Japan a Great Power of the World by the 1600s?

[B_Munro]

I would generally agree, although both the Koreans and Japanese would be much worse off. As a comparison, it took the Mongols 40 years and seven campaigns to pacify the entire peninsula, including major revolts even after the court had initially surrendered due to the chaos. However, the Mongols they had access to more resources from their possessions elsewhere, and generally left Goryeo politically and militarily alone for the duration of the Yuan Dynasty, which lasted for around a century. In other words, the Japanese would be bled dry even after attacking Korea for a decade or so. Even if they were somehow determined to continuously invade for several decades, which would be suicidal in itself, the invaders would ultimately be forced to leave the peninsula alone for the most part, with a puppet ruler in control. However, this state of affairs would eventually change within 50-100 years after Korea manages to consolidate and throw off foreign rule, which would just revert the situation to what it was before the war.

And in any event, the odds of the Chinese _not_ getting involved while the Japanese are busily exterminating their vassals strike me as somewhere between "slim" and "none." Let's face it: H. was essentially a megalomaniac biting off far more than he could chew.


Bruce

 

[B_Munro]

Random thought: if the Japanese invade Korea in the 1620s, will the Manchu and the Ming be too busy fighting each other to effectively intervene? Or will the Manchu be able to take a break from Ming-conquering and make sushi out of the Japanese?

Bruce

 

[democracy101]

Random thought: if the Japanese invade Korea in the 1620s, will the Manchu and the Ming be too busy fighting each other to effectively intervene? Or will the Manchu be able to take a break from Ming-conquering and make sushi out of the Japanese?

Bruce

Even before that, Gwanghaegun would have sent several diplomats to both the Ming and the Manchus in order to gauge the situation, then eventually ally with the Ming and made preparations to invade Manchuria jointly. IOTL, Gwanghaegun (who would have a different title in this situation, as he would not be overthrown) was a skilled diplomat, and the lack of a war from 1592-8 would give the court much more time to initially accept the crown prince's position, then support the new ruler's various consolidated policies regarding foreign relations after he takes the throne. As a result, both the Ming and Joseon would have made significant incursions into Manchuria by around 1625-35 in this scenario, and if the Japanese decided to invade then, the defending armies and navies would be much more prepared due to battle experience beforehand.

 

[B_Munro]

Even before that, Gwanghaegun would have sent several diplomats to both the Ming and the Manchus in order to gauge the situation, then eventually ally with the Ming and made preparations to invade Manchuria jointly. IOTL, Gwanghaegun (who would have a different title in this situation, as he would not be overthrown) was a skilled diplomat, and the lack of a war from 1592-8 would give the court much more time to initially accept the crown prince's position, then support the new ruler's various consolidated policies regarding foreign relations after he takes the throne. As a result, both the Ming and Joseon would have made significant incursions into Manchuria by around 1625-35 in this scenario, and if the Japanese decided to invade then, the defending armies and navies would be much more prepared due to battle experience beforehand.

Huh, there's another TL there: the Ming and the Koreans manage to beat the Manchus before they really get up a head of steam and divide up the better bits of Mancuhria between them...

Bruce

 

[democracy101]

Huh, there's another TL there: the Ming and the Koreans manage to beat the Manchus before they really get up a head of steam and divide up the better bits of Mancuhria between them...

Bruce

I already mentioned the details to tonsofun, who's currently rewriting his timeline in order to accommodate the points that I presented to him. Ironically, however, it's focus is mostly on Japan, in which a longer division within the islands leads to larger butterflies in the long term, and events outside Japan have generally not been as significant yet.

 

[MonAngel]

What if Hideyoshi had conquered Korea? Apparently, he also thought about invading the Philippines if the Korean excursion had gone as planned, and even then, the Spanish Ambassador had to put up a facade about the Spanish Empire being much stronger than what it was for the plans to be discarded.

So if Japan takes Korea, it is forced to stay open, it had at the time a largest army than any European power, and it was intent on reverse engineering European guns and ships (they seemed to have a strange fascination with those). They set they sights in Phillipines. What happens?

