Would Brazil be able to keep Portugal?

I do think that a Brazilian focused empire would take more of an interest in Africa particularly Angola. For much of the XIX century Portugal was cash strapped and the Miguelist wars did not help. Until the 1850s most of Angola's trade was with Brazil, with most exports being slaves. I could envision the a segment of the upper class in the Kingdom of Brazil wanting to engage in the "New Imperialism" and being closer to Angola certainly helps. In the 1830s Brazil began settling freed and rebellious slaves in present-day Benin and Togo.

These freed slaves were referred to as Portuguese and in 1885 Portugal did sign a treaty with the King of Dahomey to make the region a Portuguese protectorate. This along with claims between Casamance River in present-day Senegal to the Nunez (Nunes) River to the south in present-day Guinea were ceded to France in exchange for French recognition of the claims to the "pink map". With more Brazilian explorers and administrators, the Portuguese Empire might be able to push its claims inland earlier.

With a less cash-strapped empire, the governor of Timor would not have to sell Eastern Flores, Lomblen, Adonara, Solor, Alor and Pantar to the Dutch, and they may take a more aggressive posture in dealings with the Dutch in Timor itself, making the Portuguese-controlled area larger.
So Brazil would be more powerful and aggressive in the colonial game and could attach these light red areas to the map.
IMPERIO.png


In Africa, attach dahomey and expand the pink map to include southern Congo, Madagascar and parts of Tanzania.
In the east, expand the timor and annex eastern indonesia, perhaps reaching the larger islands such as papua new guinea and celebs

In short, the Portugal-Brazil union would be a major player in the colonial game at the level of France and only behind the British Empire.
 
Eh... it may be, but not necessarily. It's important to keep in mind that neither Portugal nor Brazil had a particularly happy 19th century overall. Political and social instability hurt industrialization and are not conducent to Great Power status
 
Maybe a name show both are equal, like the luso empire?
It could adopt the Roman name of Portugal, Lusitania;
and for being considered an empire would not be the United Kingdom of Lusitania but the United Empire of Lusitania.

we already have the United States, the United Kingdom and now the United Empire. lol
 
Last edited:
Why would Portugal agree to become a colony of its own colony? And why wouldn't the Brazilian elite decide to go its own way rather than spending resources to hold on to some little kingdom in Europe?
 
It would still be a horrible blow to Lisbon's pride. Why would it accept this arrangement?
As reported by Viriato in a previous post; Lisbon could revolt but Brazil would keep Portugal strong with the support of the British, and Lisbon's rebels could seek help from Spain or France to intervene as France intervened in Spain in 1823.
the most likely in my opinion would be: that portugal was kept by brazil during the 19th century, but when the 20th century arrived, portugal would declare independence similarly to ireland and become a republic.

Brazil would make use of the rhetoric of being the natural successor of the Portuguese empire to justify the union, while Portugal at the same time would make use of the rhetoric of being a European nation and would seek independence as a republic.
 
Pedro I/IV was an admirer of Napoleon and had long wanted to assume the title of Emperor. Being fairly liberal the most ideal title would be to adopt the title "Emperor of the Portuguese". This would be like Napoleon's Emperor of the French, or Louis-Philippe's "King of the French". Also, the rulers of Belgium adopted "King of the Belgians" as did those of Greece "King of the Hellenes" for their new kingdoms. Official documents would refer to the "Portuguese Empire". They would of course retain the title of King of Portugal, Brazil and the Algarves etc. Many Brazilian intellectuals had argued in the early 1820s that their pátria (fatherland) was composed of various parts of territory around the globe united in the person of the king, so this new title would be more appropriate. This was also when the term "overseas province" was first used to describe the other territories of the empire. The idea was despite the king's subjects throughout the disparate geographic were united. Meanwhile, Portugal retained a special place as "the cradle of the nation" from which a global empire was born. As a result, the "Kingdom of Portugal" and "Kingdom of Brazil" would be constituent parts of a larger "Portuguese Empire".

