WI: The brazilian army defeats the oligarchs in 1891?

The very first conflict in republican Brazil was fought between the two factions who led the republican coup, the oligarchs and the army. The oligarchs planned to turn Brazil into an oligarchic republic to preserve their status and power at the expense of turning brazil into a police state while the army wanted to turn Brazil into a positivist stratocracy in a way similar to what we got to kemalist turkey, but in steroids and with a complete disregard for civilian politicians.

OTL the oligarchs won and Brazil was left under the boot of the oligarchy for fourty one years. But what if the army had won? The brazilian army did have good ideas such as the creation of a ministry of education (in fact Deodoro da Fonseca and Floriano Peixoto, the first two dictators of the old republic, kept a ministry of education that was shut down in 1891), they favoured the industrialization and militarization of Brazil, so could Brazil end better in this timeline?

Also something to think is that one of the worst crisis of early republican Brazil, the encilhamento, began since the army botched their chance to industrialize Brazil and Floriano burned the brazilian gold reserves, so the army can also fail even harder than the oligarchs did, what do you think?

alegoria-a-Julio-de-Castilhos-l.jpg


Calling a few brasileiros, @Aluma , @Kaiser of Brazil , @Vinization , @Guilherme Loureiro
 
I think things could be even worse than IOTL. A politically active military means coups are a constant threat, and the oligarchy will make its voice heard either way. They're the ones with the money, which can be just as powerful as guns.
 
I think things could be even worse than IOTL. A politically active military means coups are a constant threat, and the oligarchy will make its voice heard either way. They're the ones with the money, which can be just as powerful as guns.
The oligarchies are socially regressive, though, while the military is developmentalist

I think that even with coups and a bloated army the situation wouldn't get as bad as it did under the old republic
 
The very first conflict in republican Brazil was fought between the two factions who led the republican coup, the oligarchs and the army. The oligarchs planned to turn Brazil into an oligarchic republic to preserve their status and power at the expense of turning brazil into a police state while the army wanted to turn Brazil into a positivist stratocracy in a way similar to what we got to kemalist turkey, but in steroids and with a complete disregard for civilian politicians.

OTL the oligarchs won and Brazil was left under the boot of the oligarchy for fourty one years. But what if the army had won? The brazilian army did have good ideas such as the creation of a ministry of education (in fact Deodoro da Fonseca and Floriano Peixoto, the first two dictators of the old republic, kept a ministry of education that was shut down in 1891), they favoured the industrialization and militarization of Brazil, so could Brazil end better in this timeline?

Also something to think is that one of the worst crisis of early republican Brazil, the encilhamento, began since the army botched their chance to industrialize Brazil and Floriano burned the brazilian gold reserves, so the army can also fail even harder than the oligarchs did, what do you think?

I don't think the POD should be 1891 - the army faction was decidedly dominant on Floriano's presidency, and the struggle between the factions grew more intense after they started falling out of power during Prudente de Morais' term. I figure that a better one would be that the 1897 assassination attempt on Prudente succeeds and the positivists take advantage of the situation to launch a coup.
 
I do have some vague ideas for such a timeline(have had them for years now) - more specifically what would happen if Positivism won and became the ideology of the Republic. What little I know about the subject(one of the main reasons this will remain unrealized for many years, and possibly ever) points to it being a different kind of crap than the First Republic, and, IMO, probably being worse, depending on what happens after the whole shebang collapses.

On the short term, I think things would be as chaotic as they were in 1889-1898 at the very least - the oligarchs wouldn't willingly give away their power, so violence is what would happen. A civil war would be nasty, as nasty as the Federalist Revolution, Canudos and the Contestado War were, for much of the same reasons - now expand that in scale to most of Brazil. After that, you have an authoritarian, deeply anti-catholic(and that would matter back then) trying to pick up the pieces. In the long term, I'm not too keen on positivistic pseudo-scientifism being conductive to creating a functional society.
 
Look at Burma……
Burma is a complete different project to what was wanted in Brazil, so much that Burma was pro soviet and Brazilian stratocracy comes from positivism that is a right wing ideology

I do have some vague ideas for such a timeline(have had them for years now) - more specifically what would happen if Positivism won and became the ideology of the Republic. What little I know about the subject(one of the main reasons this will remain unrealized for many years, and possibly ever) points to it being a different kind of crap than the First Republic, and, IMO, probably being worse, depending on what happens after the whole shebang collapses.

On the short term, I think things would be as chaotic as they were in 1889-1898 at the very least - the oligarchs wouldn't willingly give away their power, so violence is what would happen. A civil war would be nasty, as nasty as the Federalist Revolution, Canudos and the Contestado War were, for much of the same reasons - now expand that in scale to most of Brazil. After that, you have an authoritarian, deeply anti-catholic(and that would matter back then) trying to pick up the pieces. In the long term, I'm not too keen on positivistic pseudo-scientifism being conductive to creating a functional society.
PROCEED, OH MIGHTY WILHELM! I am curious!
 
