WI Tokugawa decides some expansion may desirable

scholar

Banned
Actually, that Brunei would be the Eastern equivalent of the Ottoman Empire, the question is would japan be interested to colonize the west coast of america?
No, because at this time most of North America and South America is divided already. Attempting to colonize there would be in immediate conflict with, well, pretty much the superpowers of the time.

As for Brunei being an Osman Empire equivalent, then your Timeline will need to have an earlier POD. Brunei had all of Borneo and was able to stand up to the European powers in the mid 16th century, afterwards it met with slow steady decline as the Euros took a little more of it's empire, and others, each and every day. Granted Brunei is one of the best ones you can use, but have no delusions about it's power or influence. Also, having all of Australia and most of those islands is ASB almost regardless of the POD. the northern and western edges of Australia and New Guinea is fine, but the entire islands is not.

So if you have an earlier PoD then it might be possible, but the real problem will be directing the butterflies so that much of Japan goes the same way for fifty or so years with minimal changes.
 
Japanese Armies at Sekigahara deployed 80,000 Arquebuses that were more advanced than what Europe had at the time and the Japanese were trending towards a completely firearms Army system when they went into isolation.

Europe combined didn't have that many.

So the Japanese would have an insurmountable firearms advantage.

On land they would do very well against the Europeans- the Europeans will be small in number and their mercenaries outclassed by the Japanese.

At sea however...the Japanese navy was terrible. Even landing their troops on the Phillipines without losing a large number of them would be a big challenge. Their numbers of western style ships were low and the Japanese style ones were coast-hugging traders at best.
 

Rush Tarquin

Gone Fishin'
Yeah. I couldn't remember the name, either, although I knew who he was talking about. I first heard about him because of a video game (Age of Empires II), it's not like he's taught in American history classes.

Heh, that's where I first encountered him too. Then I realised he was a pretty big deal when I came to Korea. 60ft statues of the dude in downtown Seoul and Busan.
 
At sea however...the Japanese navy was terrible. Even landing their troops on the Phillipines without losing a large number of them would be a big challenge. Their numbers of western style ships were low and the Japanese style ones were coast-hugging traders at best.

If Japan wishes to become expansionary, their first order of business would be to start building up a more modern navy; this is something they expressed some interest in OTL but I don't think they ended up focusing on it much. Now, I'm sure that with even a revitalized Japanese navy, Spanish ships would outclass Japanese ships 1:1. But you're going to deal with a rather low number of Spanish ships. Spain simply can't afford to outfit a massive expedition to the Philippines, not big enough to defeat Japan, and at least a few of those ships will sink along the way for one reason or another. The ships that do arrive will not have friendly ports in any decent location; they could go back and forth between Macau (assuming this stays relatively early 17th century, Portugal is still Spanish), but that's not quite as advantageous as Japan holding Philippines proper. Besides, I'm sure Macau had a dock decent enough to repair merchantmen, but what kind of capacity did it have for building up a small fleet after a battle? So Japan is most likely going to have more ships and far better logistics. You're going to see a lot of cases with Spain winning the battle but not the war. Phyrric victories where every small loss of an irreplaceable ship sends the expedition one step closer to failure.

In addition, just as an army is not enough to control an archipelago, neither is a navy. Assume the Spanish expedition wipes out the Japanese fleet. Now what? There will still be a decent Japanese garrison on the islands. The Spanish could sever supply lines, yes, but they wouldn't be able to do much more, and I'm willing to bet any expedition will run out of supplies and money sooner than the Philippines garrison. And then it's just a case of Japan waiting the Spanish out, rebuilding any damaged ships, and winning the next campaign.

The hardest part is going to be getting to the island in the first place, but that shouldn't be impossible if we assume Japan builds up its navy at all (which it will in this TL). Then Japanese control of the Philippines is going to be a fait accompli.
 
the Marianas, Carolines, Marshalls, Wake, Marcus, and Palaus and works to end Spanish Influence and power in the Phillipines.

These islands have anything that will be valuable for a XVIIth century japanese.

Probably most of these islands were not even discovered in 1600...
 
Steven Turnbull, though I don't have my books on me at the moment. However, the trend began in the Korea Expedition where prospective Samurai Clans were told to arm themselves with guns due to its massive effect on the battlefield before coming to Korea to fight.

Turnbull tends to be a huge cheerleader of the samurai warrior, you'd have to take him with a pinch of salt.

For starters, why did Japan lose in Korea when it had the "advanced" Portuguese snapping matchlock and far more matchlocks than their opponents? Well for one the Japanese matchlock was an arquebus, which had a short barrel and stock. It's fired with the stock braced against the cheek, thus limiting accuracy. The Chinese brought their limited numbers of Turkish muskets which had full shoulder stock and longer barrels. Indeed the snapping matchlock was more sophisticated, but it was also less reliable. No wonder the Chinese evaluated Japanese arquebus and stuck with the Turkish musket.