Even if Japan succeeds conquering Korea, they couldn't hold them longer because China surely will drive them out (and Koreans made Japanese life hell there), since China has more resource and more manpower. It is like how Russians won against Germany in WWII.
But staying open is very intriguing option. Even without Korean Japan still could be great power if it stayed open. They could quickly adapt Western technology and could invade Taiwan around 1600. Technologically they will be par with European around 1800 and they would take Philippine. From there I see them colonize Indochina (like did France). And we even can't deny them opening Pacific Canada and Northwest US.

 

[MonAngel]

I would generally agree, although both the Koreans and Japanese would be much worse off. As a comparison, it took the Mongols 40 years and seven campaigns to pacify the entire peninsula, including major revolts even after the court had initially surrendered due to the chaos. However, the Mongols they had access to more resources from their possessions elsewhere, and generally left Goryeo politically and militarily alone for the duration of the Yuan Dynasty, which lasted for around a century. In other words, the Japanese would be bled dry even after attacking Korea for a decade or so. Even if they were somehow determined to continuously invade for several decades, which would be suicidal in itself, the invaders would ultimately be forced to leave the peninsula alone for the most part, with a puppet ruler in control. However, this state of affairs would eventually change within 50-100 years after Korea manages to consolidate and throw off foreign rule, which would just revert the situation to what it was before the war.

I think most important here is Chinese assistance. Without them I see Japanese could overhelm, because they have more demography.

 

[democracy101]

I think most important here is Chinese assistance. Without them I see Japanese could overhelm, because they have more demography.

IOTL, the Koreans were able to repulse the Japanese with only token assistance from the Ming, so I don't see why the Chinese are necessary for Korea to remain independent. The Koreans easily matched the Japanese in terms of manpower within 2-3 years, even though the former had half the population, not to mention that the Koreans scored numerous victories although they were often heavily outnumbered, such as 10:1, both of which I stated earlier in this thread. The main reason for the overall Korean victory was mostly due to various different armies and navies, operating independently of the government, coordinating their strategies in order to stall the Japanese numerous times.

 

[MonAngel]

IOTL, the Koreans were able to repulse the Japanese with only token assistance from the Ming, so I don't see why the Chinese are necessary for Korea to remain independent. The Koreans easily matched the Japanese in terms of manpower within 2-3 years, even though the former had half the population, not to mention that the Koreans scored numerous victories although they were often heavily outnumbered, such as 10:1, both of which I stated earlier in this thread. The main reason for the overall Korean victory was mostly due to various different armies and navies, operating independently of the government, coordinating their strategies in order to stall the Japanese numerous times.

They couldn't win against Japanese until Ming assisted them. Ming played in this war same role as US played in WWI.

 

[scholar]

The Japanese firearms were not particularly efficient, and the Korean bows largely negated their counterparts' advantages. Japanese and Korean ships' designs were also different regarding their hulls, and the latter versions were much more efficient along the Korean coastline as a whole, which Yi Sun-shin used to his advantage.

Maybe not, but the improvements were upon near modern technology imported to Japan and could readily have made further innovations.

No comment on war with Korea, but Japan could reasonably attain a position where no European power would have the capacity to really move against it without endangering its shipping lanes and trade to a massive extent and even then losing out to sheer logistics until a much more modern age if the level of innovation and improvement continued.

 

[BBadolato]

Wasn't the Korean army aside from the troops on the border largely inexperienced when it came to fighting a war? I would think that had they of been able to keep supplies going the Japanese could have taken Korea, however the bigger factor would be their naval strength Japanese ships were vastly inferior and had their naval uses were different. Japanese Naval combat focused on boarding actions, while the Korean navy was focused on sinking ships, If you have the Japanese change their naval tactics and improve their ships then they could do better in a different Imjin War.

Although would Japan being a "great power" or at least a regional power always have to result in conflict with Ming China or an invasion of Korea?

 

[democracy101]

They couldn't win against Japanese until Ming assisted them. Ming played in this war same role as US played in WWI.

Correlation does not necessarily imply causation. In addition, the Chinese contribution was virtually negligible until late 1593-early 1594, and even then, it was about 1/4th of the total Korean numbers. Meanwhile, the Japanese had been somewhat pushed back by the Koreans beginning in 1593 after disrupting supply lines and conducting numerous operations in order to prevent the invaders from relocating troops to other key regions, such as Jeolla, which was entirely bypassed in the first invasion. Regardless, the Chinese would not sit on their hands forever if the Japanese invaded, and any minimal contributions were enough to eventually force the Japanese out of the peninsula.

