Colonial Japan

I hadn't realized that Japan was so similar to Europe technologically. I think you would probably need a less centralized Japan, not necessarily un-unified, but where the daimyos could choose to side with European, and then be annexed themselves.

I'm trusting Iori on this - I know in the period before the Tokugawa, Japan was certainly roughly comparable. It might have ossified as a system a bit by the period you originally mentioned, but the tech isn't static - just underused.

And a question the comes to mind: Why, in particular, would one want to control Japan as a colony?
 
I'm trusting Iori on this - I know in the period before the Tokugawa, Japan was certainly roughly comparable. It might have ossified as a system a bit by the period you originally mentioned, but the tech isn't static - just underused.

And a question the comes to mind: Why, in particular, would one want to control Japan as a colony?

I was imagining that someone would want to control Japan as a colony to combat Britain's India and Australia and Dutch Indonesia, as well as a push off for further exploration and conquests of the Pacific. There are probably other potential reasons as well. Now that I'm thinking about it though, Japan really isn't as resource heavy, in comparison to India and Indonesia. That does bring up some holes in my original idea...
 
Japan is not a unitary state - sure there is an emperor, and under him the Shogun, but the provinces are all ruled by the daimyo and their families, and they fight amongst themselves from time to time, not as much as before, but the whole conflict that led to the collapse of the Bakufu in the 1860s came out of this. It did, also, of course come out of central weakness, and the inability of the Shogunate to raise enough money to field an army of its own, rather than to call the daimyo to raise one for it.

This is not too unlike Mughal India, or the Maratha.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Not quite as decentralised as most Indian polities.
 
Okay that clears it up, thanks. :)

I hadn't realized that Japan was so similar to Europe technologically. I think you would probably need a less centralized Japan, not necessarily un-unified, but where the daimyos could choose to side with European, and then be annexed themselves.

Frankly so were most Asian states. The European advantage wasn't tech but military organisational doctrine stemming from European experiences in the 30 Years War and after coupled with (on the part of the British) the ability (again institutional, not technological) to take advantage of local power struggles and play the balance of power.

Let's look at India.

Indian states routinely fielded armies with artillery batteries as powerful as anything seen in Europe- what let them down was the fact that European (or European trained armies) were able to field drilled infantry that would not break under fire. Tech-wise between, say, the EICs Madras Army and the Maratha Army at Assaye in 1803 there was little difference- the EICs strength was organisational.

Even as late as the 1840s you see EIC commanders worried about taking on the Sikh Khalsa which was as well equipped and at the individual level, well trained as their own. As always it was military organisational doctrine which won the day.

European military technology only really pulled decisively ahead in the mid 19th C. Tech may be sexy but it was political savvy and institutional organisational doctrine that won the colonial Empires.
 
I was imagining that someone would want to control Japan as a colony to combat Britain's India and Australia and Dutch Indonesia, as well as a push off for further exploration and conquests of the Pacific. There are probably other potential reasons as well. Now that I'm thinking about it though, Japan really isn't as resource heavy, in comparison to India and Indonesia. That does bring up some holes in my original idea...

It's useful as a market for manufactured goods and a source of China trade items, which is why there was a push to open it up in the late 19th C, but this is only really worthwhile after the more lucrative and accessible markets (India, the East Indies, Indochina, the Chinese trade ports) have been opened and claimed.
 
I'm trusting Iori on this - I know in the period before the Tokugawa, Japan was certainly roughly comparable. It might have ossified as a system a bit by the period you originally mentioned, but the tech isn't static - just underused.

Technologically Japan (and East Asia overall) was ahead of Europe for awhile, then sometime in the middle ages (1200-1400ish) it began to become more or less equal and stayed that way until the 18th century when, due to living in peace and isolation, military technology began to fall behind as there was no real need to develop it beyond what they had; by the 19th century while Japan could defend itself and would cause any European power trying to invade it to be seriously bloodied and ultimately lose (though not without doing some damage to Japan), it was also far enough behind that it could'nt defend against the potential naval bombardment.

Starting in the 1840's Japan began to look into and partially adopt various technologies (some Daimyo's in the mid-1840's had plans to build rail lines) and following the Meiji Restoration Japan began to catch-up very fast as it started importing ideas and stuff en masse and adopting them, which combined with Japans pre-existing light industries (despite what many seem to believe, Japan did not just pull industry out of its ass and magically have them overnight) allowed for the very fast advancement to contemporary Euro-Atlantic levels.


Frankly so were most Asian states. The European advantage wasn't tech but military organisational doctrine stemming from European experiences in the 30 Years War and after coupled with (on the part of the British) the ability (again institutional, not technological) to take advantage of local power struggles and play the balance of power.

Let's look at India.

Indian states routinely fielded armies with artillery batteries as powerful as anything seen in Europe- what let them down was the fact that European (or European trained armies) were able to field drilled infantry that would not break under fire. Tech-wise between, say, the EICs Madras Army and the Maratha Army at Assaye in 1803 there was little difference- the EICs strength was organisational.

Even as late as the 1840s you see EIC commanders worried about taking on the Sikh Khalsa which was as well equipped and at the individual level, well trained as their own. As always it was military organisational doctrine which won the day.

European military technology only really pulled decisively ahead in the mid 19th C. Tech may be sexy but it was political savvy and institutional organisational doctrine that won the colonial Empires.

This to; Japanese military tradition being what it was would make any European state scared shitless if Japan has a land border with them and they were aware of said traditions.
 
Last edited:
Technologically Japan (and East Asia overall) was ahead of Europe for awhile, then sometime in the middle ages (1200-1400ish) it became to become more or less equal and stayed that way until the 18th century when, due to living in peace and isolation, military technology began to fall behind as there was no real need to develop it beyond what they had; by the 19th century while Japan could defend itself and would cause any European power trying to invade it to be seriously bloodied and ultimately lose (though not without doing some damage to Japan), it was also far enough behind that it could'nt defend against the potential naval bombardment.

