It is, author wants to make it to modern day, which is cool
Though I think you already get a good enough experience reading it up to before WWI
Why did Portugal fall from being a major power and how could've this been prevented?
- Thread starter ToasterOven456
- Start date
Though I think you already get a good enough experience reading it up to before WWI
My two cents:
I would not say geography is fate, but in the sense all "major power" amounts to is "stronger relative to the others", it's easier for some places than others to achieve and maintain the status.
Geography does matter to what people have to work with in the first place, even if what they do with what they have to work with is a large part of why Portugal has not had Poland's history, nor Poland Portugal's history.
As such, I think it would be infeasible to simply "prevent" Portugal from falling from a major power, but it would be possible for it to do better with different decisions at different times.
Addressing this post because I feel like it's a good place to put what I think about factors like population or resources.
Last edited:
There were Bandeirantes going as far as the Incan Empire even before the Union got in full swing.
I can't see much advantage in the Iberian Union for Portugal, especially not an Iberian union under the Habsburgs. Portuguese foreign policy was to essentially make friends in Europe and keep any European threats away and beaten, allowing Portugal a free hand in the rest of the planet. Meanwhile the Habsburgs' interests were mainly focused on central Europe, in turning central Europe/HRE into a religious war moshpit and surrounding France. Habsbugs getting thrones in Portugal and Spain were one of the worst things that ever happened in the Iberian Peninsula. Theirs were European not Iberian interests. Its not a coincidence the Portuguese eventually had it.
I remember reading a text on the subject of the Bandeiras, must be on my facebook saved posts somewhere - about how the Bandeiras were kind of a reaction to encroachment by Spanish and French-backed native tribes. There was a fear São Vincente would be lost to them.
The Colonial Government essentially was content to sit tight and keep to Tordesilhas, while the people of southeastern colonies were far more interesting in going out and taking the fight to their foes. Eventually the locals won out.
Not sure if the text is reliable or not, but it was an interest alternate viewpoint to the traditional one which seem to regard the Bandeiras as, essentially, done for the lolz and "the greeds".
Have Don Carlos inherit Portugal and marry Elizabeth of Valois, he will acquire the Phillippines in his own reign which will connect Malacca to Macao.
I feel like some people here are confusing "fall from power" with "loss of empire", the two are related but not the same thing. The Dutch kept most of their empire and still had a major fall from power, so Portugal keeping theirs doesn't mean they get to keep their status as a world power either...
Even without the Iberian Union England, France, and the Netherlands would still have expanded into the East Indies and Africa, the sporadic nature of Portugal's colonization through trade posts left plenty of room for other Europeans to move in and establish colonies of their own without having to attack Portugal's possessions (literally what England and France did otl). And once the other Europeans start competing with them the Portuguese will lose their market share and thus their incomes.
In order for Portugal to remain a world power you pretty much need to stop colonization by any and all other Europeans, and probably also keep most of Asia fractured. Portugal was already stretched to their limits and the emergence of a new empire on Java and/or Sumatra for example could be a major threat to Portugal. And that seems pretty unlikely imo.
Even without the Iberian Union England, France, and the Netherlands would still have expanded into the East Indies and Africa, the sporadic nature of Portugal's colonization through trade posts left plenty of room for other Europeans to move in and establish colonies of their own without having to attack Portugal's possessions (literally what England and France did otl). And once the other Europeans start competing with them the Portuguese will lose their market share and thus their incomes.
In order for Portugal to remain a world power you pretty much need to stop colonization by any and all other Europeans, and probably also keep most of Asia fractured. Portugal was already stretched to their limits and the emergence of a new empire on Java and/or Sumatra for example could be a major threat to Portugal. And that seems pretty unlikely imo.
Last time I checked England hasn't been successfully invaded by the rest of the world since the 11th century. The only "exception" was the coup by Willian of Orange, and his reign was a godsent for England thanks to the reforms of that period.
In 1600 England and Ireland had a population of around 5 million, and by 1800 the UK had over 15 million people living there. The Portuguese population around the same time was only 1 million and 3 million respectively. England might have been small compared to countries like China, the Mughal Empire, the Ottoman Empire, or France, but it was larger than most other countries in the world...
