WI: Brazil's southern border is behind the Paraguay and Paraná rivers

Some of you guys are erroneously applying concepts of nationality and nationalism to an area which had yet to consolidate a nation state and wouldn't do so until well into the 20th century.
 
Last edited:
Some of you guys are erroneously appling concepts of nationality and nationalism to an area which had yet to consolidate a nation state and wouldn't do so until well into the 20th century.
I mean I can buy the idea that local Spanish-speaking populations would be against Brazilian rule in most situations(even if it wouldn't exactly be true), the problem is that considering the population sizes the idea that occupation would be impossible because of that(especially as we go past the mid 19th century) doesn't seem to be reasonable, for example let's extend the argument to similar cases(Ireland, Quebec and many other European populations under multi-national empires) and yet many of those empire survived and weren't constantly fighting rebels and those examples have demographics skewed in favour of the locals but Uruguay and Entre-Rios do not.
 

SwampTiger

Banned
Paraguay ran out of men, as in 70% of the male population. Uruguay and the Argentine provinces of Missiones, Corrientes and Entre Rios were not going to stay Brazilian if taken. Brazil did not annex Paraguay. It could not. It gave up on Uruguay because it could not afford to continue fighting the insurgents.

Brazil would be fighting today with Argentina if they tried to hold this area. Yes, I am serious.
 

SwampTiger

Banned
I mean I can buy the idea that local Spanish-speaking populations would be against Brazilian rule in most situations(even if it wouldn't exactly be true), the problem is that considering the population sizes the idea that occupation would be impossible because of that(especially as we go past the mid 19th century) doesn't seem to be reasonable, for example let's extend the argument to similar cases(Ireland, Quebec and many other European populations under multi-national empires) and yet many of those empire survived and weren't constantly fighting rebels and those examples have demographics skewed in favour of the locals but Uruguay and Entre-Rios do not.

These populations had been fighting one another since the 1500's. The consolidation of the Portuguese and Spanish Crowns under Phillip II did nothing to help the continuing conflict. This is not the English trying to retain control of Ulster, this is more like Irish tribes fighting one another, replace the Irish with Iberians.

Uruguay was eventually controlled by Spanish speakers de facto, not de jure. Brazil had no legal or physical claim to the lands west of the Uruguay river. She stopped claiming the Spanish dominated lands because it was easier to expand into the jungle than fighting. The population loss in Uruguay was caused by Uruguans fleeing to Argentina, from whence they continued to support the fighting, both with Brazil and rival political parties. It became the national sport during the early 19th Century.
 
Paraguay ran out of men, as in 70% of the male population.
Well Uruguay population declined from 200k to about 130k in 1850 as far as I know, so on that front the same is possible as well.

Brazil did not annex Paraguay. It could not.
Not sure they wanted to in that case, plus it's not like Argentina was not going to accept that in any case, a partition would have been more likely but the important land would have gone to Argentina by virtue of geographic location(Asuncion).

It gave up on Uruguay because it could not afford to continue fighting the insurgents.
They couldn't afford to fight because they lost key battles on land, if they won those they would have added a land victory over the already significant sea blockade.

Brazil would be fighting today with Argentina if they tried to hold this area. Yes, I am serious.
Just like Mexico is fighting the US, Bolivia and Peru are fighting Chile? Such conflict would be solved like the many others IOTL, especially because the demographic component behind it wouldn't survive that long especially if Brazil keeps on winning, at worst the conflict would be a one sided grudge.

These populations had been fighting one another since the 1500's. The consolidation of the Portuguese and Spanish Crowns under Phillip II did nothing to help the continuing conflict. This is not the English trying to retain control of Ulster, this is more like Irish tribes fighting one another, replace the Irish with Iberians.
Not sure what you are trying to say there with your comparison, tribes fighting one another would seem to something more solvable than some clear cut ethnic delineation.

Uruguay was eventually controlled by Spanish speakers de facto, not de jure. Brazil had no legal or physical claim to the lands west of the Uruguay river. She stopped claiming the Spanish dominated lands because it was easier to expand into the jungle than fighting.
Are you joking right? Brazil kept on fighting in the Platine region for decades and with some land gains as well, even if minor.

The population loss in Uruguay was caused by Uruguans fleeing to Argentina,
The population stayed around 130k for 2 decades until 1850, it didn't climb back after the war.

from whence they continued to support the fighting, both with Brazil and rival political parties. It became the national sport during the early 19th Century.
Nothing that the Brazilians can't stop or didn't involve themselves in OTL as well(considering the tens of thousnad of troops they put in various civil wars in Uruguay and Argentina), this time though the dynamics would be different.
 

SwampTiger

Banned
I am confused as to why you think I am joking.