Brazil today if the positivists won.

Just kidding, though it's not that far, given the fact one would be a highly hierarchical, authoritarian society with an ideology obsessed with progress and technology, while the other is the Brotherhood of Steel.

Anyway, I agree that the military's take over would be violent, especially if they wish to get rid of the oligarchies' influence.
 
Burma is a complete different project to what was wanted in Brazil, so much that Burma was pro soviet and Brazilian stratocracy comes from positivism that is a right wing ideology


PROCEED, OH MIGHTY WILHELM! I am curious!
Point is how many military dictatorships ended well? The military also needs a foreign enemy(barring that an internal rebel group) to justify its’ continued rule. Most militaries claim that they are anti X but they almost always turn out to be the same shit. The generals and their families almost always conveniently turn out to become the wealthy elite.
 
Last edited:
The problem with military juntas is that they always need to find an external (and sometimes imaginary) enemy to unite the nation under their banner. If they win, good, the regime is strengthened and keeps going strong for some years. If they fail? Well, ask Argentina.
Also, a positivist stratocracy led by a military leader? That's basically Mexico under the Porfiriato. And it didn't end well for them.
 
Point is how many military dictatorships ended well? The military also needs a foreign enemy(barring that an internal rebel group) to justify its’ continued rule. Most militaries claim that they are anti X but they almost always turn out to be the same shit. The generals and their families almost always conveniently turn out to become the wealthy elite.

The problem with military juntas is that they always need to find an external (and sometimes imaginary) enemy to unite the nation under their banner. If they win, good, the regime is strengthened and keeps going strong for some years. If they fail? Well, ask Argentina.
Also, a positivist stratocracy led by a military leader? That's basically Mexico under the Porfiriato. And it didn't end well for them.

A far left dictatorship works different from a far right, though, that was the main point, it would not end exactly like Burma.

And well, you don't need to worry about sympathy to the army project, we all accept that it sucks to be put under a stratocracy. I'm just asking if it would end less bad than under the oligarchs. Brazil is a later comer to the world of American powers since we only got a ministry of education in 1930, the government also fought actively against creating a middle class, industrializing and democratising thanks to the oligarchs so there is space to theorise if a pseud technocratic stratocracy would end less bad than OTL did.

I mean, Brazil OTL has widespread slavery until the 1920s.
 
Last edited:
Although I still harbor antipathy toward Republicans for their coward military coup against the legitimate ruler of Brazil (Pedro II), I agree with Gukpard. The Positivists were much better in terms of ideology and thought than the oligarchs. The oligarchs will resist, of course, but I think a civil war is unlikely or even ASB. The vast majority of the Army was positivist, and unless the oligarchs turn towards monarchism (to co-opt the Navy), I think any oligarchic rebellion will be violently put down and the oligarchs would see their power further reduced.
The Positivists had a very ambitious agenda that included industrialization, massive public secular education and some middle-ground on the issue of federalization X centralization.
 
Under the leadership of a genius, positivists established a republican dictatorship after 15/11. Brazil industrializes and becomes a beacon of the colonized world.
 
Burma is a complete different project to what was wanted in Brazil, so much that Burma was pro soviet and Brazilian stratocracy comes from positivism that is a right wing ideology
Burma also has the factor that the Bamars intend to keep all other ethnicities under their leash, and that wouldn't be a problem here.

PROCEED, OH MIGHTY WILHELM! I am curious!
Not much to say here, what I have are (somewhat)idle thoughts(it's more of a thought exercise, really) that have to be checked if they are plausible; the amount of research is quite big(always a problem when one's biggest failing is laziness); in many cases I don't even know if there is a source available.

Some loosely connected thoughts:

- Best example of a positivist State(at least in regard to its laws) we have is Rio Grande do Sul state, under its1891(IIRC) Constitution. Rio Grande do Sul didn't become a positivist society, though(it did become a single-party rule state until the late 1920s, however). Its oligarchy adapted to the times. I'd expect that to be repeated throughout the country;

- Positivism was highly anti-catholic, and positivists did intend to make use of universal public education as one of their tools. Would they succeed in making Brazilian society secular(very difficult, IMO, BUT making the cities largely secular could be in their reach, if they stay on long enough);

- The above has implications for what comes after: a society that has been partly secularized, urbanized, and indoctrinated in positivist ideology, would be more vulnerable to Marxism than Brazilian OTL society, IMO, as despite all the differences between Positivism and Marxism, it is a smaller leap between those than between those and Catholic dogma;

- In regards to a showdown between the oligarchy and the positivists, the model would be mainly the Federalist Revolution in the southern and southeastern states, something like the later Regency rebellions(that is, local oligarchy factions fighting each other, with the populace at large joining the fight in lesser or greater degree - and in many cases, at odds with what the oligarchies were fighting for - depending on local circumstances), in the northern and central-west states, and a mix of both in the Northeast(mostly pending to the latter). All in all, a damn great mess. Some have said a civil war would be unlikely. IMO, the Federalist Revolution already was a civil war, and the only thing that didn't make Canudos or the Contestado civil wars were their reduced geographical scope; they sure had the body count, in relation to total Brazilian population, to qualify;

- Positivist enthusiasm for industrialization would almost certainly not bring the desired results, although Brazil would be far more industrialized than it was in OTL by 1930.
 
