Make Japan a Dutch colony

But would the Dutch be able to funnel enough money into colonizing with their own focus, if they were under Habsburg control?
 
But would the Dutch be able to funnel enough money into colonizing with their own focus, if they were under Habsburg control?
I mean why not? It sure is better than fighting over your entire borders for decades, have access to Antwerp and the Flemish cities, have better connection with German markets and institutions, not having to fight the Spanish and later Portuguese over the seas(at least not in the same manner, there would surely be some types of conflict). Literally everything would be better in such a situation, especially if you have a autonomous local branch.
 
I guess, what I'm saying is that, If the Dutch weren't independent, wouldn't they then be 'forced' into either joining the Habsburg in whatever European plot they had running (or scrambling to not be a target for an Anti-Habsburg plot) or focusing their colonizing prowess into complimenting the Spanish Colonization effort instead of competing?
 
Dude you can, the Dutch existed before the Reformation and the reformation didn't have to end like it did IOTL, with a early 16th century POD you could have for example an Habsburg Netherlands and a reformation that doesn't end like IOTL, with more moderation, less strife etc.

Bringing up inter-denominational strife is kinda off-topic because we were talking about the religion of the Japanese minorities, not of the Europeans. I don't think it would matter whether the Christians in Japan were convered by the Portoguese or Dutch if they are both Catholic or of the same church.

True enough.

Still, all of this would matter to a Japan colonized by foreign powers two oceans away in either direction.

A Catholic Netherlands means a Netherlands that is likely still under the thumb of Spain. Or perhaps it is more an Austrian Habsburg colony instead? Either way, very big differences in Europe there, and neither could be considered 'Dutch' as we think of them IOTL.
 
that's a oxymoron at any point in known history before WW2
Japan hasn't really participated in many wars outside of the islands in its history (compared to most European and Indian nations, China, etc.) and, outside of periods of warfare like their Warring States period and the north south courts, wasn't really exceptionally warlike. The Tokugawa Shogunate, for example, was at peace for most of its fairly lengthy time controlling Japan. There definitely was military stagnation that the Meiji Restoration had to address as a result of that.

But pre-1700 is a bit ridiculous nonetheless.

Which they did and proceeded to curbstomp the Shimabara rebellion, which the Shogunate apparently was incapable of doing.
I'd love to know the source of that, seeing as all I can find with a cursory search is that the Dutch sent ships to bombard the fortress the rebels held and withdrew after they sustained some causalities, which is a far cry from curbstomping (though Dutch naval tech was definitely better than what the Japanese had). I can't find anything to say that the Dutch themselves stormed the fortress and ended the rebellion on their own.
Also, mind, Japan's bigger than modern day Germany and the Dutch wouldn't cemented their control over all of Indonesia, which is considerably closer, until the 19th century. Sending naval squadrons that distance is one thing but fighting armies in the hundreds of thousands to conquer an entire mountainous archipelago is another.
 
I guess, what I'm saying is that, If the Dutch weren't independent, wouldn't they then be 'forced' into either joining the Habsburg in whatever European plot they had running (or scrambling to not be a target for an Anti-Habsburg plot) or focusing their colonizing prowess into complimenting the Spanish Colonization effort instead of competing?
Like I just said, the Dutch were IOTL involved in Europe more than they would have liked and in a nature way worse than just having to feed the Austrian war machine, it's just not comparable.

About Spain, read below.
True enough.

Still, all of this would matter to a Japan colonized by foreign powers two oceans away in either direction.

A Catholic Netherlands means a Netherlands that is likely still under the thumb of Spain. Or perhaps it is more an Austrian Habsburg colony instead? Either way, very big differences in Europe there, and neither could be considered 'Dutch' as we think of them IOTL.
I wasn't thinking of a Spanish Netherlands, but either an Austrian one or one just under the Habsburg but centered around the Burgundian territories.

They would definitely be Dutch as the territories delineated are very similar, the vernacular still exist and with a Burgundian Habsburg branch you have also a state behind it.
 