Except for administering Paraguay for several years after the War of Triple Alliance, and meddling in the internecine Uruguayan politics for another decade, Brazil stepped back from the area after 1870. Brazil had far less ability to project power than you assume during the period.
 
And? That's not important for the situation in 1820s, apparently Britain not being able to take Buenos Aires with a couple to a dozen thousand men is supposed to mean something?


How so? There were many rebellions but there wasn't any particular time when the entire country was close to crumbling.

Brazil needed Argentine help to defeat Paraguay.
That's the worst way one can describe the War of the Triple Alliance. The Brazilians put 4.5 times more men in the war than Argentina anyway.


Ignoring Paraguay, neither Uruguay nor Entre Rios are somehow impenetrable territories with a large population, even taking in account the internal strifes in Brazil(something that can be changed, this is alternate history after all) the control of those 2 regions doesn't require a century long fight against insurrections, there is not enough people to begin with, more likely that the region would be left depopulated like Paraguay was after their war.[/QUOTE]
Uruguay: the mere fact that it was so tough to conquer in 1816-1820 and that Brazil couldn't hold it a few short years later means something. You can't simply wish that away.
Buenos Aires: the mere fact that Britain, while not much of a land power in comparison to European countries, it is a major power in comparison to a backwater colonial city, and couldn't take or hold BA, is absolutely relevant to the ability of another backwater colonial power to take and hold BA.
Brazil: The country was wracked with internal strife in the 1830's, and was in danger of fracturing apart. There's a reason Pedro II was rushed to his majority at age 14.
Paraguay: Without Argentina's assistance in the opening phase of the war, it's quite possible, if not likely, that Brazil gets its butt handed to it early, which changes the entire complexion of the war.

IF Argentina were to sink into the sea, you are absolutely right that Brazil would have the ability to conquer Uruguay and Entre Rios. The problem is that Argentina exists, and acts as a counterweight to Brazil's designs. Argentina is the reason Uruguay is a separate country and not a brazilian province.

If you have a POD which turns Brazil into a regional powerhouse in this time frame capable of taking and holding the area in question, I'm willing to listen, but it's going to take more than just a lucky break to accomplish such a grand goal. "things can change" is another way of saying 'hand wavium, presto magic'. What and when are these changes that turn Brazil into such a regional powerhouse?
 
.Just like Mexico is fighting the US, Bolivia and Peru are fighting Chile? Such conflict would be solved like the many others IOTL, especially because the demographic component behind it wouldn't survive that long especially if Brazil keeps on winning, at worst the conflict would be a one sided grudge.

Well, we are, not with weapons yet, but Definitively Chile, Peru and Bolivia are fighting here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilean–Peruvian_maritime_dispute
http://en.mercopress.com/2015/11/09...n-chile-and-peru-over-a-10-acre-wedge-of-land
http://www.icj-cij.org/en/case/137

http://www.businessinsider.com/boli...-in-dispute-with-chile-over-sea-access-2018-3
http://www.panoramas.pitt.edu/politics/update-border-dispute-between-chile-and-bolivia
https://worldview.stratfor.com/arti...ld-spur-resolution-chile-bolivia-land-dispute

Some photo of Peruvian Press about the Chile-Peru "cordial" relation(in spanish)

Portadas+Diario+La+Razon.png

seodfq10.jpg

tumblr_m49zah92VG1rw4v4eo1_1280.png
 

SwampTiger

Banned
I could see Brazil controlling the area of the OP in several POD's

1 - starting in the 1500's with an early interest in holding the coast to La Plata,

2 - Sebastian I decides on a less intrusive campaign in Morocco, thus surviving to sponsor expansion in southern Brazil,

3 - a Spanish monarch during the Phillipine Dynasty redraws the borders of provinces, giving the territory to Portugal, unlikely,

4 - in 1724 with a stronger response to the Spanish seizure of Montevideo,

5 - Brazilian expansion during the expulsion of the Jesuits in 1759, the Jesuits were driven west into Corrientes,

6 - the Portuguese royal exiles bring a much larger force in 1808, and enforces the claim to the south.

After this, the Spanish Argentines, Uruguayans and Paraguayans developed national identities during the long French wars, British incursions, and independence period civil wars of the 1808-30 period.
 
I could see Brazil controlling the area of the OP in several POD's

1 - starting in the 1500's with an early interest in holding the coast to La Plata,

2 - Sebastian I decides on a less intrusive campaign in Morocco, thus surviving to sponsor expansion in southern Brazil,

3 - a Spanish monarch during the Phillipine Dynasty redraws the borders of provinces, giving the territory to Portugal, unlikely,

4 - in 1724 with a stronger response to the Spanish seizure of Montevideo,

5 - Brazilian expansion during the expulsion of the Jesuits in 1759, the Jesuits were driven west into Corrientes,

6 - the Portuguese royal exiles bring a much larger force in 1808, and enforces the claim to the south.