Under the leadership of a genius, positivists established a republican dictatorship after 15/11. Brazil industrializes and becomes a beacon of the colonized world.

Friend I was about to read this document but then I noticed that the writer is from São Goncalo so anything he says is automatically wrong, I'm sorry

Burma also has the factor that the Bamars intend to keep all other ethnicities under their leash, and that wouldn't be a problem here.


Not much to say here, what I have are (somewhat)idle thoughts(it's more of a thought exercise, really) that have to be checked if they are plausible; the amount of research is quite big(always a problem when one's biggest failing is laziness); in many cases I don't even know if there is a source available.

Some loosely connected thoughts:

- Best example of a positivist State(at least in regard to its laws) we have is Rio Grande do Sul state, under its1891(IIRC) Constitution. Rio Grande do Sul didn't become a positivist society, though(it did become a single-party rule state until the late 1920s, however). Its oligarchy adapted to the times. I'd expect that to be repeated throughout the country;

- Positivism was highly anti-catholic, and positivists did intend to make use of universal public education as one of their tools. Would they succeed in making Brazilian society secular(very difficult, IMO, BUT making the cities largely secular could be in their reach, if they stay on long enough);

- The above has implications for what comes after: a society that has been partly secularized, urbanized, and indoctrinated in positivist ideology, would be more vulnerable to Marxism than Brazilian OTL society, IMO, as despite all the differences between Positivism and Marxism, it is a smaller leap between those than between those and Catholic dogma;

- In regards to a showdown between the oligarchy and the positivists, the model would be mainly the Federalist Revolution in the southern and southeastern states, something like the later Regency rebellions(that is, local oligarchy factions fighting each other, with the populace at large joining the fight in lesser or greater degree - and in many cases, at odds with what the oligarchies were fighting for - depending on local circumstances), in the northern and central-west states, and a mix of both in the Northeast(mostly pending to the latter). All in all, a damn great mess. Some have said a civil war would be unlikely. IMO, the Federalist Revolution already was a civil war, and the only thing that didn't make Canudos or the Contestado civil wars were their reduced geographical scope; they sure had the body count, in relation to total Brazilian population, to qualify;

- Positivist enthusiasm for industrialization would almost certainly not bring the desired results, although Brazil would be far more industrialized than it was in OTL by 1930.

I love this, but what about education?
 
Last edited:
A far left dictatorship works different from a far right, though, that was the main point, it would end exactly like Burma.

And well, you don't need to worry about sympathy to the army project, we all accept that it sucks to be put under a stratocracy. I'm just asking if it would end less bad than under the oligarchs. Brazil is a later comer to the world of American powers since we only got a ministry of education in 1930, the government also fought actively against creating a middle class, industrializing and democratising thanks to the oligarchs so there is space to theorise if a pseud technocratic stratocracy would end less bad than OTL did.

I mean, Brazil OTL has widespread slavery until the 1920s.
I think both the far right and far left military dictatorships are basically the same shit with different flavours. The political spectrum is designed in such a way that the far right and far left comes around in a full circle. The Tatmadaw claimed that they are far left but do shit like allying themselves with militant buddhists and then try to purge the Muslim minority in the name of nationalism. The generals and their families also formed the new oligarchic elite. Showa Japan, whom the founding Tatmadaw army officers were actually trained by was a similar story despite being the ‘far right’. The basic nature of the military needing military victories to justify their existence also remains.
 
Last edited:
Deodoro had a ministry of education, I think it was named "Ministério da instrucão" or something like that, but it was shut down
Would this scenario of yours lead to a better educated Brazil with a higher literacy than OTL?
Higher literacy, yes. Whether they would be better educated than OTL is something that I'm not sure. Soviet education(especially higher education) collapsed in the late 70s/early 80s, something I only know by occasional mentions and would really like to get some sources on. It's possible(but again, I would have to do research on it) that it could happen in this case as well.

EDIT: As for São Gonçalo, yes people from Niterói love to dump on São Gonçalo - with reason, it is a crap place. Problem is Niterói in the last 20 years has grown a lot closer to it...
 
Last edited:
Top