@@joanemartins1610 I really don’t see a reason to care given that I’ve seen what people say about every other country on this planet. Being known as a place that actually isn’t too terrible to visit is one of the far more mild things.
Wouldn’t it be more fitting to assume Crown Prince Alfonso didn’t die from epilepsy when he was 2 years old? It would make more sense than a random Prussian Prince assuming the throne without any ties to the Braganza family, not even a royal marriage.
@@jefferyhanderson7849 A família real do império alemão tinha relação direta com a família real brasileira. Tanto que o próprio Kaiser Guilherme II queria restaurar a monarquia no Brasil depois do golpe republicano, pois ele tinha muita afinidade com Dom Pedro II.
I don't believe that Brazil needs a Prussian prince to ally with Germany, Pedro II's mother is Maria Leopoldina of the house of Habisburg, she is the daughter of Francis II, the last emperor of the Holy Roman Empire or Francis I, the first emperor of Austria, and Princess Isabel's sister was married to Luís Augusto de Saxe-coburgo-Gota, which is a Germanic house, therefore the Brazilian imperial house already has family connections to make an alliance, and the dissatisfaction with Princess Isabel was that she was an anbulicionist, and in this Timeline, slavery was abolished previously, her as empress is not an issue
Her being the Empress *was* the biggest issue. She was deemed incapable to govern even by the main supporters of the Monarchy - too naive, incapable of political articulation, and too dependent on her husband, that was detested in every political circle. Even without the coup of 1889, there was a political consensus between Liberals and Conservatives that she was beneath the position, and her presence in the succession line helped substantially the Republican cause.
Belive the Hohenzollen prince is a mistake, most likely the chosen sucessor would be Prince Peter August of Saxe-Coburg and Braganza, grandson of Peter II and called "the Preferred" by media. That would create a more smooth transition as he was from the Imperial family, and would take the throne as Don Peter III adn was 23y at the time, being put foward as a representative of a new era for the country, playing the [ "modern leadership role". The amount of rebellions and post-abolition instability on the hinterlands of Brasil, together of the huge pan-american republican sentiment among the urban elites would not allow a foreing German prince to role for much, especially if the country was more of a player in the global economy, as those groups would for sure have Britsh and American support, and mostn likely also French, as a kin to the Kaiser rulling another state would not be well taken in the era.
Thank you for this incredible information! I will admit, while researching this scenario I focused more on European candidates in the Hohenzollern family in order to achieve the World War I outcome, which, to be fair, isn’t intended to be the most realistic in and of itself and is moreso a way to craft an interesting narrative. Perhaps in the future we may take a closer look at Peter August!
I think it would be very likely for Brazil to enter the First World War on the side of the Central Powers. Mainly with Empress Dona Isabel I in command, even though Emperor Consort Gastão was French.
Oh boy i'm going to need a tread for this, but alright, let's go: Talking as a Brazilian, historian and specialist in Imperial Brazil, i need to answer: No... The Brazilian Empire was indeed the most successful Latin American political experience that existed, in some aspects it was even more modern and democratic than the United States at the same time. We do praise the immeasurable success the Monarchy achieved politically, but make no mistake: The Brazilian Empire was miserable. The video captures perfectly the feudal-like elements present in the colonial era, but i gotta say, it derails when assessing the Empire itself. The lack of education, neglect and influence restricted only to the small segments of the elite in contrast to a United States that expanded a system of public schools and social development is a massive NO. It was the other way around. The Brazilian Empire and Dom Pedro I in particular actually made colossal efforts to improve the educational system. Pedro I is actually extremely underestimated as an Emperor because we often overlook the stability and development of the Empire with Dom Pedro II, but it was his father that had plans, ideals and projects for the new Nation, Pedro II only had a successful reign because he knew how to placate the status quo and promote gradual reforms, while his father was almost a revolutionary in how aggressive he wanted to push for change. When Dom Pedro I consolidated his position as Emperor and the question of the Monarchy under him was already decided, the goals of Pedro I were: 1- He wanted slavery abolished and he would not compromise on that. It was to end and to be purged of society as fast as possible 2- Pedro I wanted the Empire to directly operate social services in the likes of Education and Healthcare 3- Pedro I drafted a bill that would establish the complete expropriation of slave ships and integrate them into the Imperial Armada. The Armada would be tasked to fund and transport immigrants from Europe without cost to those who moved to Brazil 4- Pedro I was resolute on making sure tyranny would have no place in the Empire. He wanted a Constitutional Monarchy and would not accept anything different. He praised freedom of speech, of the press, of religion, of property. For the time, Pedro I was a radical liberal. Although he himself was authoritarian, he made sure to enforce his ideals on the layout of the Empire. 5- Pedro I, just like Pedro II was a Patreon of culture. He wanted to see installed and developed the means for a thriving and rich culture in Brazil, aiming to rival the likes of Vienna, Paris and Rome. With that said, let's go into how History played out. The video gets a lot of things right, but also a lot of wrongs. So a quick recap: [...]
