Portuguese India and Indonesia without Brazil

IOTL, Brazil was somewhat neglected for a long time as a Portuguese colony, with the Portuguese chipping away at its coast enough to import slaves and grow sugarcane but otherwise not doing much to conquer the interior, focusing instead on controlling trade in India and Indonesia.

What if Brazil was not just a backwater, but entirely abandoned, with the Portuguese deciding not to put any colonies down and focus on the lucrative spice trade to the east?

Would this see more Portuguese sail to Asia, and therefore conquer more territory and explore further than they did IOTL?

Or, would more Portuguese competing for glory result in their colonies overstepping, pissing off Muslims and Hindus from forced conversions and piracy and driving the creation of large anti-Portuguese alliances stronger than what the Portuguese faced IOTL, making them lose territory that they kept IOTL?

Or, was Portuguese policy a little more thought out than "sail east, smash and grab the choke points, tax everyone to hell" and the loss of Brazil would not change much as Portuguese policy would not change?
 
IOTL, Brazil was somewhat neglected for a long time as a Portuguese colony, with the Portuguese chipping away at its coast enough to import slaves and grow sugarcane but otherwise not doing much to conquer the interior, focusing instead on controlling trade in India and Indonesia.

What if Brazil was not just a backwater, but entirely abandoned, with the Portuguese deciding not to put any colonies down and focus on the lucrative spice trade to the east?

Would this see more Portuguese sail to Asia, and therefore conquer more territory and explore further than they did IOTL?

Or, would more Portuguese competing for glory result in their colonies overstepping, pissing off Muslims and Hindus from forced conversions and piracy and driving the creation of large anti-Portuguese alliances stronger than what the Portuguese faced IOTL, making them lose territory that they kept IOTL?

Or, was Portuguese policy a little more thought out than "sail east, smash and grab the choke points, tax everyone to hell" and the loss of Brazil would not change much as Portuguese policy would not change?
That is Possible.

I think Portugal could have acquired Northern Luzon before the Spanish because they are already threatened by the expansion of Brunei caused by their annexation of Tondo, IOTL the lowlands converted to Islam, that is if the Portuguese proved to be a better alternative than make peace with Bruneians and convert to Islam and Portugal could have succeeded in getting Sunda as its client.
 
Up until the 18th century the Portuguese invested almost nothing in Brasil except during periods of major crisis in Asian trade. The colony developed pretty much organically. Mainland Portugal was poor and overpopulated, so it made sense for common people to settle overseas. Brasil had the most potential for settlement, so it was settled.

Not colonizing Brasil wouldn't make Portugal's East Asian endeauvers any more successful.
 
Up until the 18th century the Portuguese invested almost nothing in Brasil except during periods of major crisis in Asian trade. The colony developed pretty much organically. Mainland Portugal was poor and overpopulated, so it made sense for common people to settle overseas. Brasil had the most potential for settlement, so it was settled.

Not colonizing Brasil wouldn't make Portugal's East Asian endeauvers any more successful.
Settling South Africa would grant Portugal a stronghold on the naval trade routes to Asia, in an era before the suez canal.
 
Settling South Africa would grant Portugal a stronghold on the naval trade routes to Asia, in an era before the suez canal.

That's very true. It's actually something that I fail to understand why it wasn't done, especially seeing as we did send settlers to the coast of Mozambique.

That said, it could have been done with or without Brazil. It would just a question of getting Portugal to show interest in it.
 
That's very true. It's actually something that I fail to understand why it wasn't done, especially seeing as we did send settlers to the coast of Mozambique.

That said, it could have been done with or without Brazil. It would just a question of getting Portugal to show interest in it.
Maybe if/since Brazil was settled first, it become easier for later settlers to settle in Brazil than in South Africa?
 

Lusitania

Donor
South Africa was settled by the Dutch as a way stop on the way to India and East Asia, the Portuguese had other way stops such as Mozambique so during the 16th century was not needed. The issue is that from 1580-1640 the Portuguese while still a separate country were starved of resources and manpower by Spanish king to finance their endeavors in Europe. By 1640 when the Portuguese gained full independence they were fighting for the empire with the Dutch and at much of an disadvantage.