The Japanese also did not use field cannons and the Chinese did. These factors allowed the Chinese/Korean forces to hold against Japanese arquebusiers. The Spanish would have better cannons and much more muskets than the Chinese. Even if the Japanese had huge numbers of arquebuses, the Spanish hold the advantage.

What about cavalry? The samurai was primarily a horse archer. The bow was his main weapon. His arrows however could not penetrate the plate armor of Spanish cavalrymen, the harquebusiers. The harquebusiers used firearms on horseback. One wheelock carbine and two pistols. He would ride in, fire several shots and turn away to reload. The Samurai wont be able to catch him because of the disparity of mount.

The Japanese horse was a breed of Mongolian horse, the same as every East Asian cavalry horse. These are tough but pony sized. Japan did not breed large Anglo-Norman horses until the 20th century. In full samurai armor, his horse can trot but not gallop. There's a reason why the Mongols wore light armor and the Chinese fought wars in Central Asia to gain a breeding stock of tall Turkoman horses. The Spanish OTOH had the magnificient Spanish horse. A powerful animal capable of full gallop with a fully armored rider. The harquebusier would control the engagement, engaging and disengaging at will.

Finally we come to the navy. Though Spain would not be able to send many ships, the few that would get to the Philippines would totally dominate the Japanese fleet. The Japanese way of naval war was to use bows and muskets to clear the decks and board their enemy's ship. At best they had a few swivel guns. These were ineffective against Korean turtle ships, even though their sides were unarmored wood. The Spanish galleons were cannon armed, some of them two deckers. They could sail to Japan and raid the harbors unopposed.

In summary the Japanese could win with superior numbers shorter logisitcs chain, but in every engagement they would be outmatched. Naval battles would be completely lopsided. The disparity, especially at sea, could not be overcome without a good deal of time to do it.
 

Commissar

Banned
Turnbull tends to be a huge cheerleader of the samurai warrior, you'd have to take him with a pinch of salt.

"Puts tallwingedgoat on a short list I keep" Professor Turnbull is a peer reviewed expert. You need more than just opinion to persuade me.
For starters, why did Japan lose in Korea when it had the "advanced" Portuguese snapping matchlock and far more matchlocks than their opponents? Well for one the Japanese matchlock was an arquebus, which had a short barrel and stock. It's fired with the stock braced against the cheek, thus limiting accuracy. The Chinese brought their limited numbers of Turkish muskets which had full shoulder stock and longer barrels. Indeed the snapping matchlock was more sophisticated, but it was also less reliable. No wonder the Chinese evaluated Japanese arquebus and stuck with the Turkish musket.

First Off the Japanese didn't lose in Korea. They conquered most of it from Korea and stalemated the Ming Armies and only left to fight a civil war in the Aftermath of Hideyoshi's death. It is interesting to note the Ming seriously considered letting the Japanese keep the south of Korea while they took the North only for Hideyoshi's request for a Chinese Princess as a concubine to scuttle the deal.

As for the Japanese Matchlock, it was weather proof and they had superior firearms tactics and shortly after encountering Turkish Muskets they incorporated such design improvements in their own designs.

The Japanese also did not use field cannons and the Chinese did. These factors allowed the Chinese/Korean forces to hold against Japanese arquebusiers. The Spanish would have better cannons and much more muskets than the Chinese. Even if the Japanese had huge numbers of arquebuses, the Spanish hold the advantage.

The Japanese Armies still won most of the time and quickly adopted Cannons themselves. More importantly, the Japanese had disciplined troops well trained in close combat which the Chinese and Koreans lacked.

What about cavalry? The samurai was primarily a horse archer. The bow was his main weapon. His arrows however could not penetrate the plate armor of Spanish cavalrymen, the harquebusiers. The harquebusiers used firearms on horseback. One wheelock carbine and two pistols. He would ride in, fire several shots and turn away to reload. The Samurai wont be able to catch him because of the disparity of mount.

So the Japanese simply adopt platoon firing positions protected by spears and shoot the Spanish Horse down after feinting with the cavalry who can also just simply shoot the Spanish horses out from under them.


Finally we come to the navy. Though Spain would not be able to send many ships, the few that would get to the Philippines would totally dominate the Japanese fleet. The Japanese way of naval war was to use bows and muskets to clear the decks and board their enemy's ship. At best they had a few swivel guns. These were ineffective against Korean turtle ships, even though their sides were unarmored wood. The Spanish galleons were cannon armed, some of them two deckers. They could sail to Japan and raid the harbors unopposed.