Why the hell are you talking about Germanic tribes anyways? That was like 10 centuries before colonization even started, and there were people already living there before the Anglo-Saxons migrated.
Why the hell are you talking about Germanic tribes anyways? That was like 10 centuries before colonization even started, and there were people already living there before the Anglo-Saxons migrated.
Before Henry VIII and Elizabeth? Sure, lol. But what does that matter? When they started colonizing they had a better fleet.
Uhm, the impact of the industrial revolution is pretty indisputable... There is a reason why the "small anglo-saxon kingdom" managed to surpass France, not just overseas but also at home in Europe.
Obviously luck was involved, that applies to any country including Portugal itself. Doesn't change the simple reality that geographic and demographic advantages make it a lot easier for some countries than for others, that's why they're called advantages.
Last edited:
ok so when I said that "History would not be much different", I was lying, because I forgot to mention the fact of the Portuguese Jews basically making the Dutch Empire and the loss of the Portuguese armada made it so that Britain could snatch Portugal's place. With these two events, I see a few ways this could branch off. We could go with the conservative approach and say that Portugal is basically just the Dutch Empire, with it controlling the East Indies, and Britain/Portugal rule the waves as allies. Butterflies with this approach could be that 19th century Portugal keeps Brazil and is a lot richer, as well as more Lusophonic speakers in the world by the modern day. The other approach is that Portugal keeps doing it's thing, not really modernizing, so their empire crumbles the same, just with the Jews maybe being granted a homeland in Brazil of all places. Not too much different here, besides that Britain has Indonesia and possibly South Africa (earlier).
Then the fact of slavery (in the Portuguese Empire) not being a thing. Huge effects on Africa, because the Portuguese kidnapped 6,000,000 Africans, and not to say that other powers may not get more slaves than in our timeline, but expect a much more populous Angola hinterland. Portugal might get South Africa as a settler colony, so alt Pink Map is just all of Southern Africa. Ceuta might be kept, might be abandoned, might be sold off to the Spaniards. Let's not mention the effects of no Omani Empire/ a Portuguese Omani vassal state and the effects on India.
Very different world, it would have a more vibrant party scene though, Indonesia being the Brazil of Asia, no doubt both being richer thanks to better treatment of the natives and no slavery. South Africa would literally be Southern Africa, natives would inhabit most of the country, with Luanda, the Namibian coast, and South Africa being majority white.
Then the fact of slavery (in the Portuguese Empire) not being a thing. Huge effects on Africa, because the Portuguese kidnapped 6,000,000 Africans, and not to say that other powers may not get more slaves than in our timeline, but expect a much more populous Angola hinterland. Portugal might get South Africa as a settler colony, so alt Pink Map is just all of Southern Africa. Ceuta might be kept, might be abandoned, might be sold off to the Spaniards. Let's not mention the effects of no Omani Empire/ a Portuguese Omani vassal state and the effects on India.
Very different world, it would have a more vibrant party scene though, Indonesia being the Brazil of Asia, no doubt both being richer thanks to better treatment of the natives and no slavery. South Africa would literally be Southern Africa, natives would inhabit most of the country, with Luanda, the Namibian coast, and South Africa being majority white.
Last edited:
Good luck for them lol
And that did go so well for the dutch and french in Brazil right?
No, Portugal kicked their asses and it did so HARD
Its only when Portugal's naval power was ruined that the likes of the spanish and the dutch were able to eat away their Empire in Asia for good
Would love to see them try, considering Portugal at that time was the trade hegemon and had the greatest merchant fleet for this very reason
All I hear is "they were too big so they were doomed"
No they werent, the British Empire was and it still lasted longer
And? I wasnt talking about when it did
The fact is it happened, and it happened A LOT
Be vikings, normans, the dutch, whoever
They did
Portugal on the other hand got taken over like what, once in the Iberian Union? Twice if you count Napoleon, and thats all it took to destroy it while the invasions England suffered(like the normans, or the Orange like you mentioned) only benefited it in the long run
Funny how that went huh?