Maoistic

Banned
Japan hasn't really participated in many wars outside of the islands in its history (compared to most European and Indian nations, China, etc.) and, outside of periods of warfare like their Warring States period and the north south courts, wasn't really exceptionally warlike. The Tokugawa Shogunate, for example, was at peace for most of its fairly lengthy time controlling Japan. There definitely was military stagnation that the Meiji Restoration had to address as a result of that.

But pre-1700 is a bit ridiculous nonetheless.


I'd love to know the source of that, seeing as all I can find with a cursory search is that the Dutch sent ships to bombard the fortress the rebels held and withdrew after they sustained some causalities, which is a far cry from curbstomping (though Dutch naval tech was definitely better than what the Japanese had). I can't find anything to say that the Dutch themselves stormed the fortress and ended the rebellion on their own.
Also, mind, Japan's bigger than modern day Germany and the Dutch wouldn't cemented their control over all of Indonesia, which is considerably closer, until the 19th century. Sending naval squadrons that distance is one thing but fighting armies in the hundreds of thousands to conquer an entire mountainous archipelago is another.
Japan hasn't really participated in many wars outside of the islands in its history (compared to most European and Indian nations, China, etc.) and, outside of periods of warfare like their Warring States period and the north south courts, wasn't really exceptionally warlike. The Tokugawa Shogunate, for example, was at peace for most of its fairly lengthy time controlling Japan. There definitely was military stagnation that the Meiji Restoration had to address as a result of that.

But pre-1700 is a bit ridiculous nonetheless.


I'd love to know the source of that, seeing as all I can find with a cursory search is that the Dutch sent ships to bombard the fortress the rebels held and withdrew after they sustained some causalities, which is a far cry from curbstomping (though Dutch naval tech was definitely better than what the Japanese had). I can't find anything to say that the Dutch themselves stormed the fortress and ended the rebellion on their own.
Also, mind, Japan's bigger than modern day Germany and the Dutch wouldn't cemented their control over all of Indonesia, which is considerably closer, until the 19th century. Sending naval squadrons that distance is one thing but fighting armies in the hundreds of thousands to conquer an entire mountainous archipelago is another.


Said bombarding led to a fundamental weakening of the rebellion and it was crushed less than a month later. Those "casualties" were also nothing compared to the damage they inflicted. So while maybe not a curbstomp, it definitely is not a "far cry" from it either and the Dutch help was fundamental, so much that the Shogun was forced to recognise the Dutch aid by allowing them their colonial post. As for it being ridiculous, the Portuguese a century earlier had traded thousands of Japanese slaves from Nagasaki, which they reduced to a colonial post, and virtually conquered Japan through Oda Nobunaga whose Portuguese connection was so strong he even had an African retainer called Yasuke. The Dutch basically replaced the Portuguese as the semi-colonial rulers of Japan, with the only exception that they didn't practice slavery, and then only because the Portuguese themselves had seized the slave trade after they found out it wasn't being profitable.

I really think that had the Dutch committed enough troops and ships and given up on South Asia, they would have conquered Japan. They practically did in fact until the US expelled them in the 19th century, just not conquering and colonising it completely because Japan was too difficult to reach and not as profitable as South Asia and China. I honestly don't know how the fact that it was the Dutch who arrived at Japan, exploited Japanese labour (see copper mining) and even waged military actions in Japan, and not the other way around, escapes people when overrating the Japanese - who had to learn to use gunpowder from Europe even despite having China right besides it and were incapable of even holding Korea during the Imjin War - to the point of absurdity.
 
that's a oxymoron at any point in known history before WW2

Not really, Japan of the Tokugawa period continued on Japanese disarmament of Hideyoshi. Under Hideyoshi on only those of the Samurai class could bear weapons, which brought down both peasants and the phenomenon of Ji-samurai or farmer-samurai. Under the Tokugawa, the Samurai themselves would move from warrior aristocrats to basically governors and civil servants. Also, the power of the feudal lords was curbed being reduced to only one castle, needing to seek permission to build a new one, and being forced into a system a regular attendance that saw them spend money. Think of what happened to the old warrior aristocracy of Europe, the same thing had happened to Japan.

