Why? plenty of countries in the 20th century closed gaps way bigger, it doesn't matter if europeans has techs 10 years or so more advanced you are still buying/hiring europeans to teach your people how to build them.Delaying the opening of Japan a decade or two could make the industrialization of OTL Japan impossible since the gap with the Europeans will have become large to surmount.
This is the before 1900 forum. We are not talking about 20th century at all. I am saying it is plausible Japan wouldn't become a great power which changes things quite a bit.Why? plenty of countries in the 20th century closed gaps way bigger, it doesn't matter if europeans has techs 10 years or so more advanced you are still buying/hiring europeans to teach your people how to build them.
And where would they get the money to pay for that? They would have no industry to pay for those things. China might be able to pay for stuff like that but Japan? No Perry expedition means no flash industrialization period for Japan at an opportune time. They will lose any war to China hands down over Korea and much less be able to stand up to Russia. Which changes things.Technology isn't linear like a video game where you have to "close up the gap". Euros got a new rifle? Buy them and start building your own based on that, rinse and repeat.
I'm aware of the narrative, popularized initially by the white South Africans, that Southern Africa was practically depopulated by the time of the Great Trek. While there may be some level of truth to it, I think that the current and former demographics statistics for South Africa speak for themselves (Not to mention the numerous border wars fought throughout the history of the Cape colony).South Africa WAS lightly populated, the West was by itself for geographic and other reasons, the East because of indigenous warfare:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mfecane
Taxing the population, like how they did in OTL.And where would they get the money to pay for that?
Japan is more likely to acquire the funds through taxation than China, are you aware how messed up China was 1850-1870? Also China did buy Western stuff, they weren't able to use it properly due to massive mismanagement and government corruption, the Japanese have far less issues with those.China might be able to pay for stuff like that but Japan?
Why are you so obsessed with the twentieth century? There is no way the sakoku can hold off that long, Japan will be isolated until 1860s at most.Allow me to rephrase what I said before. Japan got a head start in OTL. In a timeline without that head start, the world starts to diverge widely from our own before the start of the twentieth century. So basing what would happen based on our twentieth century is erroneous because this timeline has already jumped onto a separate railroad track.
Exactly how do current demographic statistics speak to anything but fertility rate in a country over the last century or two? South Africa went from 17 million 50 years ago to 56 million now and the Philippines went from 1.5 million people in 1800 to 100 million now. As for border wars, the US had plenty with the Native Americans and they weren't ever in great number after the Columbian plagues decimated their people.I'm aware of the narrative, popularized initially by the white South Africans, that Southern Africa was practically depopulated by the time of the Great Trek. While there may be some level of truth to it, I think that the current and former demographics statistics for South Africa speak for themselves (Not to mention the numerous border wars fought throughout the history of the Cape colony).
but the concept is basically the same, you hire people and buy technology from the European to modernize and industrialize, it being the 1850s, 1870s, 1890s, or the 1950s doesn't change that partThis is the before 1900 forum. We are not talking about 20th century at all. I am saying it is plausible Japan wouldn't become a great power which changes things quite a bit.
How do you keep that from being a foot in the door for colonization?but the concept is basically the same, you hire people and buy technology from the European to modernize and industrialize,
To be honest, another Western power would probably do it a few years later. The late-nineteenth-century West was very big on trade, and very down on countries which sought to exclude them from their markets.
Exactly how do current demographic statistics speak to anything but fertility rate in a country over the last century or two? South Africa went from 17 million 50 years ago to 56 million now and the Philippines went from 1.5 million people in 1800 to 100 million now. As for border wars, the US had plenty with the Native Americans and they weren't ever in great number after the Columbian plagues decimated their people.
In any case, it is very thinly populated, by any metric, compared to Japan's main islands in the 1860s, together hosting somewhere between 32 and 34 million people (more people than South Africa would have a hundred years later). The Japanese army had firearms, the potential to build up a navy (they had their first steam ship 2 years after Perry's Expedition), and mountainous terrain not exactly conducive to invasion, especially by a nation on the other side of the planet. That's not mentioning the British, Russian, and American interests in Japan and how they'd respond to a French takeover of such a large market (as they saw it) and the territorial disputes that would ensue.
The more likely event is being forced open, since that treads on the fewest feet while giving benefits to all of the outside nations involved.
They had neither I'd say. For the means, Indochina was a tough nut to crack, as the first war took two years and almost ended in disaster at DaNang (Tourane).Probably France colonises Japan instead of Indochina. They would have had the means and the motivation.
How do you keep that from being a foot in the door for colonization?
I'd say the only reason they were in Indochina was prestige. In the wake of the Franco-Prussian War, this was more of a pride restoring vanity project as much as anything else. If access to China was what they wanted, surely a "99 year lease" on some Chinese fishing port would have sufficed. The fact of the matter is, the whole risk reward ratio in Indochina was out of wack. It was indeed a tough but to crack, and the benefits were suspect. Why not use all that pent up French military energy on a semi-fuedal Japan instead? Sure it would have been just as tough a but to crack, but I'm guessing a French Japan would have been more useful in the long run than OTL French Indochina?They had neither I'd say. For the means, Indochina was a tough nut to crack, as the first war took two years and almost ended in disaster at DaNang (Tourane).
This is the end of the logistic rope for the French and they have other fishes to fry in Europe.
For the motivation now, Indochina was colonized to access the South China market through the Mekong and Red River. It was also colonized as there was a very long Franco-Vietnamese history by that point. Gia Long had been helped by a French bishop and there had been a sizable Catholic community
The first indochinese war was in 1858, 12 years before the Franco-prussian war. The African colonisation was a vanity project, you'd be right on that but not Indochina.I'd say the only reason they were in Indochina was prestige. In the wake of the Franco-Prussian War, this was more of a pride restoring vanity project as much as anything else. If access to China was what they wanted, surely a "99 year lease" on some Chinese fishing port would have sufficed. The fact of the matter is, the whole risk reward ratio in Indochina was out of wack. It was indeed a tough but to crack, and the benefits were suspect. Why not use all that pent up French military energy on a semi-fuedal Japan instead? Sure it would have been just as tough a but to crack, but I'm guessing a French Japan would have been more useful in the long run than OTL French Indochina?
So, all in all, they may end up like OTL Thailand at the worst case situation, losing some territory, but retaining some dignity.
Probably France colonises Japan instead of Indochina. They would have had the means and the motivation.
Ah, my mistake. I believe the point still stands though, seeing as population sizes two hundred years ago generally aren't good shows of current day populations for a variety of reasons (better nutrition, medicine, immigration, etc.).The only people counted in Spanish census in the Philippines are catholics not pagans so it is not correct.
Presumably some of the smaller islands (Kyushu, Shikoku, Hokkaido, the Ryukyu Islands).What is "some territory"? The Home Islands aren't big and this is before the Imperial period, so there are next to none overseas domains.