1822-1823: The Empire was already solidified, the Monarchy was ensured not to be an ephemeral experience like the First Mexican Empire and the territorial domain was drawn with the adhesion of Grão-Pará as part of the Empire. The War of independence was raging on, but in a much smaller scale than any other american national (possibly only Canadian independence was more peaceful than the Brazilian one), as historians here even avoid calling the conflict a "War", more often citing "Portuguese resistance", as combat was mostly restricted to suppression of a few loyalist cells in provinces all across the Empire with the actual efforts of the Portuguese crown to crush the rebellion happening at sea and as the Imperial Armada performance was so great, Portuguese soldiers barely reached land, if at all. Cohesion and unanimous support of all social classes under Dom Pedro I was so strong that independence was won by the Ipiranga, it was a war Portugal could not win. 1823: As planned, the constitutional assembly gathered to write the imperial constitution as Dom Pedro couldn't bring himself to rule an absolute monarchy. Unlike the popular version of events that the 1823 project was a Democracy in the making that was ruthlessly removed by a power-hungry Emperor in a display of tyranny that lead to the 1824 constitution being imposed rather than promulgated legitimately with political means that secured the powers of the monarch is completely false. What really happened was that the constitution of 1823 was already written and the assembly was in the final phase of voting the text before it could become Law. What's terribly misleading about the event is the wrongful assumption that "democratically" elected representatives of the people would do a better job than the Crown. As 2024 marks the 200th anniversary of the Imperial constitution, i wrote a scientific paper comparing both projects and currency is awaiting publication, but the main point i put into that research is that the 1823 "mandioca" constitution was an abomination. It was terrifically authoritarian and if it went through, everything the Empire had that was bad would be worse. According to the text, there was no religious freedom, only the Catholic faith was accepted and political rights were conditioned to professing catholicism. The election system was just as terrible as 1824, but with the catch that the latter demanded property to vote counted in money, while 1823 had land as the necessary to vote, measured by ounces of mandioca plantation, hence the name "the mandioca constitution". The project also established a monarchy that unlike popular belief was so authoritarian that i'd hesitate calling it Constitutional. We're not talking about a British style monarchy, not even a Prussian Constitutionalism, we're talking of Bourbon Restoration levels of authoritarianism, a complete failure of Constitucional Monarchy. According to it, the Executive branch and the Emperor were one in the same. A prime minister? Unthinkable. A cabinet to carry out the duties of government? Out of the question. The executive was totally invested in the Emperor and nothing else could act on its behalf, the Executive was THE Emperor alone. It doesn't end here, though. The most absurd part of the constitution was in the legislative, which had the Emperor as its head and a parliament that despite having the authority to vote and pass laws, a bill could only be discussed if the Emperor himself brought it to the table, which means: no law, no political decision, no reform or parliamentary decision could be made without the emperor's consent. In the hands of rulers in the likes of Pedro I, Pedro II and Isabel this could have worked, even helped in abolishing slavery earlier, but from a democratic point of view, it was a disaster. No one who values representative government, democratic principles and hold dear the values of popular sovereignty could ever accept what was written in that document. 