The timing is vague regardless so it could mean southern Brazil and/or northern Brazil depending on the POD.
What would Brazil look like if it had been a colony of Britian?
- Thread starter Historianweebnino
- Start date
yes, a specific time would help and if it has to be all of Brazil or just a part.
Assuming world events largely resemble OTL in at least broad terms, Brazil shares one advantage with the OTL U.S. in terms of being separated from likely theaters of conflict by an ocean (and to the west by the Andes + Atacama Desert and Amazon Jungle, which might as well be an ocean in terms of traversability). So, the ability to ride out any conventional global conflict is certainly a boon. There's also the likelihood of a large population, with corresponding economic muscle if they can industrialize at OTL or better levels.
I personally think that #2 might be a stretch (albeit not impossible, with being in the Top 5 as quite doable); assuming a best-case scenario, IMO domestic progress and/or economic and cultural 'soft power' might be higher than global military 'hard power' but still no slouch in the latter. In other words, massive influence on global commerce if they can overcome their early agricultural mono-economy (and possibly impact entertainment and general pop culture), with military prowess ranking somewhere close to OTL Brazil or better which is still in the Top 10 of countries by Power Index either way. Again, much depends on how much Anglo-not!-Brazil progresses (and whether they gain independence or sovereignty) combined with how world events play out relative to OTL developments but being a regional 'superpower', and/or global 'great power', I think are both reasonable. [EDIT: Again, lest anyone accuse Anglocentrism, I feel this assessment holds equally true for OTL Brazil with the right POD(s).]
Again, if Britain does end up a global power like OTL, being a Dominion/colony thereof (or if not!-Brazil goes independent and an OTL-esque rapprochement/'Special Relationship' occurs), that could lead to Brazil piggybacking on that Great Power status to become one de facto on its own. Whether they'd be the junior partner in that arrangement or senior to Britain, again, depends a lot on the details of world events.
Last edited:
unprincipled peter
Donor
Hmmm....a Portugal that decides to cave to Napoleon's demands in 1807, with the gamble that Britain will understand and not take the colonies? Britain separates Portugal from its empire. Would Britain expend the resources necessary to take over and keep Brazil? If that's the mandate, hand wavium, it is done.
Or... Spain/France are wildly successful in the War of Oranges (1801), and the Portuguese court doesn't get a chance to flee. Again, Britain takes the colonies to deny them to France.
In both these cases, Brazil hasn't had a taste of being elevated to a Kingdom, so maybe they'd be ok with becoming a semi (or fully) autonomous part of the British Empire. If Angola is part of the deal, and the trade situation is suitable (likely, cheaper access to finished goods. If Britain provides a market for their agricultural goods, the situation could be stable) maybe now-English Brazil is happy enough to remain stable.
This butterflies the jump start given by the Portuguese Court transferring, so growth of colony starts off slower. This is offset by the butterflying the destructive Regency years of Pedro II.
If we go with the 1801 POD, Britain may be able to hold on to Argentina, or at least turn it into a British sphere of interest. Battle of Trafalgar may be butterflied, as dates/weather conditions may be different. It's too much to ask for Spain/Portugal/France gaining the upper hand on the seas, but the devastating removal of any French/Spanish threat may not happen.
Both these butterfly OTL Peninsular War. There may be an alt version of it, but it will be different.
We likely see a different course of the Nap Wars. Not necessarily French victory. Just different.
In these scenarios, Brazil's socio-economic situation (latifundia) remains similar to OTL, which severely limits growth. The southern part will see a more successful influx of immigration. Although it is a 'small' portion of the Brazilian map, it is still a large area. Britain may try squelching the introduction of coffee to protect tea trade interests...or they may welcome the profits and become a coffee drinking nation - I don't know enough about the tea trade/political power influence.
I would expect that with this late a start, Brazil will only just start coming into its own in the 20th century. If, for ease of conversation, we posit that the rest of history goes reasonably similar to OTL, and Brazil remains a dominion, Brazil will be heavily involved in the world wars, and this will be when it goes through a spurt of industrialization.
I don't see any real PODs which would induce Britain to take over post OTL Brazilian independence.
I do agree it’s far less likely post-Brazilian independence, I was just pointing out how there was no specific POD in the OP hence it could be a very broad range from the 1500s to the 1800s.
As far as development of a British Brazil goes, I would say I can see it closest resembling South Africa, hence I voted for “Other” in the poll.
angola going together with the direction of brazil is very likely, during brazil's independence angola declared itself apart from brazil
maybe one of the two becomes a symbol of wealth?
With coffee/tea being more expensive and therefore being used by the upper class as a form of food distinction
More of africa is colonized by the uk perhaps?
Brazil would have a more disease resistant population than the rest of the British Empire so they could lead earlier explorations to the continent.
Would a British Brazil in the absence of a British North America be more developed? During the Minas Gerais gold rush in Brazil, a quarter of the Portuguese population left for Brazil between 1700-1760 alone. If we assume a quarter for the British population did the same ITTL, we'd be talking about 2 million people.
Also, would a British Brazil need as much slavery as Portugal did IOTL? Because I've read here often that indentured servants were barely treated better than slaves and half the immigrants to the 13 colonies were indentured servants.
Britain may have the population to not need slaves because it was only in the late 18th-early 19th century that Brazil really started to import a lot of African slaves. And yet despite this, it only had a population of 3.6 million by 1800. According to Wikipedia, Portugal imported some 560,000 African slaves to Brazil in the 17th century. Britain displaced/forced 50,000 Irish into indentured servitude during the Cromwellian conquest of Ireland. During the entire war some 200-600,000 Irish perished. Couldn't Cromwell go a bit more lenient on the Irish and deport them to Brazil as slaves instead of enslaving Africans?
Between 1500 and 1700, some 100,000 Portuguese went to Brazil as well as 560,000 African slaves. England/Britain could easily match if not exceed that. Again, the higher population base would mean it could most likely send more than 100,000 people to Brazil and even a few hundred thousand Irish slaves.
Then in the 18th century, 1.5 million African people were imported as slaves as well as 500,000 Portuguese people went there during the Minas Gerais gold rush between only 1700-1760. If just like in Portugal 1/4 of the British population left to live in Brazil, we'd be talking about 2 million people. That's enough people to match the slaves and settlers that went to Portuguese Brazil in the 18th century.
Even if the gold rush alone doesn't attract enough British, Brazil certainly has enough farm land to attract more though it would need developing first. The Atlantic forest would probably get deforested a lot earlier if lots of British immigrants come. Which should be doable with that protestant work ethic Max Weber and his disciples praise so much.
Furthermore, would British Brazil try to conquer more of its neighbors or try it harder? Brazil with a higher population due to Britains higher population base would also result in Brazil being developed earlier/more and hence it would probably win even more than it has already IOTL. Would it conquer all of the Pampas? If so, would it stop at the pampas or would it even conquer the Patagonian desert? Would it try to get access to the Pacific ocean by expanding into Chile and Peru?
If Britain still ends up colonizing Australia, I think we might see Australia getting developed much sooner too since Brazil could/would have to rely on Australian coal for industrialization. While we're at it, would it even need to import coal? I have read multiple times on here that Brazil has had troubles because of coal or the lack thereof. Brazil apparently has 6.6 billion tons of coal (1.5b Anthracite and bituminous, 5b sub-bituminous and lignite), most of which is located in Santa Catarina and Rio Grande do Sul. Modern Brazil consumes 27 million tons of coal per year, hence I think Brazil would in fact have the coal for industrialization (even if its low quality coal cannot compete with British and German high quality coal exports). Since those are the more temperate southern areas of Brazil, I assume those areas will be developed and settled much faster thus Brazil might be very much capable of producing its own coal. Even if it isn't cheap, British and Australian coal could make up for it.
If British Brazil were to conquer the entire southern Cone, what would be the implications of a British Brazil+southern cone+Australia+New Zealand (and presumably lots of islands in the pacific)?
Would British Brazil be TTLs super power contestant while North America is kind of late to the party? I think so because if Britain had not colonized North America, the only other contestants are France, Sweden and the Netherlands. Sweden and the Netherlands do not have the population to colonize as thoroughly as Britain did while the Dutch also showed little interest in settler colonialism. French colonization focused more on trade rather than settling the area though they did try at least a bit. So it could be that North America ie US+Canada, might not be as developed as British Brazil would be especially if the French were to colonize large swathes of it since while they had the population base, they just didn't have as much emigration as other European countries. Therefore being a lot more underpopulated.
I don't think a Spanish North America would be likely because the Spanish would probably try to steer their diaspora towards South America in order to counteract British expansion. But either way, I don't think a fragmented North America would be even close to the US we got IOTL in terms of economic strength.
According to this, Brazil feeds 10% of the worlds population or little under 800 million people. The Brazilian population grew by 10 fold in the last hundred years. If British Brazil manages to have a population of 80 million by 1900, could it have a population of 800 million by now? Or did the Brazilian population only grow so much because of the middle income trap not making them too wealthy that their birthrates crater?
Speaking of middle income trap, would a British Brazil fall victim to it? According to economist Barry Eichengreen, Japan, South Korea and the UAE broke out of the middle income trap/ didn't get trapped in the first place is because of strong institutions that drive innovation. Britain and the US are known to be as successful as they are because of their strong patent system that drives innovation. Hence I assume that patent system and tradition of innovation will be part of British Brazil. Another reason as to why Brazil has not yet realized its potential is its instability which is not conducive for economic growth. Britain more or less is known for political stability because of its democracy. All British settler colonies are very much politically stable which is why I think a British Brazil would be stable too.
Would British Brazil be a better Australia? Both Australia and Brazil have the majority of their land mass occupied by the Outback/Amazon, both have bountiful resources, both have a mostly warm climate with only some temperate bits (though Brazil is humid and Australia is dry heat). Will the slave plantations in northern Brazil and the amount of natives be the only things that would make a British Brazil vastly different from Australia?
Also, would a British Brazil need as much slavery as Portugal did IOTL? Because I've read here often that indentured servants were barely treated better than slaves and half the immigrants to the 13 colonies were indentured servants.
Britain may have the population to not need slaves because it was only in the late 18th-early 19th century that Brazil really started to import a lot of African slaves. And yet despite this, it only had a population of 3.6 million by 1800. According to Wikipedia, Portugal imported some 560,000 African slaves to Brazil in the 17th century. Britain displaced/forced 50,000 Irish into indentured servitude during the Cromwellian conquest of Ireland. During the entire war some 200-600,000 Irish perished. Couldn't Cromwell go a bit more lenient on the Irish and deport them to Brazil as slaves instead of enslaving Africans?
Between 1500 and 1700, some 100,000 Portuguese went to Brazil as well as 560,000 African slaves. England/Britain could easily match if not exceed that. Again, the higher population base would mean it could most likely send more than 100,000 people to Brazil and even a few hundred thousand Irish slaves.
Then in the 18th century, 1.5 million African people were imported as slaves as well as 500,000 Portuguese people went there during the Minas Gerais gold rush between only 1700-1760. If just like in Portugal 1/4 of the British population left to live in Brazil, we'd be talking about 2 million people. That's enough people to match the slaves and settlers that went to Portuguese Brazil in the 18th century.
Even if the gold rush alone doesn't attract enough British, Brazil certainly has enough farm land to attract more though it would need developing first. The Atlantic forest would probably get deforested a lot earlier if lots of British immigrants come. Which should be doable with that protestant work ethic Max Weber and his disciples praise so much.
Furthermore, would British Brazil try to conquer more of its neighbors or try it harder? Brazil with a higher population due to Britains higher population base would also result in Brazil being developed earlier/more and hence it would probably win even more than it has already IOTL. Would it conquer all of the Pampas? If so, would it stop at the pampas or would it even conquer the Patagonian desert? Would it try to get access to the Pacific ocean by expanding into Chile and Peru?
If Britain still ends up colonizing Australia, I think we might see Australia getting developed much sooner too since Brazil could/would have to rely on Australian coal for industrialization. While we're at it, would it even need to import coal? I have read multiple times on here that Brazil has had troubles because of coal or the lack thereof. Brazil apparently has 6.6 billion tons of coal (1.5b Anthracite and bituminous, 5b sub-bituminous and lignite), most of which is located in Santa Catarina and Rio Grande do Sul. Modern Brazil consumes 27 million tons of coal per year, hence I think Brazil would in fact have the coal for industrialization (even if its low quality coal cannot compete with British and German high quality coal exports). Since those are the more temperate southern areas of Brazil, I assume those areas will be developed and settled much faster thus Brazil might be very much capable of producing its own coal. Even if it isn't cheap, British and Australian coal could make up for it.
If British Brazil were to conquer the entire southern Cone, what would be the implications of a British Brazil+southern cone+Australia+New Zealand (and presumably lots of islands in the pacific)?
Would British Brazil be TTLs super power contestant while North America is kind of late to the party? I think so because if Britain had not colonized North America, the only other contestants are France, Sweden and the Netherlands. Sweden and the Netherlands do not have the population to colonize as thoroughly as Britain did while the Dutch also showed little interest in settler colonialism. French colonization focused more on trade rather than settling the area though they did try at least a bit. So it could be that North America ie US+Canada, might not be as developed as British Brazil would be especially if the French were to colonize large swathes of it since while they had the population base, they just didn't have as much emigration as other European countries. Therefore being a lot more underpopulated.
I don't think a Spanish North America would be likely because the Spanish would probably try to steer their diaspora towards South America in order to counteract British expansion. But either way, I don't think a fragmented North America would be even close to the US we got IOTL in terms of economic strength.
According to this, Brazil feeds 10% of the worlds population or little under 800 million people. The Brazilian population grew by 10 fold in the last hundred years. If British Brazil manages to have a population of 80 million by 1900, could it have a population of 800 million by now? Or did the Brazilian population only grow so much because of the middle income trap not making them too wealthy that their birthrates crater?
Speaking of middle income trap, would a British Brazil fall victim to it? According to economist Barry Eichengreen, Japan, South Korea and the UAE broke out of the middle income trap/ didn't get trapped in the first place is because of strong institutions that drive innovation. Britain and the US are known to be as successful as they are because of their strong patent system that drives innovation. Hence I assume that patent system and tradition of innovation will be part of British Brazil. Another reason as to why Brazil has not yet realized its potential is its instability which is not conducive for economic growth. Britain more or less is known for political stability because of its democracy. All British settler colonies are very much politically stable which is why I think a British Brazil would be stable too.
Would British Brazil be a better Australia? Both Australia and Brazil have the majority of their land mass occupied by the Outback/Amazon, both have bountiful resources, both have a mostly warm climate with only some temperate bits (though Brazil is humid and Australia is dry heat). Will the slave plantations in northern Brazil and the amount of natives be the only things that would make a British Brazil vastly different from Australia?
The British imported slaves en masse to Jamaica IOTL. Why would they not do in Brazil?
Also(Sorry if this has already been discussed on the thread) as a result of Brazil being so heavily dependent on imported African Slaves is their a chance that Britain never gets around to banning the slave trade? I mean the West Indies were important slave colonies but I don't think Britains economy was as dependent on them as lets say the southern US was. In TTL with them having control of Brazil their economy would surely have more dependence on the slave trade making them probably far less eager to ban it then in OTL.
You're right. There's no reason why Britain wouldn't import slaves to Brazil. But why didn't the British use the Irish as slaves in their colonies or as "permanently indentured servants"? As I already said above, they did apparently deport 50,000 Irish as indentured servants during Cromwell. So why not just use the Irish as slaves rather than paying for African slaves? An added benefit for the English would be that they could depopulate Ireland like that and settle more than just northern Ireland. Seems to me like a two birds with one stone situation.
This ignores the ratinonale for the slave trade according to merchants of the 16th through 19th centuries.
During the age of sail, merchants sailing from Europe towards Brazil sailed southwards following the Canary Current then hit the Equatorial Counter Current that would bringto the coast of West Africa and afterwards towards Northeastern Brazil or the West Indies. In West Africa, European goods such as textiles, iron goods and even firearms were exchanged for slaves. Meaning in an English Brazil, merchants from Bristol would likely fill up their cargoes with textiles and other wares to barter for slaves before in West Africa, then unloading the slaves in the Americas in exchange for sugar, molasses and tobacco before returning to England. The Portuguese for their part also began selling cotton textiles from India on return voyages to Europe to exchange in Africa. Additionally, by the turn of the 17th century, tobacco from Brazil was exchanged along the Mina Coast, in addition to rum, cowries, cassava flour and cane rum in exchange for slaves.
Importantly, by trying to depopulate Ireland, England is killing its most important "colony" as Ireland needed agricultural workers to toil on the English estates. Much of Britain's trade was with Ireland and the large estates there required tenant farmers. Additionally, ports and cities also needed workers. Cork was important for provisioning merchants ships with salted beef and pork and the linen trade centered around Belfast was also economically significant.
Though there were Irish indentured servants sent to the West Indies, their numbers pale in comparison to those of African slaves with the largest estimates I have seen placing their numbers at 50,000 and this is considered an exaggeration. There were also prisoners, but between 1600 and 1800 period fewer than 50,000 prisoners were exiled to the Americas. The English government would have had to expend a huge amount of money to house and deport such a huge number of Irish to be used as slaves.
The sheer number of slaves imported to the Brazil and the British West Indies is what made the extractive economy function. It is more than likely that the British would do the same as the Portuguese did, though likely on a more efficient/brutal scale. The English not only have the advantage of a larger home market, but also have the ability to reexport goods to Northern Europe on a scale the Portuguese never possessed. Once Brazil lost its dominance in sugar exportation, the number of slaves imported declined in and plateaued only regaining prominence once the gold boom commenced. Additionally, the reforms implemented by the Marquis the Pombal led a greater number of slaves being imported particularly once cotton and cacao from northern Brazil. The beginning of the coffee boom in the 1820s also shows a marked increase in the numbers of captives brought to Brazil.
Slave imports according to slaveoyage.org broken down by decade comparing Brazil and the English/British West Indies compared. It is striking to see that many decades the relatively small British islands imported more slaves than all of Brazil.
Slaves Imported to Brazil
1561-1580 - 1,624
1571-1580 - 3,310
1581-1590 - 9,264
1591-1600 - 20,488
1601-1610 - 40,581
1611-1620 - 85,904
1621-1630 - 111,013
1631-1640 - 69,641
Brazil vs British West Indies
1641-1650 - 70,510 vs 34,045
1651-1660 - 85,810 vs 23,902
1661-1670 - 108,563 vs 61,927
1671-1680 - 91,131 vs 70,195
1681-1690 - 86,297 vs 110,990
1691-1700 -160,911 vs 103,377
1701-1710 - 174,892 vs 128,278
1711-1720 - 202,560 vs 140,243
1721-1730 - 209,319 vs 178,446
1731-1740 - 206,338 vs 171,717
1741-1750 - 219,010 vs 153,287
1751-1760 - 215,012 vs 204,423
1761-1770 - 214,041 vs 298,801
1771-1780 - 210,497 vs 282,987
1781-1790 - 254,899 vs 249,428
1791-1800 - 305,363 vs 332,209
1801-1810 - 381,143 vs 199,071
1811-1820 - 501,470 vs 6,897
1821-1830 - 581,173 vs 1,565
1831-1840 - 416,382 vs 10,350
1841-1850 - 487,161 vs 592
1851-1860 - 8,812
Brazil would be a mostly black nation in South America. It’s suitability for a wildly more profitable cash crops compared to southern USA would mean that majority of slaves that would go to southern us go to Brazil instead. British policy of no racial mixing would prevent a multiracial Brazil. White minority might survive as a privileged minority of wealthy businessmen or be exterminated in various revolts or leave for Britain. It will have a knock on on us with South being demographically more or less the same as the north. American civil war might be avoided since slavery would be such a minor economic factor that either it’s abolished quietly or stays longer since no one cares. It might lead to more Afro British people nowadays due to economic disparity with Brazilians choosing to emigrate to a country that speaks the same language and that they share history with.
I don't know where the idea that there was no miscegenation in the British colonies comes from, as there most certainly was in the British West Indies, never mind in North America, as most African-Americans today do have significant amounts of European ancestry. The American Journal of Human Genetics found that the typical African-American had 73.2% African ancestry and 24% European ancestry based on their DNA.
There were even some mixed-race offspring brought to Britain during the 18th century and raised in upper class settings. Daniel Livesay wrote a book on the subject in 2018, "Children of Uncertain Fortune: Mixed-Race Jamaicans in Britain and the Atlantic Family, 1733-1833".
In Jamaica where the black to white ratio was greater than in Virginia mixed-race individuals of certain wealth were able to attain the legal status of free white colonists "as if they and every one of them were free and Natural Born Subjects of the Crown of Great Britain and were Descended from White Ancestors. by petitioning the colonial legislature and several hundred did so during the 18th century.