Maybe not, but the improvements were upon near modern technology imported to Japan and could readily have made further innovations.

True, but firearms were not particularly efficient against bows until recently, so decades of innovation would be necessary at a minimum in order for results to be significantly different from the situation IOTL, at which point the Korean troops would be much more prepared after experience from incursions into Manchuria, due to butterflies.

Wasn't the Korean army aside from the troops on the border largely inexperienced when it came to fighting a war? I would think that had they of been able to keep supplies going the Japanese could have taken Korea, however the bigger factor would be their naval strength Japanese ships were vastly inferior and had their naval uses were different. Japanese Naval combat focused on boarding actions, while the Korean navy was focused on sinking ships, If you have the Japanese change their naval tactics and improve their ships then they could do better in a different Imjin War.

Yes, but as I stated several times earlier, guerrilla warfare conducted simultaneously within multiple regions was enough to stall the Japanese advance significantly.

 

[MonAngel]

Correlation does not necessarily imply causation. In addition, the Chinese contribution was virtually negligible until late 1593-early 1594, and even then, it was about 1/4th of the total Korean numbers. Meanwhile, the Japanese had been somewhat pushed back by the Koreans beginning in 1593 after disrupting supply lines and conducting numerous operations in order to prevent the invaders from relocating troops to other key regions, such as Jeolla, which was entirely bypassed in the first invasion. Regardless, the Chinese would not sit on their hands forever if the Japanese invaded, and any minimal contributions were enough to eventually force the Japanese out of the peninsula.

Are you arguing that Korea was able to win against Japan without Chinese help?
And I'm agree with you on that Chinese won't be just Watcher. They would eventually will involve in this.

 

[BBadolato]

I think he's arguing that Korea's ability to hinder the Japanese supply lines on both land and sea. Allowed for some successes before the Chinese got involved, and that Chinese intervention while it did help, was not completely decisive.

 

[MonAngel]

I think he's arguing that Korea's ability to hinder the Japanese supply lines on both land and sea. Allowed for some successes before the Chinese got involved, and that Chinese intervention while it did help, was not completely decisive.

I agree Koreans made hell out of Japan. But it was Chinese assistance that made Japanese defeated.

 

[scholar]

True, but firearms were not particularly efficient against bows until recently, so decades of innovation would be necessary at a minimum in order for results to be significantly different from the situation IOTL, at which point the Korean troops would be much more prepared after experience from incursions into Manchuria, due to butterflies.

That would be true if firearms were the only equipment Japan would have had, but there was far more to it than that and innovation occurred across the board. You seem to be underrating isolationism. Simply avoiding that would lead to a radically different situation from OTL even if internal innovation stagnated completely as the internal production and outside expansionism would change the entire way the far east operates in the seas.

Korea is not an issue that this should be solely focused on, Korea's just a piece of a much larger landscape that Japan would and could have contact with and is far from the only avenue of expansion.

 

[Tyr]

I was working on a tl to this end but got bogged down when real world stuff attacked.

Japan wouldn't have to conquer Korea to be a power. Its capable on its own and Korea would mostly just be a drain, not a value adder.

 

[Cyan]

I would generally agree, although both the Koreans and Japanese would be much worse off. As a comparison, it took the Mongols 40 years and seven campaigns to pacify the entire peninsula, including major revolts even after the court had initially surrendered due to the chaos. However, the Mongols they had access to more resources from their possessions elsewhere, and generally left Goryeo politically and militarily alone for the duration of the Yuan Dynasty, which lasted for around a century. In other words, the Japanese would be bled dry even after attacking Korea for a decade or so. Even if they were somehow determined to continuously invade for several decades, which would be suicidal in itself, the invaders would ultimately be forced to leave the peninsula alone for the most part, with a puppet ruler in control. However, this state of affairs would eventually change within 50-100 years after Korea manages to consolidate and throw off foreign rule, which would just revert the situation to what it was before the war.