1823: So we finally get to the Night of Agony. Mainstream narrative goes in the line that Dom Pedro just didn't like the constitution, thought he didn't have as much power as he wanted and the project was too liberal for his liking, so he just dissolved the assembly and went on to impose a text of his approval in 1824. This is also false, as the chain of events that lead to the dissolution of the assembly was far more nuanced than what's told. The constitutional assembly took a deeply xenophobic stance against the Portuguese, which was a problem. The project restricted citizenship for Portuguese-born subjects and took quite the effort to deny political rights to them. The important detail is that by the time, half of the population was Portuguese-born and the percentage of portuguese people among lawyers, doctors, artists, scientists and prominent figures was even higher, we cannot forget about the thousands of portuguese that came with Dom João VI to Rio de Janeiro and the many more foreigners that came after on his orders during the period of the United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil and Algarves. The denial of citizenship to such a massive group obviously caused trouble. One key event was the beat up and lynching of a shop keeper by a mob after being mistaken by another person who wrote a highly xenophobic article in the city's press. Violence between brazilians and portuguese rose and riots were starting to break out. In response to this, Dom Pedro brought the imperial army to the city to maintain order. The assembly took this act as insult and told the emperor they would not continue to draft the constitution with the army in town, this being the event that soured the relationship between the assembly and the emperor. Pedro tried to compromise, ordering the army to stay 40 miles away from the building, but it didn't work. The people were rioting and the court was about to face a rebellion. The military commanders told the emperor they couldn't keep the peace if the assembly continued to be hostile to them, until one of the generals in town finally said that either the emperor dissolve the assembly or a bloodshed would be inevitable. It is told that the letter Pedro received before rushing to the assembly (long lost and its content unknown) terrified the emperor so much that he bolted out of the palace in despair to arrive at the assembly and decree its dissolution. His own words: "The constitution will be twice as liberal, worthy of Brazil and of me". 1824: As Pedro I took upon himself to write the constitution, he gathered 10 appointees to form a commission that would replace the assembly. Unlikely popular belief, Pedro didn't disregard everything the 1823 project envisioned, and as the one who read both drafts in detail, i can safely say that everything good about the 1823 constitution made into 1824 untouched or improved. The imperial constitution had social and political achievements that are short of revolutionary. It fixed the electoral process despite still being deficient, rearranged the distribution of powers, eased the legislative process, reassessed the provincial system, expanded citizenship, granted political rights such as property, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, the right to a fair trial, abolished torture, the presumption of innocence and the entire section of article 179 of the imperial constitution. The biggest criticism of 1824 was the separation of powers into 4 instead of 3: Executive, Legislative, Judiciary and Moderator. People often think the moderator power, exclusive to the emperor was a tool of authoritarianism, which simply isn't true. It gives a set of prerrogatives to the emperor but are quite limited, the most important of which being the power to dissolve the lower House of Parliament, a constitutional arrangement that exists in the strongest of democracies to this very day, like the power to dissolve parliament by the British monarch that also extends to the Commonwealth realms. Many also try to argue that the 1824 constitution was tyrannical because the emperor was the head of the Moderator and the Executive Powers, but just as i pointed out before (and its honestly unbelievable that i had to write a scientific paper to expose this because of incompetent historians), in the 1823 draft, the emperor also headed 2 powers, but instead of the Moderator, it was even more absurdly, the legislative power. If in the early project the executive and the emperor were one in the same, the final document shared the executive power among the Emperor, Ministry and Governors, being the figure of the President of the Council of Ministers (somewhat analogue to a British prime minister) being introduced in 1847. If in 1823 the emperor was head of the legislative, Dom Pedro I ensured the sovereignty of the assembly, with the Emperor having little say in it, the main reason why both emperors tried, but could not force an abolition of slavery earlier. [...]