Wasnt talking about 1600 England
Because I was talking about when what we call "England" started
Ffs its a very simple point
They started off in a far worse position than Portugal as a nation and a thousand years later when they joined the colonial game they did so long after Portugal, so the fact they were incredibly more successful than Portugal is indeed a matter of big dumb luck
Exactly.
Never said it wasnt.
Yes, a reality in which England started far worse off and had to overcome ALL of that
So its incredibly rich to talk about geographic determinism when talking about them
If you want the Aviz never to take power of Portugal, then the most obvious POD is for John I to lose at Aljubarrota which leaves the new King of Portugal as....John I of Castile. So yeah Spain in this TL is based around Portugal and Castile with poor old Aragon being left out in the cold.
But my favorite POD would be this
Basically the conspiracy succeeds and we get an earlier Braganza run!
Seriously the fact that a fucking Aviz executed a Braganza is cursed and kinda foreshadows the fate of Portugal here
Was Portugal ever a major power? All of its colonial exploits never seems to have translated to a strengthening of its home territory. It remained a state that couldn’t effectively project power, but rather was on the defense against stronger neighbors. That is en Europe at least, it was obviously much stronger on the world seas, until countries like the Netherlands could begin to challenge it.
I'd say the first expansion into North Africa. Ceuta was farther from Portugal than from Spain, was a constant resource sink, and got Sebastian I killed, leading to the disaster that was the Iberian Union.
Avoiding the North African theater (perhaps taking the Canaries instead) and putting those extra resources elsewhere would have been a better play. Also would have prevented the needless death of a king in battle, which was otherwise not altogether that likely.
Avoiding the North African theater (perhaps taking the Canaries instead) and putting those extra resources elsewhere would have been a better play. Also would have prevented the needless death of a king in battle, which was otherwise not altogether that likely.
I don't even know where to begin. Do you actually expect me to take anything serious when the only argument you can conjure up is "Portugal was better off 10 centuries before colonization even started, so the only reason England could do anything is because they were lucky." It's hilarious how when Portugal does it it's supposedly the natural order of things but when larger countries do it it's just dumb luck. The entire reply reads like a nationalist fever dream.
As for that supposedly so disadvantageous past of England (which is still entirely irrelevant to a discussion about early modern colonialism): when the Anglo-Saxons migrated into what would become England Portugal was being invaded by the Suebi and then the Visigoths. When the Anglo-Saxons were being invaded by the Vikings Portugal was being invaded by the Umayyads. And when England unified and drove out the Vikings Portugal was still nothing more than a tiny vassal state of Asturias on the northern banks of the Douro. By the time Portugal finally became independent and eventually conquered the Algarve the English were already in control of both Wales and most of Ireland, and a huge chunk of France. You were never larger, England is 40.000km² bigger than Portugal is. You were never more populous.
Also I never said that what England did was guaranteed to happen, not once. I said they had geographic advantages, which means something else entirely and is also just an objective fact.
As for that supposedly so disadvantageous past of England (which is still entirely irrelevant to a discussion about early modern colonialism): when the Anglo-Saxons migrated into what would become England Portugal was being invaded by the Suebi and then the Visigoths. When the Anglo-Saxons were being invaded by the Vikings Portugal was being invaded by the Umayyads. And when England unified and drove out the Vikings Portugal was still nothing more than a tiny vassal state of Asturias on the northern banks of the Douro. By the time Portugal finally became independent and eventually conquered the Algarve the English were already in control of both Wales and most of Ireland, and a huge chunk of France. You were never larger, England is 40.000km² bigger than Portugal is. You were never more populous.
Also I never said that what England did was guaranteed to happen, not once. I said they had geographic advantages, which means something else entirely and is also just an objective fact.
that explains the complete lack of understanding of Portuguese history or geography I guess
ma'am
Hmm...I wonder if a good POD would be the War of Castilian Succession going the other way, resulting a Portuguese-Castilian union instead of an Aragonese-Castilian one. Although Castille will be the larger and more populous part of this union, Portugal will (after the Cape of Good Hope is rounded) be the wealthiest and most internationally important part. It's easy to imagine the court spending most of its time in Lisbon, which gradually becomes the center of trade with the Americas and the location of the royal bureaucracy. At this point, most of Leon and Galicia still, IIRC, spoke their own languages, so its highly possible that ITTL they grow closer to Portugal and become Portuguese speaking (maybe Castile tries to break away from the union in the early 1500's and Portugal, already flush with cash from the East Indes trade, is able to defeat them and detaches Leon and Galicia as punishment).