Unless Japan tried to genocide the population, yes. If they try to actively genocide the entire Korean population step by step, its an entirely diffrent world with butterflies of an unpredictable scale and the war might go either way, including but not limited to Japanese being genocided in a retaliation war some centuries or decades later by a "afraid" china.

 

[Faeelin]

Not in the 1600s. There was a fair amount of Chinese shipping in SE Asia, but it was private merchants and pirates, not government fleets.

Bruce

PS - although the Qing temporarily did build up a bit of a navy after the fall of the Ming to pursue holdouts to Taiwan, IIRC.

One thing which might work: the Japanese conquer Taiwan instead of Korea.

Not sure why we're calling Ming aid token: We're talking about tens of thousands of troops...

But note that koxing, basically operated as a pirate from a strip of Fujian, was able to build a fleet powerful enough to seize Taiwan. So the capacity to build a fleet is there.

 

[democracy101]

Are you arguing that Korea was able to win against Japan without Chinese help?
And I'm agree with you on that Chinese won't be just Watcher. They would eventually will involve in this.

Disputable, but the fact that Korea was able to hold off the Japanese for a while in key areas allowed the Chinese to aid its vassal much more efficiently. In addition, during the first invasion, the Ming troops were mostly concentrated in the north, while most of the fighting continued in the south due to resistance from Joseon guerrillas, many of whom which operated from Jeolla, which suggests that a successful defense was crucial in order for the Ming to eventually sweep in.

I agree Koreans made hell out of Japan. But it was Chinese assistance that made Japanese defeated.

Chinese assistance was only a part of the whole, although it gave the Koreans breathing space.

Also, here's additional responses to your previous points.

I think most important here is Chinese assistance. Without them I see Japanese could overhelm, because they have more demography.

Chinese assistance was certainly a contributing factor, but it was not the most important one.

They couldn't win against Japanese until Ming assisted them. Ming played in this war same role as US played in WWI.

I'm not sure why you're making comparisons to WWI. The Chinese initially began sending reinforcements in 1592, the first year of the war, and gradually increased its presence afterward. On the other hand, the United States did not enter the war until 1917, three years after the beginning of hostilities, and provided a sudden boost by relieving the soldiers on the front itself, not to mention that the contribution was much more significant, relatively speaking.

I think he's arguing that Korea's ability to hinder the Japanese supply lines on both land and sea. Allowed for some successes before the Chinese got involved, and that Chinese intervention while it did help, was not completely decisive.

Basically, yes.

That would be true if firearms were the only equipment Japan would have had, but there was far more to it than that and innovation occurred across the board. You seem to be underrating isolationism. Simply avoiding that would lead to a radically different situation from OTL even if internal innovation stagnated completely as the internal production and outside expansionism would change the entire way the far east operates in the seas.

Yes, but any innovations that Japan would have made would be quickly countered by Korea (and China) as well.

Korea is not an issue that this should be solely focused on, Korea's just a piece of a much larger landscape that Japan would and could have contact with and is far from the only avenue of expansion.

Generally agreed, given very specific circumstances in other regions, although this also means that Japan has to take numerous far-flung islands within the Pacific, all with minimal resources, and that it would first have to take Hokkaido and the Ryukyu Islands first before expanding significantly elsewhere.

Unless Japan tried to genocide the population, yes. If they try to actively genocide the entire Korean population step by step, its an entirely diffrent world with butterflies of an unpredictable scale and the war might go either way, including but not limited to Japanese being genocided in a retaliation war some centuries or decades later by a "afraid" china.

Korean resistance will continue regardless of the situation, given how it resisted numerous previous invasions beforehand while being greatly outnumbered, not to mention the hazardous terrain, and the Japanese would be forced to retreat eventually if they didn't want to see their economy and government go down the drain.

Not sure why we're calling Ming aid token: We're talking about tens of thousands of troops...

Yes, but the initial height in manpower was reached 2-3 years after war broke out. In addition, after taking the guerrillas within various regions into account, Joseon managed to arm around 200,000, along with similar numbers on the opposing side, not to mention that China could have potentially mobilized around 250,000-500,000 troops if it absolutely needed to. A significant number of Ming troops were certainly armed, but in comparison to the situation as a whole, it was a drop in the bucket, generally speaking.