Pulling Meijis

[NapoleonXIV]

How could other nations than Japan have "pulled a Meiji" that is, suddenly and quickly Westernized themselves strongly enough to avoid Western exploitation?

How could India?

How could China?

How could Africa?

Or why couldn't they

(TL shamelessly stolen from Admiral Canaris in another thread)

 

[rcduggan]

a Meiji-style revolution couldn't really happen anywhere until the industrial era, at which point India is too far gone. the weak, conservative Marathas dominate much of the continent, and I really can't see them pulling it off.

China might be able to, without the Dowager Empress things would have gone a lot better for the Qing. so possibly in the late 19th, early 20th century the Qing manages to industrialize on a large scale, hopefully avoiding their equivalent of the Boshin War.

the only possibility I see in Africa is Ethiopia... maybe with a POD before the Period of the Princes, Ethiopia stays strong and united, and industrializes with help from the British against the Italians.

and there is also the possibility of Korea (which you did not mention) pulling it off, which is semi-plausible.

 

[Tyr]

China tried. It did buy a lot of western ships and other things. It brought in foreigners to help modernise etc...
It was just too big though and had other problems.

 

[JP_Morgan]

Disunited india that was pretty much dighting themselves when the British invaded. Pleassse....they were too busy fighting themselves to think of new technology that could improve their lives.

In Africa, no, any states that existed were too isolated to really follow the model.

 

[DAv]

What about Thailand? They had various stable rulers who did lean towards Western science.

 

[maverick]

How 'bout combining Napoleon-wank with a more successful Tippu Sultan at Mysore? or with Haidar Ali...or with Travancore...

 

[tallwingedgoat]

We had a thread about this last year, you can search for it.

Modernization is more than industrialization, it's a way of organizing a society into a nation where people are united behind the government and a new class of well educated people are put in place to manage. The "invention" of the modern social order gave the European nations an enormous competitive advantage.

Most of the world by comparison had internally irrational social order. Usually one clan or ethnic group ruled over other disgrunted groups. Everything is held together tenously and after the European army land a few defeats on the ruling clan, the rest of the country turns against their rulers. These dysfunctional systems also could not easily modernize themselves without disrupting that order which disporportionally benefits the ruling clan. Nationalism often emerged among the minority groups which often exploited technology or foreign alliance for seperatist agendas. Europe experienced its own social upheavals as society transformed through modernization. It was fortunate there weren't outside powers trying to assert their own interests during those times.

Japan was one of those rare pre-industrial societies where they had a monolithic ethnic identity with an extremely rigid social hierrachy and a culture of obediance and order. This combined with the relatively less important strategic value of Japan gave them an opportunity to modernize few others had.

 

[Kidblast]

Liberia perhaps. That's another African example.

 

[Tocomocho]

In Africa, no, any states that existed were too isolated to really follow the model.

Egypt did modernize and industrialize. Yet at the same it played so hard that ended up selling itself.

Morocco since 1500 can be described as something like an 'African Meiji Thailand'. It did modernize and kept its army more or less to date with foreign weapons and advisors, and played several powers against each other with relative success. The problem is that its geography didn't allow the population necessary to become an industrial powerhouse, nor to have a firm control over the whole country. And, obviously, the fact that by 1900 the key European nations (Britain, France, Spain) agreed to carve Morocco and the Moroccans couldn't bring others able to play against, despite their attempts to court Germany and the USA. Having a teen king in the crucial 1894-1904 period didn't help, also.

Ethiopia did progress very well with help from the French and the British. It basically went from little more than a tribal chiefdom to a true independent African empire. Obvious problems: They started from a very low level (unlike Japan) and the geography didn't favour them (like Morocco). But they did a titanic work with an astonishing success in OTL. Who could think in the 1880s that Ethiopia was going to be a member of a League of Nations 40 years later, on par with any European nation?

I'm pretty sure that there is one POD out there, not too difficult, to make any of these nations more successful than they were in real life (because it is obvious to me that they were successful in some way, compared to their neighbours or how bad themselves could have ended).