After this, the Spanish Argentines, Uruguayans and Paraguayans developed national identities during the long French wars, British incursions, and independence period civil wars of the 1808-30 period.
I'm With You that before The 19 Century it could be done but OP ask for a POD in the 19 century after The independence of Argentina and to be more specific one POD after one of The Brazil- Argentina wars
 
I am confused as to why you think I am joking.

Except for administering Paraguay for several years after the War of Triple Alliance, and meddling in the internecine Uruguayan politics for another decade,
Well 1870 is not 1820(plus you kinda moved the goalpost there, you said before they didn't meddle in the area after 1830. By 1870 the situation was different, Uruguay's population was 3 times as large and after 40 years Brazil accept the existence of Uruguay as it was.

Brazil stepped back from the area after 1870. Brazil had far less ability to project power than you assume during the period.
The Brazilian poured 20-30k men in Uruguay and Buenos Aires during the Cisplatine war and a similar number in the Platine and Uruguayan wars, in the first war they blockaded Argentina, causing crippling damage to the economy, they had the ability to project power, they just failed militarily.
Well, we are, not with weapons yet, but Definitively Chile, Peru and Bolivia are fighting here:
Quite open definition of fighting.

This issue arose only recently, at its earliest only in the 80s.

Even this is quite recent, considering Bolivia formally did accept Chile sovereignity of the region in the early 20th century, this whole thing amounts to what I said before, a one sided grudge.

Some photo of Peruvian Press about the Chile-Peru "cordial" relation(in spanish)

Portadas+Diario+La+Razon.png

seodfq10.jpg

tumblr_m49zah92VG1rw4v4eo1_1280.png
Well I don't think that the opinions of what seems a tabloid should be taken as a representation of a whole country and even if that were the case it would still be close to one-sided grudge than actual fighting like you said in the beginning.
 
Well I don't think that the opinions of what seems a tabloid should be taken as a representation of a whole country and even if that were the case it would still be close to one-sided grudge than actual fighting like you said in the beginning.

I´m with you with that is a tabloid, but is one of the most popular in Peru and is not alone, just the mos strident
prensa_peru_0.jpg


portada+la+primera+chile+peru+ffaa+fach.jpg

file_20120724224349.jpg

And I Accept that my definition of "fighting" is quite open
 
Last edited:
Uruguay: the mere fact that it was so tough to conquer in 1816-1820 and that Brazil couldn't hold it a few short years later means something. You can't simply wish that away.
I'm not wishing anything away, I am merely
Buenos Aires: the mere fact that Britain, while not much of a land power in comparison to European countries, it is a major power in comparison to a backwater colonial city, and couldn't take or hold BA, is absolutely relevant to the ability of another backwater colonial power to take and hold BA.
?????? Who said anything about a Brazilian Buenos Aires? The point of the TL was to imagine a Brazilian Entre Rios and Uruguay, not a Brazilian South America or something of the likes.

Brazil: The country was wracked with internal strife in the 1830's, and was in danger of fracturing apart. There's a reason Pedro II was rushed to his majority at age 14.
At which point was there an actual danger of the country collapsing? Tell me the year when that was the case, the 2 bigger rebellion had a chance of succeeding but the various rebellion weren't really that close to winning(I agree that this could change IATL but I address a way to avoid the anarchy period as well)

Paraguay: Without Argentina's assistance in the opening phase of the war, it's quite possible, if not likely, that Brazil gets its butt handed to it early, which changes the entire complexion of the war.
Both Brazil and Argentina got their butt handed to them in the first phase of the war, plus your supposition is unfounded to begin with, like I said Brazil poured many more men compared to Argentina and if for some weird reason Argentina doesn't join Brazil would still have a massive force in the region, plus on a smaller front(I imagine the war wouldn't extend to Corrientes otherwise that would obviously draw in Argentina)

IF Argentina were to sink into the sea, you are absolutely right that Brazil would have the ability to conquer Uruguay and Entre Rios. The problem is that Argentina exists, and acts as a counterweight to Brazil's designs. Argentina is the reason Uruguay is a separate country and not a brazilian province.
Wow, the massive counterweight of a 610k country versus a 4.7 million one. The reason why Uruguay exists is because the United Provinces won on the ground, not because some inherent impossibility of a Brazilian victory caused by the existence of Argentina, which wasn't particularly united itself anyway.

If you have a POD which turns Brazil into a regional powerhouse in this time frame capable of taking and holding the area in question
Well just make them win, which would secure the area at least until the period of anarchy, if that still happens IATL.

"things can change" is another way of saying 'hand wavium, presto magic'.
Well, but it is true, nothing could be done in this forum if everyone kept shouting "but they failed IOTL" at every WI thread.

