Could you please elaborate? I don't see what circumstances you are referring.The mid 1800s are the sweet spot where Brazil would truly have no cards to play.
Could you please elaborate? I don't see what circumstances you are referring.The mid 1800s are the sweet spot where Brazil would truly have no cards to play.
in the mid 1800s the anti-revolutionary alliance breaks down so the Brazilian monarchs won't be able to count on continental allies putting down a Portuguese revolution for them, and at midcentury moving an army of their own over to Portugal to do the fighting themselves would be quite the feat.Could you please elaborate? I don't see what circumstances you are referring.
Makes sense. However, there are some circumstances I think could help Brazil securing the region. Example: if there's a member of the royal family acting as a regent (one who doesn't try to get the throne to himself and who can act as a mediator between Portugal and Brazil), or/and if they keep a good relationship with Britain.in the mid 1800s the anti-revolutionary alliance breaks down so the Brazilian monarchs won't be able to count on continental allies putting down a Portuguese revolution for them, and at midcentury moving an army of their own over to Portugal to do the fighting themselves would be quite the feat.
Pedro I/IV was an admirer of Napoleon and had long wanted to assume the title of Emperor. Being fairly liberal the most ideal title would be to adopt the title "Emperor of the Portuguese". This would be like Napoleon's Emperor of the French, or Louis-Philippe's "King of the French". Also, the rulers of Belgium adopted "King of the Belgians" as did those of Greece "King of the Hellenes" for their new kingdoms. Official documents would refer to the "Portuguese Empire". They would of course retain the title of King of Portugal, Brazil and the Algarves etc. Many Brazilian intellectuals had argued in the early 1820s that their pátria (fatherland) was composed of various parts of territory around the globe united in the person of the king, so this new title would be more appropriate. This was also when the term "overseas province" was first used to describe the other territories of the empire. The idea was despite the king's subjects throughout the disparate geographic were united. Meanwhile, Portugal retained a special place as "the cradle of the nation" from which a global empire was born. As a result, the "Kingdom of Portugal" and "Kingdom of Brazil" would be constituent parts of a larger "Portuguese Empire".
One of the complaints that the Portuguese elites had during the 1808-1821 period was that the length of time it took to send requests to the king in Rio de Janeiro took too long. Salvador da Bahia would have probably been a better choice as the imperial seat, but Rio de Janeiro was much more prominent as it was near the economic heart of Brazil., The Kingdom of Portugal like the provinces of Brazil will have to have its own assembly and essentially functioning as any of the provinces of Brazil did with its own autonomous legislature in Lisbon. However, being a kingdom it would be ruled by a "Regent" rather than a governor, and be directly responsible to the Emperor/King rather than Rio de Janeiro.
With Brazil being dominant in Angola the establishment of a transcontinental empire linking it to the possessions in East Africa would be accomplished with much greater ease. Also, its status as a penal colony means that it will get a large amount of convicts from Brazil past the 1820s. Eventually, Angola would be elevated to the status of a "kingdom" within the Portuguese Empire. In 1886, the name Angola was used to refer to this territory, so I imagine it would be the most appropriate here. Lord of Guinea was another title of the Portuguese Crown. Perhaps a Kingdoms of Guinea and Dahomey can emerge. It might also be populated with more liberated slaves, and have a stronger creole component, much like Sierra Leone.
I don't see Madagascar becoming Portuguese as the French were already dominant there. The same with Celebes (Sulawesi) or Moluccas where the Dutch had an older presence. If there is a Emperor/King whom is as ambitious as Leopold II of Belgium, New Guinea or even Cochin China is possible, but I imagine they will focus on Africa. Portugal's presence in Moçâmedes was founded in 1840 by settlers from Pernambuco. A more likely expansion would be into present-day Namibia, as Portugal's claim went down to Cape Frio, but this was ceded to Germany in 1885 along with the territory south of Kilwa in present-day Tanzania. Additionally, they will move to reestablish a claim to Cabinda before 1885, as well as a claim over the territories that had been part of the Kingdom of the Kongo along with the territories of the Lunda people that extend into the present-day Congo.
