WI the coup against Pedro II of Brazil fails?

Mrstrategy

Banned
what if Pedro II of Brazil is more Resourceful and stops the coup that overthrow him and the monarchy?
  • how could he had stopped the coup or have it fail?
  • how would Brazil be different now if the coup failed?
  • is there a chance the monarchy still be in Brazil today if the coup fails?
 
These are excellent questions. I've read alot about the coup, and historians are at a loss to explain why it happened and when it did. It was sort of a typically Brazilian thing, as being thrown together for no particular reason, not involving much stress (Pedro was escorted out of the country and spent his final years going to lectures in Paris, which he probably would have preferred anyway), nad if there was any rationale it was to enable the oligarchy to exploit the country more.

However, there was a serious fascist movement in Brazil in the 1930s, and an actual military coup in 1964, not counting various other shenanigans. And Pedro II himself was pretty high caliber for a mobarch. I think the monarchy just gets overthrown by a coup at some later date.
 

Isaac Beach

Banned
These are excellent questions. I've read alot about the coup, and historians are at a loss to explain why it happened and when it did. It was sort of a typically Brazilian thing, as being thrown together for no particular reason, not involving much stress (Pedro was escorted out of the country and spent his final years going to lectures in Paris, which he probably would have preferred anyway), nad if there was any rationale it was to enable the oligarchy to exploit the country more.

However, there was a serious fascist movement in Brazil in the 1930s, and an actual military coup in 1964, not counting various other shenanigans. And Pedro II himself was pretty high caliber for a mobarch. I think the monarchy just gets overthrown by a coup at some later date.

Could they "pull a Thailand" and see the monarchy remain a constant despite the political dislocation the country might go through?
 
The best way to describe the fall of the Empire of Brazil was a haphazard affair, but something of a perfect storm, with a combination of factors being involved. Namely the military taking the limelight post-Paraguayan War, the agricultural aristocrats getting angry over the end of slavery in the country, and Pedro II's depression over not siring a living son, and a desire to not hand the reins of power to his daughter Isabel (even though Isabel would have been a capable monarch in her own right.) In fact the coup could've easily been dispersed, had it not been, because of the latter two issues, Pedro's antipathy over reigning Brazil and his desire for the monarchy to die with him.

Probably not smart yes, but considering his life was full of tragedy...
 
These are the heirs to Pedro II, of the House of Orleans-Braganza:

Isabel, daughter died in 1921
Pedro de Alcantra, son of Isabel died 1940

According to Wikipedia, Pedro de Alcantra, referenced above, renounced his claim in 1908 to embark in what was regarded in his mother's circles as an unsuitable marriage. The marriage was neither unsuitable or against the laws and customs of imperial Brazil. Its common for families of pretenders to thrones to engage in this sort of ridiculousness. This leads to a situation where there are two pretenders to the throne of Brazil. If the monarchy had not fallen, either the marriage or the renunciation would have been butterflied away. Wikipedia doesn't give much information about Pedro de Alcantra other than about the renunciation. Wikipedia discloses that most Brazilian law professors view the renunciation as invalid.

Pedro Gastao, son of Pedro de Alcantra, died 2007. Not much information on him.

Pedro Carlos, son of Pedro Gastao. He is a forest engineer and was interviewed by Michael Palin for his travel book and series on Brazil. He seems quite impressive.

The Petropolis branch of the family seems fairly liberal for aristocrats. If the monarchy survives into the twentieth century and gets more established, deposition by coup and restoration, Spanish style, is also a possibility. But historically the republic had at least one "hard coup", in 1964, and you can count a few "soft coups" like the one this year.
 
1- If he made even the slightest effort it was easily done.

2- Hard to say, on one hand considering the Old Republic better in every way seems obvious but on the other hand Vargas was unquestionably the best leader Brazil ever had* and this probably butterflies that away so who knows.
*Only other in the running is JK and I think he misread what is needed and what would be needed too much. Still at least he tried which is better than literally every single other leader Brazil ever had. Though I suppose some credit should be given to Dom Pedro I for keeping the country together in independence.

3- Sure, I think it is a given Isabel would do a better job than the people in the Old Republic did and if she can rein in the military before it becomes the problem it would eventually be I think that undercuts pretty much all the power any action against the reigning government in the 20th century had. Cold War might screws things up though.
 
These are the heirs to Pedro II, of the House of Orleans-Braganza:

Isabel, daughter died in 1921
Pedro de Alcantra, son of Isabel died 1940

According to Wikipedia, Pedro de Alcantra, referenced above, renounced his claim in 1908 to embark in what was regarded in his mother's circles as an unsuitable marriage. The marriage was neither unsuitable or against the laws and customs of imperial Brazil. Its common for families of pretenders to thrones to engage in this sort of ridiculousness. This leads to a situation where there are two pretenders to the throne of Brazil. If the monarchy had not fallen, either the marriage or the renunciation would have been butterflied away. Wikipedia doesn't give much information about Pedro de Alcantra other than about the renunciation. Wikipedia discloses that most Brazilian law professors view the renunciation as invalid.


