Could Imperial Brazil have become a superpower? What would be the geopolitical implications of it?

[Paradoxer]

Recently, a monarchist movement in Brazil has gained a lot of steam, thinking that Brazil's problems could solved by the restoration of the old Imperial government.

I don't really know if that work or not, and this movement is more out of frustration with modern day Brazil than with any real virtue of the old Brazilian Empire.

But when you read about the kind of man Dom Pedro II was, it's not hard to see why Brazilians would be nostalgic.

Even by modern day standards, Pedro was an excellent, diligent, forward thinking, and humble guy, and under him, Brazil avoided the political and economic problems that plagued the rest of Latin America.

But, alas, years and years of being trapped by his duty to the nation left him an exhausted, tired old man resentful of the sacrifices he had to made. And due to his own sexism, he didn't think his only survivng heir was capable of governing Brazil, and so he refused to fight to get his throne back, despite the vast of majority of Brazilians being willing to die for him.

But let's say one of Pedro's sons manages to live into adulthood, and Pedro decides to preserve his throne for another successor.

Could Brazil under its imperial system have continued its economic development, welcomed millions of immigrants from Europe, and achieved some kind of superpower status once the world wars rolled around?

I think if they can/inherit/“swindle” Portuguese out of its overseas empire(colonies and port cities) then yes. Military coup is ironically less likely with overseas empire to occupy military concerns and ambitions. Also keeps them more tied and loyal to emperor who head of its all or at least symbolically. Keeps landowning and slaver classes more content.

Slavery still going to be social problem but as long as industrialization doesn’t target their position they can develop into content and eventual emancipation while co existing somewhat(slavery to sharecroppers to freeman over multiple decades). The slaves and its labor just makes rural parts where they take out many of jobs unappealing to immigrants who often are looking for work. But that does not many many won’t go to cities instead or rural areas with low to near non slave population.

The Brazilian emperor was tied to Portuguese ones bloodline wise? If what if with some minor butterflies during Napoleonic war in Portuguese and possible Revolution(possibly Republicanism based one for monarch ditching Europe during war so Brazil keeps empire and monarch)?

 

[Reyne]

Some people are seriously under-estimating Imperial Brazil. It was a state with a rapidly forming democratic tradition, the only American state whose leader was actually respected in the rest of the world, with a reformist royal family and a hands-off monarchy. Even going by their current borders (Let's assume they stay the same) Brasil could definetly become the big man of South America, and without the Republic, would be much closer to Europe and the rest of the Lusophone world than OTL. The reign of Princess Isabel, especially if Pedro II had actually fought against those who couped him and destroyed both the positivists and republicans in one swoop, would have probably seen a whole lotta change happen in Brazil. There is no comparison at all. Settlement of new lands for black people, no ultra-urbanization, and much probably earlier rush into the interior and more immigration.

The republic for Brasil absolutely sucked, just like Portugal's, however, Brasil never had an EU to pull it up from the dogshit it got stuck in. Brazil's current constitution is dogshit, it's party system is dogshit, it's an absolute epicenter of failure at the political and financial level. One cannot compare 67 years of semi-stable government to 132 of unstability. Insane.

Even from an outsider's perspective, like mine, there's a simple historical fact that proves just how much Brazilian republicanism is shitty - Brazil had 104 years of provisional republic.

 

[Bookmark1995]

Some people are seriously under-estimating Imperial Brazil. It was a state with a rapidly forming democratic tradition, the only American state whose leader was actually respected in the rest of the world, with a reformist royal family and a hands-off monarchy. Even going by their current borders (Let's assume they stay the same) Brasil could definetly become the big man of South America, and without the Republic, would be much closer to Europe and the rest of the Lusophone world than OTL. The reign of Princess Isabel, especially if Pedro II had actually fought against those who couped him and destroyed both the positivists and republicans in one swoop, would have probably seen a whole lotta change happen in Brazil. There is no comparison at all. Settlement of new lands for black people, no ultra-urbanization, and much probably earlier rush into the interior and more immigration.

The republic for Brasil absolutely sucked, just like Portugal's, however, Brasil never had an EU to pull it up from the dogshit it got stuck in. Brazil's current constitution is dogshit, it's party system is dogshit, it's an absolute epicenter of failure at the political and financial level. One cannot compare 67 years of semi-stable government to 132 of unstability. Insane.