That seems consistent with what I've read. I'd say Europe might have a slight edge from the later half of that period (1400-1700) - but more from constantly honing the organizational side than pure tech, which simply hasn't changed fast enough in Europe to make a difference yet.

Can't say whether a European power without the logistics/long distance from reinforcements would necessarily lose, but those factors can't be ignored in an actual scenario testing European invaders vs. Japan.

Starting in the 1840's Japan began to look into and partially adopt various technologies (some Daimyo's in the mid-1840's had plans to build rail lines) and following the Meiji Restoration Japan began to catch-up very fast as it started importing ideas and stuff en masse and adopting them, which combined with Japans pre-existing light industries (despite what many seem to believe, Japan did not just pull industry out of its ass and magically have them overnight) allowed for the very fast advancement to contemporary Euro-Atlantic levels.
I wondered about that. Its progress indicates it must have been building on a foundation of some sort, even if it was lagging at turning that into modern warmaking power.

This to; Japanese military tradition being what it was would make any European state scared shitless if Japan has a land border with them and they were aware of said traditions.
It would be interesting to see that in action. Japan's 20th century military record is ambiguous, but pre-20th century Japan's strengths are a lot harder to neutralize and its weaknesses a lot less obvious and relevant.
 
This to; Japanese military tradition being what it was would make any European state scared shitless if Japan has a land border with them and they were aware of said traditions.

I always take appeals to tradition with a pinch of salt. The same thing was said about the Sikh Khalsa, for example, but their lack of a unified command structure and institutionalised doctrine led to their defeat anyway. The Japanese, I suspect, aren't magic- if their command structure isn't sound, they will break against a formally drilled and led army.

However, I'll bow to your superior knowledge of what pre-Reformation Japanese command ability and military institutions were like.

Technologically Japan (and East Asia overall) was ahead of Europe for awhile, then sometime in the middle ages (1200-1400ish) it became to become more or less equal and stayed that way until the 18th century when, due to living in peace and isolation, military technology began to fall behind as there was no real need to develop it beyond what they had;

Not just East Asia- you see the same pattern in South Asia until it was arrested in the 1790s. European domination of South Asia came through politics and diplomacy in an incredibly unstable continent reeling from the collapse of the Mughal Empire, not outright conquest. East Asia was further away and had more time. One wonders what Indian militaries and light industries could have been like with fifty more years at their disposal to recover from the chaos of the Mughal collapse. As it was, of course, the Indian polities were securely incorporated as vassals or subjugated and the light industries were choked in the cradle, although India's energy poverty probably precludes a Japan-like development for any of it's polities. The coal just isn't there.
 
Last edited:
I always take appeals to tradition with a pinch of salt. The same thing was said about the Sikh Khalsa, for example, but their lack of a unified command structure and institutionalised doctrine led to their defeat anyway. The Japanese, I suspect, aren't magic- if their command structure isn't sound, they will break against a formally drilled and led army.

However, I'll bow to your superior knowledge of what pre-Reformation Japanese command ability and military institutions were like.

I actually used the word tradition because I for the life of me can not think of the word I'm wanting to use.

In general the Japanese militaries, while not invincible, did have a very high degree of cohesiveness and orderlyness, so say an army would'nt scatter or flee from being spooked for the most part.


Not just East Asia- you see the same pattern in South Asia until it was arrested in the 1790s. European domination of South Asia came through politics and diplomacy in an incredibly unstable continent reeling from the collapse of the Mughal Empire, not outright conquest. East Asia was further away and had more time. One wonders what Indian militaries and light industries could have been like with fifty more years at their disposal to recover from the chaos of the Mughal collapse. As it was, of course, the Indian polities were securely incorporated as vassals or subjugated and the light industries were choked in the cradle, although India's energy poverty probably precludes a Japan-like development for any of it's polities. The coal just isn't there.

Indeed, though in South Asia and South East Asia there's also the issue of the existence and history of disunity and having lots of states that tended to develop rivalries, making it easier to get control by playing divide and conquer.
 

Delvestius

Banned
473px-YuanEmperorAlbumGenghisPortrait.jpg
 

katchen

Banned
I actually used the word tradition because I for the life of me can not think of the word I'm wanting to use.

In general the Japanese militaries, while not invincible, did have a very high degree of cohesiveness and orderlyness, so say an army would'nt scatter or flee from being spooked for the most part.




Indeed, though in South Asia and South East Asia there's also the issue of the existence and history of disunity and having lots of states that tended to develop rivalries, making it easier to get control by playing divide and conquer.
Which is the real reason the Tokugawa Bafuku instituted the Seclusion Policy. There had been too much playing of daimyo off against one another by Spanish and Portuguese during the Sengoku Period. The Tokugawa were aware of what was going on in India and the East Indies and could see it happening to Japan if they did not clamp down on everything.
 
Which is the real reason the Tokugawa Bafuku instituted the Seclusion Policy. There had been too much playing of daimyo off against one another by Spanish and Portuguese during the Sengoku Period. The Tokugawa were aware of what was going on in India and the East Indies and could see it happening to Japan if they did not clamp down on everything.

I doubt that was the case since 17th C European involvement in India and the East Indies was limited to peripheral trading posts, with outright major conquests like Malacca being wholly exceptional. I always thought the Seclusion Policy was enforced soecifically in response to the playing off of daimyos you mentioned as well as the incursions of Catholic missionaries. Arguably at this time period, European meddling in Japan was actually somewhat more developed than in India.
 
Top