Less evident but also possible African Meijis could be the Imerina Kingdom in Madagascar and a surviving Mali Empire that wasn't destroyed by the Moroccans in the late 1500s and its legacy erased by centuries of infighting.

 

[rcduggan]

Less evident but also possible African Meijis could be the Imerina Kingdom in Madagascar and a surviving Mali Empire that wasn't destroyed by the Moroccans in the late 1500s and its legacy erased by centuries of infighting.

the problem with Madagascar is the Queen in the 19th century was extremely hostile to foreigners. IIRC she was intolerant of any Christians, and all attempt at foreign aid or intervention was rebuked for the status quo, so the monarchs could keep things the way they war. plus I can't imagine Madagascar has the population base it needs to pull of total restructuring of society.

 

[Linkwerk]

It's worthy of note that the Ottoman empire pulled a "Meji that fizzled". It seems like from the tanzimat reforms of the 1830's to Abdulhamid II they were constantly on the cusp of really pulling it off. It would probably require a drastic re-structuring of how the empire related to it's minorities, actually come to think of it, the Ottomans had much more of an Austria-Hungary problem than a Japan problem...

 

[Wendell]

How 'bout combining Napoleon-wank with a more successful Tippu Sultan at Mysore? or with Haidar Ali...or with Travancore...

One of the wealthier South Indian states doing it, and then uniting the Deccan could be interesting.

 

[Smaug]

Siam had potential in my opinion. Someone did a great thread on it a few months ago. Location is great for trade. jmo

 

[The Sandman]

Japan was one of those rare pre-industrial societies where they had a monolithic ethnic identity with an extremely rigid social hierrachy and a culture of obediance and order. This combined with the relatively less important strategic value of Japan gave them an opportunity to modernize few others had.

You do realize that "monolithic Japan" is a historical construct, right? That it had very little to do with a lack of regional differences in Japan and far more to do with the feudal totalitarianism of the Tokugawa Shogunate, which had had over 250 years to cement itself in place before Meiji? And then that the new Meiji government continued the practice of cementing a fairly definite hierarchy in place at every phase of life from elementary school onwards?

The relative flexibility of the Japanese government was arguably the real reason why they modernized semi-successfully; they were much more willing to take Western items and ideas and then attempt to reshape them to their own desires than the rulers of other nations, who tried to reject them outright.

 

[tallwingedgoat]

You do realize that "monolithic Japan" is a historical construct, right? That it had very little to do with a lack of regional differences in Japan and far more to do with the feudal totalitarianism of the Tokugawa Shogunate, which had had over 250 years to cement itself in place before Meiji? And then that the new Meiji government continued the practice of cementing a fairly definite hierarchy in place at every phase of life from elementary school onwards?

All societies are constructs. By the time of Perry's mission Japan was monolithic, and that gave it a huge leg up over comparable nations.

The relative flexibility of the Japanese government was arguably the real reason why they modernized semi-successfully; they were much more willing to take Western items and ideas and then attempt to reshape them to their own desires than the rulers of other nations, who tried to reject them outright.

Yes the government did a great job but you have to realize they could afford to be flexible where the Chinese and Ottoman Empires could not. Adopting Western technology and economic systems (like the embrace of international commerce) did not threaten the Japanese political system nearly as much as foreign military might. For many other regimes it was the opposite. As much as European Imperialism worried them, internal revolt was more of a problem. Hence they could not dive head first into the modern world ala Meiji Japan.

In fact this is still happening in many parts of the world. Lots of regimes just refuse to change because it would either undermine the ruling elite or the social order which define their society. Why don't Saudi Arabia drop Wahhabism and copy Dubai? Sounds easy enough in theory but not so simple in practice.

 

[NapoleonXIV]

All societies are constructs. By the time of Perry's mission Japan was monolithic, and that gave it a huge leg up over comparable nations.



