AHC/WI: Vietnamese modernization in 1800s

[August II Mocny]

Japan modernized from 1860s and later. Can Vietnam achieve the same?

It is unlike Japan, a land power with easy access to China and the rest of Indochina. Hence Hainan and Thailand/Cambodia/Laos should be easy pickings

If it starts a wholesale modernization in 1860s like Japan, it might kick French butt in 1880s and then take on decrepit Qing Dynasty. Do you guys propose any earlier PoD?

If it does start, what western countries serve as role models? Japan modelled itd legal system and army after Germany

 

[LampLighters]

You would have it stabilize and unify earlier. Vietnam was still unstable for much of the 19th century.
Since it's not an island country, it will not be isolated from any chaos and turmoil in mainland Asia.

 

[August II Mocny]

You would have it stabilize and unify earlier. Vietnam was still unstable for much of the 19th century.
Since it's not an island country, it will not be isolated from any chaos and turmoil in mainland Asia.

But it can use that turmoil to it's advantage if it can modernize.

It could annex modern day Indochina, Hainan, kick the Spanish from the Philipines or even the Dutch from Indonesia.

It also might have a demographic explosion much greater than that of Japan

 

[LampLighters]

It also might have a demographic explosion much greater than that of Japan

Why though?

 

[August II Mocny]

Why though?

Modern Vietnam has 97 mln people up from 28 mln in 1950. Japan had 84 mln in 1950and grew to 127 mln at height.

There is simply more room for population as Vietnam had something like 10 mln people in 1800

 

[TRH]

I did a bit of reading on this a while back, and Minh Mang seems like a problem, with the double whammy of isolationism and spending too many resources fighting Siam for control of Cambodia. Avoid him coming to power, at least.

Also, 1860s is too late for Vietnam, the French were already knocking by 1858 and they were in no shape to repel them.

 

[Metempsychosis]

Having done a bit of research on this just recently, I think you have to make whoever takes over Vietnam in the early 19th century a bit more unorthodox than the Nguyen rulers they got IOTL. Gia Long himself is too invested in keeping his legitimacy as Emperor to rock the boat too much, and Minh Mang is even worse in the long run.

Also, Siam is not as easy to defeat as you make it seem.

 

[Oda]

More population doesn’t really equal to faster modernisation…
Also the problem with Vietnam was political instability like others have said. Get the warring states period ended sooner and don’t fight with Siam for Cambodia(which is so poor that their monarchy beg for france to come help them).

Even then Vietnam is most likely to be a Thailand not Meiji tbh Meiji Japan was special in a lot of factors that Vietnam does not have

 

[CV12Hornet]

Vietnam doesn't have Japan's economic fundamentals, and while you can call Minh Mang isolating the country a mistake he was doing it due to serious problems with European powers using his Catholic subjects as a proxy to gain control of the country.

That, I think, is the biggest obstacle alongside the generally impoverished economy: to pull a Meiji they need to open up and Westernize, but doing so invites more Catholic influence and risks the Catholics overthrowing the native rulers and inviting in European rule. The French interventions were very often in response to repression of Catholics, repression motivated by scheming and plotting by said Catholics. It's a Morton's Fork situation that's going to be extremely difficult to break from.

 

[TRH]

I'll also point out that "pulling a Meiji" is incredibly hard. The Chinese put a lot more effort into modernizing in the 19th century than they get credit for, but various crises during that time limited the government's options, it's hard to open up to the West without also putting them in a position to exploit you and even Westerners themselves didn't necessarily have the best understanding of how to transition to an industrial society at the time, never mind others trying to emulate them. After all, economics was in its infancy and modern development theory didn't exist. So in China's case they focused on adapting Western technology to some success without also being able to reform their institutions to the same degree, which led to problems like the Beiyang fleet not being able to stand up to the Japanese navy in part because its commanders had looted the fleet budget to line their own pockets.

There's no end to the potential pitfalls and a ton of delicate social, political and economic tightropes to balance, all while being pressured by rival states. Which in Vietnam's case would include the Europeans, Siam and even China to some extent. In general, I think timelines featuring "alt-Meijis" should focus on small improvements first, such as improvements in education and agriculture. My timeline has a chapter on Burma taking its first steps on this road, and it's more about an improved transportation network helping with exports of food and gemstones for the time being. Going for industry immediately would be a mistake.