Getting into the name issue; I think it is likely that this union will adopt the name of Lusitania and be known as the Lusitanian Empire, Dom Pedro I / IV could have adopted the name of Emperor of the Lusitans.
The name Empire of Lusitania or Lusitanian Empire would be a better name for the symbolism of this new union, while a new name different from the old name '' portuguese empire '' represented a new beginning for Brazil, now elevating it to the united kingdom status with portugal; and at the same time the name '' Lusitania '' would still show the presence of the old regime for Portugal, since it was adopting the old name of Portugal.
there massive difference, Austria and Hungary were to different cultures all together, Lusitania means the common Lusophone heritageWouldn't "Portugal-Brazil" be more likely, as Austria-Hungary? Lusitania = Portugal, so Brazil would be erased out just after being elevated to the United Kingdom status.
Wouldn't "Portugal-Brazil" be more likely, as Austria-Hungary? Lusitania = Portugal, so Brazil would be erased out just after being elevated to the United Kingdom status.
The comparison with Ireland is much different as the Portuguese from Metropolitan Portugal would not be a marginalised and disenfranchised people with a different religion and language and customs. That is not to say that revolts are not possible, particularly early on as the elite want Brazil to return to its pre-1808 mercantilism system. Early on in the 1820s you have two factions in Portugal, or rather in Lisbon and Porto. The liberal bourgeois whom would look to England for assistance and the conservatives backed by the powerful church and old nobility looking to absolutist France and Spain. The liberals are going to probably win out, but in return will have to give up an pretense of having he old order restored. A compromise might be a personal union, with joint navy, foreign ministry and common currency.
Revolts were not unknown throughout XIX century Europe, but usually they were relegated to Lisbon or Porto, as the rest of the country stagnated and the literacy rate was probably less than 10% outside of the cities. North of the Tagus River, the Portuguese economy particularly in the small towns and cities was economically dependent on the emigration to Brazil. The remittances sent from Brazil were so significant that as early as March 1875 Joaquim Pedro de Oliveira Martins, a deputy in the Cortes stated that Portugal was completely financially and economically dependent on Brazil. This only increased as Portuguese emigration there increased progressively, so much so that in 1890 when remittances were disrupted due to the revolution in Brazil, the lack of foreign exchange caused a financial crisis in Portugal. By 1910 in districts like Bragança one in six young men emigrated to Brazil with around one-third returning, many with small fortunes, building hospitals, schools and providing much needed capital to areas with a mediaeval economy. Between 1890 and 1930 alone over 1 million Portuguese left for Brazil. Any revolt might would seriously hamper one of the economic backbones of an already fragile economy.
My take is the Portuguese character would be even more fatalistic and resigned to their fate, not dissimilar to how many perceive of themselves as a tiny powerless nation within the European Union. Throughout much of the XIX and XX centuries it was said that Portugal needed the empire in Africa or else it would be reduced to a Spanish province, if they revolt they're left without that. The country produced little of value, and without coal, iron ore missed industrialization. The poverty can be reflected whereby 1930 its literacy rate the lowest in Europe than one-third of its people able to read or write. By comparison, Spain, Greece, Romania, Bulgaria, Poland and the USSR were all above 50% by that year, the only country in Europe with a less educated population was Albania. Lisbon and to a lesser extent Porto were able to modernize, but in the case of Lisbon much of this wealth came from the imperial economy and the civil service, banking and shipping linked to the colonial empire. By the 1920s, the diamond monopoly in Angola and the labour agreement between Mozambique and South Africa provided income directly to Lisbon. With the navy on the royal family's side Portugal would probably even lose the Atlantic Islands as these archipelagos would be even more dependent on emigration to Brazil than the mainland.