One of the complaints that the Portuguese elites had during the 1808-1821 period was that the length of time it took to send requests to the king in Rio de Janeiro took too long. Salvador da Bahia would have probably been a better choice as the imperial seat, but Rio de Janeiro was much more prominent as it was near the economic heart of Brazil., The Kingdom of Portugal like the provinces of Brazil will have to have its own assembly and essentially functioning as any of the provinces of Brazil did with its own autonomous legislature in Lisbon. However, being a kingdom it would be ruled by a "Regent" rather than a governor, and be directly responsible to the Emperor/King rather than Rio de Janeiro.

With Brazil being dominant in Angola the establishment of a transcontinental empire linking it to the possessions in East Africa would be accomplished with much greater ease. Also, its status as a penal colony means that it will get a large amount of convicts from Brazil past the 1820s. Eventually, Angola would be elevated to the status of a "kingdom" within the Portuguese Empire. In 1886, the name Angola was used to refer to this territory, so I imagine it would be the most appropriate here. Lord of Guinea was another title of the Portuguese Crown. Perhaps a Kingdoms of Guinea and Dahomey can emerge. It might also be populated with more liberated slaves, and have a stronger creole component, much like Sierra Leone.

I don't see Madagascar becoming Portuguese as the French were already dominant there. The same with Celebes (Sulawesi) or Moluccas where the Dutch had an older presence. If there is a Emperor/King whom is as ambitious as Leopold II of Belgium, New Guinea or even Cochin China is possible, but I imagine they will focus on Africa. Portugal's presence in Moçâmedes was founded in 1840 by settlers from Pernambuco. A more likely expansion would be into present-day Namibia, as Portugal's claim went down to Cape Frio, but this was ceded to Germany in 1885 along with the territory south of Kilwa in present-day Tanzania. Additionally, they will move to reestablish a claim to Cabinda before 1885, as well as a claim over the territories that had been part of the Kingdom of the Kongo along with the territories of the Lunda people that extend into the present-day Congo.
 
As reported by Viriato in a previous post; Lisbon could revolt but Brazil would keep Portugal strong with the support of the British, and Lisbon's rebels could seek help from Spain or France to intervene as France intervened in Spain in 1823.
the most likely in my opinion would be: that portugal was kept by brazil during the 19th century, but when the 20th century arrived, portugal would declare independence similarly to ireland and become a republic.

Brazil would make use of the rhetoric of being the natural successor of the Portuguese empire to justify the union, while Portugal at the same time would make use of the rhetoric of being a European nation and would seek independence as a republic.
The comparison with Ireland is much different as the Portuguese from Metropolitan Portugal would not be a marginalised and disenfranchised people with a different religion and language and customs. That is not to say that revolts are not possible, particularly early on as the elite want Brazil to return to its pre-1808 mercantilism system. Early on in the 1820s you have two factions in Portugal, or rather in Lisbon and Porto. The liberal bourgeois whom would look to England for assistance and the conservatives backed by the powerful church and old nobility looking to absolutist France and Spain. The liberals are going to probably win out, but in return will have to give up an pretense of having he old order restored. A compromise might be a personal union, with joint navy, foreign ministry and common currency.

Revolts were not unknown throughout XIX century Europe, but usually they were relegated to Lisbon or Porto, as the rest of the country stagnated and the literacy rate was probably less than 10% outside of the cities. North of the Tagus River, the Portuguese economy particularly in the small towns and cities was economically dependent on the emigration to Brazil. The remittances sent from Brazil were so significant that as early as March 1875 Joaquim Pedro de Oliveira Martins, a deputy in the Cortes stated that Portugal was completely financially and economically dependent on Brazil. This only increased as Portuguese emigration there increased progressively, so much so that in 1890 when remittances were disrupted due to the revolution in Brazil, the lack of foreign exchange caused a financial crisis in Portugal. By 1910 in districts like Bragança one in six young men emigrated to Brazil with around one-third returning, many with small fortunes, building hospitals, schools and providing much needed capital to areas with a mediaeval economy. Between 1890 and 1930 alone over 1 million Portuguese left for Brazil. Any revolt might would seriously hamper one of the economic backbones of an already fragile economy.

