I believe from previous posts on this topic and a little googling the background on the coup that toppled the monarchy that Pedro II could easily have stopped the insurrection if he had wanted. He was fairly popular with the majority of Brazilians and was a respected figure among world leaders. But by all accounts he seemed to not care about the dynasty after his son/heir died and was not wiling to fight to keep the throne for his daughter, the Princess Imperial. In terms of Brazil at least, the monarchy could easily have survived. What the country would look like if it had, I have no idea though. More to the right and more Catholic, I imagine, with the Princess Imperial as Empress. Perhaps more immigration as well when the US started enacting quotas particularly among Southern and Eastern Europeans?
Emperor Pedro II was well beloved by the Brazilian people. All he had to do was fight for them and the Empire of Brazil would still be around, possibly. As to the differences of the world, I can't speak to that, not knowing enough about South American history in particular.
Yes, the coup had virtually no popular support, they had to tell the press that was a military parade and after the coup the pression was so hard that the republicans closed the congress and a campaign of terror followed until 1891, this era is known as the "republic of the sword", there is even the case of the capital of the state of Santa Catarina, that was called "Nossa senhora do desterro" that was a huge monarchist stronghold and because of that after "pacifying" the city (in the most barbaric way you can think of) the dictator Floriano Peixoto renamed the city to "Florianópolis", this name still stands sadly
If the emperor crushed the coup most of the crisis of the 20th century would be aborted, it is almost granted that Brazil would be one of the 5 leading powers in the world today, alltough the PoD is so much time ago that Brazil would be unrecognizable. The main divergences is that the government would be able to pay a reparations for the former slaves, the woman vote would have been allowed decades earlier, as princess Isabel said "If women can govern, they also can vote" and by butterflying the coup the landowners would not have slowed down our industrialization
Now I wouldn't exactly go to far to call Brazil one of the 5 leading powers in the world today if the republican coup was aborted. Granted, Brazil would be in a far more powerful position, probably enough to be an uncontested, if not nearly uncontested regional power earlier than OTL, with the possibility of it joining the ranks of being a great power, but many of the problems, especially the economic problems, that the early republic had, stemmed from policies enacted during the period of the late Empire, problems that the Empire will face even if it survived. That's not even going into consideration that industrialization for some countries...can be a tad painful so to say.
Now jokes (and gifs) apart, nothing is granted since the PoD is so much time ago, but even with all the desasters of the 20th century, Brazil still managed to briefly overtake the UK as the sixth largest economy in 2012, so it is very likely that a imperial Brazil would be more than able to do that
(also it is almost two AM here, sorry for my broken english)
Pedro II is still considered today as the gratest statesman of Brazil by many people. If the monarchy was allowed to survive, I can definetely see the princess eventually reforming the government into a proper constitutional monarchy. Brazil would be much more stable without the constant power shifts from the republican era, which means a better economy and larger possibilities of of industrialization.
I'm not saying Brazil would be a south american US, though. But a far more developed nation is very likely to arise in this ATL. Maybe Brazil becomes something similar to what canada and australia are today.
Also, there's a possibiltiy of intervention if the monarchy goes down in Portugal, like it did in OTL, if the princess is willing to help her dinasty.
I'm not saying Brazil would be a south american US, though. But a far more developed nation is very likely to arise in this ATL. Maybe Brazil becomes something similar to what canada and australia are today.
Also, there's a possibiltiy of intervention if the monarchy goes down in Portugal, like it did in OTL, if the princess is willing to help her dinasty.
Excuse me, brazil already was a constitutional monarchy since 1824
The power have been effectivelly been divided into the three powers and the monarch only had the moderating power, as in the UK
^ This, Brazil was essentially a British-styled Constitutional Monarchy from jump street. Really, the only benefit to the monarchy surviving would be a more stable political climate, which as people have said, would weather the economic difficulties that was inevitably going to happen during the Old Republic period. Would Brazil be a South American U.S.? No not in the slightest and that may partly be because of physical geographical constraints to industrialization and Sphere of Influence (the Amazon Rainforest), the country, although the largest in South America only has an Atlantic Coast, Sphere of Influence restricted to South America at worst, Latin America and across the Atlantic at absolute best), but I could see it being one of the Great Powers most likely.
Excuse me, the constitutional monarchy in Brazil wasn't like in the UK, as the moderator power stood above all powers, meaning the emperor could do whatever he wanted. The reason why it's never regarded as being that bad is because Pedro II was an excellent ruler. His father, however, reigned like an absolutist, though for a very short time.
Why would monarchy in Brazil survive the 20th century? Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain (kinda) have a similar political culture and they all kicked their monarchs during the 20th century.
Furthermore, why would Brazil be more stable? Let's face it, Brazil was much more stable than most of its Latin neighbors during the 20th century without an emperor.
Furthermore, why would Brazil be more stable? Let's face it, Brazil was much more stable than most of its Latin neighbors during the 20th century without an emperor.
This is an interesting idea. No one was really willing to help Manuel II when there was a "revolution" in Portugal (although that was another one, like Brazil, that didn't have universal support). Brazilian intervention would be interesting, especially since the First Portuguese Republic was pretty much a failure and the country under Salazar basically was a monarchical state. Although that is post-1900 so it may not apply here?
I can also see a potential diplomatic or otherwise conflict with the USA as a stable Brazilian Catholic monarchy seeks to make South America (and maybe Central America) its sphere of influence, a role the more WASP-ish US has claimed basically since the Monroe Doctrine as the hemisphere's only super-power. Certainly with someone like Woodrow Wilson, who disliked monarchies and Catholics, Brazil would have problems there.
