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

Per the 1789 census Korea's urbanization rate was 7.8%. Obviously low compared to China, which had had an urbanization rate upwards of 14% since the late Ming, or even Japan, but still far, far higher than the 3% you mentioned. The census isn't very accurate WRT larger population, to be sure, but I don't see how you're so easily assuming that Korea was 3% urban. That would necessitate a Korean population of 19 million or more in the 19th century, which is obviously impossible considering the general circumstances.

In 1925, Korea was 3.2% urban. See PDF-p. 73 here. This is said to be if anything higher than in the late 19c. At the time, Korea's population was indeed around 19 million.

On PDF-p. 70, you can also see that in 1925, only 20% of boys and 4% of girls of primary school age were going to school. (At least the way it's portrayed in the supporting docs for the 163x series, schooling was universal through grade 4 for boys in 17c Germany.)
 
In 1925, Korea was 3.2% urban. See PDF-p. 73 here. This is said to be if anything higher than in the late 19c. At the time, Korea's population was indeed around 19 million.
That defines city as a settlement over 20000 people, which explains the 3.2%, and why should we? Generally, historical stats (at least MA in Europe and Tang~Ming in China) define city as over 10000 people, not 20000.
 
Unless I'm missing something big, Johor was ruled by a Sultan, not any Raja Maha or not.

Johor during the 19th century had a rather convoluted history when compared with it's immediate neighbors, but to sum it all up:

Sultan > Temenggung > Maharaja > Sultan.

For a more meaty explanation: A Temenggung is a position that oversees the army and navy of a Malay sultanate. However, The Johorean Temenggungs in the 19th century had a rather unique position of gaining more power at the expense of the sultan, culminating in the intervention of 1855 that allowed the former to take control of Johor outright. All the title changes after that were simply done for the sake of formality and further legitimization of their rule over the polity.

Don't they still have ridiculously long lifespans? I think the current Sultan of Kedah is in his 90s or something. Do you know anything about how the other Malay sultanates were run? I remember reading something about Kedah being unusual that the Sultan was in an unusually strong position internally, owning most of the land or something like that. However, I don't see Kedah as a good candidate because of its vulnerable position next to Siam and the really, really low rate of urbanization. Again, it was something like 2% before immigration from China. I'll pull up the article I read about it in Jstor if there's any further interest.

Actually, the's Sultan of Kedah is 88 years old, so he still has ten tears to beat Brunei's record. :p

I'm not a detailed expert on Malay sultanates, but the position and power of the sultan is not exactly uniform throughout the Malay Peninsula. For instance: In Perak, the Sultan is selected from amongst the most senior male princes descending from the 18th Sultan of Perak, Sultan Ahmadin (the selection process is usually decided by the royal court). Meanwhile, the area that is now Negeri Sembilan was once divided into multiple chiefdoms and petty states with each vying for power and influence in the lands between Selangor and Johor. I have no idea if Terengganu and Kelantan had their own systems of kingship but their close relations to Siam stomps out any chance of them trying to take a strong position internationally.

So in a sense, there was never really a polity in the Peninsula that had a strong executive position (Kedah and possibly Johor being exceptions) to exercise power, or the ones that do are too stymied by international relations or low populations to develop themselves. Perak tried to side-step this by importing Chinese immigrants to make full use of their tin reserves in 1848, but the squabbling secret societies that developed from them catapulted the sultanate into an all-out civil war.

In all, the Malay Peninsula had huge disadvantages for development when it came to population growth and international neighbors. Johor nearly got out of this during the 19th century, but got down by a stroke of bad luck.
 
That defines city as a settlement over 20000 people, which explains the 3.2%, and why should we? Generally, historical stats (at least MA in Europe and Tang~Ming in China) define city as over 10000 people, not 20000.

Sure, but the differences aren't huge. In 1850 Japan, 0.5% of the population lived in cities in the 10,000-19,999 range, 3% lived in cities in the 20,000-100,000 range, 3.5% lived in cities in the 100,000-1,000,000 range, and 4% lived in Edo. And in Europe, one of the papers on the subject, I think by de Vries, computes percentages by both a 2,000 and a 5,000 standard, and the differences are small, about 2-3 percentage points in countries in the 10-20% range if I remember right.
 
Sure, but the differences aren't huge. In 1850 Japan, 0.5% of the population lived in cities in the 10,000-19,999 range, 3% lived in cities in the 20,000-100,000 range, 3.5% lived in cities in the 100,000-1,000,000 range, and 4% lived in Edo. And in Europe, one of the papers on the subject, I think by de Vries, computes percentages by both a 2,000 and a 5,000 standard, and the differences are small, about 2-3 percentage points in countries in the 10-20% range if I remember right.
For Korea the differences are absolutely huge. Korea had only two cities with a population of over 20,000 (Seoul with a population around 200,000 and Kaesong with a population around 30,000) while it had many more cities in the 10,000~20,000 range.
 
I believe Rapid should disqualify a lot of nations. All of European civiilzations and their offshoots doesnt need to have rapid modernization, just gradual and end result will be the same.