My take is the Portuguese character would be even more fatalistic and resigned to their fate, not dissimilar to how many perceive of themselves as a tiny powerless nation within the European Union. Throughout much of the XIX and XX centuries it was said that Portugal needed the empire in Africa or else it would be reduced to a Spanish province, if they revolt they're left without that. The country produced little of value, and without coal, iron ore missed industrialization. The poverty can be reflected whereby 1930 its literacy rate the lowest in Europe than one-third of its people able to read or write. By comparison, Spain, Greece, Romania, Bulgaria, Poland and the USSR were all above 50% by that year, the only country in Europe with a less educated population was Albania. Lisbon and to a lesser extent Porto were able to modernize, but in the case of Lisbon much of this wealth came from the imperial economy and the civil service, banking and shipping linked to the colonial empire. By the 1920s, the diamond monopoly in Angola and the labour agreement between Mozambique and South Africa provided income directly to Lisbon. With the navy on the royal family's side Portugal would probably even lose the Atlantic Islands as these archipelagos would be even more dependent on emigration to Brazil than the mainland.

With enough autonomy and a greater reliance on settling much larger numbers Portuguese peasant families, particularly those from the islands in southern Brazil, I imagine this can function as a large safety valve for any revolutionary activity. One has to remember that between 1870 and 1930 the economically active population in Portugal continued to decrease to just over 50%, meaning there were not enough jobs to support the population growth. The government would probably set a larger budget to financially assist immigration to Brazil from Portugal, something that did not occur after 1822.
 
Portugal's position in the empire would be more akin to that of Northeast Brazil within Brazil, meaning a place of former prestige and grandeur, but now of declining relevance.
I wonder if Portugal/Lisbon could have a status similar to that of Rome in the 4th-century Roman Empire, i.e., its still the official capital and various ceremonial functions are carried out there, even after the actual government has been moved somewhere else.
 
[
What would this all mean for South America?
A lasting UKPBA might be more effective than OTL Brazil on imposing their hegemony over the Platine America, as they would be more stable and powerful from the start (no debts resulting from the war of independence; more manpower from the portuguese military;...). This could result in a luso-brazilian victory on the Cisplatine War, so maybe Uruguay wouldn't be independent (maybe they could annex more land to Portugal-Brazil, like Missioned, Corrientes and Entrerrios, but it's not certain). This could result in more clashes between Portugal-Brazil and Argentina than in OTL, as brazilian territory would be dangerously close to Buenos Aires. As for the rest of South America, I don't know how much would change, as Brazil didn't interact with Andine America that often (the moments of brazilian intervention on this region I remember were the Brazilian invasion of Chiquitos and the purchase of Acre).
 
Between July and December of 1822 Portuguese troops from Mato Grosso occupied Upper Peru (Bolivia), the departments of La Paz, Santa Cruz de la Sierra and Atacama at the request of the royalist governors. Pedro I did not receive news of the occupation until November of 1822, but he was more worried about fending off attacks from forces loyal to his father, so he withdrew the troops. This would have given Brazil access to the Pacific, but almost certainly brought it into conflict with the revolutionaries in Spanish America, drawing the Portuguese Empire into the war.
 
The comparison with Ireland is much different as the Portuguese from Metropolitan Portugal would not be a marginalised and disenfranchised people with a different religion and language and customs. That is not to say that revolts are not possible, particularly early on as the elite want Brazil to return to its pre-1808 mercantilism system. Early on in the 1820s you have two factions in Portugal, or rather in Lisbon and Porto. The liberal bourgeois whom would look to England for assistance and the conservatives backed by the powerful church and old nobility looking to absolutist France and Spain. The liberals are going to probably win out, but in return will have to give up an pretense of having he old order restored. A compromise might be a personal union, with joint navy, foreign ministry and common currency.

Revolts were not unknown throughout XIX century Europe, but usually they were relegated to Lisbon or Porto, as the rest of the country stagnated and the literacy rate was probably less than 10% outside of the cities. North of the Tagus River, the Portuguese economy particularly in the small towns and cities was economically dependent on the emigration to Brazil. The remittances sent from Brazil were so significant that as early as March 1875 Joaquim Pedro de Oliveira Martins, a deputy in the Cortes stated that Portugal was completely financially and economically dependent on Brazil. This only increased as Portuguese emigration there increased progressively, so much so that in 1890 when remittances were disrupted due to the revolution in Brazil, the lack of foreign exchange caused a financial crisis in Portugal. By 1910 in districts like Bragança one in six young men emigrated to Brazil with around one-third returning, many with small fortunes, building hospitals, schools and providing much needed capital to areas with a mediaeval economy. Between 1890 and 1930 alone over 1 million Portuguese left for Brazil. Any revolt might would seriously hamper one of the economic backbones of an already fragile economy.

