Which nations could've plausibly undergone rapid modernization, as Japan did?

The Haiti suggestion sounds awesome. I almost want to try my hand at a Haiti-wank, just for fun. Or barring that, since I am focused on another timeline right now, would love to read one.
 

Perkeo

Banned
Like, say, Tamil Nadu?:D

Goodness, can we focus on this? Is this possible? Can India break free and become a superpower?

(If I can now have both my parent nations become 19th century major powers, it would make me so happy!)

Seems like you know the answers to your questions better than I do. Frankly I'm not wondering how India becomes a superpower, but why India didn't become one IOTL yet.
 
Which South American country that is likely is the least European in its customs?
Also, I think that whichever nation manages it first may do the colonialism bit on its neighbours, as ironic as that may sound, citing some Pan- South American identity. Bonus points if the leader is of native descent. Yikes, a great South American power raging across the continent...

The Latin American countries with the biggest populations of unassimilated people are also some of the most isolated - Bolivia and Guatemala. Paraguay also fits the bill for having Guarani as a wide-spread official language, despite a greater level of assimilation in the general population.

Mexico and Peru have huge indigenous and mestizo populations and if we go back to the 19th Century, the percentage of the population in both countries speaking indigenous languages rather than Spanish as their first language was even greater than it is now. The problem is that for the most part, the leadership of those countries consisted of Spanish-descended creoles who, even when outwardly promoting a mix of European and indigenous influences, clearly valued the European contribution over the indigenous aspects of the soceties. Mexico even had a native Zapotec president in its early years, Benito Juarez, but he couldn't afford to do anything drastic if he wanted to keep his power.
 
If the POD is relatively recent, say late-18c or later, then the answer is none, except the Western ones and Japan.

Explanation: the Industrial Revolution came about because wages in 18c Britain and the Low Countries were high and fuel costs in Britain were low, making it (barely) profitable to invest in labor-saving machines. In the 19c, wages were decent in most of the rest of the European core; it wouldn't have been profitable to invent the Industrial Revolution from scratch with (say) mid-19c wages in those countries, but it was profitable to import and tinker with British innovations and then improve them to the point of becoming better, as was the case with the German chemical industry. US wages were generally on a par with British wages.

Elsewhere in the world, wages just weren't this high. In China they may have been this high in the Song era, but not in the late Ming and Qing eras. Rural wages were high in late Ming Jiangnan, but urban wages were at subsistence, unlike in London or Amsterdam or Antwerp. Delhi was rich at the height of Mughal power, but by the 18c it dropped to subsistence, same as with the rest of India.

Japan was an exception. Contrary to popular thought, it did not modernize from scratch. It was already a wealthy country at the time of Commodore Perry's arrival. It's not so easy to compare its living standards to Western ones, since the baskets of goods consumed didn't overlap much, but on metrics that usually correlate with development, Japan did well. In 1850, 11% of Japan lived in cities with 10,000 people or more, around the same as in Britain in 1700, a society on the cusp of economic revolution. Literacy rates were also quite high. One of the inventions of the Second Industrial Revolution, surgical anesthesia, originated in early-19c Japan.

Anywhere else, industrialization would have required extensive state intervention. (Yes, Japan had intervention as well, but it was overlaid on an already wealthy economy by preindustrial standards.) That would have been difficult - state-led modernization was in multiple cases, e.g. Russia and the Ottoman Empire, an excuse for the monarchy to clamp down on independent interests. It also would've required the kind of industrial policy that pissed off already wealthy foreign powers, as in Egypt, leading them to impose unequal treaties and reduce those countries back to exporting raw materials.

References: Robert Allen's papers on premodern wages in various cities, e.g. this one for the UK, US, Egypt, and India in the 19c.
 
In 1850, 11% of Japan lived in cities with 10,000 people or more, around the same as in Britain in 1700, a society on the cusp of economic revolution. Literacy rates were also quite high.
Except that Ming China alone had an urbanization rate far exceeding Japan (13% or above) and that literacy rates were not particularly higher in Japan than in China.
 
If the POD is relatively recent, say late-18c or later, then the answer is none, except the Western ones and Japan.