Several historians have noted that the smaller the white minority, the more mixed offspring there tended to be. This was applicable to almost all of the European colonies. Additionally, where whites were a minority, there tended to be a sort of special status for those of mixed race, with the West Indies and South Carolina tending to exemplify this rule. With whites only being around 40% of South Carolina's population, the colony seemed to have a larger mixed-race population than colonies further north. Additionally, there were fewer restrictions on racially mixed unions, as it was more similar to the Caribbean as "colonists there never policed intermixture to the same extent as in (Maryland and Virginia)." ("Blurring the Lines of Race and Freedom: Mulattoes and Mixed Bloods in English Colonial America" 2020 by A.B. Wilkinson Page 113).
This is a relatively recent phenomenon, as in the 1970s Brazil began expanding agriculture to the Cerrado region, and area that is heavily dependent on fertilizers. Brazil's dependence on imported wheat is often cited in publications particularly from the 1950s and 1960s where it was Brazil's second largest import. The fast growing population at the time made it so the country was importing nearly 2 million tons of grain per year in the early 1960s, costing some $161 million in 1962, up more than 16% from the previous year.
I think there is a good chance of the South of the country being a majority white region (as it is in our timeline) because of the pampas and the more mild climate, but then again it could be a Rhodesia situation with a small amount of white farmers eventually being kicked out by the larger black population.
I'm personally inclined to agree with this. In a British Brazil where the slave population tends to be more self-sustaining than IOTL's Brazil I can see this sort of thing happening there too.
One of the things overlooked is that Brazil and Latin America's failure to keep pace in economic growth with other developing regions is a relatively recent phenomenon. While it might not have become as rich as Canada or Australia are today, Brazil could have easily achieved a per capita GDP similar to Chile's or Malaysia's. Economic policies, particularly in the second half of the 20th century made it so that Brazil's (and most of Latin America's) economic growth lagged Southern Europe and East Asia.
In the immediate postwar period, Brazil did have a respectable annual GDP growth rate averaging 3.73% from 1950 to 1973 and of 4.26% from 1973 to 1979. However, between 1980 and 1989 it had a negative growth rate of -0.54% per annum, and a weak growth rate of 1.07% from 1990 to 1999. In contrast, southern Europe experienced a growth rate of over 7% per year between 1960-1973.
Just to exemplify how much of a laggard the Brazilian economy has been one can compare its performance with Spain and Portugal. In 1960, Brazil's per capita GDP was 86% of Portugal's and 74% of Spain's. By 1973, it was only 65% of Portugal's and 57% of Spain's. By 1995 this had further declined to 53% of Portugal's and 45% of Spain's. What is even more troublesome is that by 2021 this had further declined to 45% of Portugal's and 39% of Spain's. Despite Spain and Portugal's weak economic growth during much of the 21st century, the Brazilian economy performed even worse, further diverging from the Iberian Peninsula. Had Brazil kept pace with Iberia, its per capita GDP should have been similar to South Korea's by 1995 and somewhere around Chile's today.
In the immediate postwar period, Brazil did have a respectable annual GDP growth rate averaging 3.73% from 1950 to 1973 and of 4.26% from 1973 to 1979. However, between 1980 and 1989 it had a negative growth rate of -0.54% per annum, and a weak growth rate of 1.07% from 1990 to 1999. In contrast, southern Europe experienced a growth rate of over 7% per year between 1960-1973.
Just to exemplify how much of a laggard the Brazilian economy has been one can compare its performance with Spain and Portugal. In 1960, Brazil's per capita GDP was 86% of Portugal's and 74% of Spain's. By 1973, it was only 65% of Portugal's and 57% of Spain's. By 1995 this had further declined to 53% of Portugal's and 45% of Spain's. What is even more troublesome is that by 2021 this had further declined to 45% of Portugal's and 39% of Spain's. Despite Spain and Portugal's weak economic growth during much of the 21st century, the Brazilian economy performed even worse, further diverging from the Iberian Peninsula. Had Brazil kept pace with Iberia, its per capita GDP should have been similar to South Korea's by 1995 and somewhere around Chile's today.
Last edited:
Off-topic, but I think that a good way of achieving this is avoiding the 20-year long dictatorship and the economic instability it brough Brazil into in the 1980s