Portugal fell due to a number of factors in my opinion. The first is population, as with the Dutch the lack of a large (or even medium sized) population caused a lack of manpower in building an empire. Creating shaky foundations for that empire. Second is the lack of a complex market with Portugal selling primary products such as sugar (with the Dutch playing the role of middlemen in part of Europe, they ended up taking a considerable portion of the profits.), china, spices and others similar things. This outsourcing of the sales process greatly weakened the nation. The third is the bad investment of Brazilian gold, they had the colony that produced the most gold in the americas but due to its simpler economy the Portuguese crown preferred to outsource the work to other countries. With the most benefited being England, which sold products to the Portuguese in exchange for gold, with this trade being vital for the English rise in the world (allowing the development of industries in England and an accumulation of gold in English banks). Fourth, the entry into portugal of the iberian union creating enemies for portugal, enemies that the nation did not have the capacity to deal with in the period in an effective way. Fifth and last nail is to become a junior partner in the union between portugal and brazil. With the Portuguese empire being managed in Rio de Janeiro instead of Lisbon.
I also love the "The entire reply reads like a nationalist fever dream." as if Im nationalistic about a country Im not even a citizen of and then goes "You were never larger, England is 40.000km² bigger than Portugal is. You were never more populous." like a full dick measuring contest to show how much bigger and more awesome England is to the poor portuguese they thought they were replying to, if thats not an anglophile rant trying to put me in "my place" I dont know what it is
And then "that explains the complete lack of understanding of Portuguese history or geography I guess" like "haha you're not even portuguese! Thats why you're so dumb"
To be clear my point was NEVER to say "Portugal taking over the world was the natural order of things" or that "Portugal was so much better positioned than England at the age of imperialism"
My point wasnt about the age of colonialism at all, but that as a nation England-Britain started off far worse off than Portugal and required much more luck to succeed
It was a underdog and there's nothing wrong with that, heck I like english history FAR MORE than the portuguese one so the idea Im some kind of portuguese nationalist trying to bash the english is hilarious, fact is that England did better, ruled better and that was entirely their merit
But that was NOT predestined, not by geography, not by demographics, no matter how much people like those narratives to sell the idea of some kind of british exceptionalism
And then "that explains the complete lack of understanding of Portuguese history or geography I guess" like "haha you're not even portuguese! Thats why you're so dumb"
To be clear my point was NEVER to say "Portugal taking over the world was the natural order of things" or that "Portugal was so much better positioned than England at the age of imperialism"
My point wasnt about the age of colonialism at all, but that as a nation England-Britain started off far worse off than Portugal and required much more luck to succeed
It was a underdog and there's nothing wrong with that, heck I like english history FAR MORE than the portuguese one so the idea Im some kind of portuguese nationalist trying to bash the english is hilarious, fact is that England did better, ruled better and that was entirely their merit
But that was NOT predestined, not by geography, not by demographics, no matter how much people like those narratives to sell the idea of some kind of british exceptionalism
Population and size of the nation is not everything, if that were the case today we would be speaking Mandarin, Hindi or Arabic. Now having a large population helps a lot in creating global empires. But it only helps, without investment and correct decisions it is a waste of potential as we saw France do during its attempt to create an empire in the Americas.
England had a lot of close calls in the OTL, but they made the right choice and with a little luck managed to make their empire. But this is not predestined, the most common thing in history is nations wasting its potential. I don't know for example if england controlled by tudor for longer has the chance to create something similar to otl, the same can be said of an england that did not become a constitutional monarchy and had remained a republic led by Cromwell for example.
In relation to Portugal, a union between Castile and Portugal creating TTL Spain (because Spain was used by Aragon, Portugal and Castile as an identity of Iberia in the period) would be the best chance of making a stronger colonial power. With the union being led by Portugal. As a whole, even so, the nation has to make the right choices in relation to the economy in order not to go into decline.