Even from an outsider's perspective, like mine, there's a simple historical fact that proves just how much Brazilian republicanism is shitty - Brazil had 104 years of provisional republic.

Brazil under a monarchy would definitely be a lot richer and less corrupt. I would call it "Tropical Canada."

But could it seriously rival American power in the future?

 

[Aluma]

I wanna live on Tropical Canada

 

[Bookmark1995]

I think if they can/inherit/“swindle” Portuguese out of its overseas empire(colonies and port cities) then yes. Military coup is ironically less likely with overseas empire to occupy military concerns and ambitions. Also keeps them more tied and loyal to emperor who head of its all or at least symbolically. Keeps landowning and slaver classes more content.

Slavery still going to be social problem but as long as industrialization doesn’t target their position they can develop into content and eventual emancipation while co existing somewhat(slavery to sharecroppers to freeman over multiple decades). The slaves and its labor just makes rural parts where they take out many of jobs unappealing to immigrants who often are looking for work. But that does not many many won’t go to cities instead or rural areas with low to near non slave population.

The Brazilian emperor was tied to Portuguese ones bloodline wise? If what if with some minor butterflies during Napoleonic war in Portuguese and possible Revolution(possibly Republicanism based one for monarch ditching Europe during war so Brazil keeps empire and monarch)?

South American nations aren't known for their overseas escapades. I doubt Pedro is interested in a colonial empire.

 

[Sardar]

As many people on the site have said already, Brazil certainly can become a power, but whether it will become one is a very different story. The planter class was IMMENSELY strong, and any contradiction to their interests would result in an overthrow of the imperial system, as it did OTL. Democratically, during the last decades of the Empire, the franchise was very small, but it was very stable and at least somewhat legitimate, so that must count for something. Getting Portugal's colonies I think would actually be detrimental to Brazil, given that most of Brazil's slaves came from there. It would only increase the power of the slaveholders IMO, and a more powerful and economically developed Brazil would essentially vassalize Angola and Mozambique in soft-power terms anyways. Brazil would also never have to deal with the headache of de-colonization.

No way Brazil is a world superpower though. In this case, geography is destiny, and no other nation on Earth would be able to compete with the USA at it's full potential. Brazil, with a surviving Empire, would certainly be more developed, less corrupt, have better infrastructure, and be a global leader in science and industry, but would always unfortunately be playing second fiddle to the USA in the Western Hemisphere (at least post-1950). That is not to say it wouldn't exert influence globally, but not to the extent of the USA.

Culturally, Brazil would be very much an outlier in South America, as it would most likely be at least 60% white, developed, stable and one of the longest democratic traditions in the world. It would most certainly be part of the OECD and perhaps even NATO. Sao Paulo and Rio are MUCH more important cities, being the financial, economic and political centers of South America. Also a whole bunch more tourism.

Getting to that point requires Pedro II having a surviving son. Remember, Pedro II was actually the senior male-line Braganza IIRC, and his lack of sons convinced him that the centuries-old Braganza dynasty was destined by God to die with him. So, having one of his sons survive would like anyone be very good for his overall state of mind.

I would think it would be his second son, Pedro Afonso, as one could simply have him survive from his fever (also the Braganza curse). Another benefit of having his son survive is the possibility of the Church still being firmly behind the monarchy, as Pedro Afonso is likely not to be as unorthodox as his father, and be wed to a Wittelsbach, Wettin or Habsburg instead of a lowly Sicilian Bourbon. This effect is Ditto for the military, as the Prince Imperial could make many friends and allies in the government, Army and Navy.

 

[Bookmark1995]

As many people on the site have said already, Brazil certainly can become a power, but whether it will become one is a very different story. The planter class was IMMENSELY strong, and any contradiction to their interests would result in an overthrow of the imperial system, as it did OTL. Democratically, during the last decades of the Empire, the franchise was very small, but it was very stable and at least somewhat legitimate, so that must count for something. Getting Portugal's colonies I think would actually be detrimental to Brazil, given that most of Brazil's slaves came from there. It would only increase the power of the slaveholders IMO, and a more powerful and economically developed Brazil would essentially vassalize Angola and Mozambique in soft-power terms anyways. Brazil would also never have to deal with the headache of de-colonizations.