With enough autonomy and a greater reliance on settling much larger numbers Portuguese peasant families, particularly those from the islands in southern Brazil, I imagine this can function as a large safety valve for any revolutionary activity. One has to remember that between 1870 and 1930 the economically active population in Portugal continued to decrease to just over 50%, meaning there were not enough jobs to support the population growth. The government would probably set a larger budget to financially assist immigration to Brazil from Portugal, something that did not occur after 1822.
But it is the revolts that took place during the period of the empire, such as the Farroupilha Revolution, Cabanagem, Sabinada, Balaiada and etc; wouldn't it happen since the Brazil-Portugal union is more unstable than the Brazilian empire in our timeline?
The brazil empire of our timeline spent much of its military power to contain revolts, the Brazil-Portugal union would use its military power to expand its territories in south america and expand the overseas empire.
But in this world, wouldn't there be major revolts in Brazil and Portugal or would the Brazil-Portugal union be similar to the history of the USA in the 19th century? (most of the US military force was used to expand to the west, and in American history you hear only a major "revolt" in the American civil war).
Would the Brazil-Portugal union have its 19th century history similar to that of the USA or could it be similar to the history of England or of which other nation?
And getting into a controversial issue: what would be the society and economy of slavery and slavery in general of that union? And when would the abolition of slavery occur? and the slave trade what would it be like? (since portuguese africa and brazil are still united)
Would a transfer be possible if the Spanish are more successful during the Fantastic War?snip
Would a transfer be possible if the Spanish are more successful during the Fantastic War?
If the Spanish capture Lisbon in a nasty fight that damages the city even further just seven/eight years after the earthquake, could that convince Pombal that the place just wasn't worth rebuilding? The guy was pretty much a dictator at this point, so if he decides to go to Rio de Janeiro or Salvador said transfer would probably happen.During that period a lot really depends on the Marquis de Pombal's policy, but had he not been minister it would have probably been much more likely as Central Lisbon was still in ruins and an invasion would have only worsened things.
Moving of the court to Brazil had been proposed by Luís da Cunha to John V in 1736 stating that Brazil was necessary for Portugal's survival, but Portugal was not necessary for the survival of Brazil. He argued that Brazil's economic wealth would allow the King much greater leverage on the world stage than remaining in Portugal. This idea was revived in 1755 after Lisbon's earthquake, as this had been the second such event destroying much of the kingdom's wealth (the first in 1531). He also argued that Rio was geographically closer to Portuguese territories in Africa and India. This was important because in times of war, reinforcement of forces in those regions could be achieved in a shorter time. It would also allow the entire empire to flourish and grow with him mentioning expansion to the Island of Saint Lawrence (Madagascar).
Due to the low population in Brazil, da Cunha had called for the agricultural colonisation with far more Portuguese settlers to alleviate the overall poverty of the kingdom. The landless peasantry of Portugal could be granted large tracts of land. He was particularly adamant about colonising Southern Brazil to grow the same plants as in Portugal. He emphasises cultivating wheat in Colonia do Sacramento and how grapes should be planted for wine. Brazil would be strengthened and if Spain attempted to attack or invade Portugal, a strong Brazil could threaten the Spanish possessions in America. And he does go on to say that the Portuguese would be able to expand in Southern Brazil at the expense of the Spaniards.
Perhaps the greatest argument that he made was that Portugal's small size in Europe made it vulnerable to invasions from Spain or other powers. This point was reiterated in 1821 when there were those advising King John VI to remain in Brazil. Between 1640 and 1812, Portugal had been at war with Spain and or France over half a dozen times. With invasions every few decades, it was thought that more would occur. Additionally, the Dutch and British had shown the effectiveness of blockading Lisbon by sea, further strangling the main source of the crown's wealth. By concentrating the treasury along with the bulk of imperial forces in the New World, the Portuguese Empire would have been more secure.
Finally, by moving Brazil it was argued that the King of Portugal would by free from intriguing nobles from Portugal and coupled with being far from the courts of Europe, could now enact a truly independent domestic and foreign policy. He also suggested that the title of Emperor be adopted. In 1736, this would have elevated the status of the king, by making him equal to the Holy Roman Emperor.