 

[Metempsychosis]

Vietnam doesn't have Japan's economic fundamentals, and while you can call Minh Mang isolating the country a mistake he was doing it due to serious problems with European powers using his Catholic subjects as a proxy to gain control of the country.

That, I think, is the biggest obstacle alongside the generally impoverished economy: to pull a Meiji they need to open up and Westernize, but doing so invites more Catholic influence and risks the Catholics overthrowing the native rulers and inviting in European rule. The French interventions were very often in response to repression of Catholics, repression motivated by scheming and plotting by said Catholics. It's a Morton's Fork situation that's going to be extremely difficult to break from.

I guess this is why there needs to be astute amd stable leadership which can balance between the pressures of Westernization and maintaining independence. It's a knife's edge to walk, definitely, and it won't automativally lead to industrialization, as you say.

 

[Oda]

I'll also point out that "pulling a Meiji" is incredibly hard. The Chinese put a lot more effort into modernizing in the 19th century than they get credit for, but various crises during that time limited the government's options, it's hard to open up to the West without also putting them in a position to exploit you and even Westerners themselves didn't necessarily have the best understanding of how to transition to an industrial society at the time, never mind others trying to emulate them. After all, economics was in its infancy and modern development theory didn't exist. So in China's case they focused on adapting Western technology to some success without also being able to reform their institutions to the same degree, which led to problems like the Beiyang fleet not being able to stand up to the Japanese navy in part because its commanders had looted the fleet budget to line their own pockets.

There's no end to the potential pitfalls and a ton of delicate social, political and economic tightropes to balance, all while being pressured by rival states. Which in Vietnam's case would include the Europeans, Siam and even China to some extent. In general, I think timelines featuring "alt-Meijis" should focus on small improvements first, such as improvements in education and agriculture. My timeline has a chapter on Burma taking its first steps on this road, and it's more about an improved transportation network helping with exports of food and gemstones for the time being. Going for industry immediately would be a mistake.

Just to add The problem with China is their conservative are super weary of allowing industrialisation because it brings in foreign ideas and culture which could lead to the downfall of the dynasty.So they intentionally sabotage the reformist self strengthening movement and sideline reformist prince too.

It wasn’t like the conservatives don’t realised that they need to reform China is just they intentionally half assed it so the dynasty could stay in power

Edit: This is the reason why Japan can modernise so successfully their Meiji oligarchs all of them unanimously regardless of whether they are pro military or liberal know Japan survival is to reform all level of society and they did it together even though they well don’t like each other.

 

[TRH]

Just to add The problem with China is their conservative are super weary of allowing industrialisation because it brings in foreign ideas and culture which could lead to the downfall of the dynasty.So they intentionally sabotage the reformist self strengthening movement and sideline reformist prince too.

It wasn’t like the conservatives don’t realised that they need to reform China is just they intentionally half assed it so the dynasty could stay in power

Edit: This is the reason why Japan can modernise so successfully their Meiji oligarchs all of them unanimously regardless of whether they are pro military or liberal know Japan survival is to reform all level of society and they did it together even though they well don’t like each other.

Someone in a China thread a while back made some very insightful observations about the influence of the Chinese gentry on their political economy, noting that they built a system which compensated for its lack of representation in government with low taxes, which resulted in a very limited state and military compared to the size of their territory, and also left most of the population dependent on subsistance farming, making them both impoverished and susceptible to famines. Japan had more reliable agricultural surpluses which paved the way towards greater economic development and a state with the resources to pursue important projects.

 

[Fatt Shea]

I'll also point out that "pulling a Meiji" is incredibly hard. The Chinese put a lot more effort into modernizing in the 19th century than they get credit for, but various crises during that time limited the government's options, it's hard to open up to the West without also putting them in a position to exploit you and even Westerners themselves didn't necessarily have the best understanding of how to transition to an industrial society at the time, never mind others trying to emulate them. After all, economics was in its infancy and modern development theory didn't exist. So in China's case they focused on adapting Western technology to some success without also being able to reform their institutions to the same degree, which led to problems like the Beiyang fleet not being able to stand up to the Japanese navy in part because its commanders had looted the fleet budget to line their own pockets.

There's no end to the potential pitfalls and a ton of delicate social, political and economic tightropes to balance, all while being pressured by rival states. Which in Vietnam's case would include the Europeans, Siam and even China to some extent. In general, I think timelines featuring "alt-Meijis" should focus on small improvements first, such as improvements in education and agriculture. My timeline has a chapter on Burma taking its first steps on this road, and it's more about an improved transportation network helping with exports of food and gemstones for the time being. Going for industry immediately would be a mistake.

