fact its 85% Viet without playing ethnic group against ethnic group.
Yes, that would have been a somewhat better argument for you to use rather than the one I actually replied to.

However, it still wouldn't have been a good one. You don't seem to be aware of this, but V'nam was already an occupied country when the French took it over - and had been for a thousand years. Displacing and replacing a foreign elite is very different to conquering a homogenous nation like Japan.

There's no reason why the British can't do something similar in Japan.
Except for the actual history of each country. Which mean that it is impossible for the British to do "something similar in Japan" - i.e. replace one foreign ruling class with another - because there is no foreign ruling class in Japan for them to replace!

As for hierarchy in Japan vs caste in India: you have no idea what a caste system is. No, they're not comparable. Caste includes hierarchy but not vice versa.
 

amphibulous

Banned
And - because the people who disagreeing with Lori don't seem to have understand his or her point at all - the OP asked if a ***Raj*** type colonization of Japan was possible. This, as Lori said, was a very specific thing and required particular conditions of diversity and lack of national consciousness and lack of homogeneity found in India and not Japan. Colonizing Japan would have been possible (for some level of effort - possibility too a high a one to be profitable.) But doing so Raj-style, not.
 
Alright, those points are valid too amphibulous.

Let us suppose that the British do attempt to exploit the Japanese and attempt an effort in colonizing the islands beginning in 1793.

I assume you believe it would fail, so how do you think this would influence the future of Japan? Would the Japanese become more isolated and not accept the attempts to open relations when (or if) Commodore Perry goes to Japan in 1853?
 
I'm much more interested in adding a discussion with insights from different opinions rather than an argument, but you seem quite intent on calling my views ludicrous and I can't remember things, so here goes:

1. This has nothing to do with the point you made and that I was answering - that yopu claimed Shinto was as divided as Hindus and Muslims were. I.e. you've forgotten the argument you were trying to make, as well as not being able to understand my reply!

I don't want to put words in Iori's mouth, but I interpreted them as saying that to conquer India, Britain had to get Indians to side against each other, and that this would not happen in Japan because, among other issues, religious unity would prevent them from doing this. My point was that the diverse nature of Shinto means there was no real feeling of religious unity. You then responded that this didn't compare with the Hindu-Muslim divide. I point out it didn't need to for native troops to fight against each other, it just needed to be as diverse as Islam, as Muslims fought against each other.

That the British were able to use Muslims against each other is because India was - as I said - much more divided than Japan in MANY ways.

Rather than speaking in abstract terms, why dont you explain to me precisely why that matters in a concrete example. For instance, how did the British conquest of Bengal rest on differences that did not exist in Japan?

I didn't do this. I used C20th events - because you should be aware of them, and I'm certain you know nothing of India before this - because they're indicative of the longterm. You can't meaningful disagree unless you think India is MORE religiously divided now than in the C17-19th, which would be an extraordinary claim.

I would certainly argue that the level of Hindu-Muslim animosity across the Indian subcontinent as a whole increased dramatically in the middle of the 20th century. Just look at the level of hatred that exists on each side of the Indian-Pakistan border, compared to how the two faiths intermixed in the 18th Century Punjab.

You don't seem to be aware of this, but V'nam was already an occupied country when the French took it over - and had been for a thousand years. Displacing and replacing a foreign elite is very different to conquering a homogenous nation like Japan.

As I understand it, the Nguyen dynasty was an ancient Vietnamese family. Happy to hear you expand on your point in case I misunderstood it.

Except for the actual history of each country. Which mean that it is impossible for the British to do "something similar in Japan" - i.e. replace one foreign ruling class with another - because there is no foreign ruling class in Japan for them to replace!

No, but there is a feudal ruling class that suppressed the poor badly. Much of the success the British had in India was in their popularity from restraining the zamindars.

As for hierarchy in Japan vs caste in India: you have no idea what a caste system is. No, they're not comparable. Caste includes hierarchy but not vice versa.

You're just quibbling over terminology. Of course there were differences to the social strata in different countries. But for the point of our discussion, there are enough social differences in Japan for different groups to be played against the other.

And - because the people who disagreeing with Lori don't seem to have understand his or her point at all - the OP asked if a ***Raj*** type colonization of Japan was possible. This, as Lori said, was a very specific thing and required particular conditions of diversity and lack of national consciousness and lack of homogeneity found in India and not Japan. Colonizing Japan would have been possible (for some level of effort - possibility too a high a one to be profitable.) But doing so Raj-style, not.

It seems to me that you'd have to define what a "Raj-type colonisation" actually means. Clearly the exact circumstances aren't going to be the same. But I interpreted the jist of it to be a private chartered company starting with trade, gradually getting footholds, taking up more territory chunk by chunk, before the national government eventually replaces company rule. I would say a similar thing happened in Nigeria.
 
You know guys, the Brits did bombard Japanese ports in the 19th century, and try to establish special rights. So what we're really looking at is a much more dysfunctional Japan which lets that continue, rather than a more aggressive Britain.
 
And - because the people who disagreeing with Lori don't seem to have understand his or her point at all - the OP asked if a ***Raj*** type colonization of Japan was possible. This, as Lori said, was a very specific thing and required particular conditions of diversity and lack of national consciousness and lack of homogeneity found in India and not Japan. Colonizing Japan would have been possible (for some level of effort - possibility too a high a one to be profitable.) But doing so Raj-style, not.