Now the navy was admittably weak, but that was mostly the result of Hideyoshi not releasing his own Ironclads to engage the Turtle Ships.

However, they had the expertise and were organizing into a primarily firearms army as evidenced by the numerous manuals being printed, on formation of musket lines and advice on how to transition to firearms, in Japan at this time.
 
On the other hand, is there anything in Taiwan or the Phillipines that would draw Japanese interest or desire? I'm not sure.

I don't know about the Philippines, but going off the OTL Japanese occupation of Taiwan, there's gold, coal, camphor, lots of wood, a huge amount of good agricultural land, and lots of deer. Taking it, however, won't be easy. It took OTL Japanese electric fences, forced labor, air raids, poison gas, and careful manipulation of inter-ethnic tensions to subjugate Taiwan's interior.
 
"Puts tallwingedgoat on a short list I keep" Professor Turnbull is a peer reviewed expert. You need more than just opinion to persuade me.

I don't expect people to mindlessly accept my point of view. At the same time healthy critical thinking should not be suspended because someone is a so called "peer reviewed expert" who published some well illustrated picture books.

First Off the Japanese didn't lose in Korea. They conquered most of it from Korea and stalemated the Ming Armies and only left to fight a civil war in the Aftermath of Hideyoshi's death. It is interesting to note the Ming seriously considered letting the Japanese keep the south of Korea while they took the North only for Hideyoshi's request for a Chinese Princess as a concubine to scuttle the deal.

Nonsense, Japan lost the war. The fact is their prowess on land was insufficient for decisive victory, and at sea they typically lost battles. The war was already lost before Hideyoshi's death and the failure of his campaign caused the civil war.

As for the Japanese Matchlock, it was weather proof and they had superior firearms tactics and shortly after encountering Turkish Muskets they incorporated such design improvements in their own designs.

Show me. I don't see any of the Turkish or European musket's superior features adapted in the Japanese arquebus. The banning of firearms in Japan shortly after the war probably prevented further development.

The Japanese Armies still won most of the time and quickly adopted Cannons themselves. More importantly, the Japanese had disciplined troops well trained in close combat which the Chinese and Koreans lacked.

Again, show me the cannons. The Japanese never caught up with Chinese artillery, and would be totally outclassed by Spanish artillery.

So the Japanese simply adopt platoon firing positions protected by spears and shoot the Spanish Horse down after feinting with the cavalry who can also just simply shoot the Spanish horses out from under them.

No, Japanese infantry formation would be decimated by Spanish field guns. The harquebusiers would counter any cavalry attack on the guns.

Now the navy was admittably weak, but that was mostly the result of Hideyoshi not releasing his own Ironclads to engage the Turtle Ships.

These so called ironclads would be no match for Spanish naval guns. They only had a thin layer of iron to protect the ship from fire and grappling hooks. True ironclads were invented in the 19th century and had several inches of iron backed up by two feet of seasoned wood armor.

However, they had the expertise and were organizing into a primarily firearms army as evidenced by the numerous manuals being printed, on formation of musket lines and advice on how to transition to firearms, in Japan at this time.

They didn't have muskets, only arquebuses. It's anyone's guess if Japanese matchlocks can even penetrate Spanish armor. I'm not saying they didn't know their business. It's just that they were a century behind year 1600 Spain and at significant tactical disadvantage.
 
Last edited:

Commissar

Banned
I don't expect people to mindlessly accept my point of view. At the same time healthy critical thinking should not be suspended because someone is a so called "peer reviewed expert" who published some well illustrated picture books.

When you travel as extensively as Professor Turnbull has and have read as many primary sources as he has, then I'll give more weight to your opinions. Till then, you have nothing to back up your claims.

Nonsense, Japan lost the war. The fact is their prowess on land was insufficient for decisive victory, and at sea they typically lost battles. The war was already lost before Hideyoshi's death and the failure of his campaign caused the civil war.
No. The Japanese ran over the Koreans on the ground and stalemated the Ming Armies and it was the Ming who called Uncle First and offered the Japanese South Korea in exchange for their keeping North Korea. Also Hideyoshi's death was the primary cause of the Civil War.

Finally Admiral Yi's victories on the Open Seas could not cut off the Japanese supply lines totally. Osprey Fortress 67 by Stephen Turnbull, gives a good rundown of why.

From page 19.
Besides any communications role, the sheer existence of the wajo denied territory to the enemy on rivers, islands and coasts, and even though that territory was very small in area it was strategically very important to Korea, whose greatest strength was its navy. The Japanese had learned the hard way that if Admiral Yi caught them in open sea, as he did in the decisive battle of Hansando in 1592, then they would be annihilated.