Do you think any other countries other than Japan could "pull mejis", maybe China?

 

[Oda]

Do you think any other countries other than Japan could "pull mejis", maybe China?

If China can get away without a taiping maybe. Ethiopia could but the country landed nobility is too powerful and more often than not clashed with the emperor over modernisation.
Bruma problem is that most of their literate males are tied up being monks I think not sure about Bruma.
Egypt on the surface comes close but the country get fucked over way too many times due to Muhammad Ali desire to take over ottoman

Someone in a China thread a while back made some very insightful observations about the influence of the Chinese gentry on their political economy, noting that they built a system which compensated for its lack of representation in government with low taxes, which resulted in a very limited state and military compared to the size of their territory, and also left most of the population dependent on subsistance farming, making them both impoverished and susceptible to famines. Japan had more reliable agricultural surpluses which paved the way towards greater economic development and a state with the resources to pursue important projects.

Oh certainly. China went the total opposite of Tokugawa japan in terms of decentralising power. IIRC the number of civil servant in Tokugawa japan is on par with the number of civil servant Qing has on their official payroll

The logic is that More government servants will burden the peasant class and lead to more corruption so what actually happens is that Ming and later on Qing dynasties tend to contract out government jobs to the landed gentry class to do and is much more cheaper since they aren’t in government pay instead the gentry use their wealth to upkeep themselves. (Which surprise surprise ironically lead to more corruption)

Also the Low number of civil servants is also to just how difficulty the imperial exams were. Retries are common and expensive

What this means is that by the time both countries need to industrialise Japan has the government service it needs to implement reforms quickly and effectively. Whereas China civil service already small and have been throughly gutted by civil wars and on top of that due to taiping provincial governments have gained massive amount of power, find it difficult to get the provinces to follow the center and implement reforms

 

[Arkenfolm]

Bruma problem is that most of their literate males are tied up being monks I think not sure about Bruma.

Most Burmese men only spent a few years in their youth as Buddhist monks rather than their entire life.

 

[spoonzandforkz]

Modern Vietnam has 97 mln people up from 28 mln in 1950. Japan had 84 mln in 1950and grew to 127 mln at height.

There is simply more room for population as Vietnam had something like 10 mln people in 1800

Well, the vast majority of that growth was due to the 20th century/21st century pan-Third World population boom, as modern medicine and Green Revolution agricultural techniques finally arrived in full force.

In contrast, the 19th century (mostly European) industrial boom was not as big mostly because medicine wouldn't be as advanced as it would be during the late 20th century. So if Vietnam were to modernize earlier, mostly along with the Europeans, it's likely they'd be rather less populous than OTL; although of course much richer.

 

[suul'ken]

What about more advanced Indochina overall?
In my understanding Japan managed to pull a Meji because it was roughly analogous to Early Modern European countries.
If you want a country in Southeast Asia to pull an Alt Meji wouldn't Siam be a better choice?
They managed to survive IOTL by playing the colonial powers off each other and they did make some small advancements.

 

[Oda]

What about more advanced Indochina overall?
In my understanding Japan managed to pull a Meji because it was roughly analogous to Early Modern European countries.
If you want a country in Southeast Asia to pull an Alt Meji wouldn't Siam be a better choice?
They managed to survive IOTL by playing the colonial powers off each other and they did make some small advancements.

Siam lost like a third of their “land”(which honestly in the long run help them since those land they lose aren thai and mostly are tributaries states who were poor as fuck because of Siam heavy annual tribute and the occasional Vietnamese wars)
Even then they were reduce to like economic colonialism and having to agree to a lot of concessions to the western powers etc

But being Siam is more realistic than Japan tbh Togukawa shogunate did a lot to bring japan up to a stage of Porto industrialisation

 

[CV12Hornet]

Siam also has economic problems that get in the way of the kind of modernization Japan pulled off. For one, like Vietnam their commercial sector was dominated by Chinese merchants, which led to commercial revenues flowing out of the country. For another, Siam had a serious labor shortage during the 18th and 19th centuries due to the Burmese invasions of years prior. The labor priority was in resettling the countryside, with no surplus for the cities so critical to any sort of industrialization.