Yes the government did a great job but you have to realize they could afford to be flexible where the Chinese and Ottoman Empires could not. Adopting Western technology and economic systems (like the embrace of international commerce) did not threaten the Japanese political system nearly as much as foreign military might. For many other regimes it was the opposite. As much as European Imperialism worried them, internal revolt was more of a problem. Hence they could not dive head first into the modern world ala Meiji Japan.

In fact this is still happening in many parts of the world. Lots of regimes just refuse to change because it would either undermine the ruling elite or the social order which define their society. Why don't Saudi Arabia drop Wahhabism and copy Dubai? Sounds easy enough in theory but not so simple in practice.

You are aware that the main reason the Tokugawa started and maintained Sakoku was mainly because they feared internal revolt of the daimyo, not the outside world? IIRC the major impetus to the overthrow of the Shogunate was from the provinces of Satsuma and Choshu, which had always been the most fractious under bakufu rule

 

[Ridwan Asher]

China tried. It did buy a lot of western ships and other things. It brought in foreigners to help modernise etc...
It was just too big though and had other problems.

The biggest among them was the Dowager Empress herself.

 

[tallwingedgoat]

You are aware that the main reason the Tokugawa started and maintained Sakoku was mainly because they feared internal revolt of the daimyo, not the outside world? IIRC the major impetus to the overthrow of the Shogunate was from the provinces of Satsuma and Choshu, which had always been the most fractious under bakufu rule

Japan did not have ethnic nationalities trying to establish seperate states. What they had was a rivalry for leadership. New technology and know-how which can be leveraged toward this goal is highly attractive.

This is simply not the case in the overwhelming majority of kingdoms and empires in the world. Modernization would more likely lead to a disruption of social order than greater unity. Modernization spreads power downward, making kings more dependent on commoner industrialists and merchants. This is not a problem in Japan where the merchant class were a feudal warrior class bound to his overlord. Compare this with the Chinese and Ottoman Empires whos ruling class were a minority ethnic group within their own empires. Creating new economic/population/power centers, empowering the majority subjects to forge seperate trade alliances with foreign powers can only challenge central authority.

 

[The Sandman]

Part of what both Napoleon and I are trying to say (unless I've misread Nappy completely) is that the only big difference between Japan and the other countries was that the Meiji government 1) was an example of the reformist side winning the civil war and 2) that Japan's supposed unity was created by the Meiji government ruthlessly enforcing it. The Japanese are not inherently special, and had plenty of disagreements and liberal movements in the late 1800s. The difference is that the Meiji government reached a point it felt comfortable with and then crushed any attempt to move beyond it through all possible social, economic and military means.

 

[tallwingedgoat]

Part of what both Napoleon and I are trying to say (unless I've misread Nappy completely) is that the only big difference between Japan and the other countries was that the Meiji government 1) was an example of the reformist side winning the civil war and 2) that Japan's supposed unity was created by the Meiji government ruthlessly enforcing it. The Japanese are not inherently special, and had plenty of disagreements and liberal movements in the late 1800s. The difference is that the Meiji government reached a point it felt comfortable with and then crushed any attempt to move beyond it through all possible social, economic and military means.

I believe I understand your points. However I submit that points 1 and 2 would not be possible if Japan were not ethnically monolithic.

In an ethnically divided society, reforms would benefit some groups and disadvantage others. The reformist movement would be much weaker and unlikely to defeat the conservatives very easily. Even if they were successful, the rise of nationalism would lead to violent regionalist seperatism which would make unity impossible to maintain. Revolutions would be hard to avoid. Outside powers will certainly exploit this division as well.

Therefore, in clevaged societies, either by ethnicity, religion, language, or otherwise, it is vital to achieve some sort of rationalized internal unity first before real modernization can take place under stable conditions. The Ottomans could not do this at all and the Chinese took a century to sort out their internal divisions. In contrast Japan was already a nation before the rise of Nationalism. This was not so common in those days outside of Europe.