Explanation: the Industrial Revolution came about because wages in 18c Britain and the Low Countries were high and fuel costs in Britain were low, making it (barely) profitable to invest in labor-saving machines. In the 19c, wages were decent in most of the rest of the European core; it wouldn't have been profitable to invent the Industrial Revolution from scratch with (say) mid-19c wages in those countries, but it was profitable to import and tinker with British innovations and then improve them to the point of becoming better, as was the case with the German chemical industry. US wages were generally on a par with British wages.

Elsewhere in the world, wages just weren't this high. In China they may have been this high in the Song era, but not in the late Ming and Qing eras. Rural wages were high in late Ming Jiangnan, but urban wages were at subsistence, unlike in London or Amsterdam or Antwerp. Delhi was rich at the height of Mughal power, but by the 18c it dropped to subsistence, same as with the rest of India.

Japan was an exception. Contrary to popular thought, it did not modernize from scratch. It was already a wealthy country at the time of Commodore Perry's arrival. It's not so easy to compare its living standards to Western ones, since the baskets of goods consumed didn't overlap much, but on metrics that usually correlate with development, Japan did well. In 1850, 11% of Japan lived in cities with 10,000 people or more, around the same as in Britain in 1700, a society on the cusp of economic revolution. Literacy rates were also quite high. One of the inventions of the Second Industrial Revolution, surgical anesthesia, originated in early-19c Japan.

Anywhere else, industrialization would have required extensive state intervention. (Yes, Japan had intervention as well, but it was overlaid on an already wealthy economy by preindustrial standards.) That would have been difficult - state-led modernization was in multiple cases, e.g. Russia and the Ottoman Empire, an excuse for the monarchy to clamp down on independent interests. It also would've required the kind of industrial policy that pissed off already wealthy foreign powers, as in Egypt, leading them to impose unequal treaties and reduce those countries back to exporting raw materials.

References: Robert Allen's papers on premodern wages in various cities, e.g. this one for the UK, US, Egypt, and India in the 19c.

Which is why I'm recommending semi-developed or developed nations developing differently. The Philippines, freed from its Spanish bonds and with a liberal government, could become a hub of world trade, Manila specifically is set for it, with its large natural harbor and strategic position in Asia. Without wealth flowing out to the mother country, the Philippines can develop a middle class earlier, and the economy could develop in the interests of the Philippines itself.

Just because only Japan developed into a power does not mean it was the only one with those factors. History is full of missed opportunities, which is why we have this entire website in the first place.
 
Japan was an exception. Contrary to popular thought, it did not modernize from scratch. It was already a wealthy country at the time of Commodore Perry's arrival. It's not so easy to compare its living standards to Western ones, since the baskets of goods consumed didn't overlap much, but on metrics that usually correlate with development, Japan did well. In 1850, 11% of Japan lived in cities with 10,000 people or more, around the same as in Britain in 1700, a society on the cusp of economic revolution. Literacy rates were also quite high. One of the inventions of the Second Industrial Revolution, surgical anesthesia, originated in early-19c Japan.

Also note that Japan, unlike major pre-modern powers such as the Ottomans, Chinese, and Russians, does not "suffer" from being a multi-ethnic state; it was much easier for them to enforce nationalism and a drive towards modernity.

This, of course, does not mean the other powers can't be modernised powers with a post-1800 POD.
 
Quite a number of nations. We have to move beyond this assumption that Japan was the only such country to embark on a program of Modernization/Westernization. The first country to do so was arguably Peter the Great's Russia. The extent of success that Russia had is questionable of course, although Russia has never stopped being a great power since his reign, Russia is still considered to be backward in comparison to the states of the West, something which can't be said for Japan. Similarly, the Ottoman Empire embarked on a program of transformation in the reign of Mahmud II and beyond, but said reform was unable to keep the Ottoman Empire from eventually being broken apart.

When we say we want a country to be like Japan, we aren't just asking for a modernization of the state and its institutions (something that took place in a whole host of different nations), we are asking for a nation to modernize itself in such a way that it will be strong enough to propel itself to the same level of power as the European nations. (Though whether or not Japan truly did this before the 20th century is questionable, considering that Japan's economy was more comparable to Russia's on a per capita scale).