The main victories of the imperial constitution, however, were the social rights. It made public and free education a constitutional guarantee (the next time such thing would happen was only in 1917 in Mexico, almost 100 years later), it envisioned the system of public healthcare (embrionary, of course, but public healthcare in Imperial Brazil would play a massive role in the Yellow Fever epidemic in the 1850's), granted citizenship regardless of color (something unthinkable in the United States for a long time), the Empire would see black politicians elected to parliament by 1828 while the USA would only see such a thing in 1870. A freed slave was a citizen, a full one after the 1881 electoral reform, an institutional arrangement that was set in a forgotten little tropical Empire that coexisted with the depressing Dread Scott decision. The Brazilian Empire way ahead of the United States in many aspects, which finally brings me back to the initial assessment: It was the other way around. The narrative of the United States investing in public schooling and social welfare is fiction, specially when compared to Brazil, that had social rights since 200 years ago that the USA doesn't have to this day. There's a distinction that need to be made: the effort put into development of social welfare is one thing, the degree of success achieved is another. In regards to how much effort Brazil and the US put into social development, it isn't even a competition, Brazil struggled and put its resources to develop a social state in such a proportion that makes the american one seem neglectful. The degree of success, however, gets the trophy to America, but it is false to believe imperial Brazil neglected social development in any way, specially compared to America, that had no political obligation to do so. Despite ending with an index too low to be acceptable, the Empire fell no short of long-term success. Many historians agree that in 1822 the number of literate people was lower than 1%, with empirical evidence being found in rich prominent slave dealers or landowners that couldn't read, documents mostly being handled by the clergy. By 1889, the number of people that could read ranged from 15% to 30% in more generous estimations. It's still too low, but a colossal achievement nonetheless. Education in the Empire was mandatory to every city, town or village to have at least one public school and when the government failed to meet that end, it payed private schools for the tuition of poor people, it was the inception of the today's controversial "Cotas system". There's no way any (honest) scientific assessment to demerit the monarchy's achievements in education and social welfare. With all that said, for any brave reader that didn't die of boredom until now, how does it explain the deplorable state Brazil is now and was back then if at least for a time, it was so successful? Brazil was a poor nation with too few resources to invest in creating wealth. 99% of the Brazilian economy invested in building up an educational system would not amount to 1% of the American economy doing the same. Until the purchase of Alaska, Brazil was a country larger than the USA, yet the population deficit was so big it could not sustain an economic system different than the extractivist mercantilist way that it was. By the time the monarchy ended in 1889, Brazil had the same population the USA had in 1776. A country bigger than the Roman Empire had no more than 15 million people while America reached 75 million. Without labor and human resources, it's impossible to generate wealth that allows massive investments in infrastructure that create the means for the development of an industrial economy. It was no failure of government or the people, the economic reality simply did not allow a breakthrough for Brazil. Just as the video suggests, to turn Brazil into a superpower, Slavery had to end earlier, the Empire had to endure and industry needed to be stimulated. I'm sad to say, but that's mostly wishful thinking. The way slavery developed and enrooted in the Brazilian economy through the centuries, not to count the massive number of slaves in Brazil compared to the rest of the world. It is simply impossible to think or imagine abolition happening any earlier than 1870. The complete abolition would devastate Brazilian society. There would be no employment for the freed, no affordable labor for the rich and no housing to keep everyone, everything would just come crashing down from the top down and i frankly see no way the nation could recover from this. If Pedro I abolished slavery in defiance when he abdicated, it would just be reinstated later by the oligarchy that made up the disastrous regency. Brazil chose the right way to end slavery, but not the right methods. Pedro I signed a treaty to end transatlantic slave trade with Britain in 1826, the incorporation of the treaty into law was made in 1831 with the Feijó Law, which since was approved without an abolitionist emperor to enforce, the slaveowner elite made the law into fiction, not enforcing any of it until the Eusébio de Queiroz Law in 1850 reformed it properly. The freedom of womb would only come in 1871 with Princess Isabel forcing the approval of the law, yet corruption and fraud were so rampant in attempt to violate the law, abolition could only be done in 1888, again by Isabel imposing to the assembly "Abolish Slavery now or else". The population growth, gradual abolition, immigration and all the prosperity the Empire enjoyed were results of only the partial implementation of what Pedro I planned all those years back. It was too late. In conclusion, even in a scenario where the empire survives, by WW1 it would be a nation with 30 million people considering we're lucky. The Imperial Armada could beat the American navy? Yes, it could, american senators said so when the Riachuelo was commissioned for the navy and a tryout sort of happened in the Bahia incident when the Imperial Armada really engaged the American navy and chased it out of brazilian waters. But even if we're taking into account an empire capable of actually beating the US militarily, Brazil had no resources or population to stay at war for long and even less to change the outcome of the War, so in the end the scenario simply doesn't make sense. The German plan to install Ludwig Gaston and restore the empire was just a delusion of Wilhelm II. If the Monarchy is to remain, just remove 15th of November, 1889. Unlike suggested and the fallacious theories made