Without the exile in France, the marriage of the Prince of Grão-Pará to the Austro-Hungarian Countess is likely butterflied away, as he met her in exile in France. More likely than not, he would have been betrothed to a Catholic Princess.
 
how could he had stopped the coup or have it fail?

If Pedro II just put a fight the "rebels" are screwed, it will be the Kapp-Putsch of Brazil.

I think that not going to Rio de Janeiro and just fleeing to any part of the empire is a killshot to the coup.

Another alternative is Pedro Augusto de Saxe Coburgo Gotha. He could for some reason be in Rio Grande do Sul with Gaspar Silva Martins, but to him the path is harder and a Civil War happens.

how would Brazil be different now if the coup failed?

Probably better overall, and at least more democratic. If the plan of Isabel to the freed slaves was implemented then we could see a more rich and socially just country too. At worst it would be stable, unless something like Mussolini happens.

But historically the republic had at least one "hard coup", in 1964,

If you consider that 1964 is a hard coup you should consider 1930 and 1945 hard coups too.
 
If Pedro II just put a fight the "rebels" are screwed, it will be the Kapp-Putsch of Brazil.

I think that not going to Rio de Janeiro and just fleeing to any part of the empire is a killshot to the coup.

He could have gone back to Rio... with any loyal troops he had(question is, I don't know whether he had any close at hand). For that matter, when the troops formed up in the Acclamation Field, the garrison protecting the Cabinet could have opened fire. The Prime Minister asked the Minister of War(Marshal Floriano Peixoto, later 2nd President of Brazil) whether he would do that, and he answered "But then we would be shooting fellow Brazilians"(somehow that didn't deter him in 1893-4).

IMO, the best way for Pedro II is to put a halt on those openly preaching sedition to cadets in the military academies and among officers in the Military Club during the 1880s, hard. But Pedro II was averse to this sort of thing.

As for how Brazil would have been with a continuing Monarchy, I suspect it wouldn't be that different - I don't see much change in what would have been the background of the politicians(i.e., a politician in the Empire wasn't that different from one of the 1920s - in some cases they were the same - or a politician from the 1950's or even one from today). Maybe the former slaves' lives would have been better; that would depend on whether those below the Emperor/Empress would implement the plans for economic/social insertion of the freed slaves(although I'd say the destruction of the artisan middle-class of former slaves that happened during the República Velha was a worse thing in that respect). Biggest change would have been the armed forces don't consider themselves the guardians of the government, which reduces considerably the likelihood of other coups.

If you consider that 1964 is a hard coup you should consider 1930 and 1945 hard coups too.

Agree wholeheartedly.
 
As for how Brazil would have been with a continuing Monarchy, I suspect it wouldn't be that different - I don't see much change in what would have been the background of the politicians(i.e., a politician in the Empire wasn't that different from one of the 1920s - in some cases they were the same - or a politician from the 1950's or even one from today). Maybe the former slaves' lives would have been better; that would depend on whether those below the Emperor/Empress would implement the plans for economic/social insertion of the freed slaves(although I'd say the destruction of the artisan middle-class of former slaves that happened during the República Velha was a worse thing in that respect). Biggest change would have been the armed forces don't consider themselves the guardians of the government, which reduces considerably the likelihood of other coups.


I must say that the first years of the Republic were an economic mess of debt and inflation, and the old republic wasn't shy of hurting the economy to maintain the cofee elite on top. Other than that Brazil could have averted many slaughters, wars and crisis.

Biggest change would have been the armed forces don't consider themselves the guardians of the government, which reduces considerably the likelihood of other coups.

The truth is that moderator power was never abolished, in practice it only changed hands, from the crown to the army.
 
I must say that the first years of the Republic were an economic mess of debt and inflation, and the old republic wasn't shy of hurting the economy to maintain the cofee elite on top. Other than that Brazil could have averted many slaughters, wars and crisis.

Many of the troubles of the Old Republic were self-inflicted, yes, but in many ways the Old Republic was just like the Empire(outside the Imperial Family, the ruling class was the same - I think some parallels could be made with the Weimar Republic in this, both were regimes that had much in common, culturally and socially, with the previous monarchic regimes, but were republics). For instance, the Encilhamento wasn't, in my understanding, much different than the economic policy of the last years of the Empire, differing more in extent than content - so it was possible the Empire would have faced an economic crisis just as Pedro II died(assuming he would have died close to when he did in OTL). It probably wouldn't be as strong, but it would make for chaotic times, IMO. Also, economic policy in the Empire was already mostly aligned with the coffee planters - they were the main revenue makers of the nation, after all. The minimum coffee price guarantees that were instituted in 1908(IIRC) could very well have happened in a continuing Empire. The unrest of the 1920s would be reduced, but how much, given most of the reasons for it were external and wouldn't have changed? And so on.

The truth is that moderator power was never abolished, in practice it only changed hands, from the crown to the army.

Agree with this, with the caveat the Army exercised this power less times than the Emperor did, although the times they did, they did it in a much more drastic manner than Emperor.
 
Top