As for Brazil many forget the lucrative sugar trade, while British, French and Spanish had the Caribbean islands plantations while the Portuguese had Brazil. So I not see the Portuguese abandoning Brazil but Brazil was in many ways Portugal's Caribbean with sugar being the primary reason for their continued presence.

Fyi more Portuguese emigrated to Brazil from 1500 - 1750 than British isles people to the 13 colonies during the same time period.
 
About a Portuguese South Africa:

The rand gold could be a minus Gerais rush analogue, which would attract hundreds of thousands of Portuguese and likely other Europeans.

The initial death rate of settlers in places like Rio was very high, and despite (and well, because of slaves) this the population was comparable to the thirteen colonies before the late 18th century, with the colder and dryer climate of South Africa the population growth will be more comparable to those of the New England colonies, expect it to have a significantly larger population compared to Brazil and the early United States.

These people will likely both push north, eventually linking the factories in Angola, Sofala and Mozambique and maybe go overseas to Madagascar and maybe even the La Plata region. Southern Africa south of Katanga/northern Angola/ Tanganyika will likely be majority mixed race by today, to varying degrees.

The Dutch will fight for it, and they may get parts of it for a short time but considering they didn’t manage to durably get Portuguese Brazil or Africa and considering the importance of the cape I think the Portuguese/Iberian can hold onto it, and with control over the ocean they will likely fare better against the Dutch, doubt they can keep the factories in Arabia though, Oman will be too much of a problem.

Eventually I think all the African colonies would be merged and at some point indépendance nce will happen, while Angola may be separated because of the importance of slave trade and good relations with American colonies, the cape region is likely to stay united, and in this case they will control the access to the Indians ocean, I think they will get portugal’s colonies there and importantly, with their demographic they may keep them for a long time, a goa or à Timor can be easily settled by a few hundred thousand loyal poor pardos from the cape. If it is significantly larger it won’t be colonised forever though. North-eastern Australia could make a nice plantation colony for Asians markets

Portugal may keep its Atlantic colonies, maybe Angola, Congo if it’s already integrated at the time, and likely some sort of Portuguese Guiana in South America, could be in the current Nordeste, or maybe the French or Dutch are already there, maybe the French or brits have a colony around irl Sao Paulo and Rio, maybe Bahia could be a place for Portuguese plantations.
 
IOTL, Brazil was somewhat neglected for a long time as a Portuguese colony, with the Portuguese chipping away at its coast enough to import slaves and grow sugarcane but otherwise not doing much to conquer the interior, focusing instead on controlling trade in India and Indonesia.

What if Brazil was not just a backwater, but entirely abandoned, with the Portuguese deciding not to put any colonies down and focus on the lucrative spice trade to the east?

Would this see more Portuguese sail to Asia, and therefore conquer more territory and explore further than they did IOTL?

Or, would more Portuguese competing for glory result in their colonies overstepping, pissing off Muslims and Hindus from forced conversions and piracy and driving the creation of large anti-Portuguese alliances stronger than what the Portuguese faced IOTL, making them lose territory that they kept IOTL?

Or, was Portuguese policy a little more thought out than "sail east, smash and grab the choke points, tax everyone to hell" and the loss of Brazil would not change much as Portuguese policy would not change?

Somethings that make it a little hard for Portugal to achieve this:

- Resources. They lacked resources which Britain had in the 18th century. Not the biggest obstacle as the Dutch with a similar situation still subdued Indonesia. Indonesia in this case is doable. India is discussable.

- Religious discrimination. This is the biggest obstacle. Discrimination of non-Catholics in India and Indonesia is what will prevent them from achieving their rule over India and/or Indonesia. If the Portuguese in the East lose their 'Reconquista'/'crusader' mentality and take a more business mentality they are a step of 100 years ahead of the Dutch and English.

- Geography. Surrounded by a somewhat hostile Castille/Spain. As I said, not the biggest obstacle but it is threatening.

If the second problem is dealt with, it is half way there.
 
Top