Japan needed to be rapid since the point of reference or start is 19th century wherein it is still medieval Japan.

Even though Russia, Spain, Spanish Americas, Philippines are not as advance as Britain, their starting point is close to the British compared to where you are starting in Japan that rapid modernization becomes unnecessary.

That means you need medieval societies that hasnt move to the 19th century sophistication much like OTL Japan to be able to qualify the necessity for rapid modernization.
Hm, I would actually say the Balkans were pretty underdeveloped comparatively. Not to mention many of them weren't even independent. Albania and Montenegro were outright tribal societies. Slightly more advanced militarily I suppose in that they used all-firearm armies, but Romania didn't even have a standing army until 1828, and Montenegro didn't even have officers or a non-militia military until 1880. Industrialization, a pipe dream until past the turn of the 20th century.

Romania in particular managed to do surprisingly liberal developments for a European state practicing slavery with a straight face until the 1850s.

Meanwhile Serbia, Bulgaria, and Greece had to push themselves hard to be ready for the Balkan Wars. And all the Balkan states (except Albania) were ready in time for WW1 of course.
 
I'd love to see Oman, Thailand, or Tamil Nadu pull it off.

Tamil Nadu was a British colony for a pretty long time by then, definitely not a nation. You might have greater luck with countries like Hyderabad or the Marathas, as long as you could get them to be fairly independent of the British for a long period of time.

Why not India. They kind of are IOTL, but not nearly up to their full potential. Perhaps a small part of India seperates and becomes more agile?

That does sound rather interesting. Once again, I'd place my bets on Hyderabad or the Marathas, unless the Mughals can pull it off and survive.
 
I most definitely have not read up enough on the Taiping, but I recall that while the British were more ambiguous, the French were more firmly anti-Taiping and French persuasion was part of the reason the British did not recognize the regime in the end.

From what I read, French persuasion didn't really come up in the British decision to switch sides; the French were more anti Taiping from the beginning, but British intervention was definitely more impactful. I will need to look into French decision making here, though; my gut suspicion is that the Catholic French were more distrustful of the by and large protestant Taiping.
 

Fo_Real

Banned
Brazil is a definite candidate for major industrialization. OTL, there have been multiple attempts at starting a modernization project, especially those attempted by the Baron of Mauá, but the influence of the interests of Coffee producers prevented all attempts of a large-scale industrialist policy by the Brazillian government until Vargas came to power.

If something were to cause a decay in the influence of the rich coffee-producing landowners and increase the influence of pro-industy groups in the government, Brazil would have good chances of developing. It certainly has resources. Sources of iron and coal are close to the main population centers, while coffee and sugar could be processed in the early industries. The Amazon also produces rubber, which would be also very useful after the vulcanization process is discovered.

I suppose things like urbanization and literacy could be a problem though.
 
Last edited:
I doubt very much that the Balkans have the riverine transportation network of England; it's a mountainous region, after all.

Would be very interested in discussion of Ottoman social mobility, FWIW; are you thinking of a book at the time?

That's...exactly what I said? My entire post was talking about how geography and the bureaucracy dick the Ottomans.

I'm not thinking of any specific books, just general historic accounts I've read over the years about the situation for different ethnic groups of the period. And not anything I could source for you or claim as a conclusive truth statement; for example, it's generally accepted around here that the Ottoman government pretty much treated the Kurds of eastern Anatolia and the northern Levant with a pretty hands-off approach during the 19th century; they were very autonomous and overwhelmingly nomadic well into the 19th century because of the central administration's desire to not poke at them with a stick. As we know, this led to the later flare ups in Eastern Anatolia for the Armenians due to the perception that Ottomans were favoring the Kurds by letting them run loose playing at being a Horde and keeping Christians down.

You can debate the whys to an extent, whether it was from looking down on their more tribal ways to them being an important buffer against Russian incursion, to them simply being isolated to the point where they'd be an economic burden and administrative headache to reorganize, but it's ultimately true that Kurds were far away from the heart of Ottoman governance and ultimately unaffected by the efforts of the Tanzimat until near the very end of the Empire.

However, I wouldn't claim anything I just said to be undeniably true. I'm not a historian, just an amateur who's recalling things read in the past from memory :eek:

I'm definitely of the opinion that the most likely outcome for an industrialized Balkan state lies with the Ottomans, though. They're the ones that can best organize a top-down industrialization and allocate the most resources for that purpose, better than any one independent state in the Balkans likely could without serious economic aid for the purpose of industrialization, which goes against most 19th century actions except for IIRC France in Russia, because of strategic interests against Germany.

As mentioned earlier in this thread, the Balkans simply aren't in the right place socially for industrialization, and it'd have to be something that the Ottomans actively seek rather than being a more grassroots phenomenon like in the West.
 
I'm definitely of the opinion that the most likely outcome for an industrialized Balkan state lies with the Ottomans, though. They're the ones that can best organize a top-down industrialization and allocate the most resources for that purpose, better than any one independent state in the Balkans likely could without serious economic aid for the purpose of industrialization,

The Ottomans more likely than Communist Yugoslavia to force industrialization? I think buffing Yugoslavia a little bit over time so that it can keep up with other European powers in the last half of the 20th century is much easier.
 