Said bombarding led to a fundamental weakening of the rebellion and it was crushed less than a month later. Those "casualties" were also nothing compared to the damage they inflicted. So while maybe not a curbstomp, it definitely is not a "far cry" from it either and the Dutch help was fundamental, so much that the Shogun was forced to recognise the Dutch aid by allowing them their colonial post. As for it being ridiculous, the Portuguese a century earlier had traded thousands of Japanese slaves from Nagasaki, which they reduced to a colonial post, and virtually conquered Japan through Oda Nobunaga whose Portuguese connection was so strong he even had an African retainer called Yasuke. The Dutch basically replaced the Portuguese as the semi-colonial rulers of Japan, with the only exception that they didn't practice slavery, and then only because the Portuguese themselves had seized the slave trade after they found out it wasn't being profitable.

No, there is a very big difference between having trade relations and allowing missionaries, to basically being a semi-colony. Oda Nobunaga saw the Christians as nothing more than a tool to weaken the power of the native religions namely because he was fighting major Buddhist led rebellions against the warrior monks, and for guns which the Japanese had quickly started to make their own. Even then Nobunaga did not have strong ties with the Portuguese, as he was not weak at all unlike the actual Christian Daimyo. Yasuke was basically made a retainer by Nobunaga on a whim, granted it had less to do with Nobunaga being a Portuguese vassal somehow, and more he had taken an interest in the man.

Hell, you cannot even say the same of either the Omura who founded Nagasaki, the Otomo who were the most powerful clan led by a Christian, or even the Arima. Portuguese Nagasaki came about because the Omura was a weak clan in Hizen compared to the Ryuzoji, the Arima were in the same situation. The Otomo were only strong on paper, as outside of Bungo Province the Otomo's vassals largely acted independently. These are clans that had much more contact with the Portuguese.

Like the Portuguese, the Dutch had nowhere near the influence you believe they have to treat Japan as some kind of semi-colony, against as what I said trading with European does equal being controlled by them or their puppets. It is not like the Dutch ships were all the decisive either, or that this rebellion somehow unstoppable, the dutch bombardment do much, and that after the rebel failed in everything else they tried. Even the Dutch bombardment only lasted 16-17 days from February 24th to March 12th.

Hell, you cannot even say the same of either the Omura who founded Nagasaki, the Otomo who were the most powerful clan led by a Christian, or even the Arima. Portuguese Nagasaki came about because the Omura was a weak clan in Hizen compared to the Ryuzoji, the Arima were in the same situation. The Otomo were only strong on paper, as outside of Bungo Province the Otomo's vassals largely acted independently.

I really think that had the Dutch committed enough troops and ships and given up on South Asia, they would have conquered Japan.

Which raises the question why bother with an invasion of Japan at all? Southeast Asia had spices, and later on rubber and oil, all Japan had at the time was metals and some other trade goods, but nothing that all valuable to justify abandoning South East Asia if the Dutch already had access to Nagasaki, and a virtual monopoly in Japan. Also weren't the Dutch more pragmatic in their colonies going after whereas were they could get wealth instead of large and unwieldy settler colonies, or other risky ventures?
 

Maoistic

Banned
Not really, Japan of the Tokugawa period continued on Japanese disarmament of Hideyoshi. Under Hideyoshi on only those of the Samurai class could bear weapons, which brought down both peasants and the phenomenon of Ji-samurai or farmer-samurai. Under the Tokugawa, the Samurai themselves would move from warrior aristocrats to basically governors and civil servants. Also, the power of the feudal lords was curbed being reduced to only one castle, needing to seek permission to build a new one, and being forced into a system a regular attendance that saw them spend money. Think of what happened to the old warrior aristocracy of Europe, the same thing had happened to Japan.



No, there is a very big difference between having trade relations and allowing missionaries, to basically being a semi-colony. Oda Nobunaga saw the Christians as nothing more than a tool to weaken the power of the native religions namely because he was fighting major Buddhist led rebellions against the warrior monks, and for guns which the Japanese had quickly started to make their own. Even then Nobunaga did not have strong ties with the Portuguese, as he was not weak at all unlike the actual Christian Daimyo. Yasuke was basically made a retainer by Nobunaga on a whim, granted it had less to do with Nobunaga being a Portuguese vassal somehow, and more he had taken an interest in the man.

