Which non-European nation had the potential to industrialize first?

[SealTheRealDeal]

IIRC it was specifically Southern Song that had a lot of proto industries. This is important as the traditional Chinese heartland was divided between Song and Jin, allowing a number of smaller states (Dali, Western Xia, Dai Viet, ect...) to treat with the Chinese states on a more equal level (as opposed to the vassal/tributary relations that China typically enjoyed). Further, its territory was located south of the North China Plain, reducing the stranglehold of agriculture upon Chinese economic thought and reorienting it to the coastal and riverine economies of Southern China.

So this was a region with:
-military and economic competition between states
-powerful and organized private merchants
Not an exact match, but it's not too dissimilar from the conditions in Europe...

I wonder how China might have developed had the Ming-Qing transition similarly ground to an eventual halt dividing China-proper between Qing and Southern Ming, with some other noteworthy states (Dzungars, Vietnam, a surviving Xi Dynasy in Sichuan?) around the periphery.

 

[Domz]

IIRC it was specifically Southern Song that had a lot of proto industries. This is important as the traditional Chinese heartland was divided between Song and Jin, allowing a number of smaller states (Dali, Western Xia, Dai Viet, ect...) to treat with the Chinese states on a more equal level (as opposed to the vassal/tributary relations that China typically enjoyed). Further, iits territory was located south of the North China, reducing the stranglehold of agriculture upon Chinese economic thought and reorienting it to the coastal and riverine economies of Southern China.

So this was a region with:
-military and economic competition between states
-powerful and organized private merchants
Not an exact match, but it's not too dissimilar from the conditions in Europe...

I wonder how China might have developed had the Ming-Qing transition similarly ground to an eventual halt dividing China-proper between Qing and Southern Ming, with some other noteworthy states (Dzungars, Vietnam, a surviving Xi Dynasy in Sichuan?) around the periphery.

Dang Mongols, they destroyed the Southern Song, Baghdad, and Novgorod, all three states that might have been on the verge of proto-Capitalism (although I only included Baghdad due to the Islamic Golden Age).

 

[Wendell]

Japan.

 

[Domz]

I'd really add something about competition. A lot of capital and investment went through the state, or States which had to centralise due to the need for a standing military, and associated equipment costs.
That is quite similar to what you see in China.

One possible difference is that once you reach the level necessary to beat up internal revolts and state nomads, you don't really need to keep innovating. On top of that, having one state means (possibly) promoting stability which is not quite compatible with rapid advancement.
So, how do you combine centralising states with the need for dynamism? You get competing states.

When the Europeans came to India, there were large standing armies with well used artillery. The states didn't have mastery of naval warfare, but Portuguese had to use a lot of local allies in any land battles. They also had a few genius commanders in the right place at the right time.

If the Portuguese had been there but not quite as successful, with a drip of Europeans coming in, it might have spurred further advancement, especially if the Ottoman Empire gets involved.
OR your PoD might be the Portuguese lose the Ottoman-Portuguese war in the XVIth century, which is not far fetched. It acts as a wake up call, pushing industrialisation to serve the Ottoman and European market, as well as sharing military doctrine and tech.

I'll mention that according to Victor Lieberman's academic book "Strange Parallels in Southeast Asia Vol. I", Thailand and Burma developed advanced gunpowder tactics in their contest for regional military supremacy from 1758 to 1855. Ayutthaya Thailand's military development fell by the wayside in the years leading up to the Second Fall of Ayutthaya in 1767, with 155 years of peace between itself and the Restored Taungoo Dynasty of Burma. Lieberman also states that in Indonesia, Muslim sultanates were able to develop either better tactics or create superior modifications of European guns at certain points.

 

[Harshavardhana]

Bengal or in a fractured China.

 

[Tanc49]

Southeast Asia couldn't have possibly industralized (prior to the Europeans forcing it upon them). The fact that its first communities were one to two thousand years after Europe and China-India tells you of the disadvantage of Southeast Asia's location

Vietnam had cannon foundries from the early XVIIth century though?
Why? Well, it was a very densely populated land with mercantile connections... and a civil war spurring tech advancement

 

[Domz]

Vietnam had cannon foundries from the early XVIIth century though?
Why? Well, it was a very densely populated land with mercantile connections... and a civil war spurring tech advancement

Well there are 11 countries in Southeast Asia, removing one country from that still makes it a majority of countries when referring to Southeast Asia.