My take is the Portuguese character would be even more fatalistic and resigned to their fate, not dissimilar to how many perceive of themselves as a tiny powerless nation within the European Union. Throughout much of the XIX and XX centuries it was said that Portugal needed the empire in Africa or else it would be reduced to a Spanish province, if they revolt they're left without that. The country produced little of value, and without coal, iron ore missed industrialization. The poverty can be reflected whereby 1930 its literacy rate the lowest in Europe than one-third of its people able to read or write. By comparison, Spain, Greece, Romania, Bulgaria, Poland and the USSR were all above 50% by that year, the only country in Europe with a less educated population was Albania. Lisbon and to a lesser extent Porto were able to modernize, but in the case of Lisbon much of this wealth came from the imperial economy and the civil service, banking and shipping linked to the colonial empire. By the 1920s, the diamond monopoly in Angola and the labour agreement between Mozambique and South Africa provided income directly to Lisbon. With the navy on the royal family's side Portugal would probably even lose the Atlantic Islands as these archipelagos would be even more dependent on emigration to Brazil than the mainland.

With enough autonomy and a greater reliance on settling much larger numbers Portuguese peasant families, particularly those from the islands in southern Brazil, I imagine this can function as a large safety valve for any revolutionary activity. One has to remember that between 1870 and 1930 the economically active population in Portugal continued to decrease to just over 50%, meaning there were not enough jobs to support the population growth. The government would probably set a larger budget to financially assist immigration to Brazil from Portugal, something that did not occur after 1822.
Then Portugal became increasingly dependent on Brazil, countless Portuguese would immigrate to Brazil and their economies would be intertwined; Portugal knows it needs Brazil more than Brazil needs Portugal, if he chose independence it would mean losing trade with the colonial empire.

In the mid-1930s, Portugal's economy is based on colonies and their relationship with Brazil, but the decolonization of the empires is a trend, when Brazil gave independence to its colonies in the 50/60 years; what would be the fate of Portugal from the second half of the 20th century and entering the 21st century?

We have no case in history where such a nation survived the 20th century and entered the 21st century together. It is one thing for a nation like France to be able to maintain sparsely populated French Polynesia in the long run, it would be another for the United Kingdom to maintain New Zealand and its millions of inhabitants until the 21st century.

The long-term trend is independence, but still maintaining ties between these nations, perhaps Portugal and Brazil maintain the same monarch and create a Commonwealth of Portuguese nations.

Or is the Brazil-Portugal union a unique case in history, in which a nation was composed of two territories separated by an ocean of distance and both with millions of inhabitants remained united and survived until the 21st century?
 
Then Portugal became increasingly dependent on Brazil, countless Portuguese would immigrate to Brazil and their economies would be intertwined; Portugal knows it needs Brazil more than Brazil needs Portugal, if he chose independence it would mean losing trade with the colonial empire.

In the mid-1930s, Portugal's economy is based on colonies and their relationship with Brazil, but the decolonization of the empires is a trend, when Brazil gave independence to its colonies in the 50/60 years; what would be the fate of Portugal from the second half of the 20th century and entering the 21st century?

We have no case in history where such a nation survived the 20th century and entered the 21st century together. It is one thing for a nation like France to be able to maintain sparsely populated French Polynesia in the long run, it would be another for the United Kingdom to maintain New Zealand and its millions of inhabitants until the 21st century.

The long-term trend is independence, but still maintaining ties between these nations, perhaps Portugal and Brazil maintain the same monarch and create a Commonwealth of Portuguese nations.

Or is the Brazil-Portugal union a unique case in history, in which a nation was composed of two territories separated by an ocean of distance and both with millions of inhabitants remained united and survived until the 21st century?
You're assuming that history remains the same as it did, this is a fairly big butterfly and the events which have led us to the present-day world might not occur at all. Remember decolonisation and the recognition of the rights of all humans is really a byproduct of the Second World War. Who is to say that the existing ideology of might = right would not last decades or centuries longer? After all, this had largely been the predominant ideology for centuries, with strong nations/tribes conquering and dominating the weak.