[/QUOTE]
What and when are these changes that turn Brazil into such a regional powerhouse?[/QUOTE]
Don't have Pedro abdicate leaving the country in a regency? That alone would fix a lot and I imagine winning the Cisplatine war could do something on that front. Also the attempt at quelling the rebellion by decentralizing actually allowed the rebellions to happen, so having Pedro doing something else would prevent some of the rebellions.
 
Last edited:
Buenos Aires: the mere fact that Britain, while not much of a land power in comparison to European countries, it is a major power in comparison to a backwater colonial city, and couldn't take or hold BA, is absolutely relevant to the ability of another backwater colonial power to take and hold BA.
The fact that Argentina needed to dig a giant trench to keep out the Mapuche and repeatedly lost to Paraguay durring the wars of independence is also absolutely relevant to their ability push Brazil out of Uruguay.
 

SwampTiger

Banned
Note, I mentioned the Exile government coming to Brazil in 1808 as a POD. If the Portuguese brought a substantial group of new colonists and soldiers, they would have a chance to seize Uruguay. I am not sure if they would be able to hold all of Entre Rios, Corrientes and Missiones. Brazil has a chance for Missiones in this case. This would make enemies of Spain and the new countries in the area.
 
I'm not wishing anything away, I am merely

?????? Who said anything about a Brazilian Buenos Aires? The point of the TL was to imagine a Brazilian Entre Rios and Uruguay, not a Brazilian South America or something of the likes.


At which point was there an actual danger of the country collapsing? Tell me the year when that was the case, the 2 bigger rebellion had a chance of succeeding but the various rebellion weren't really that close to winning(I agree that this could change IATL but I address a way to avoid the anarchy period as well)


Both Brazil and Argentina got their butt handed to them in the first phase of the war, plus your supposition is unfounded to begin with, like I said Brazil poured many more men compared to Argentina and if for some weird reason Argentina doesn't join Brazil would still have a massive force in the region, plus on a smaller front(I imagine the war wouldn't extend to Corrientes otherwise that would obviously draw in Argentina)


Wow, the massive counterweight of a 610k country versus a 4.7 million one. The reason why Uruguay exists is because the United Provinces won on the ground, not because some inherent impossibility of a Brazilian victory caused by the existence of Argentina, which wasn't particularly united itself anyway.


Well just make them win, which would secure the area at least until the period of anarchy, if that still happens IATL.


Well, but it is true, nothing could be done in this forum if everyone kept shouting "but they failed IOTL" at every WI thread.
What and when are these changes that turn Brazil into such a regional powerhouse?[/QUOTE]
Don't have Pedro abdicate leaving the country in a regency? That alone would fix a lot and I imagine winning the Cisplatine war could do something on that front. Also the attempt at quelling the rebellion by decentralizing actually allowed the rebellions to happen, so having Pedro doing something else would prevent some of the rebellions.[/QUOTE]


My bad on occupying Buenos Aires.

The reason people shout 'they failed OTL' is because they failed, and therefore a coherent reason is needed to overturn actual events. It's one thing to simply flip a coin on a close run affair. But in this discussion, there is nothing close about it. Portugal had a hard time conquering Uruguay, and Brazil lost it. it wasn't one battle gone bad. It was a long hard slog to take it, and then Brazil got booted out, and both for similar reasons.

Lopez HAD to go through Corrientes. It was the only way to get to Uruguay, and the only way to get to any battle with Brazil other than north, which doesn't lead to the heart of populated Brazil. Paraguay was isolated by geography.

Pedro I remaining in power might actually be worse for Brazil. He was a pretty bad ruler.
 

SwampTiger

Banned
unprincipled peter and I have given the best 19th century options. The closer you get to OTL, the harder it becomes. Which is the reason I went back further in time. The Portuguese governmental institutions which worked in tiny Portugal, failed in tumultuous, sprawling Brazil without the King's physical presence. Leaving a regency in charge didn't help. Portugal/Brazil in Uruguay resembles France in Mexico, or the Chinese Nationalists in the late 40's. They held islands of towns and cities in a sea of insurgency.
 

SwampTiger

Banned
It is comparable that it was the border area between Spanish and Portuguese worlds, and both had claims to the area. The northern La Plata and river valleys were not central to any power until independence. The residents were either indigenous farmers or Spanish/mixed race cattle herders. They only wanted to be left alone by any government. The competing powers wanted the land, taxes and prestige from extended borders. Paraguay and Uruguay derived from the Liga Federal which was comprised of federalist supporters in northern Spanish La Plata trying to escape from centralist Buenos Aires/Argentina. Brazil and Argentina have continued to intervene well into the 19th century.

Neither Brazil or Argentina effectively controlled the area long enough to truly develop ties to the region seen in France/Germany over Alsace/Lorraine.
 
Top