Even if Vietnam had remained divided in 1802 onwards, with multiple equallly powerful countries being at odds with one another in perpetual war being a perquisite for technological development, 1802 is too little too late.

 

[Tanc49]

Well there are 11 countries in Southeast Asia, removing one country from that still makes it a majority of countries when referring to Southeast Asia.

Even if Vietnam had remained divided in 1802 onwards, with multiple equallly powerful countries being at odds with one another in perpetual war being a perquisite for technological development, 1802 is too little too late.

I think 1802 is too late for this.
Weren't we arguing this on another thread together? Seem to recall...

You did have initial foundries and stuff all across the region, prior to European arrival in the region, and they did have some form of cannons. However, it was either couleuvrine style (like in Indonesia) or massive stuff, Ottoman style, on the mainland.

I'd have to check but I don't recall a proper explanation as to why their industries fell behind compared to European armourers... Why didn't the Mughal invent the flintlock or the percussion cap? Why didn't Mysore or Aceh?

 

[Domz]

I think 1802 is too late for this.
Weren't we arguing this on another thread together? Seem to recall...

You did have initial foundries and stuff all across the region, prior to European arrival in the region, and they did have some form of cannons. However, it was either couleuvrine style (like in Indonesia) or massive stuff, Ottoman style, on the mainland.

I'd have to check but I don't recall a proper explanation as to why their industries fell behind compared to European armourers... Why didn't the Mughal invent the flintlock or the percussion cap? Why didn't Mysore or Aceh?

Arguing over history is quite a tedious business I'm afraid, sorry. When you read enough scholarly books, you'll understand my predicament (though I recommend you checking out the Reddit r/askhistorians book recommendations).

 

[Tanc49]

Arguing over history is quite a tedious business I'm afraid, sorry. When you read enough scholarly books, you'll understand my predicament (though I recommend you checking out the Reddit r/askhistorians book recommendations).

I hope I'm reading your message wrong, but it comes off as INCREDIBLY dismissive and patronising.
Romain Bertrand in "L'Histoire à parts égales" doesn't answer my questions. Neither do Sanjay Subrahmanyam, Gruzinski, Braudel, or a myriad of other authors. That's just my personal library, I'm sure there are other books on the subject.
The "Cambridge History of Southeast Asia", for example, just states that as European gunsmithing became more complex local artisans couldn't keep up but doesn't provide a solid explanation as to why.

Now, if instead of telling me to go read a book you want to actually argue as to why it was preordained that advanced gunsmithing would originate from Europe, be my guest.

My initial point about arguing was about not derailing the thread on whether Vietnam is just doomed to be colonised after 1790. We both disagree on this, as you seem to stay with classic historiography of the XIXth century as just a prelude to colonisation. Which I find damaging and untrue.
But I did not want to argue this here. I've read books, thank you very much, I've written about them. I'd suggest not being that condescending with people you disagree with in the future, as it does not lead to proper discussion.

 

[WhatSantayanaSaid]

Seeing as coal is a rather important resource for industrialization and Japan itself doesn't have much coal and what coal they do have is of poor quality, I'd doubt Japan would be a good candidate for starting an industrial revolution (unless they conquered some regions with enough coal lying around, at which point the issue becomes whether the Japanese end up adopting coal as a major energy source despite the transportation costs and not having prioritized it as a fuel previously and if they can hold onto the coal producing regions without revolts or external invasions threatening their hold).

Meanwhile Korea wasn't nearly as urbanized as Japan or England and the caste system and Confucian ideology there prevented widespread literacy and mercantilism, so capital isn't too readily available.

Basically Japan lacked the resources (and it's doubtful just conquering those resources would work prior to actually knowing how those resources can be leveraged for industrialization or just having a long tradition of using those resources like the English did with the coal just lying on the ground) and Korea lacked the institutional support, at least compared to England and Belgium in the 1700-1800s.

