That's quite an interesting idea- the Empire of Brazil, with African colonies of Angola and Mozambique. But wouldn't Portugal have ardent opposition against being annexed into Spanish authority?
Asking for Help: British Argentina Butterflies
- Thread starter zeppelinair
- Start date
unprincipled peter
Donor
It's a little unrealistic for Brazil to sell off it's parent. the parent isn't to take it well, and P still had a say in Brazil. Joao specifically kept Portuguese countrymen in charge of Brazil when he moved there. When Portugal demanded he return, the Portuguese still in Brazil sided with them and forced his return. He might have set it up a little different so that Brazilians had more sway and he could have just told Portugal to kiss off. Selling off Portugal though, invites a shit storm.
That said, Spain could have easily taken over Portugal in the War of the Oranges (1801). England had abandoned P, and S had easy early victories. What held them back was that the two countries had family ties (Joao was married to Charles' daughter), and (more likely) France was sending troops to ensure the job got done, so Spain basically agreed to an early truce to avoid France getting a foothold on the peninsula. Napoleon was none too happy. War of the Oranges was a precurser to what happened 6-7 years later: Spain/France were going to divy up Portugal. Spain aborted the mission early. Next time around, Nap made sure the French troops were out front.
It's a scenario I've toyed around with: expanding War of O, and having the Portuguese court moving to Brazil a few years earlier.
And, keeping the crown in Brazil depended on the players. Joao and Pedro I were duds in that regard. Pedro II had staying power. Change up the personality of J and P I, and you change Brazilian history. Specifically, ideal for both Portugal and Brazil was having Pedro I be a real ruler, rather than a playboy. Either Pedro I or Joao returns to Portugal in 1816 timeframe. Set up a weak constitution defining a dual monarchy. Waiting til forced only guaranteed that the crown was destined to split. A better king than Joao changes everything.
That said, Spain could have easily taken over Portugal in the War of the Oranges (1801). England had abandoned P, and S had easy early victories. What held them back was that the two countries had family ties (Joao was married to Charles' daughter), and (more likely) France was sending troops to ensure the job got done, so Spain basically agreed to an early truce to avoid France getting a foothold on the peninsula. Napoleon was none too happy. War of the Oranges was a precurser to what happened 6-7 years later: Spain/France were going to divy up Portugal. Spain aborted the mission early. Next time around, Nap made sure the French troops were out front.
It's a scenario I've toyed around with: expanding War of O, and having the Portuguese court moving to Brazil a few years earlier.
And, keeping the crown in Brazil depended on the players. Joao and Pedro I were duds in that regard. Pedro II had staying power. Change up the personality of J and P I, and you change Brazilian history. Specifically, ideal for both Portugal and Brazil was having Pedro I be a real ruler, rather than a playboy. Either Pedro I or Joao returns to Portugal in 1816 timeframe. Set up a weak constitution defining a dual monarchy. Waiting til forced only guaranteed that the crown was destined to split. A better king than Joao changes everything.
unprincipled peter
Donor
meant to add: conquering and holding Portugal really only failed because Nap decided to invade Spain and they rebelled, successfully. P rebelled and got put down rather easily. It was only with Spain draining off French resources, and England finally figuring out how to fight a land war/sending in an army, that Portugal managed to wiggle free.
so with the king moving to Brazil earlier than IOTL, would that make Brazil more politically stable ?
On the question of dual monarchy. After there is a split, who keeps the African colonies? the possibility of a continued Brazilian colonial empire seems too awesome to be left alone....
I think that an even more relevant example than the process that led to the British takeover of the Dutch Cape Colony is the process that led to the British takeover of Quebec starting in 1759. In that situation, in Quebec City, French soldiers were ferociously against a British takeover (similar to how ferociously against the British the local militias in Buenos Aires were in 1807), but they lost anyway at the Plains of Abraham in 1759. And the French fought back in Quebec City in 1760 and won, but by that time it was too late anyhow for the French. So too, the Buenos Aires and other Rio de la Plata creole militias would doubtless have attempted to fight back after a decisive British victory, but it would have been too late for them.
