WI no idiot King Sebastian of Portugal, and no Iberian Union

The lack of a union with the Habsburgs does bring important changes to Portugal, the most important being that Portugal will not be entangled in the conflicts with other European countries. For the past months, I have been going through the archives of Portugal's diplomatic correspondence housed in the National Archives of the Torre do Tombo. During the 16th century, Portugal was careful to avoid conflict with any European country as this was seen as damaging to the country's main source of wealth, trade. The Portuguese monarchs even wrote letters to various rulers, particularly in France and England lamenting the state of war and calling for a unity of Christian princes to take on the Saracens. Another theme was Portugal's attempt to protect a trading monopoly in the areas which in considered hers by virtue of the Treaty of Tordesillas. Prior to 1580, the French were the primary violators, attempting to establish settlements in Brazil and French privateers often plundering ships bringing goods from the Low Countries to Portugal and vice-versa. What is interesting to note is that the French ambassadors correspondences were generally very apologetic and blamed corsairs, which the crown had no control over. With regards to the English, Henry VIII sought to have English sailors accompany the Portuguese to the Indies, but this was rebuffed. The appearance of English traders in Guinea led to a protest by the Portuguese Ambassador, and eventually the English agreed in 1576 to not trade in these lands.

With the arrival of Philip II on the throne, Portugal was now at war with England, France and the United Provinces at various times, leading to an unprecedented number of attacks on Portugal and its empire. Among the most significant were those from the United Provinces, particularly from Holland and Zeeland. Prior to the Dutch revolt, Portugal had become economically dependent on Flemish capital and shipping, particularly from Antwerp. Flemish and other Northern European banking houses lent large sums to the Portuguese Crown and to Portuguese merchants. They also provided much needed grain to Lisbon, as the Portuguese hinterland was unable to feed such a large city. The repression by the Duke of Alba would lead to a flight of capital and merchants from Antwerp, to other cities, particularly Amsterdam.

Also, until 1595 Dutch ships came to Portuguese ports, bringing with them much needed grain and industrial goods, and acquiring sugar from Brazil, spices and other goods from the Indies to resell in Northern Europe. Importantly, in 1578 and 1579 some 130 ships per year also arrived to acquire salt from Setúbal, it was re-exported throughout the Baltic region to preserve herring. When the Spanish placed an embargo on Dutch trade with Spain and Portugal in 1595, the Dutch sent their first exploratory missions to Asia and the Americas.

If Portugal remains in the hands of the house of Aviz or an independent dynasty I imagine things might go a bit as follows. After the 1520s, the costs of war in North Africa (Morocco) were eating much of the profits from the Asia trade. By the 1550s, the Portuguese Crown abandoned many of its smaller ports and spent large fortunes fortifying its remaining holdings in Morocco. Nevertheless, these were a constant drain on the treasury, but they could not be abandoned as Ceuta and Tangier were seats of Bishoprics. Also, after the 1550s, Portuguese trade with Asia is growing and will probably continue to grow beyond the 1620s (when it decreased IOTL), but increasing competition from the Levantine Trade via the Red Sea will continue to lead to more private merchants trading, rather than the crown's official Carreiras da India.

In 1531, the Portuguese crown began allowing foreigners to trade with Brazil in return for a 10% duty paid in Lisbon, and this had led to Dutch traders being active by the 1570s. By the 1580s, private merchants of Portuguese merchants houses, whom often were raising funds in Northern Europe were dominating the trade with the Indies as well. Without the Dutch directly attacking the Portuguese, I imagine more Portuguese forts/strongholds in Asia will remain in Portuguese hands. On the other hand, the increasing trend of inter-Asian trade dominating the Estado da India, with local merchants reaping most of the rewards, rather than Lisbon is a trend that will probably continue. I imagine that Dutch and English traders might be able to eventually buy concessions to trade with Portuguese ports in Asia, relieving the foreign powers of having to spend large sums on defence.