up by historians throughout the years, there was no crisis of the Monarchy, the Empire wasn't in trouble nor unstable, it fell at its peak when it was stronger than ever, the monarchy even more. The detailed accounts of the coup that overthrew Pedro II points out to all being an accident. Pedro II didn't knew it was a coup, he didn't thought it would last as he told the austian ambassador heading to exile that this was just another mutiny, the emperor didn't understand the severity of the situation and the military who carried out the coup didn't want to topple the Monarchy, but the ministry. It happened at dawn while everyone was sleeping and ended with the people not understanding WTF had just happened, many thought it was a parade, because if they knew the imperial family was being exiled, the entire nation would revolt. It was a year after the abolition of slavery, the political situation was prosperous, reforms were underway, bills drafted, the economy growing, Princess Isabel was universally beloved, specially by former slaves who even formed the "Black Guard of the Redemptress" to protect the Monarchy, Isabel and the black people. The "need for a male heir* would not change the outcome. It's a fallacy the idea that Pedro II gave up on the monarchy because he didn't trust the crown to a woman. The documents show he did take seriously the future reign of his daughter and he sincerely cared about it, giving instructions and teaching her governance on the best of principles. Isabel also shown that she was ready and would be an excellent empress, as her regencies in Pedro's absence amounted to 4 years of ruling, with abolitionist reforms in each one of them. The face of Isabel's reign was already defined, it would be an era of social and economic reform to transition the backwards Empire Pedro II inherited to the modern Empire he left. In the end, marshall Deodoro da Fonseca only went through with the Republic when faced with the possibility of punishment, but remained a monarchist at heart and constantly plotted to bring Pedro back during his short presidency. What really happened in 1889 was a political convulsion that no one understood and ended up accidentally toppling the only successful political experiment of Latin America. It is the most devastating political accident of modern Western Civilization? Yes, but an accident nonetheless. Nothing had to be changed for the Empire to endure, that's why even though the monarchy's survival would necessarily result in a richer Brazil, it wouldn't turn the country into the Canada of the South overnight, meaning that no way the Empire would reach WW1 in conditions to change the outcome despite being more than able to put up a fight (and win) I can list all my sources and translate documents for anyone interested, just reach out. TLDR: No
@@danielsilfeemais e vdd vivo no Brasil e todos meus professores de história falam isso pq com a República veio a ditadura fascista de Vargas 1932-1947 e a ditadura militar de 1964-1988 .
Honestly, I’d say it’s much less a Catholic vs Protestant thing when it comes to work ethic, and more a Northern Europe vs Southern Europe as a cultural baselines for these places that lead to the divide, with it being a coincidence that southern Europe mostly stayed Catholic while northern Europe ended up more going Protestant. The tendency towards following aristocracy following along a similar rule, but also with the caveat of even moreso being motherland specific.
This timeline could have been possible if the ideas of José Bonifácio, minister of D. Pedro I, and defender of independence could have been implemented. He advocated the abolition of slavery, give land to former slaves, the implementation of public education and industrialization. Unfortunately, the Parliament controlled by the agrarian elite prevented these reforms and the result is the current situation, our timeline.
What if the Ottoman Empire industrialized (dude used steam thing to cook kebab a hundred years before Britain, maybe someone saw potential in it and told the sultan)
The Ottomans’ chances of industrialization depended on whether they had undergone political reform at least a century before the Tanzimat, when they lost key points in the East (Yemen, Al-Hasa, Maldives), and it was becoming clear that the State was not eternal as it intended to be. The Ottoman problem was fundamentally political; the state was too decentralized, the elites were dominated by merchants and trade guilds, and the meager budget was sustained by heavy tax on agricultural production, which killed the emergence of an agrarian elite in its infancy. Without landed elites, without even the most basic accumulation of capital, with trade guilds, and without tariff barriers (which the merchant class, allied with the ulema, were fiercely opposed to), manufactures had neither the incentive nor the capital to keep up with technological advances, and was swept away by British competition when it arised. Even tariffs could help, but the Ottomans didn't tried. The only reasonably successful attempt was in Muhammad Ali’s Egypt-but it was too late, too structurally lagging, and even that was gradually aborted by British dumping. Even if Taqi ad-Din's turbine had been perfected to the point where it could power industrial machinery, this would not have been enough to produce an industrial revolution. More than that, the material, legal, and structural conditions needed to exist to allow this result. Theoretically, in the sixteenth century, the productive power of the Ottomans might have been in a position to start the process - but without an agrarian elite, the continued presence of guilds, and without customs barriers, the tendency was for the technology to be copied - as many others were, such as the steel and the water wheel - without the Ottomans being able to keep up. The only viable solution would be extensive state reform, starting with the abolition of the Timariot Corps, the privilege of timar, and the taxes on agricultural production; the abolition of capitulations and privileges to guilds; the abolition of the quasi-sovereign Eyalets and their conversion into Vilayets under direct supervision (which only occurred in 1864); and the extensive adoption of tariffs to finance the state and protect the industry. Abolish slavery - although it was never the predominant labor force, it was a factor on the delayed development in several regions, especially North Africa and Mesopotamia. And perhaps create a public education system.