Last edited:
If Brazil actually goes on to contest US hegemony in latin america, this is a huge win for the old powers. I can easily see Brazil being very close to Britain, as the english could use the brazillians as a way to counter american power on the continent. Brazil could then rely on their help to expand their influence across all of south america. Maybe this could help Portugal too, if they mantain healthy realtions.
That's not entirely true. Yes, Brazil was much more stable than most (or rather, almost all that weren't either still British, French or Dutch colonies) of it's Latin American counterparts during the 20th century, but that didn't mean that Brazil didn't fall into into the same pitfalls that its contemporaries fell into that century. (For example, the military dictatorship of the 70's and early 80's, not to mention the Vargas Era, say what you will for President Vargas.)
Long story short, you run the risk of political instability, whether you're a monarchy, a republic or a proletarian state.
Again, Spain and Greece both had kings, both were on the other side of the ocean and both fell into the same pitfalls (I'll exclude Portugal and Italy now because the killing of the Portuguese king was way before Salazar and Italy had the WWII). Still, the Mediterranean society was very similar to Latin America with regards to political/economic dynamics.
Exactly, as I suggested, similar culture, similar pitfalls.
Respectfully, I find it pretty delusional to think that the simple presence of a chief of state can change a nation's fate during the 19th and 20th century. The continuation of the Brazilian Empire doesn't lead us to think that we would have a radical shift in Brazilian political or economic culture, IMHO it's quite naive to think that way.
Excuse me³, the moderator power was largely irrelevant and it was behind the other three powers, and Dom Pedro I took the very early years of the empire and even them he did shared his powers with José Bonifácio and other politicians. Dom Pedro II removed any power that his huse still could have, and if the monarchy had continued it would end like Sweden or other constitutional power
Perhaps so, but I feel the reason why this conversation keeps popping up is pretty simple when you think about it. The First Brazilian Republic was a mess, let's just be realistic here. While it's not to say that the Empire wouldn't fall into some of the traps that the First Republic did (in fact, the economic turmoil and some of the social turmoil that occurred during the Old Republic period of Brazil was a result of policies dating back to the Empire post-Paraguayan War), But the 1889 Coup that came about further exacerbated the problems.
It was an oligarchic republic, ruled by strongmen alternating between the states of Sao Paulo & Minas Gerais, in particular the coffee oligarchs from those states, with support from the Army. The democratic vote was relatively curtailed during this period. To be fair, that too was partly the fault of the Empire, as the Empire's voting franchise was never big to begin with, initially curtailing the vote first to the upper and middle classes, and then to those who have the capacity to read and write, of which by the year the Empire ended in 1889, only 15% could do so. This was coupled with the fact that voting no longer became mandatory, something that the Old Republic failed to rectify, and in fact probably welcomed, since open elections would have broken the hold of the coffee oligarchs and senior military officers that dominated the country with an iron grip.
As a result of this, and the coup that deposed Pedro II, the Republic was unpopular, and saw several revolts in its history, the early revolts were pro-Monarchist movements, but later revolts were launched by the poor and down-trodden, and by junior officers who did not wish to continue to support for this oligarchic regime. This would ultimately culminate in the 1930 Brazilian Revolution that put Getuilo Vargas in power.
To some up, I do agree with you that Brazil's fate probably could've remained the same, the problems that it would've faced in this timeframe would still be there, but considering how many (but not all, I do believe that some of them did make a serious attempt at rectifying the situation) of the Presidents of the República Velha kinda botched the situation. I can actually understand why the idea of a surviving Brazilian Empire = Rise to GP status is actually commonly talked about here. I for one...think it is certainly is possible to change Brazil's fate with a different set of leadership...
...but I suppose that's because I don't believe in fate, now do I?
Vis-a-vis the Sweden comparison, in a cultural, historical, tourist-y sense, an "Empire" (are there "empires" left?) of Brazil that had a resident constitutional monarchy with a royal family (unlike say Canada, Belize or the Caribbean countries) it would make it stand out on the western hemisphere, especially in comparison to the upteen number of republics that surround it. Even in terms of pageantry and protocol it would stand out.
At the time there were. See: British Empire, French Empire (both in the colonial and Bonaparte's Second Empire), German Empire, Russian Empire, Austrian/Austro-Hungarian Empire, Ottoman Empire, the Empire of India (the official title of the British Raj), The Empire of China, the Empire of Japan, et.al.,
And yes that is true, especially when you consider it is probably the only stable monarchy in the Western Hemisphere, outside of the aforementioned monarchies whose monarch doesn't reside there on a regular basis.
Well, OK, I don't disagree, the Old Republic was chaotic. Still, this cycle of increasing excesses of the local elites followed by military intervention is seen everywhere in the Republican Latin America and the Monarchical Mediterranean Europe.
It's just how power balance happened to work down here. Let's compare Republican Brazil and Monarchical Spain for instance.
In a nutshell, stable countries tend to be Monarchical because they are stable, not the other way around.
It's just how power balance happened to work down here. Let's compare Republican Brazil and Monarchical Spain for instance.
- Brazilian Old Republic (clientelism in its purest form) > Hermes da Fonseca, Tenentism, Vargas' Estado Novo (military interventions)
- Bourbonic Restauration in Spain (decentralization and caciquism) > "Monarchical dictatorships" of Primo de Rivera and Franco.
In a nutshell, stable countries tend to be Monarchical because they are stable, not the other way around.
Last edited: