Portuguese colonialization and Interactions in the New World?

If we have it so that the Portuguese were to be the ones who "discover" the New World instead of Spain, how would their way of colonizing Latin America in general differ from how the Spanish approached it? And how would they interact with the Native empires?
 
Last edited:
I'd imagine it would be slower. The Portuguese tended to setup forts and ports and overtime they would evolve into settler colonies.

Still I wonder if the Portuguese to would overthrow the Aztek and Inkan empires, or would they simple be dominant trading partners?
 
The Portuguese didn't have the money to hold and administer large tracts of territory like the Spanish did- the Portuguese colonial empire was always a rather ramshackle affair in that way.
 
Unlike the Spanish, the Portuguese focused on controlling important trade nodes rather than entire areas, the majority of the large territories they occupied before the union with Spain were either mostly unpopulated or inhabited by more primitive natives like in Brazil and Africa.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Same technology, similar military kit, same disease, metallurgy, cavalry advantage, same diseases. They would not need to start big. There is nothing "too big" about the Bahamas, Haiti and Cuba for the Portuguese.

I'd still give them more than even odds of conquering Mesoamerica and Peru, that's where the people to trade with and steal from live. But yeah, I don't think they'd ever get as massive as the Spanish Empire. I'd see them get the Caribbean, Mexico south of the desert, Central America, Colombia and Peru. I think northern Mexico, the latter American southwest, Florida, and the Rio De La Plata would be too much for them to absorb, but they could still acquire a pretty hefty realm.

They'd have less income to put behind colonization, but also would have many fewer commitments than the Spanish did, especially once they married into the Habsburgs.
 
I'd see them get the Caribbean, Mexico south of the desert, Central America, Colombia and Peru.

If the Portuguese seize Peru and therefore the silver mines, they would be really, really fucking rich (especially since they don't have to pay for religious wars in Germany, unlike the Hapsburgs). I guess the question is, what would they do with the silver? Try to trade it to the Chinese like the Spanish did, hire mercenaries in Europe to protect their borders from the Spanish, or trade it to African kings for slaves?

Or perhaps someone who actually knows something about early modern Portuguese politics would care to chime in.
 
I'm going to disagree on a few points, firstly, Portugal punched far above its weight for such a peripheral and resource poor country for a long time. If we consider that it had a much smaller population base than the larger powers and was still able to carve out a large empire in South America and later Africa, it was an impressive feat. Just compare the population of the countries below.

1700
France 21 million
Great Britain 6 million
Spain 5 million
Portugal 2 million
Netherlands 1.9 million

As for settler colonies, Portugal did have settler colonies as early as the 15th century (Madeira and the Azores). As I have mentioned in other threads, a little known fact is that the Portuguese more settlers to the Americas than any other European power during the 1500-1760 period. They sent more settlers to the Americas as Spain did.

Portuguese Migration (most to Brazil after 1600)
1400-1500 50,000
1500-1580 280,000
1580-1640 360,000
1640-1700 150,000
1700-1760 600,000
1760-1820 105,000

British & Irish Migration
1600-1640 126,000
1640-1700 248,000
1700-1760 372,000
1760-1820 615,000

Spanish Migration
1492-1580 139,000
1580-1640 188,000
1640-1700 158,000
1700-1760 193,000
1760-1820 70,000

As I mentioned the Atlantic islands were Portugal's first settler colonies.
Madeira's population grew from 3,000 in 1455 to 29,000 by 1550. The Azores itself had a population of over 90,000 by 1600. The island of Sao Miguel alone had 42,300 people by 1600. By the late 16th century they were already providing settlers for Brazil and Azoreans would be instrumental in establishing settler colonies in Maranhao and Para beginning in the late 17th century and Southern Brazil to counter the Spanish during the 18th century.

If the Portuguese had settled more temperate climates less prone to disease in the same numbers that they sent to equatorial regions with high mortality, the Portuguese-speaking population around the world would have been much larger than it is. I would expect a Portuguese California for instance to have been more settled by 1800 than Spanish California, probably by Azoreans (interestingly enough they did settle there beginning in the late 19th century).
 