Regarding Britain and Spain as allies from 1808, the British invasions of Buenos Aires took place before the 1808 takeover of Spain by Napoleon; it was that Napoleonic invasion that led the Spanish colonies to recognize the previous Spanish government as the legitimate one. In other words, Spain had been on France's side for a short while before 1808 (which is why the Brits invaded the Rio de la Plata in the first place), but now the Spanish in Latin America were on the same side as the Brits. As Colonel Troutstrangler has indicated, the Spanish Empire (which was seriously weakened at that point) was in no position to demand anything and indeed asked for British assistance. So, the Brits definitively keep the Rio de la Plata region itself and give back (for the time being, as a friendly gesture) most of the interior (which was, just like the Rio de la Plata, in the Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata). This is where things get interesting....
I think that with regard to the interior, sure, the Spanish and creole forces will make it difficult for the British, but the British gradually make inroads there anyway. To me, it's no real different from the situation in the Boer republics of Natalia and interior South Africa in the mid-late 19th century. At first, the British will prop up and support independent Spanish-speaking republics (as a buffer for the now-British-held Rio de la Plata). Later on, as more British settlers come first to the Cordoba area and later to the Cuyo and Tucuman/Santiago del Estero regions (the way British settlers pour into Natal, the Transvaal, and the Orange Free State in South Africa), these areas eventually get formally annexed into the British Empire just as those areas in South Africa got annexed to the British. Just as gold and diamonds brought British settlers to the South African interior, so wine in the Cuyo, sugar in Tucuman, etc. bring in new British farmer settlers. (Salta/Jujuy becomes a part of Bolivia because of the different military dynamics of a British Argentina vs. OTL Argentina.)
Hello! thanks for the reply!
CalBear, regardless of this post being necromancy I hope you will be sympathetic. thanks.
CalBear, regardless of this post being necromancy I hope you will be sympathetic. thanks.
Pedro I had so many issues going against him besides the Cisplatine fiasco; he probably would have abdicated and sailed off to Portugal anyway, as OTL.
As for the lack of a Paraguayan War, that wouldn't have made too much difference in terms of the advance of Brazilian republicanism. Slavery would have been abolished more or less at the same time as OTL. The monarchy would have been overthrown anyway, due to many other factors going on at the same time - perhaps just over a year after when it was OTL.
In terms of San Martin, Belgrano, etc., *if* the British do manage to keep Buenos Aires as well as Montevideo in the long run (which, as I've already explained recently in other posts, is a long shot for various reasons), Belgrano wouldn't have made his Paraguayan expedition, and San Martin wouldn't have made the Andean crossing and help trigger the independence of Argentina, Chile, and what not - resulting in many butterflies. If, on the other hand, only Montevideo is kept long run by the British, Belgrano and San Martin probably carry out their independence-making endeavours (more or less as OTL).
I'm realizing, now, as I've related in so many other threads recently, that what I wrote above is not actually relevant, as the British would have held onto Buenos Aires for a few years at most but that they would have held onto Montevideo for much, much longer. Just Montevideo rather than that plus Buenos Aires put together would have been the more appropriate parallel to Quebec in 1759 and Cape Town in 1795 and 1806. Therefore, the British probably don't make serious inroads, if at all, to the Argentine interior, contrary to what I describe above. What doesn't change, though, is that the Spanish (owing to their weakness) do not demand of the British to give back the captured territories.
It is true that the British bungled further by withdrawing from Montevideo after the failure at Buenos Aires, but it was not the initiative of the British to leave Montevideo. It was not entirely their own fault. Instead, it was Liniers plus the rest of the Spanish/porteño side that made the demand to the British to get out of the whole region, including Montevideo.
What do you mean that it's necromancy? And what kind of lock are you referring to?
Replying to very old threads is called necromancy as it is considered dead.
Dead Threads get locked if resurrected.
In this case you have updated with further information so it might not count as necromancy and not be locked