What we'd need is a big population base. Unfortunately, this isn't so easy to find. Japan had a population of about 27 million in 1850, making it one of the most populous countries outside the West. Discounting nations that were under European rule, the only non-Western countries with populations significant enough to "Pull a Meiji" in the true sense were China and the Ottoman Empire.

If we are looking at nations that have the population base to propel themselves to the second tier, we have a more promising field. In the Middle East we have Egypt and Iran (with better leadership, both could have come out the 19th century much better for the wear). Ethiopia is one of the best candidates for African modernization, being more stable than the Islamic states of Western Africa following its unification. Asia is more troublesome, though a Thailand that modernizes more successfully is certainly a tantalising possibility, as is Vietnam.

Aside from population, one has to take vulnerability to conquest into account. Egypt proved very vulnerable to takeover by European powers, and the Ottoman Empire proved unable to beat off Russian attempts to strip it of territory. Countries such as Japan had it relatively easy thanks to their geographic isolation. By the time the Europeans had the power-projection capabilities to seriously threaten Japan, Japan had become strong enough to make a potential conquest bloody to say the least.

On top of this are existing issues people have already mentioned. How urbanised the country was (a big disqualification for the heavily rural and underpopulated Malay states), literacy rates, etc...
 
On top of this are existing issues people have already mentioned. How urbanised the country was (a big disqualification for the heavily rural and underpopulated Malay states), literacy rates, etc...

*looks at the 2.1 million people in the Philippines c. 1823 to Japan's 26.6 million*

damn. hm...
 
*looks at the 2.1 million people in the Philippines c. 1823 to Japan's 26.6 million*

damn. hm...
And the Philippines was colonised before almost any other country in Asia. The most populous parts of Indonesia (Java) were dominated relatively early too. In Malaysia, most of the Sultanates had populations of a few hundred thousand, and before the waves of Chinese immigration in the 1850's onward the urban population was negligible in some of them. I saw a figure for Kedah which would suggest an urban population of a few thousand from a population of about 250,000 at most.
 
And the Philippines was colonised before almost any other country in Asia. The most populous parts of Indonesia (Java) were dominated relatively early too. In Malaysia, most of the Sultanates had populations of a few hundred thousand, and before the waves of Chinese immigration in the 1850's onward the urban population was negligible in some of them. I saw a figure for Kedah which would suggest an urban population of a few thousand from a population of about 250,000 at most.

I'm trying to see how the Philippines could develop on such a path that it could become a regional power at least.

Would an Irish diaspora help? I'm trying to consider all angles and possibilities.
 
I'm trying to see how the Philippines could develop on such a path that it could become a regional power at least.

Would an Irish diaspora help? I'm trying to consider all angles and possibilities.

Why the Irish in particular? The Chinese, I'm sure, would be very happy to move over.
 

Deleted member 67076

I've been meaning to read Malê rising!
Do it, its great.

Which South American country that is likely is the least European in its customs?
Bolivia, by far.

Also, I think that whichever nation manages it first may do the colonialism bit on its neighbours, as ironic as that may sound, citing some Pan- South American identity. Bonus points if the leader is of native descent. Yikes, a great South American power raging across the continent...
Yeah, then you want Peru. Was a Regional Power during the Guano Boom, had a large amount of immigration and indigenous peoples (I say immigration as if its important because South America was seriously underpopulated. Peru had in 1900 a whopping 3.7 million. Compare to Japan's 44 million. Even if you start up the demographic transition, it would take a good century to catch up to big leagues.)

Ones that I personally really want proven are Ethiopia and Haiti, because I admire those two nations greatly and would love to see them rise to prominence or even colonial power.
Ethiopia could probably do it but you need a way to further transition passed the feudalism that it was in during the late 1800s and build up native industry. Preferably arms and rails to keep the central government controlling the place and commerce to flow smoothly. Tariffs help out a lot.

Haiti... Haiti is suffering from a tiny area, very limited government control of its people (such is that you often get periods where many of the peasants fled to the highlands to avoid government rule and brutal taxation), a highly unstable (and outright evil government), class conflict, limited infrastructure, a hostile neighbor (and one that has plenty of support from the US, Britain and France and can't be re-conquered) and a tiny population. (Around 300-500,000 in 1850 or so). There's also limited coal reserves.