Yeah, but even with their immense wealth and power, even with more and more soldiers going Republican, even with many of Dom Pedro's allies becoming elderly, Pedro had too much support to be overthrown. His anti-climatic downfall feels like something so ridiculously ASB, somebody from a timeline where Imperial Brazil survived would call it impossible.

No way Brazil is a world superpower though. In this case, geography is destiny, and no other nation on Earth would be able to compete with the USA at it's full potential. Brazil, with a surviving Empire, would certainly be more developed, less corrupt, have better infrastructure, and be a global leader in science and industry, but would always unfortunately be playing second fiddle to the USA in the Western Hemisphere (at least post-1950). That is not to say it wouldn't exert influence globally, but not to the extent of the USA.

Again, a more populated tropical Canada?

Culturally, Brazil would be very much an outlier in South America, as it would most likely be at least 60% white, developed, stable and one of the longest democratic traditions in the world. It would most certainly be part of the OECD and perhaps even NATO. Sao Paulo and Rio and MUCH more important cities, being the financial, economic and political centers of South America. Also a whole bunch more tourism.

Could Brazil have a LOT more soft power than in OTL, with a potentially richer and more developed pop culture?

Getting to that point requires Pedro II having a surviving son. Remember, Pedro II was actually the senior male-line Braganza IIRC, and his lack of sons convinced him that the centuries-old Braganza dynasty was destined by God to die with him. So, having one of his sons survive would like anyone be very good for his overall state of mind.

I would think it would be his second son, Pedro Afonso, as one could simply have him survive from his fever (also the Braganza curse). Another benefit of having his son survive is the possibility of the Church still being firmly behind the monarchy, as Pedro Afonso is likely not to be as unorthodox as his father, and be wed to a Wittelsbach, Wettin or Habsburg instead of a lowly Sicilian Bourbon. This effect is Ditto for the military, as the Prince Imperial could make many friends and allies in the government, Army and Navy.

When you look at Pedro's life, its not hard to imagine why he would hate the job.

* He had no real childhood, just endless hours of study, like the extreme version of a Singaporean household.
* He was forced to marry a woman he didn't particularly love.
* He grew up surrounded by political intrigue.
* He had a Hapsburg chin, hence the beard.

And just when you think life could cut him a break, his two sons are taken from him by an incurable disease.

For all his wealth and power, for all his accomplishments, Pedro had been cheated out of anything resembling a normal life, and he accepted life in a shabby Parisian apartment just so he wouldn't have to rule anymore.

One can only how grief-stricken he would be to see Brazil today.

 

[Bookmark1995]

I wanna live on Tropical Canada

Sandy beaches, bikinis, and unassuming politeness and courtesy.

 

[Sardar]

"Tropical Canada" is not really an accurate comparison. For all the flak comparisons between the USA and Brazil gets, the comparison between those two would be better than to Canada. After all, this Brazil would no doubt have a higher population than OTL, even with higher development. With somewhere between 210 and 220 million people, this alt-Brazil would be several magnitudes more powerful than Canada ever could hope to be.

Culturally, without a doubt this alt-Brazil would be richer. A much more developed Brazilian film industry, as well as more investment into education would make for a huge market for manufactured goods. Science, technology and industry would be much better as I have already said, and perhaps even a much better Brazilian Space Agency as well.

 

[Bookmark1995]

"Tropical Canada" is not really an accurate comparison. For all the flak comparisons between the USA and Brazil gets, the comparison between those two would be better than to Canada. After all, this Brazil would no doubt have a higher population than OTL, even with higher development. With somewhere between 210 and 220 million people, this alt-Brazil would be several magnitudes more powerful than Canada ever could hope to be.

Culturally, without a doubt this alt-Brazil would be richer. A much more developed Brazilian film industry, as well as more investment into education would make for a huge market for manufactured goods. Science, technology and industry would be much better as I have already said, and perhaps even a much better Brazilian Space Agency as well.

"Tropical Canada" was just a sly little joke. Imperial Brazil would be a major, major player on the world stage.

And remember, Brazil was already relatively prosperous when living life in the tropics was still a little hard.

Once anti-malarial drugs, air conditioning, and highways get started, Brazil, if it achieved a HDI similar to America's, could potentially become the second largest economy on Earth.