Several of Yi's earlier victories involved his turtle ships luring the Japanese fleet out into open water and attacking them. From the Japanese point of view a turning point in the struggle was the use of coastal defences during Yi's attack on Busan Harbour in September 1592. This time the Japanese did not sail out in pursuit, but counterattacked from the fortifications
they had created out of the castles they had captured during the first landing.

Yi failed to make any impression on the defences. In spite of all the individual firepower possessed by its ships, the Korean Navy was limited in what it could do because of its need for night-time moorings. Once they realized this, the Japanese generals concluded that if they secured the coast of Gyeongsang Province with their wajo then Yi would not be
able to base himself near enough to the major communication routes with
Japan to threaten the Japanese ships. The raids on Ungcheon provided a good illustration of the Korean dilemma, because in spite of several attacks from the sea Yi was unable to control this vital harbour, and therefore did not dare advance into the waters to the east of Ungcheon, let alone launch another attack on Busan. Had he been able to destroy Busan, the partial Japanese evacuation of 1593 would have been as complete and as final as the one of1598. Instead Busan continued to act as the main Japanese base in Korea with little fear of disruption.
So there you have it, the Wajo ensured the neither the Chinese or Koreans could win the war and had Hideyoshi not been insane and scuttled the peace overtures of the Ming with outrageous demands, the Japanese would have had all of South Korea under their control.

Show me. I don't see any of the Turkish or European musket's superior features adapted in the Japanese arquebus. The banning of firearms in Japan shortly after the war probably prevented further development.

First lets show everyone what the Ming had:

From the Chinese musket manual "Magically Efficient Tools" of 1598, authored by Zhao Shizhen.

diagram.jpg


A. This is the Turkish Musket. Not much of a shoulder stock.

B. A Portuguese Arquebuse.

C. A Ming breachloader invented by the author himself, never successful as gas tight seals required machine precision screws that they could not build then. (Hey, a POD Challenge!)

Not shown is the tree barrel pole gun which was also used extensively in Korea.
kneel1.jpg

Portuguese weapon. Shoulder braced. Note fork clamp brace.

kneel2.jpg

Ming Breachloader, shoulder braced. Note fork clamp brace.
Now for the Japanese Guns.

From the Teppo Jutsu:
5cer2v.jpg


Wow, shoulder stocks. Not much of it, but hey. Interesting thing about this book written in 1603 was its mention of using bayonets!!! Note no fork clamp brace.

From the Zohyo Monogatari:
Lacquered_boxes_against_rain.jpg


Note they are bracing from the Shoulders. Note no fork clamp brace.

Again, show me the cannons. The Japanese never caught up with Chinese artillery, and would be totally outclassed by Spanish artillery

Cannons first showed up in Japan as Chinese imports in 1270 C.E. and were called Tetsuhō.

They didn't really catch on till the Firearms revolution began in the mid 1500s. Several cannons of Portuguese make were used at Nagashino in 1575, a few months later the first Japanese bronze 2-pounders were made for Oda Nobunaga.

Nineteen bronze cannons of the Dutch ship Liefde, piloted by William Adams were unloaded at a Tokugawa controlled port and according to Spanish accounts later employed at the decisive Battle of Sekigahara on October 21, 1600.

Your argument is destroyed. Research moar!

No, Japanese infantry formation would be decimated by Spanish field guns. The harquebusiers would counter any cavalry attack on the guns.

Field artillery at this time wasn't as decisive as it would be in the 1800s. They could only fire a round every 8 minutes if lucky. Damage to Japanese formations would be minimal.

The Japanese used platoon firing, had cartridges, more advanced weather proof guns. They also had more flexible pike screen vis-a-vis the Spanish Terico which prevented most of their own arquebuses from being brought to bear to counter the Japanese gunline.

The Spanish are going down in a hail of gunfire.

These so called ironclads would be no match for Spanish naval guns. They only had a thin layer of iron to protect the ship from fire and grappling hooks. True ironclads were invented in the 19th century and had several inches of iron backed up by two feet of seasoned wood armor.

Except the Spanish can not bring many ships to bear to begin with and it is a big ocean and the Japanese were beginning to catch up using Dutch designs before the freeze by Tokugawa which doesn't occur in this scenario.

They didn't have muskets, only arquebuses. It's anyone's guess if Japanese matchlocks can even penetrate Spanish armor. I'm not saying they didn't know their business. It's just that they were a century behind year 1600 Spain and at significant tactical disadvantage.

The Spanish were way behind the Japanese in training, doctrine, and gun technology and would have been massacred in their terico formations. They got as far as they did by Dividing and Conquering the Natives piece by piece.

They are going down.
 
Top