Basically the Portuguese government stays in Brazil and Portugal becomes a Brazilian colony. Not that the Portuguese would ever accept that.
I think its the opposite, the invasion led the king to flee to Brazil.Removing Napoleon, or at least his invasion of Portugal, could allow the Portuguese to keep Brazil for longer, at least.
It was. Or rather, both Portugal and Brazil became part of the same united Kingdom with theoretically none being a colony of the other.If the Portuguese government flees to Brazil with Napoleon invading, is it possible they just make Brazil part of Portugal proper? The states or whatever they're called just made into the system Portugal had back home?
Is it logistically possible to have the capital of the Kingdom in Lisbon and the headship of government restricted to Brazilians? Sure. Is it reasonably fair? I don't think so.Is it logistically possible to have a pairlament in Lisbon with PMs from Brazil? I mean that's the only way to pull it of. And would it help if Pedro I/V gets the Throne before he declares Independence?
How can Portugal retain Brazil and what do the butterfly's do then?
A bit harsh indeed. I'd agree they lost opportunities but:Pedro I and Joao VI totally muffed the opportunity to create a lasting partnership. That partnership had major obstacles, but that doesn't automatically doom it to failure. Neither king was much of anything to write home about. Joao's shining moment was fleeing to Brazil and trying to run an empire from there. He completely muffed doing so, staying too long and abandoning Portugal for too long. Pedro's shining moment was breaking Brazil free from Portugal relatively blood free. Other than that, both were lackluster leaders who ultimately left their countries in worse shape than they took over. Pedro was particularly worse out of the two. He mucked up Portugal by refusing to return there when Joao wanted him to, and then he mucked up Brazil by leaving for Portugal. He had almost no political acumen. Joao had plenty of political acumen, but didn't really feel like using it unless forced to.
Now, IF the two of them had half a brain between them, they could have cooperated with one of them leading Brazil and one leading Portugal and looking to remain in union. Long term it would have been a struggle, but there really is no reason (other than the two being bad leaders) the union couldn't have lasted well beyond what it did.
I'm being a bit harsh, but the time called for leadership, and neither were up to the task.
João's laissez-faire is indeed very irritating, to say the least.Part of my thinking is that a proactive Joao heads off the cataclysm of 1820 and the resultant actions. by remaining in Brazil, and/or not sending Pedro back (which he tried to do belatedly, but Pedro said no), he basically abdicated all power, and could no longer guide events.
Both rulers are known more for retaining/taking/regaining power than any real ruling prowess.
One of my big What If's is WI Joao had been a decent statesman (or if the older brother had lived)? Could he have avoided the pitfalls that Portugal went through from 1790's - 1830? (yeah, he was poisoned in 1826, but his actions/inactions are really at the core of everything going out several years). War of the Pyrenees, War of the oranges, Invasion in 1807 - all events that are intertwined, and I don't really think much of Portugal's behavior throughout, and Joao was the leader during that entire period.
Basically this. During that specific period (<1808) I suppose I couldn't have fared much better if given the reins of Portugal.To be fair, Portugal was between a rock and a hard place, having to placate their "ally" Britain who bullied Portugal horribly, threatening to separate Brazil unless they toed the line. And, they ran afoul of France, who always sought to punish Portugal for toeing the line with Britain.