China, Japan, Iran, Saudi & Turkey were never colonized but India was. Why?

Mar 2012
4,323
#81
Japan had far fewer harquebusiers than they claimed. During the Imjin invasion, the fourth Japanese division, leadered by Shimizu Yoshihiru, was composed of (Turnbull, Samurai Invasion, pp.44-45):

*600 samurai
*3,600 ashigaru, of which
-1,500 arquebusiers
-1,500 archers
-300 spearmen (of which, 200 pikemen)
-300 flag bearers

4,200 fighting me men, and 5,800 labourers and support crew in general

If we extrapolate this to the entire army, just 42% of men were truelly fighters, which leave the real number of soldiers directly involved in the first invasion at a mere 57,624 men. Of this, a mere 35,71% were arquebusiers, this means 20,577 arquebusiers. The total numbers aren't that different to those of Europe. Actually, the structure of the Japanese divisions, with percentages of fire weapons lower than usual ratios in Europe (50-50 by this time) is oldfashioned, with very weak pike formations and a large number of outdated bows.
Also, I don't have Turnbull's book right now, but I suspect that you are misinterpreting this passage in your own way. It's been awhile, but I don't recall him stating that support crews aren't combat prone as any army on the march will leave a part of their men guarding the logistics as well as a part of their army making camps, engines, and digging ditches. That however, does not mean these men aren't part of the army. In Li Jing's treatise of the 7th century Tang army for example, described that out of an army of 20,000 on the march, 8,000 are to guard the supply line and he did not describe the exact component of these units either as they weren't part of the regular fighting division, but they had weapons to fight nonetheless. If so, there is no reason to exclude these men from the list of soldiers as not a single source I've came across did this so please cite where Turnbull made the claim that logistic crew are not fighting men.
 
Last edited:
Aug 2016
97
earth
#82
the national education level of these countries are far higher than other countries in african and american.
as for india, because of its caste system, overall education rate at that time was too worse than iran, turkey or china.
 
Sep 2012
8,924
India
#83
the national education level of these countries are far higher than other countries in african and american.
as for india, because of its caste system, overall education rate at that time was too worse than iran, turkey or china.
Can you be more specific in respect of your statement in your post ? At what time was the ' overall education rate was too worse than iran, turkey or china ' ? And what do you mean by overall education rate and do you have sources that can demonstrate what you are stating here ? Do you have ' overall education rates ' for Iran, Turkey and China at ' that time ' ?
 
#84
There was indeed a strong cohesive empire after the mughals who are often ignored. The marathas.
They were a strong cohesive movement (at the beginning at least) but they never made it to 'empire' status. For most of their short lifespan, despite their relatively modern style of warfare by Indian standards, they were a loose confederacy of bickering chieftains who just wanted to carve out city states for themselves, and they had no real control over their 'conquered' peoples (see the Third Battle of Panipat: nearly all of their subject peoples refused to fight for them) and they had little interest in constructing a centralised state like the Mughals had done.

I thought Iran was not doing well during qajar era and was ripe for the taking. Am surprised Russia did not take either Iran or Turkey.
Well, Russia did take most of Northern Iran, or Georgia, Azerbaijan and Armenia as well call it today.

Why do you think European powers took all of arabia barring Saudi. Is it coz they were worried about antagonizing Muslim's worldwide by taking holy lands. I fail to understand why inner Arabia should not be colonized when poor provinces like Syria, Iraq, Yemen even were taken.
Remember that Britain had been supporting the Saudis against the Ottomans in order to weaken the former, they were already a separate entity to the Ottomans so they didn't just come with the territory after WW1. Britain probably didn't feel the need to wage a separate war of conquest against an ostensibly friendly power (this was after the war anyhow, the age of aggressive expansionism was largely over by that point).

And you can hardly compare Syria and Iraq to the interior of Saudi Arabia. Inner Saudi Arabia was an uninhabitable desert populated by camel herders until the 20th century. The Fertile Crescent was the cradle of human civilisation and home to some of the largest cities of the Medieval world, and even during the Ottoman period it was still more comparable to Europe than to most parts of Asia and Africa. And of course Yemen was essential for control of the Red Sea.
 
Last edited:
Jan 2015
5,416
Ontario, Canada
#85
Also, I don't have Turnbull's book right now, but I suspect that you are misinterpreting this passage in your own way. It's been awhile, but I don't recall him stating that support crews aren't combat prone as any army on the march will leave a part of their men guarding the logistics as well as a part of their army making camps, engines, and digging ditches. That however, does not mean these men aren't part of the army. In Li Jing's treatise of the 7th century Tang army for example, described that out of an army of 20,000 on the march, 8,000 are to guard the supply line and he did not describe the exact component of these units either as they weren't part of the regular fighting division, but they had weapons to fight nonetheless. If so, there is no reason to exclude these men from the list of soldiers as not a single source I've came across did this so please cite where Turnbull made the claim that logistic crew are not fighting men.
Why are we relying on Turnbull though. We could use the numbers given by Samuel Hawley or George Sansom or even Kenneth Swope. Though their numbers are probably not significantly different overall.
 
Apr 2019
67
United States
#86
I feel like places like China and Turkey were very civilized. I mean the Ottomans and Ming and Qing were competitive with Europe in many aspects and also better than Europe in many aspects. It took the whole Holy League to prevent Ottoman expansion into Central and eastern Europe, and the Ming defeated the Portuguese many times. Colonizing these countries would be like colonizing another European power and in some ways harder because of logistical problems. All of these weren't really an issue with India because it was basically a bunch of empires that would be easy to take one by one and were inferior in technology.
 

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
6,248
Spain
#88
Afghanistan was not conquered...
I feel like places like China and Turkey were very civilized. I mean the Ottomans and Ming and Qing were competitive with Europe in many aspects and also better than Europe in many aspects. It took the whole Holy League to prevent Ottoman expansion into Central and eastern Europe, and the Ming defeated the Portuguese many times. Colonizing these countries would be like colonizing another European power and in some ways harder because of logistical problems. All of these weren't really an issue with India because it was basically a bunch of empires that would be easy to take one by one and were inferior in technology.
Almogaveres proved they were able to conquer Turkey.
 

Similar History Discussions