The Ottomans more likely than Communist Yugoslavia to force industrialization? I think buffing Yugoslavia a little bit over time so that it can keep up with other European powers in the last half of the 20th century is much easier.

I actually don't particularly see a difference in difficulty in either of those things...
 
To be honest, I was ignoring everything post-WWI when I said that. So Yugoslavia's a fair point.
 
Brazil is a definite candidate for major industrialization. OTL, there have been multiple attempts at starting a modernization project, especially those attempted by the Baron of Mauá, but the influence of the interests of Coffee producers prevented all attempts of a large-scale industrialist policy by the Brazillian government until Vargas came to power.

If something were to cause a decay in the influence of the rich coffee-producing landowners and increase the influence of pro-industy groups in the government, Brazil would have good chances of developing. It certainly has resources. Sources of iron and coal are close to the main population centers, while coffee and sugar could be processed in the early industries. The Amazon also produces rubber, which would be also very useful after the vulcanization process is discovered.

I suppose things like urbanization and literacy could be a problem though.

Rapid modernization no. The difference of sophistication and tech between Brazil vs USA, Britain is not that vast.

You need to be really be far behind for "rapid" to be attractive. Otherwise, gradual modernization should be sufficient for the less advance European societies and European offshoots.

The other key about Japan is it was isolated for centuries. That means knowledge and tech wasnt accepted nor tech and sophistication barely moved. In Brazil you have European migrants who would have brought the most recent knowledge and tech from Europe and/or trading/exchanging with Europe.
 
Korea: "I will into stronk and independent! Will modernize and Jesus-"
Qing: "No."
Russia: "Nyet."
Japan: "Fufufufufufufufu! No." *enters Korea*

And in spite of having meddlesome neighbors Korea made a surprising amount of progress towards modernization before Japan forced them to sign the annexation treaty. In fact, one could argue that Korea would have avoided annexation and succeeded in modernizing if their Empress had not been assassinated by the Japanese.

So really the biggest problem Korea faced in regards to modernization is that it was next to an already modernized Japan. If a Korean government had recognized the need to modernize before Japan was too far ahead of them then I have no doubt that Korea could have successfully modernized on its own.
 
And in spite of having meddlesome neighbors Korea made a surprising amount of progress towards modernization before Japan forced them to sign the annexation treaty. In fact, one could argue that Korea would have avoided annexation and succeeded in modernizing if their Empress had not been assassinated by the Japanese.

So really the biggest problem Korea faced in regards to modernization is that it was next to an already modernized Japan. If a Korean government had recognized the need to modernize before Japan was too far ahead of them then I have no doubt that Korea could have successfully modernized on its own.

POD, Assassination fails?
 
succeeded in modernizing if their Empress had not been assassinated by the Japanese.

A POD in the late 1890s is not enough to make Korea modernize successfully. The general geopolitical facts of the area remain constant - Japan cares a lot more about Korea than Russia (invested more in Northeast China ) does, and China is in no condition to support Korea.
 
POD, Assassination fails?

That would be the latest possible POD for a successful Korean modernization. While the Emperor held all the real power, he recognized that his wife was a political mastermind and he treated her as his equal. Her political planning had kept Korea independent and growing throughout their reign, and her skill in politics could have been enough to keep the Japanese out.

Honestly the best POD would be the Korean government recognizing the need to modernize sooner, as the last position any nation wants to be in is playing catchup to a highly xenophobic neighbor.

A POD in the late 1890s is not enough to make Korea modernize successfully. The general geopolitical facts of the area remain constant - Japan cares a lot more about Korea than Russia (invested more in Northeast China ) does, and China is in no condition to support Korea.

I'm making no claim that it is a guaranteed thing, I'm just saying it's possible. If I recall correctly part of the reason Japan relied on an annexation treaty and shadow politics to take over Korea was because the Korean army had already been sufficiently modernized to resist a more militant takeover.

While people today are quick to discount the idea of Great Individual shaping history in favor of talking about trends and mass movements, it still doesn't change the fact that Great Individuals existed that changed the corse of history in spite of the general trends. From everything I've read Empress Myeongseong had the grit and the political knowhow to shape Korea into a modern nation and keep Korea independent of foreign overlords.
 
I'm making no claim that it is a guaranteed thing, I'm just saying it's possible. If I recall correctly part of the reason Japan relied on an annexation treaty and shadow politics to take over Korea was because the Korean army had already been sufficiently modernized to resist a more militant takeover.

  1. Myeongseong isn't a particularly good leader, she was just relatively the best thing Korea had(note that Gojong was liberally made fun of by foreign dignitaries); furthermore she just wanted to keep China(and Heungseon) in check, whether that be Russia or Japan.
  2. Korea didn't have that strong an army, and although the weapons may have been better it was still very poorly trained in comparison to Japan. However if Japan actually invaded Korea there'd be more rebellions, a lot more actually. The thousands that killed themselves at the news of annexation would now lead Righteous Armies.
 
Top