-No vassal with the Portuguese
-When he was armed by the Portuguese, promoted Christianity and had had Portuguese retainers left and right, including an African ex-slave which shows the extent of Portuguese influence over Nobunaga.

Also, those "trade relations" included the enslaving of thousands of Japanese as if they were Africans. Nagasaki was basically a slave post comparable to those in West Africa which the Japanese were unable to terminate.


Hell, you cannot even say the same of either the Omura who founded Nagasaki, the Otomo who were the most powerful clan led by a Christian, or even the Arima. Portuguese Nagasaki came about because the Omura was a weak clan in Hizen compared to the Ryuzoji, the Arima were in the same situation. The Otomo were only strong on paper, as outside of Bungo Province the Otomo's vassals largely acted independently. These are clans that had much more contact with the Portuguese.

Like the Portuguese, the Dutch had nowhere near the influence you believe they have to treat Japan as some kind of semi-colony, against as what I said trading with European does equal being controlled by them or their puppets. It is not like the Dutch ships were all the decisive either, or that this rebellion somehow unstoppable, the dutch bombardment do much, and that after the rebel failed in everything else they tried. Even the Dutch bombardment only lasted 16-17 days from February 24th to March 12th.

Hell, you cannot even say the same of either the Omura who founded Nagasaki, the Otomo who were the most powerful clan led by a Christian, or even the Arima. Portuguese Nagasaki came about because the Omura was a weak clan in Hizen compared to the Ryuzoji, the Arima were in the same situation. The Otomo were only strong on paper, as outside of Bungo Province the Otomo's vassals largely acted independently.


Sure, colonising the large enclave of Nagasaki, enslaving thousands of Japanese, arming their warlords, participating in their wars, forcing them to use their labour force (it's amazing they only refutation I've gotten from the copper exploitation of the Dutch is that the numbers I cited from a certified academic source are "too high", without any hard fact countering this) is barely any influence at all. The Portuguese and Dutch had far more influence than you think and it is indeed something that can be categorised as semi-colonial given the high level of exploitation and influence they both had. The fact that the Japanese needed the US to take out the Dutch for good shows how powerless were the Japanese in general against them. And again, I will repeat that the reverse wasn't true. The Japanese didn't land ships in Dutch ports nor did they exploit Dutch labour force, much less participate in wars in Dutch territory.

Also, that the Dutch bombardment only lasted two weeks doesn't mean it wasn't effective when the rebellion of Shimabara was ended a mere month later. Seems like it was quite effective after all, without the opposing Japanese forces unable to do much in return.


Which raises the question why bother with an invasion of Japan at all? Southeast Asia had spices, and later on rubber and oil, all Japan had at the time was metals and some other trade goods, but nothing that all valuable to justify abandoning South East Asia if the Dutch already had access to Nagasaki, and a virtual monopoly in Japan. Also weren't the Dutch more pragmatic in their colonies going after whereas were they could get wealth instead of large and unwieldy settler colonies, or other risky ventures?

I can agree with the part of why bothering when other colonies were far closer and they were already exploiting Japanese manual labour extensively for the production of copper (they even made use of Japanese mercenaries in their other colonies) and for other commodities as well. More importantly, any invasion of Japan would have passed throughout English, Spanish and Portuguese territory in the Indian ocean, prompting wars with them. But if European rivals let military Dutch ships pass unopposed and the Dutch decided they wanted to conquer and colonise Japan, they certainly would have succeeded doing it in a decade or two at most.
 
The Japanese were at the same technological level that Europe was during the early Middle Ages. While, yes, it's going to be a LOT harder to colonize than, say, Mexico, but if the Dutch really for some reason decide they want Japan, they can play the different Japanese Daimyo against each other while quietly taking more and more land until they've Rajed their way into control over the islands. Plus, if you keep the Japanese from industrializing, once the machine gun is in force and the Dutch have a strong base of operations in Japan (say, they won Kyushu or Shikoku in an earlier war) it's gonna be all over for the Japanese.

Once the Dutch have control over Japan, then they can do things like try to spread their faith, etc. but Japan definitely isn't gonna be a settler colony. If anything, it'll be run like Indonesia X10: a resource extraction colony where the natives are simply the machinery of the state to take the resources from their lands and back to Europe proper.