I don't think it's that probable that Portugal will conquer both the Aztec and the Inca. OTL the Spanish were extremely lucky in both situations.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
If the Portuguese had settled more temperate climates less prone to disease in the same numbers that they sent to equatorial regions with high mortality, the Portuguese-speaking population around the world would have been much larger than it is. I would expect a Portuguese California for instance to have been more settled by 1800 than Spanish California, probably by Azoreans (interestingly enough they did settle there beginning in the late 19th century).

So are Angola and Mozambique your baseline for unhealthy equatorial regions the Portuguese tried to settle? Would Mexico and Peru be much healthier than Brazil or Macao or East Timor? Hmm even leaving the Americas aside, what would it have taken for the Portuguese to plant a population in the Cape, which is a "Mediterranean" climate after all.
 
So are Angola and Mozambique your baseline for unhealthy equatorial regions the Portuguese tried to settle? Would Mexico and Peru be much healthier than Brazil or Macao or East Timor? Hmm even leaving the Americas aside, what would it have taken for the Portuguese to plant a population in the Cape, which is a "Mediterranean" climate after all.

When one looks at the mortality rates of Europeans in various colonies (fortunately the Catholic church tended to keep very good records of births and deaths) the trend is that where the largest number of Portuguese settlers went between were areas of high mortality, due to mostly tropical disease. During the 14th and 15th centuries many Portuguese men went to Africa and Asia and met an early death due to disease. Angola and Mozambique were not nearly as important during this period, Goa, Malaca and Macau tended to be.

However, by the 17th century Brazil became the leading place of settlement for the Portuguese, and here too the natural growth rate of the European population was much lower than it would have been in more temperate regions. Early settlement was focused in the sugar growing areas of northeastern Brazil, especially Bahia. Settlers were also sent to Maranhao and Para. By the 18th century, Portuguese settlement had reached Amazonia.

The trend of higher mortality rates of Europeans in tropical regions was not one unique to the Portuguese. During the 17th century ten times as many people from the British Isles settled in the West Indies as they did in New England. However, due to New England's cold winters killing off diseases, this meant that the settler population in New England grew, whereas the white population in the West Indies actually declined. Even in Virginia, the growth rate was lower and in the Southern Colonies the natural growth rate was around 0% until the late 18th century, mostly due to the settlement of marshy lowlands which were a breeding place for disease carriers.

Just as in New England, in New France, an even smaller number of settlers was able to achieve a very high natural growth rate due to a healthy climate. In fact, their numbers doubled every generation (every 25 years). Dutch South Africa too experienced the same phenomenon of a very high natural growth rate of its European population due to the dry Mediterranean climate around the Cape of Good Hope and the arid climate to the north.

Another factor in the settler colonies with high rates of natural growth was the settlement pattern where abundant land meant settlers lived in homesteads isolated from one another, rather than in the clustered found even in rural Europe. This pattern of settlement quickly proved important in limiting the spread of disease. Also, the abundance of land in these colonies, reduced the importance of dowries and made people have far more children than their counterparts in Europe. It also meant that without having to worry about dowries, marriages took place much sooner than in Europe.

Only by the mid-18th century when the Portuguese were challenging the Spanish along the Plate River would they settle areas which led to a high rate of natural growth. The settlements in Santa Catarina, Parana and Rio Grande do Sul also enjoyed a very high rate of natural growth, similar to those found in the British, French and Dutch colonies mentioned above. As for Mexico and Peru, the highlands with drier cooler climates would have most certainly been better for the prevention of disease. Also, the more arid regions of northern Mexico did tend to have higher rates of natural growth than the tropical lowlands of Northeastern Brazil.

As for Angola, it is noted that over hundreds of settlers arrived in Luanda in the late 16th century and early 17th even orphan girls. However, the death rate here was so high that the white population was below replacement level. This phenomenon would last until the mid-19th century. However, if one looks at the Brazilians from Pernambuco settled in Mocamedes (today Namibe) in Southern Angola in 1849, their population enjoyed a natural growth rate of 2.5% per year. The same can be said of the 295 people from Madeira settled in the highlands of southern Angola (Huila) in 1881, they had a natural growth rate of 2.7% per year early on.
 
Top