 

[sarapen]

I've seen quite a few questions on why Thailand didn't become a "great power". 50% of its territory was acquired only in the 18th century, during a period of rapid military expansion. It's jungles made civilization such a slow progress (Southeast Asia's population density according to Chris Baker and Pasuk Phongpaichit was a fourth or fifth of China and India's). Southeast Asian communities were largely confined to the rivers. The high mortality of a tropical environment resulted in the rise of a slave society. When neighboring kingdoms fought one another, they fought to depopulate each other, steal each other's people and goods and take them back to increase their own legitimacy. Buddhism and the idea of the Bodhisatta (i.e. a king on his way to become the Buddha) probably didn't help either.

The main Indian religious influence on Southeast Asian kings was not Buddhism but Shaivism (i.e., worship of Shiva). Its ideology was more conducive to having a single overlord ruling over the masses.

 

[Booster Gold]

IIRC it was specifically Southern Song that had a lot of proto industries. This is important as the traditional Chinese heartland was divided between Song and Jin, allowing a number of smaller states (Dali, Western Xia, Dai Viet, ect...) to treat with the Chinese states on a more equal level (as opposed to the vassal/tributary relations that China typically enjoyed). Further, iits territory was located south of the North China, reducing the stranglehold of agriculture upon Chinese economic thought and reorienting it to the coastal and riverine economies of Southern China.

So this was a region with:
-military and economic competition between states
-powerful and organized private merchants
Not an exact match, but it's not too dissimilar from the conditions in Europe...

I wonder how China might have developed had the Ming-Qing transition similarly ground to an eventual halt dividing China-proper between Qing and Southern Ming, with some other noteworthy states (Dzungars, Vietnam, a surviving Xi Dynasy in Sichuan?) around the periphery.

Seeing as coal is a rather important resource for industrialization and Japan itself doesn't have much coal and what coal they do have is of poor quality, I'd doubt Japan would be a good candidate for starting an industrial revolution (unless they conquered some regions with enough coal lying around, at which point the issue becomes whether the Japanese end up adopting coal as a major energy source despite the transportation costs and not having prioritized it as a fuel previously and if they can hold onto the coal producing regions without revolts or external invasions threatening their hold).

Meanwhile Korea wasn't nearly as urbanized as Japan or England and the caste system and Confucian ideology there prevented widespread literacy and mercantilism, so capital isn't too readily available.

Basically Japan lacked the resources (and it's doubtful just conquering those resources would work prior to actually knowing how those resources can be leveraged for industrialization or just having a long tradition of using those resources like the English did with the coal just lying on the ground) and Korea lacked the institutional support, at least compared to England and Belgium in the 1700-1800s.

Had Muhammad Ali 1849 not died and/or started his programs earlier Egypt might have been able to pull this off. Or even if programs did not fall into decline Ottoman Egypt might have been able to rise to the top of things.

It would appear that I was wrong, Japan's coal resources aren't as accessible as I thought so it's unlikely to progress. Southern Song is out because southern China has little coal as well, same for SE Asia. Egypt also has a coal problem as well as a population surplus dating back to antiquity. So what does that leave us with? Turkey? They have coal but the Arab slave trade rules them out. And the fact that they failed to industrialize even when surrounded by industrializing neighbours and in a bad way doesn't bode well for them.

So I guess Indonesia is the only other option? How are their coal options? What about a West African polity or maybe event the Kingdom of the Congo? Both of those places are silly with resources (nowadays anyway) and some balkanisation and a more aggressive slave trade might leave them depopulated. Or possibly an aggressive malarial mutation. Otherwise...well, I guess history happened the way it did for a reason.

Or...and hear me out, a slower colonisation of the new world (Columbus fails meaning colonisation is focussed around Brazil and Newfoundland) means at least one of the stronger native polities survives. They're underpopulated, have access to coal and a great incentive to advance technologically.

 

[Lethal_Drinker]

None. They can't. Even if God came from above and gave them everything necessary to industrialise, they would not. I am an Indian and i can honestly say, even though i hurts me deeply, that they will not.

 

[Grey Wolf]

Japanese coal

Mining in Japan - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[dfl_90]

I'd question Japan, because Japan industrialised in response to, and following the model of, Europe. So it's European competition that spurred it, it wasn't native.