Even New Zealanders largely called themselves British well into the 1960s, this identity really only eroded with Britain's turning towards Europe in the 1960s, particularly with its negotiations to enter the EEC. Many New Zealanders felt that they had been abandoned by their own kith and kin, not the other way around (the same was true by white Rhodesians). Australia and Canada had experienced a much more gradual shift so that by 1973 under 10% of all trade was with the UK. However, in 1973 one-third of New Zealand's exports went to Britain showing a greater dependence on the mother country, and many felt betrayed by Britain's entrance into the EEC, particularly as this would hurt the dairy industry.

There is one example of a large multi-ethnic empire surviving however. Russia has managed to hold large non-Russian sections of and integrate others and survive, one could even argue that states like Kazakhstan are still largely dominated by Russia. Even in the 1991 referendum to preserve the USSR a majority of voters in all republics except the Baltics, Armenia, Georgia and Moldova (where it was boycotted) were in favour. That being said, after August of 1991 it became obvious that the Union was dead and those same states would also come out in favour of independence. The earlier vote does show that people were at least willing to remain within some sort of union.

A greater Angola might become an ethnically mixed creolised region, much like Brazil itself in many ways. As things are Angola is one of the few countries in Africa where the majority of the population speak the colonial language (Portuguese) as their native language rather than the African languages. Essentially, Angola with many more penal colonists in the 19th century and free settlers later, I can envision it becoming more "Brazilian" in character and resembling the state of Bahia in demographics (as of 2019 18% self declared themselves as white with 82% black or mixed). Once Brazil's own population begins to rise in the XX century it might become a place to settle the landless poor from Northern Brazil, so that instead of migrating to the cities in the south and adding to the urban poor in cities such as São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro, you might see a government effort to ship thousands across the ocean. This might not prevent an Angolan identity from forming, even if it is different from that of today.

The smaller territories such as Cape Verde, the Sundas etc might simply remain just because they fear being too weak and be somewhat like Puerto Rico, where it remains joined to a union. The difference being that here they at least use the speak the same language.
 
[


A lasting UKPBA might be more effective than OTL Brazil on imposing their hegemony over the Platine America, as they would be more stable and powerful from the start (no debts resulting from the war of independence; more manpower from the portuguese military;...). This could result in a luso-brazilian victory on the Cisplatine War, so maybe Uruguay wouldn't be independent (maybe they could annex more land to Portugal-Brazil, like Missioned, Corrientes and Entrerrios, but it's not certain). This could result in more clashes between Portugal-Brazil and Argentina than in OTL, as brazilian territory would be dangerously close to Buenos Aires. As for the rest of South America, I don't know how much would change, as Brazil didn't interact with Andine America that often (the moments of brazilian intervention on this region I remember were the Brazilian invasion of Chiquitos and the purchase of Acre).
Or maybe Brazil gets Uruguay, but we see Paraguay expanded to be a buffer state between Brazil and a diminished Argentina.
 
Or maybe Brazil gets Uruguay, but we see Paraguay expanded to be a buffer state between Brazil and a diminished Argentina.
Ah, yes, that's actually a better option. While queen Carlota had some expansionist desires on the platine basin, King Joao/John the 6th was more favorable to the creation of smaller buffer states on the area to contain Argentina. Maybe Paraguay gets Formosa and Misiones (similar to Paraguay's claims to the region in OTL) while Corrientes and Entrerrios would become independent as one state.
 
unfortunately for Brazil, there's nothing they can do about Portugal declaring independence.
Depends on when that happens.

Early 1800s? Another Hundred Thousand Sons of Saint Louis rolls in and flattens the nascent Portugese Republic.

Late 1800s? Between Brazil's naval power and greater population (and the fact that it'd surely have some loyalist fifth column to rely on) it could conceivably crush an uprising so long as no other power (Britain) intervenes.

The mid 1800s are the sweet spot where Brazil would truly have no cards to play.
 
Top