Well, I understood Raj-style not to mean it required a private company to do it, but to mean that it required a piecemeal picking off/up of the statelets under a now incompetent central authority, hence what I said about how both the emperor (already a figurehead) and the Shogun need to be shown to be powerless to protect Japan and thus the centrifugal force being weakened, as happened with the Mughals, so that practical power invested in the daimyo is where it is at, and is at this level that an outside power (or several, as in India) can establlish protectorates.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 

Sumeragi

Banned
Shinto is not as unified nor divided as people on this thread is making things to be. It's a decentralized religion sharing a common myth and system of belief.
 
Let us suppose that the British do attempt to exploit the Japanese and attempt an effort in colonizing the islands beginning in 1793.

They'd fail even worse than if they tried it in 1830, something alot of people don't seem to realize is that Japan had more guns than several European states for awhile and the capability to create more (and ammo) by itself.


I assume you believe it would fail, so how do you think this would influence the future of Japan? Would the Japanese become more isolated and not accept the attempts to open relations when (or if) Commodore Perry goes to Japan in 1853?

Depends, if the British suffer a truly humiliating defeat with few Japanese losses then they likely will see the system of isolation as effective, however if it's more a defencive defeat, with Japan seeing as many loses as the British or more than they'll likely start to rethink the system.
 
They'd fail even worse than if they tried it in 1830, something alot of people don't seem to realize is that Japan had more guns than several European states for awhile and the capability to create more (and ammo) by itself.

I imagine, for this to happen, it would start off with the British backing one Daimyo who wanted to take out the power of another as they did several times in India. I've actually been reading a lot about the Raj recently, and one of the things that's most struck me is just how much the financial advantage really did make the difference. For example, a lot of Indian horsemen were mercenaries, who made their living by war, and if their horse got killed in battle, it would destroy their livelihod. This meant they would be a lot more risk-averse in anything that might endanger the horse. The British were the only ones that could afford to do a policy of reimbursing anyone whose horse died in battle, and this was of great benefit to how their cavalry units performed.

Their financial advantage was strengthened even further by the fact they controlled the seas, so they could completely knock out trade, further weakening their enemies during a war. The combination of these strengths would make a lot of people wanting the British on their side. Perhaps it's even possible they could make a deal with the Emperor if the shoguns got too pushy. An alternate restoration could see imperial rule restored, but crippled financially, as much of their tax revenues are diverted to the British.

I think the common culture will affect things, but probably will show up more during the rule rather than the conquest. Nationalism is likely to show up much sooner that it did in India. Perhaps guerilla-style warriors hiding in the mountains could be a constant scourge.
 
I imagine, for this to happen, it would start off with the British backing one Daimyo who wanted to take out the power of another as they did several times in India. I've actually been reading a lot about the Raj recently, and one of the things that's most struck me is just how much the financial advantage really did make the difference. For example, a lot of Indian horsemen were mercenaries, who made their living by war, and if their horse got killed in battle, it would destroy their livelihod. This meant they would be a lot more risk-averse in anything that might endanger the horse. The British were the only ones that could afford to do a policy of reimbursing anyone whose horse died in battle, and this was of great benefit to how their cavalry units performed.

Their financial advantage was strengthened even further by the fact they controlled the seas, so they could completely knock out trade, further weakening their enemies during a war. The combination of these strengths would make a lot of people wanting the British on their side. Perhaps it's even possible they could make a deal with the Emperor if the shoguns got too pushy. An alternate restoration could see imperial rule restored, but crippled financially, as much of their tax revenues are diverted to the British.

I think the common culture will affect things, but probably will show up more during the rule rather than the conquest. Nationalism is likely to show up much sooner that it did in India. Perhaps guerilla-style warriors hiding in the mountains could be a constant scourge.

It would'nt really work, I mean you might get one Daimyo to do so, but most of them would automatically come together against the common threat that would be the British (or whoemever it was). Japan really is a country that historically liked to fight amongst itself, but would unite and kick the ass of anyone who tried to interfere/take land.
 
It would'nt really work, I mean you might get one Daimyo to do so, but most of them would automatically come together against the common threat that would be the British (or whoemever it was). Japan really is a country that historically liked to fight amongst itself, but would unite and kick the ass of anyone who tried to interfere/take land.

I can only think of two cases of that in the Early Modern era and those involved the Mongols, which were much earlier. And I don't think we can extrapolate from such historical events. After all, just look at other countries in Asia. Korea and Vietnam put up a decent amount of resistance against the Mongols, and the latter won, but they were still colonized centuries later. Depending on the time frame, I don't see why a European power can't play off factions against each other and then overwhelm Japan with military strength, equivalent to the French takeover of Vietnam or the Japanese takeover of Korea.

Now, with the idea of a Raj-style colonization of Japan by Europeans, how far do we go with the similarities? Do we mean a history like this?

  • Initial East India Company forays into Japan
  • The Company then takes over much of the country
  • Loses it in rebellion
  • Government reorganized
And then an administration like this?


  • The King as a titular "Emperor of Japan"
  • A Viceroy of Japan sent from Europe
  • A Secretary of State for Japan (and simultaneously Formosa, if we want to stretch the analogy)
  • Daimyo fiefs as the equivalent of the Princely States
  • Directly administered territories
That could be interesting.
 
Top