Really, a big reason why Japan wasn't colonized OTL was that it was just too far away to be worth the time and effort needed to placate it. Change that and it is only a matter of time before "Can" turns to "will."

EDIT: But I concur that it simply won't happen before 1600. This would be more of a 1700-1750 thing.
 
Clearly. The Carolingian printing industry was just as productive as the French printing industry in 1789, and Charlemagne’s capital of Aachen was as big as London in 1750. Right?
Militarily, they would have problems fighting Charlemagne. It doesn't matter what kind of tech you have if this is what happens to your swords in combat. Not to mention that by the time the Europeans are going to actually be looking to colonize Japan in earnest, it will have guns too. Really, the reason why Japan didn't get colonized OTL was because it ultimately was too far out for there to be economic incentive to do so. I'm not saying anything as an insult against the Japanese, btw. I'm just saying that given a proper incentive it is possible for Japan to be colonized.
 
Militarily, they would have problems fighting Charlemagne. It doesn't matter what kind of tech you have if this is what happens to your swords in combat. Not to mention that by the time the Europeans are going to actually be looking to colonize Japan in earnest, it will have guns too. Really, the reason why Japan didn't get colonized OTL was because it ultimately was too far out for there to be economic incentive to do so. I'm not saying anything as an insult against the Japanese, btw. I'm just saying that given a proper incentive it is possible for Japan to be colonized.
Sigh... you can't compare a katana to a greatsword since they have completely different functions (slicing vs stabbing) it's like comparing a SUV to a Lambo, the latter may be faster but good luck driving it through the mud, and how Charlemagne's army (from the 8th to 9th centuries) would be using swords that only became popular centuries later is surely puzzling and for last "katana" is just one kind of a Japanese sword (surprise there are several types).
Mostly important the Japanese adopted firearms very quickly once the Europeans showed up.
 
Sigh... you can't compare a katana to a greatsword since they have completely different functions (slicing vs stabbing) it's like comparing a SUV to a Lambo, the latter may be faster but good luck driving it through the mud, and how Charlemagne's army (from the 8th to 9th centuries) would be using swords that only became popular centuries later is surely puzzling and for last "katana" is just one kind of a Japanese sword (surprise there are several types).
Mostly important the Japanese adopted firearms very quickly once the Europeans showed up.
It still won't matter if you have a piece of lead in you. And the Japanese sword is gonna be the Lambo in this situation, with Katanas designed to strike quickly and European Longswords designed to last longer and etc in a fight. Plus, it also doesn't change the fact that ultimately Europe could just play local Daimyo against each other until they've reached a level of control that essentially meant that they could call it a colony, in the same way the British Raj was. And I mean, really, the biggest problem is gonna be the fact that most of what can be found in Japan can be found cheaper and easier closer to Europe, but if you have, say, Portugal establish a bigger base in Asia (Luso-Dutch war goes more in Portugal's favor?) while still not being able to quite hold the same riches England or the Netherlands or Spain has, so the incentive is there to colonize Japan.
 
It still won't matter if you have a piece of lead in you. And the Japanese sword is gonna be the Lambo in this situation, with Katanas designed to strike quickly and European Longswords designed to last longer and etc in a fight. Plus, it also doesn't change the fact that ultimately Europe could just play local Daimyo against each other until they've reached a level of control that essentially meant that they could call it a colony, in the same way the British Raj was. And I mean, really, the biggest problem is gonna be the fact that most of what can be found in Japan can be found cheaper and easier closer to Europe, but if you have, say, Portugal establish a bigger base in Asia (Luso-Dutch war goes more in Portugal's favor?) while still not being able to quite hold the same riches England or the Netherlands or Spain has, so the incentive is there to colonize Japan.
Swords are not important during the 16th century, what matters there are guns and spear-like weapons(I mean it's even in the name "pike and shot").

-No vassal with the Portuguese
-When he was armed by the Portuguese, promoted Christianity and had had Portuguese retainers left and right, including an African ex-slave which shows the extent of Portuguese influence over Nobunaga.