And that's not counting the millions more people who would end up immigrating to Brazil.

 

[Sardar]

"Tropical Canada" was just a sly little joke. Imperial Brazil would be a major, major player on the world stage.

And remember, Brazil was already relatively prosperous when living life in the tropics was still a little hard.

Once anti-malarial drugs, air conditioning, and highways get started, Brazil, if it achieved a HDI similar to America's, could potentially become the second largest economy on Earth.

And that's not counting the millions more people who would end up immigrating to Brazil.

I think #2 is feasible if only for a few years, but with China and India growing and their massive populations I think Brazil can easily lock down the #4 economy by GDP.

 

[Electric Monk]

Brazil needs Uruguay at the least, and a big chunk of Argentina ideally. Luckily there’s like nobody there all the way to the 19th Century so if they can get their hands on it they’re totally good. Maybe Portugal backs the British hard during the American Revolution and get the River Plate for their troubles. That doesn’t change much globally barring butterfly effects.

Circa 1820s Pedro I has Uruguay, so he successfully defeats Argentina and takes the whole damn thing. This southern focus screws the northern slave holders and nets Brazil a ton of immigrants that quickly overwhelm the pretty small Spanish population.

 

[Nyegosh]

The problem is, Brazil is geographically (actually, pedologically) garbage tier. The soils are awful already and leach practically immediately once cleared, the natives had to use special mixtures to create Terra Preta in the Amazon basin to just grow something in the first place.

Amazonia, except in the outlying areas near the border, has nothing. Just tropical wood and a few spices, perhaps a medicinal plant or two. The only useful thing is the Amazon itself, which can be used to ship cargo inland easily (to Peru, for example). And once you cut down enough of the wood, the entire place will turn into Cerrado 2.0 (which will happen soon anyway, perhaps in 5-10 years even, because the Amazon is a self-sustaining system whose conditions of creation no longer exist).

The best bet would be with a really early PoD, to get Uruguay, Paraguay and the Argentine Mesopotamia, and base the entire country from the Parana basin, where the conditions are slightly better.

 

[Paradoxer]

South American nations aren't known for their overseas escapades. I doubt Pedro is interested in a colonial empire.

Brazil the odd ball of South America somewhat. Being only Portuguese speaking one. The only place they might expand in South America is some minor border gains or Uruguay. Brazil more tied to Portuguese overseas empire then it was its neighbors

 

[Mechadogzilla]

Like all nations, the nuances and problems Brazil experienced in its history are complex and numerous, so the question seems a bit reductive. Whether or not the guy with the funny hat stays in charge is merely one, small factor in a list of hundreds that effects the history and relative development of a nation. This makes the question more or less impossible to answer.

Like, compare the question ‘If the Romanovs remained in power, would Russia be a superpower?’ The answer there is ‘Well it depends on how they do so, along with a hundred other things.’ The same rings true here.

As others have pointed out, the biggest problem is Brazil’s unfortunate geography. Let’s compare it to the historical superpower nation in the Americas. The United States has access to some of the world’s most fertile land and some of the world’s best ore deposits, both of which are interconnected in one of the largest and most navigable river systems. It has deep water ports on both sides of the ocean and has a transcontinental railroad linking them. Even before it’s rise to dominance in the 1900s, America’s neighbors were competitively weak enough it never had to invest in a meaningful army (And therefore, the military was never able to become a serious political force).

Brazil simply lacks many of these features. It does have rich mineral wealth and fertile land, but they’re not nearly as well interconnected with the country’s coastal core. Almost 50% of the nation is the marginally valuable Amazon and Cerrado. There’s a reason why so much of the country lives in such a small part of it. Not only does it lack a Pacific port, the Andes mountains more or less make meaningful trade with Asia impossible until post-WWII. And the list goes on.

Brazil was simply dealt a much worse hand than the US (and other historical Superpowers). I don’t want to overplay geographic determinism, Brazil certainly could be much richer, even a great power. But becoming a superpower seems ASB without extraordinary changes, and you’re a century or two late by the 1800s.

And that’s not even getting into the social issues that plagued the nation. The Planter Class was deeply hostile to industrialization, the abolition of slavery, uplifting the impoverished, or establishing a representative democracy. And when they faded away the military was right there to take their place. And while people are much easier to change than literal geography, the presence or absence of a monarchy isn’t by itself going to change much of the wider social trends. Especially given that any surviving monarchy would have to be strictly ceremonial, and thus marginally impactful on politics.