While your first point is very much true, I'd argue that your conclusion isn't. After being introduced to European firearms in the 16th century, the Japanese replicated them within a few years and were mass producing them domestically a few decades later. Their value in combat, both domestic and abroad, was quickly appreciated. From there they independently developed some of the same tactics and innovation we associate more with Western warfare at the time, such as volley fire and paper cartridges. It was the relative peace of the Edo period that eventually tempered that industry. While weapons are just one aspect of industrialization, I do think it shows that the Japanese were capable of making such a transition, something they demonstrated rapidly in the 19th century.

 

[sarapen]

With regard to Indonesia, over time the source of basic metalwares in Southeast Asia like needles and cast iron pots came to be dominated by Chinese imports. This was due partly to more advanced methods available in China but also to the products being cheaper thanks to economy of scale. So that's one issue militating against Indonesian industrialization, depending on when exactly it's supposed to happen.

 

[Lalli]

What about a West African polity or maybe event the Kingdom of the Congo? Both of those places are silly with resources (nowadays anyway) and some balkanisation and a more aggressive slave trade might leave them depopulated. Or possibly an aggressive malarial mutation. Otherwise...well, I guess history happened the way it did for a reason.

I don't know about resources (at least there should be iron and coal for industrialisation). But it seems that sub-Saharan societies were pretty underdeveloped compared to Europe that they could launch early industrialisation. These tribal kingdoms should are more centralised and them should have capital and suitable business class before they can go that far.

Or...and hear me out, a slower colonisation of the new world (Columbus fails meaning colonisation is focussed around Brazil and Newfoundland) means at least one of the stronger native polities survives. They're underpopulated, have access to coal and a great incentive to advance technologically.

Wasn't even Inca Empire yet basically on Bronze Era? There probably should happen lot of changes before they can launch industrialisation or then they need help of Europe. Of course if Incas manage to repulse Pizarro's attack, somehow deal with their civil war and take some Spanish prisoners who could tell who handle iron. But it is still long path to industrialisation. But at least they are literally sitting top of good raw matters of gunpowder.

 

[Tanc49]

While your first point is very much true, I'd argue that your conclusion isn't. After being introduced to European firearms in the 16th century, the Japanese replicated them within a few years and were mass producing them domestically a few decades later. Their value in combat, both domestic and abroad, was quickly appreciated. From there they independently developed some of the same tactics and innovation we associate more with Western warfare at the time, such as volley fire and paper cartridges. It was the relative peace of the Edo period that eventually tempered that industry. While weapons are just one aspect of industrialization, I do think it shows that the Japanese were capable of making such a transition, something they demonstrated rapidly in the 19th century.

Ah interesting.
I imagine Japan would need to be less isolationist and start an export market for their guns and industry to spur further advancement.
Otherwise it's just imitation right? And I see no reason they couldn't, but if Japan was starting to be in competition with Europeans for those markets... especially as, IIRC, they also have silver mines, they could industrialise.
But they need to embrace the competition which is the opposite of the Dejima system.
I'd imagine quite a few local states would be delighted to get weapons without having to invite missionaries in. Thinking of Vietnam for example...

 

[Insane Ranter]

It would appear that I was wrong, Japan's coal resources aren't as accessible as I thought so it's unlikely to progress. Southern Song is out because southern China has little coal as well, same for SE Asia. Egypt also has a coal problem as well as a population surplus dating back to antiquity. So what does that leave us with? Turkey? They have coal but the Arab slave trade rules them out. And the fact that they failed to industrialize even when surrounded by industrializing neighbours and in a bad way doesn't bode well for them.

So I guess Indonesia is the only other option? How are their coal options? What about a West African polity or maybe event the Kingdom of the Congo? Both of those places are silly with resources (nowadays anyway) and some balkanisation and a more aggressive slave trade might leave them depopulated. Or possibly an aggressive malarial mutation. Otherwise...well, I guess history happened the way it did for a reason.

Or...and hear me out, a slower colonisation of the new world (Columbus fails meaning colonisation is focussed around Brazil and Newfoundland) means at least one of the stronger native polities survives. They're underpopulated, have access to coal and a great incentive to advance technologically.

Indonesia would be held back due to being a Dutch colony from around 1512. Colonies generally used for extraction of resources and not made into industrial power houses.
To beat the British to industrialization you are going to have to start before 1730ish or so. Before that you are generally getting into the ideas of "why didn't the Roman's industrialize?" realm.