Also, those "trade relations" included the enslaving of thousands of Japanese as if they were Africans. Nagasaki was basically a slave post comparable to those in West Africa which the Japanese were unable to terminate.





Sure, colonising the large enclave of Nagasaki, enslaving thousands of Japanese, arming their warlords, participating in their wars, forcing them to use their labour force (it's amazing they only refutation I've gotten from the copper exploitation of the Dutch is that the numbers I cited from a certified academic source are "too high", without any hard fact countering this) is barely any influence at all. The Portuguese and Dutch had far more influence than you think and it is indeed something that can be categorised as semi-colonial given the high level of exploitation and influence they both had. The fact that the Japanese needed the US to take out the Dutch for good shows how powerless were the Japanese in general against them. And again, I will repeat that the reverse wasn't true. The Japanese didn't land ships in Dutch ports nor did they exploit Dutch labour force, much less participate in wars in Dutch territory.

Also, that the Dutch bombardment only lasted two weeks doesn't mean it wasn't effective when the rebellion of Shimabara was ended a mere month later. Seems like it was quite effective after all, without the opposing Japanese forces unable to do much in return.




I can agree with the part of why bothering when other colonies were far closer and they were already exploiting Japanese manual labour extensively for the production of copper (they even made use of Japanese mercenaries in their other colonies) and for other commodities as well. More importantly, any invasion of Japan would have passed throughout English, Spanish and Portuguese territory in the Indian ocean, prompting wars with them. But if European rivals let military Dutch ships pass unopposed and the Dutch decided they wanted to conquer and colonise Japan, they certainly would have succeeded doing it in a decade or two at most.
I find your interpretation of OTL events quite interesting, but ultimately I don't think you have to treat Japan more like India than like Ceylon, that would mean that a single invasion would be too risky(if the Dutch are fighting the Spanish still) or too expensive to be worth in the mid term, I think it would make more sense for them to just play sides and try to find the most amenable rulers.

I think it would be better for the Dutch that their position in Japan is seen as positive by at least a sizeable amount of the local elite, which is quite easily during the Sengoku period and all the infighting, but to have it be a complete colony is a bit too early, at least in the 16-17th century and without enough time for a favourable position to be built in the area.


Going a bit ahead, I wonder if the Dutch could use more Japanese in Taiwan instead of Chinese in this timeline, this would create interesting ethnic composition in the island and would make any Chinese rule quite harder, even more than IOTL, especially if the island becomes a base of pirates.
 
In terms of population and advancement how did Java stack up against Japan?
Japan was probably 2 to 3 times more populated. I can't tell in terms of internal division of technology, but this time was a frenetic time in Indonesia as well, with the expansion of Islam and the European involvement.
 
Japan was probably 2 to 3 times more populated. I can't tell in terms of internal division of technology, but this time was a frenetic time in Indonesia as well, with the expansion of Islam and the European involvement.
Just adding on that the Indonesian islands were generally fractured around that time, which allowed the dutch to set up port in the area. Java was also more vauleable to the Dutch (which means the Dutch had more of and eye to it) at the time, because the islands had the climate for plantations, and was a strategically important place.
 

Maoistic

Banned
Japan was probably 2 to 3 times more populated. I can't tell in terms of internal division of technology, but this time was a frenetic time in Indonesia as well, with the expansion of Islam and the European involvement.
That would still make Java just as densely populated and in terms of technology and infrastructure, no Japanese architectural complex rivals the large palaces and temples like Borobodur. That and it never formed any thalassocratic empire of the kinds Java formed, which puts Javanese naval technology and military capacity arguably above that of Japan as well.
 
No.

The Japanese are a highly advanced civilisation, not in any way comparable to the cultures of the Americas and Africa that were settled by Europeans in our timeline. They had sophisticated metallurgy, as well as a strong written culture, developed agriculture and large cities, advanced technology and the same resistance to disease as Europeans.

And they outnumber the Dutch at least 10 to 1. And Japan is a single united polity. The first Dutch contact was in 1609. By that time, the Tokugawa had secured control of all Japan, though they had to fight one last campaign in 1614-1615.

Essentially, the AHC is for the Netherlands to conquer a nation 10 times its size and a year's travel away.
 
Top