 

[DDJR]

snip

This. And i add, for sake of completing it, that the monarchy is highly overrated and mythologized by it's adepts in a way that actually butchers actual historical record and whitewashes a lot of the bad things because the Republic that followed it was quite a bit worse in it's first 40 years of existence. So, by comparison, the monarchy sound's very good, especially if you forget all those civil wars, slavery, the lack of political representation, the lack of a consistent policy of industrialization, the neglect towards the poorer regions of the country, and the fact that both Pedro's were less than ideal rulers, even if the second Pedro is the most idealized ruler that Brazil ever had.

 

[Bookmark1995]

This. And i add, for sake of completing it, that the monarchy is highly overrated and mythologized by it's adepts in a way that actually butchers actual historical record and whitewashes a lot of the bad things because the Republic that followed it was quite a bit worse in it's first 40 years of existence. So, by comparison, the monarchy sound's very good, especially if you forget all those civil wars, slavery, the lack of political representation, the lack of a consistent policy of industrialization, the neglect towards the poorer regions of the country, and the fact that both Pedro's were less than ideal rulers, even if the second Pedro is the most idealized ruler that Brazil ever had.

I ain’t putting Pedro on a pedestal. He had is flaws, like his sexist refusal to prepare his daughter for the throne.

Obviously life in the 1800s wasn’t all gumdrops and sprinkles, but at the time, Imperial Brazil was lauded.

 

[DDJR]

I ain’t putting Pedro on a pedestal. He had is flaws, like his sexist refusal to prepare his daughter for the throne.

Obviously life in the 1800s wasn’t all gumdrops and sprinkles, but at the time, Imperial Brazil was lauded.

Oh, i did not say you were, i didn't even completely read this thread. However, there are very common misconceptions that make the Brazilian Empire appear to be something it was not, and it was not a good place to live in, even though it had some points where you can favorably compare it against the "Old Republic". And these mainly serve the political purposes of the current monarchist movement, which has captured a healthy amount of the Brazilian right even though is obviously a minority even there, eclipsed by the far-right 'Bolsonaristas'.

But this point i raised is a discussion better left to Chat, for obvious reasons.

 

[Aluma]

Most of the monarchists nowadays are bolsonarists and the movement was pretty much swallowed whole by bolsonarism, it's one of the reasons I made my comment a while ago on this thread about them, though I advise being careful on mentioning the br far-right here due to it falling into modern politics.

 

[Reyne]

This. And i add, for sake of completing it, that the monarchy is highly overrated and mythologized by it's adepts in a way that actually butchers actual historical record and whitewashes a lot of the bad things because the Republic that followed it was quite a bit worse in it's first 40 years of existence. So, by comparison, the monarchy sound's very good, especially if you forget all those civil wars, slavery, the lack of political representation, the lack of a consistent policy of industrialization, the neglect towards the poorer regions of the country, and the fact that both Pedro's were less than ideal rulers, even if the second Pedro is the most idealized ruler that Brazil ever had.

Honestly blaming the Brazilian monarchists for idealising the Empire is simply wrong. By every metric of both our time and their time, the Empire was fully better. At least Imperial Brasil -had- a democratic tradition, at least Imperial Brasil managed to run the country, the Empire, progressivelly at slavery, and it was reforming, something the republic since then constantly fails at. It was a -moderate- country politically, something Brazil has never managed since then.

To say that the adepts of the monarchist movement mythologize the monarchy is true - but the only reason they mythologize it is because they are actually correct in their statement - if the republican positivists and oligarchists had not taken over the Country, Brazil would be better, and there's no way to deny that. I do agree on your points, however, the lack of a consistent industrial policy, even if I can't blame them for it, due to Brazil's geographic location and it's very geography, and it's neglect towards the poorer regions of the country, but that is something that was slowly fixing itself and the republic itself is not much better at. There's a reason Rio and São Paulo are huge.

And yeah, Pedro the II is idealized to hell. He was a good man, a good ruler, but he was never an excellent man or ruler as he is portrayed to be. But having both a good man and a good ruler at Brazil's helm is something already unique enough to their history, so one can't really blame them for idealizing him.