What's needed is stability, then reform, then a paying off or cancelation of the debt to re invest in infrastructure. After that, growth can begin, but it will be limited due the boom and bust cycle of sugar and coffee based resource economies.

I'm not even talking about the sabotage other powers might try to do out of sheer spite.

Its not a happy picture, unfortunately.
 
My thought is maybe a Confederate breakaway state could sort of do it. I know, for example, that the Governor of Georgia had some serious issues with the Confederacy messing with it's infastructure; what could happen is a place like that could split off, have the rest of the Confederacy get eaten back up by the Union, that state go into a kind of dark age until domestic industry heads back up, and then fix the quality of life. Its kind of cheating, but it is a possibility.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
If you're speaking of Japan as it "rose" historically from

I'm sure that this has been done before but since I found nothing, I decided I would pose the question again. I'm really interested in other "proofs against social supremacy" occurring in unlikely places (from the POV of the European colonial empires, that is!:D) and other such restorations like the one that occurred in Japan, and how/where else they could've happened. I know Japan is a very unique location, but surely other avenues to restoration can be discovered- that the Japanese did it proves the fact.

So I'm asking the experts here: which regions, people, or polities were plausibly able to undergo massive modernization projects in much the same way and I suppose around the same time as the Japanese did, barring a few decades in either direction?

A "takeoff" historically has required population, centralized authority, at least some basic natural resources (coal being the most necessary in the Nineteenth Century) within the country, and a strategic situation that allows for a focus on internal needs, not external threats - so it's not the easiest needle to thread...

One thing to keep in mind is that Japan already had a substantial population, so demographic resources are in place (not something found everywhere in the non-European world in the 1850s and afterward); if the westernizing and national consolidation came about (as it did historically), Japan's close to a given, actually.

So if you're speaking of Japan as it "rose" historically from the 1850s in terms of Westernization, if one sets aside the European powers with classic overseas empires, than one can (arguably) get the following as "1st World" powers in the Nineteenth and early Twentieth centuries:
  • the United States;
  • Russia/USSR;
  • Germany (with or without Austria);
as definites;
  • Ottoman Empire/Turkey;
  • Austria+ (really difficult, considering the demographics and strategic position)
  • China;
  • Brazil;
  • some sort of Italy+;
  • Some sort of Persia/Iran+;
  • Some sort of Argentina+;
  • Some sort of Mexico+;
as possible to probable;

In Europe, after 1850, other than maybe Italy (which is tough because of resource poverty) it looks really challenging, other than some pretty ahistorically unified Iberian, Scandinavian, or Balkan peninsulas - and Austria is challenging because of the demographics; Africa, after 1850, other than (maybe) an Egypt+, it looks really difficult; in Asia, other than Japan, China, Iran, Turkey, it also looks pretty challenging.

The combination of people, resources, centralized government, and lack of external threat is not an easy one to create.

Best,
 
"Hey, doesnt Korea fit in all those categories? It has had central government for centuries longer than Japan, its got the people and resources, and-"
*quick look at map of East Asia*
"Goddammit."
 
Ethiopia tried their hardest, and gave a good show in the Italoa-Abyssinian Wars, but it clearly wasn't "enough".

Oh but that's what butterflies and divergences are for.

Now about those Latins, of we can get a leader that unites Mexico with the native identity then uses it as an empowering force, then that would solve the eurocentrism problem, wouldn't it?

As for the straight denial that any other nation could realistically do it- I am sure that, as several pages have now attested, other nations had the majority or all of those circumstances and simply missed their windows to use them.

On the Ottomans, I saw a very simple point of divergence turn them into a Great Power again, so no amount of naysaying is going to shake me off that fact.

Brazil might just be able to do it if you keep Pedro II's son healthy, thus perpetuating the empire.

Unfortunate that Haiti has all of the chips stacked against it, but....

If it means a possibility at more great empire, what if this exercise's earliest point of divergence were 1750 or onwards? I didn't really put it down as concrete. This is mostly for Ethiopia's purposes, though.
 
Top