One of the major problems with Portugal was that the largest families tended to invest their profits from trade in entailed estates and land holdings rather than in new businesses, so I still see a gradual decline occurring. As for foreign competition, the VOC might not be formed at all. It is important to note that prior to 1602, individual Dutch traders went to Asia and were able to obtain larger profits than in the post-VOC period. Asia was so large and the Portuguese were spread thin, so they simply avoided the Portuguese ports. Some areas like Sumatra, Bengal, the Coromandel had minimal Portuguese presence, and other powers could easily establish a presence there. It is often forgotten that the VOC had very poor returns for its investors until the late 1630s, and the original capital of 800,000 guilders had declined to around 560,000 in 1621. The figures on the outflow of capital from the VOC are shown. However, it is important this this was seen as a necessity, because of the state of war with the Spanish Crown. Without such a war against Portugal, the States-General would probably not want to antagonise a friendly trading partner with whom they enjoyed a financial beneficial relationship. Additionally, Flemish manufactured goods, such as clocks were already being traded in Asia by the Portuguese by the 1570s. The Dutch might simply see it fit to have the Portuguese assume the cost of arming ships and engaging in bribes and warfare with local Asian potentates, while reaping the benefits. Even the diamond cutting, with the Portuguese bringing diamonds from the East, largely bypassed Lisbon where the uncut stones were shipped to Antwerp making it the leading it to replace Venice as the leading hub of the gem trade in Europe by 1570.

VOC.png


Though a decline relative to its peers was probably still inevitable, I can see some major benefits to the lack of the union. Without it, Portugal will undoubtedly spend less on defence, allowing it to limp along as a middle power for a while longer. Its decline might be much slower as the navy probably remains among the top three in Europe at least until 1700. Also, as a result of the Restoration War against Spain between 1640-1668, Portugal had to spend huge amounts of its budget on recruiting armies, including paying mercenaries In desperate need of a ally, Portugal also spent a vast sum marrying off Catherine of Braganza to Charles II of England, with a dowry of 2 million cruzados, along with the cessation of both Bombay and Tangier. Additionally, peace with the Dutch was only reached in 1661 (only ratified in 1663) where to end the war, Portugal had to agree to indemnify the United Provinces with 63 tonnes of gold over a sixteen year period. This was to compensate for the reconquest of Brazil, Angola and São Tomé. Meanwhile, the Portuguese were given nothing for the loss of El Mina and Axim, Ceylon, Malacca, Cochin, the Moluccas and Macassar, not to mention the blockades and attacks on Lisbon, Goa and other ports. Desperate for peace and recognition as a legitimate ruling house, King João IV and, after, his death his wife Luisa acquiesced to these demands.

Another important effect on world history is the sugar trade. By 1580, Brazil was supplying the vast majority of Europe's sugar. Also, by 1580, the first sugar refineries were operating in Amsterdam, where the Dutch would reexport this product to other Northern European ports, including in England. In 1621, the Spanish Crown reimposed its embargo on trade with the Netherlands, leading to the formation of the WIC. It would eventually occupy Northeastern Brazil to acquire sugar. Without an embargo, there probably is no such attempt, but importantly this might delay the transition from tobacco to sugar in the West Indies. The retreat of the Dutch from Brazil and the exodus of Portuguese Jews whom had come to Brazil in the 1643 led to some settling in the French and British West Indies, providing the knowledge to establish a sugar economy in those islands. I imagine the English and French in particular would still acquire these islands and grow sugar, it might be delayed by a decade or two.
 
I think there is a possibility of the Portuguese retaining Nusa Tengarra completely..

The Portuguese Governor of Timor only sold the rights to Flores, Adonara, Alor, Pantar, Solor to the Dutch in 1851 for 200,000 florins. So even without the Iberian Union there is a chance that the Portuguese could have retained these islands longer. The governor was recalled to Macau, but instead kept the money and fled.
 
There will probably be a lot of arguing about the Line of Tordesilhas after the discovery of gold in Brazil.
 
There will probably be a lot of arguing about the Line of Tordesilhas after the discovery of gold in Brazil.

By the time gold was discovered the treaty had been largely disregarded. Also, there were several interpretations of the treaty where the Portuguese even claimed the mouth of the La Plata River. Charles V even urged Portuguese to dismantle the French settlements in North America when word arrived of Cartier's expedition, claiming it was within the Portuguese sphere. This means that the actual spheres of influence were often unclear This eventually led to the colonisation of the Philippines by Spain, well within Portugal's sphere. By the mid-17th century, the arrival of other European powers had made the treaty largely irrelevant.

Additionally, the scant attention paid to the Rio de la Plata Area allowed the Portuguese to extend their territory well West of the Line, whereas Buenos Aires remained largely ignored. The Treaty of Madrid in 1750 recognised the occupation by Portugal to lands well west of the treaty line and this was further addressed in the Treaty of San Ildefonso in 1777.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
The lack of a union with the Habsburgs does bring important changes to Portugal, the most important being that Portugal will not be entangled in the conflicts with other European countries. For the past months, I have been going through the archives of Portugal's diplomatic correspondence housed in the National Archives of the Torre do Tombo....snip details.... it might be delayed by a decade or two.

Awesome sauce!, on an awesome sundae, with a side of ...awesome
 
I do not unfortunately, I have been making it up as I go along as it has been unplanned, when I find interesting tidbits of information, I try to research as much as I can to see what the plausibility of scenarios would be. Admittedly, at times I begin to get so caught up in the research that it takes me longer than it should to post updates.
 
By the time gold was discovered the treaty had been largely disregarded. Also, there were several interpretations of the treaty where the Portuguese even claimed the mouth of the La Plata River. Charles V even urged Portuguese to dismantle the French settlements in North America when word arrived of Cartier's expedition, claiming it was within the Portuguese sphere. This means that the actual spheres of influence were often unclear This eventually led to the colonisation of the Philippines by Spain, well within Portugal's sphere. By the mid-17th century, the arrival of other European powers had made the treaty largely irrelevant.

Additionally, the scant attention paid to the Rio de la Plata Area allowed the Portuguese to extend their territory well West of the Line, whereas Buenos Aires remained largely ignored. The Treaty of Madrid in 1750 recognised the occupation by Portugal to lands well west of the treaty line and this was further addressed in the Treaty of San Ildefonso in 1777.

Yes, but in South America it was disregarded mostly because of the Iberian Union, there was no reason to respect that treaty. After the union the principle of "Uti Possidetis" was stronger. I can't say for sure, but I think that there wasn't "bandeiras" going very far into castilian territory before the union, but after that ended Tordesilhas was very disregarded as you said, with villages being founded very far inside the continent.

But the question is: Would Tordesilhas be so disregarded without the union? Would the portuguese feel so free to expand west? Not that the portuguese wouldn't colonize the territory west of the line, I know that everyone could read Tordesilhas as one desired, even pushing the line all the way into Paraguay or all the way into Rio de Janeiro, but without another treaty before the year 1700 the borders could be legally blurred, even if solidly populated by one party or another, and the gold mines are going to be inside this territory. Without the union the bandeirantes could feel less confident to enter so deep inland, that is something that we could think a little about.
 
Yes, but in South America it was disregarded mostly because of the Iberian Union, there was no reason to respect that treaty. After the union the principle of "Uti Possidetis" was stronger. I can't say for sure, but I think that there wasn't "bandeiras" going very far into castilian territory before the union, but after that ended Tordesilhas was very disregarded as you said, with villages being founded very far inside the continent.

But the question is: Would Tordesilhas be so disregarded without the union? Would the portuguese feel so free to expand west? Not that the portuguese wouldn't colonize the territory west of the line, I know that everyone could read Tordesilhas as one desired, even pushing the line all the way into Paraguay or all the way into Rio de Janeiro, but without another treaty before the year 1700 the borders could be legally blurred, even if solidly populated by one party or another, and the gold mines are going to be inside this territory. Without the union the bandeirantes could feel less confident to enter so deep inland, that is something that we could think a little about.

From what I have read there is very little mention of the treaty in Portuguese diplomatic correspondences between Spain and Portugal by the late 16th century, and this is even before the Iberian Union. Rio de Janeiro, São Vicente and São Paulo had already been founded, and the reason the bandeirantes pushed inland was economic. The Portuguese Crown had little authority over them and Southern Brazil was very much a frontier region. Also, the push inland towards southern Brazil began occurring even before the Union as there was already allusions to the Paraná River being considered to be the Western Frontier of Brazil. The discovery of small amounts of gold along the river only made this movement more intense. The capture of Indian slaves inland was also a major motivation, particularly as the early farmers of São Paulo could not afford the costs of African slaves. In 1602, a Bandeirante expedition authorised by the Governor-General to round up slaves around the Paraná, and this caused protest on the part of the Spanish governor of the region, despite the Union of the Crowns.

Once the sugar economy began to collapse due to the competition from the West Indies, the movement of settlers to the south and inland increased and probably still would, with or without the consent of the crown, with very little regard for an imaginary line. The move southward allowed small sugar planters to switch from sugar to less capital intensive cultivation of tobacco, grains or ranching. I imagine that this will still occur as Brazil had replaced Madeira and São Tome as the leading sugar economy. With the sugar depression, poorer planters turned to cattle ranching, and the export of hides became particularly lucrative during the latter 17th century, as these were exported to Northern Europe. Once the gold is discovered in large quantities, this will still cause an even greater flood of settlers to Minas, making the subsequent spillover from that area even larger, including the growth or regions in the south which supplied grains to it. Another thing to remember is that for the Spanish Crown, the area around Buenos Aires was of even less importance. However, for the Portuguese settlers the silver trickling out from Potosi became a draw to the area, so smuggling of goods from Europe from Brazil in exchange for silver became irresistible. This was because the Spanish wanted all trade to go through official channels in Cartagena, as a result, the region around Buenos Aires had fewer than 9,000 Spaniards in 1700, whereas Cordoba was the most heavily populated area in what is today Argentina, as late as 1776.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Who do we propose to have reign instead?

That's where I am lame, in not knowing enough about the Portuguese royal family and nobility. I'm stuck relying on others.

One option could indeed be a King, perhaps one even named Sebastian, of roughly the same age as OTL, who simply, through accidents of conception, pre-natal development, early childhood or education, is a much wiser and more realistic person when coming to the throne.

Let's list out the territories that Portugal would probably retain as an alternative to them falling to the Dutch:

Ceylon/Sri Lanka
West Timor
The Moluccas/Malukus spice islands
Colonies on coasts of Sumatra, Borneo and Celebes


Possible additional areas I am less certain of:

Malacca
Java
some posts in India
Perhaps a mega Mozambique extending northward to encompass much of coastal Tanzania and Kenya
Mauritius?
Chagos islands-Diego Garcia

Dutch Guiana/Surinam ?

What do y'all think is a reasonable list of surviving Portuguese imperial territories by 1900?
 
Without the Union of the Crowns, the history of Portugal and the world is completely different. As to what Portugal's empire would look like, it is hard to say, but keep in mind that once peace was made with the Dutch in 1661 (formalised in 1663), Portugal's rulers by and large managed to keep their empire in tact, and free from attacks by foreign powers and even expand their areas of interest, despite the country's weakness.

In 1580, Portugal's empire consisted of the Atlantic Islands (Azores, Madeira, Cape Verde of course). In Morocco, Portugal had been reduced to Ceuta, Tangier and Mazagan, all three had been fortified at great expense, and post-1640 Portugal was more than willing to cede Tangier or Mazagan as part of a dowry. Mazagan was abandoned in 1769, and this might still be the case, but I imagine that at the minimum, Ceuta would continue to be held.

Further south, Portugal held a string of forts in West Africa, with the most important being São Jorge da Mina (Elmina, Ghana). There was Arguim (Arguin) Mauritania, but this was largely held by a Portuguese noble when the Dutch took it over in 1633, and switched hands several times between European before being abandoned by the French in 1728. The Portuguese would probably abandon it as well, particularly once other slave forts become more important. In Upper Guinea, the Portuguese trade a bit for slaves, but I imagine they might not establish settlements in present-day Guinea-Bissau. The reason these were built was because of the loss of the Gold Coast, Mina and Santo António de Axim being the most important. Slaves from the Gold Coast and Gulf of Guinea were far more prized and tended to command higher prices in the Americas, resulting in Portugal's fortification of São João Baptista de Ajudá in 1721. This might not be needed with the Gold Coast in Portuguese hands. Luanda and Benguela along with the smaller forts in Angola would probably still be settled as they were necessary to feed the demand for slaves in Angola. In the Gulf of Guinea, São Tomé and Príncipe and Fernando Poo and Anobom would be Portuguese.

In East Africa, Mozambique would remain the main settlement, as this was a major source of ivory for the Indian market, and it did remain one of Portugal's most profitable colonies. South of the Zambezi, a formal Portuguese presence was not established until the late 18th century and really not formal until the late 19th. If the Cape is settled by the English or French, the may end up with Mozambique South of Sofala, before the Portuguese expand the ivory trade during the late 18th century. One difference is with a stronger "Estado da Índia", more resources would be freed up to build settlements in present-day Zimbabwe during the 17th century in a search for gold. North of the Rovuma, formal Portuguese rule was limited to Mombasa and Malindi, and again if the Estado da Índia is unhindered by Dutch attacks, it might be able to reinforce this area against the Omanis. The rest of the coast might remain important for the slave trade with Arabia, which I could see the Portuguese or their agents/allies dominating.

In the Persian Gulf, the Portuguese might still lose Ormuz and Bandar Abbas along with Bahrain to the Persians. Even this was aided by the English (as enemies of Spain). However, without the Dutch attacks, the Estado da Índia will be able to send a fleet from Goa (which OTL was blockaded by the Dutch). I can imagine a series of forts in present day Oman/UAE to dominate the trade in the region, with Mascate (Muscat) being the eventual capital. During the late 17th and early 18th century the Portuguese maintained good relations with Basra and Persia (Kong), and were even granted customs houses in both along with being made protectors of Franciscan Monasteries. This could lead to some sort of formal claim to Eastern Arabia, if colonialism develops as IOTL. The horse trade from this region to India remained important, along with the importation of textiles and other goods from India would remain the raison d'etre for holding forts here.

In India, I can see the Portuguese eventually being eclipsed on the India-Europe trade by the English, French and Danes. Unmolested by the Dutch, the Estado da Índia, would probably become more focused on trade within the Indian Ocean, use natives/mixed-race Portuguese as agents to carry goods between the various Portuguese entrepots. On the subcontinent, the Portuguese hold over trade with Gujarat is secure with Dio, and the Provincias do Norte centred around Bombaim and Bassein would remain important. Goa of course along with Cochin and a string of smaller forts in the Malabar, would probably make Portugal the dominant European power along the Western Coast of India. Whether or not they can extend their formal hold by making treaties with local rulers is another question. Portugal might simply be held with more enclaves than IOTL.

On the Coromandel and Bengal, Portugal's factories were few, so I can see this still being the target for French and English trade. The textile trade and later opium would also be important for the latter two powers. Portugal did have some settlements in present-day Bangladesh (Chittagong), but these were dominated by local mixed-race converts. If it remains Portuguese, it probably remains a more peripheral colony.

Ceylon would probably become a formal colony, as would Malacca. Much of Malaya's tin trade was now dominated by Johor. This would probably relegate Malaca to the status that Macau eventually had. It would be interesting to see if Malaca remains anything more than an enclave. Macau of course remains important, and it would benefit from the tin with Malaca.

In the East Indies, Macasar on Celebes would remain Portugal's most important fortified area, probably leaving the island in Portuguese hands. In the Moluccas, the Portuguese lacked forts, but did trade, I can see them being sidelined by the English. The same can be said for Java, and especially Sumatra. Sumatra might become an English colony in the end. The lesser Sundas would probably be Portuguese, dominated by local mixed-race rulers, with nominal Portuguese sovereignty.
 
Top