Underlying reasons for difference in historical developments of Japan and England?

The significant reasons why historical developments in Japan and England differed?

  • Japan had lower rates of innovation-bringing immigration and invasion, due larger isolation by water

    Votes: 7 36.8%
  • England has less of mountains, therefore it was more easily "terraformed"

    Votes: 5 26.3%
  • Historical instability - some regions experience runaway growth in expense of others

    Votes: 2 10.5%
  • Difference in properties of initial settlers

    Votes: 2 10.5%
  • Difference in access to trade routes

    Votes: 2 10.5%
  • Historical accident (please write in the post most significant point of divergence in your opinion)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Japan had higher rate of tropical diseases resulting in stunted development of state

    Votes: 3 15.8%
  • Japan and England did not have any significant difference in development.

    Votes: 4 21.1%
  • Other reasons not listed above

    Votes: 5 26.3%

  • Total voters
    19

trurle

Banned
Japan and England did start at somewhat similar manner. Both were large island groups of similar size separated from well-civilized mainland by narrow straits. Both were conquered several times by waves of migrants bringing new tech and social rules. Both have consolidated as single state in 6th-7th century. Both have eventually (by 19th century) developed population densities far exceeding that of nearby mainland. The details were different though, ultimately resulting in England being for the centuries the world most influential state while Japan never rose past "regional power" status. The discrepancy was noticeable even before Japan and England come to the first contact in 16th century.
What was the most basic reasons for such discrepancy?

Some useful links:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Japanese_history
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_English_history
 
Last edited:
No significant difference (for a given value of significance) until the industrial revolution.

Britain had a noticeable headstart over a number of countries during the 17-1800s due to a number of factors (maritime trade, plentiful natural resources, ‘relatively’ peaceful). Japan experienced the opposite to a large extent in this time period, (extremely limited maritime trade, very poor natural resources - particularly coal/oil/iron etc. - and relatively politically unstable).
 
Differences between China and Europe, for sure. England's rise to superpower status built on a whole history of European technological developments that hadn't happened in East Asia.
 
Other than being island nations (and even then the British and Japanese islands are very different geographically) those two places aren't very similar at all.
 
Japan and England did start at somewhat similar manner. Both were large island groups of similar size separated from well-civilized mainland by narrow straits.

Japan's land area is 50% greater than the UK's (~377,000 km^2 vs ~242,000 km^2), so not really similar size. Their basic geographic features are likewise very distinct, with japan being composed of 4 major islands, each with mountains running through their centers and the main island of Honshu being long and slender, while England is comparatively flatter with a single major flatland. Tokyo to Nagasaki is about twice the distance of London to Edinburgh (~1220 km vs ~660 km). Administratively, Japan is harder to manage with geography and distance in mind.
Both were conquered several times by waves of migrants bringing new tech and social rules.
I am aware of the Yamato migration to the Japanese islands but that was millennia ago. Was there another conquest at any point because once is not 'several.'

Whereas the British Isles had the Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Normans, and Glorious Revolution, the latter 2 happening within the last 1000 years.

There's also the fact that England was actively involved in continental affairs (constant wars with France, Spain, the Dutch, etc.) while Japan only had a few conflicts with Korea and China (there being centuries between those wars). England is rich with coal, Japan's naval tradition has historically been very weak, the center of English power (London) is the closest point to the mainland whereas both Kyoto and Edo are much further from Korea than Nagasaki is (which creates the potential for a rival center of power, especially with OTL overseas trade with Europe going to south-west rather than Kyoto or Edo), the closest mainland neighbor of Korea not holding much interest in Japan while France had the Duke of Normandy invade England, etc. etc.

In short,
Other than being island nations (and even then the British and Japanese islands are very different geographically) those two places aren't very similar at all.
 

Artaxerxes

Banned
Japan is further away from China than England from Europe and China was happy beating the shit out of the rest of SE Asia.

They are also different countries and cultures on opposite sides of the world. That might explain the differences.
 
The British and Japanese archipelagos are very different geographically. They have very different positions in Eurasia, which has led to very different histories.

But for their modern history, there's two big deals here: 1) Britain is in the Atlantic (and thus MUCH closer to the Americas), while Japan is in the Pacific. Not only that, Britain is in a particularly favourable part of the Atlantic. As a result, Britain got more advantage from the Columbian crop exchange. That raised the British population enough to the point that coal had to be used as a heating fuel as the more efficient wood fuel was in too short supply. It also meant that Britain had the concentrations of wealth to invest in new technology and ideas. 2) Britain sat on a whole lot of coal, much of it readily accessible.

If East Asia had somehow gained an enormous lead on Europe in ship technology, such that China, Korea or Japan had started the Columbian exchange despite even the disadvantage of coming at the Americas from the pacific side, then the industrial revolution likely would have started in East Asia, not Europe. I suspect that Korea would be the likely cradle of industry in such a scenario though.

fasquardon
 
Top