WI: The Tokugawas chose Hyogo-Kobe in Kansai instead of Edo in Kanto?

[ramones1986]

The role of Tokyo as capital of Japan actually started when Tokugawas set up their "general headquarters" in the then-little known village of Edo in the year 1603. Until that time, Edo and the surrounding region of Kanto was generally avoided because its flat terrain (a plain) was generally avoided for security reasons and its population density was relatively low; the Japanese population at that time were indeed concentrated in more defensible Kansai region.

One of the reasons Edo (later Tokyo) was chosen by Tokugawas because aside from the fact that there was already a fortification (Edo Castle, now the Imperial Palace), they generally avoided the two most important Japanese cities, Kyoto and Osaka: Kyoto, the nation's capital for a long time, was dominated by the Imperial Family and the court nobility, while Osaka was dominated by the merchants. Edo, the Tokugawas thought, was perfect for sankin kotai system.

One of the effects of this shift was the related to Japanese language; the standard was changed from Western Japanese (Kyoto) to Eastern Japanese (Tokyo), which culminated in the Meiji Restoration of 1868, where Edo was formally proclaimed the nation's capital as Tokyo.

Recently, I was thinking that if the Tokugawas had the chance to stay in Kansai as the location of their "general headquarters", they should consider the city of Hyogo because there was already a fortification built there (Himeji Castle) and it was relatively close to both Osaka and Kyoto, which is also, admittedly, quite a problem.

Aside from the fact that standard Japanese in this scenario would still be based on Western dialects, what would be its possible impact on both Japanese demographics and history?

 

[Alon]

First, shameless plug: in my Anglo-French TL, a shogunate unifies Japan about on schedule, but the capital remains Kyoto. Kanto is a secondary region, with Kanagawa having about the same population as OTL's Fukuoka or Nagoya.

More generally: I don't know how it would affect the history. In OTL, Osaka and Kyoto were already very large for non-capital cities - if I'm not mistaken, they were the largest non-capitals in the world outside China until the mid-19c. In 1800, Japan and France had about the same population, and probably about the same urbanization level, but Kyoto and Osaka were almost as large as Paris, and far larger than Lyon and the other secondary French cities. The merchants were already wanked, so I don't think giving them closer access to the bakufu would change the basic outline of Japanese history before European contact.

Culturally, I can see a whole bunch of changes. Japan is incredibly centralized around Tokyo today; in a TL where the center was in Kansai, it would be even more centralized, since Osaka and Kyoto would function as multiple centers within the same metro area rather than as the anchors of a different metro area. Metro population in the 40-50 million range would be plausible. The Tokaido would be relatively less important - it would still exist as a road, but it would not have either the cultural or economic significance it has in OTL. A road along the route of the Sanyo Main Line would be as important.

 

[ramones1986]

First, shameless plug: in my Anglo-French TL, a shogunate unifies Japan about on schedule, but the capital remains Kyoto. Kanto is a secondary region, with Kanagawa having about the same population as OTL's Fukuoka or Nagoya.

The Imperial Court and the aristocracy are already comfortable sharing power with the bakufu in your scenario, aren't they?