I have three words for this: That. Was. Awesome. I like how you made a scenario about Brazil becoming a global superpower after Brazil industrialized earlier, abolished slavery, and had Pedro II inspired by the enlightened monarchs. I did not expect Pedro II to bring Prince Fredrich Karl of Prussia to become the Third Emperor of Brazil, and that was a bold move for him to bring a candidate who had the potential to lead Brazil to greatness. But Don Pedro II could choose any candidate from the Royal or Imperial Houses of Europe. He chooses a member from like Wettin, Hanover, Oldenburg, Holstein-Gottrop, Gotha-Saxebourg ( later became The House of Windsor), and heck, he could choose the Orleans, the Romavos, and possibly the Bonpartes. But Prussia's choice would later be good for Brazil. Knowing that Prussia had kings who were military geniuses like Frederick the Great, Brazil would be in good hands with a Hohenzollern Prince who would use his authority as the New Brazilian Emperor to reform the country into the modern century. But so far, this is a great video, my friend. Keep up the great work; no matter what happens or anybody says, keep posting these videos; they are entertaining and educational to watch, and I really mean it! I got a hand to you; having a Third Emperor of Brazil who is energetic like President Theodore Roosevelt and friends with him would be a blessed timeline, even though I'm not from Brazil. And I do have some questions related to video. Are Prince Fredrich Karl of Prussia and Princess Isabella of Brazil married, or have they not wed yet? So far, this is a great video, and I give this video 100 out of 100! If this video has a sequel, what do you think of the idea of "What if Brazil forms a Greater Brazilian South American Empire in the 21st century?" What are your thoughts, ideas, and opinions on this sequel idea, Mr. US Of Z?
Speaking as a brazilian here: why the hell would Pedro II give the crown and throne of a Brazil to a Prussian prince instead of passing it to his daughter or grandson? I don't think the people, and more importantly the agrarian elite, would ever just accept a foreigner taking the throne, even if Pedro II gave it to him. The country would likely be plunged into a three-way civil war with loyalist of the Braganza family, loyalist to the Hohenzlorren family and republicans seeking to overthrow the monarchy entirely. You don't simply crown a german prince Emperor of Brazil and it's a peaceful transition of power, it would upset the established laws of sucession and create great political turmoil and civil unrest. Pedro II likely knew this even in our timeline, he probably wanted to hold onto power until his grandson came of age or his daughter became a more capable ruler - when he thought that wouldn't be possible without bloodshed (civil war upon abolition of slavery) he abdicated instead of holding onto power with military force. A more likely scenario would be for Crown Prince Alfonso to survive to adulthood, ensuring from early on that the line of sucession is clear and stable. He would likely be tutored by his father and trusted teachers and scholars, adopting a similar mentality of the responsability of ruling as an enlightened despot. The rest of the scenario would be unchanged, except for siding with Germany in WW1 - despite the Braganza family being tied to Austria-Hungary (Maria Leopoldina was a Habsburg), their largest economic parter has historically been Great Britain, so they'd either stay neutral or join the Entente.
In the gta Verse, Brazil would be an empire rather than an oligarchical republic. An empire so stable that it would join the allies in world war 1. As Brazil had German industrialists and would influence the country. However, because of the fear of the wrath from the United States, they must kick German elites out of the country and even turn on Germany by joining the alliance with UK and France as Russia was withdrawn from Germany. And this gave Brazil a boost of reputation within the world itself. As it was a German industry holdout, then it was turned ally as US’ Monroe Doctrine won’t allow foreign influence within the Americas. And Brazil must turn against the Germans and join the war in Europe. Using German industry against the Germans and its allies. The US does stay away from the war front. But they do aid the UK and France with supplies and volunteers.
Very interesting choices of change not what I expected at all but I think it a bit of an unexpected turn to pick a Prussian prince to become the 3rd emperor of Brazil and not pick one of Don Carlos of portugal linage to perhaps maintain that connection but then again too being independent nation of Brazil it would be still very resentful of portugal in this time. So I could be very wrong as well lol but still an awsome what if
With a more modernized Brazil in this timeline, there would likely be less Italian Catholics in America as Brazil is majority Catholic and immigration would be split between the two.
I like this scenario but i don’t think they need a German Emperor to join the Central Powers in WW1, Isabel was married to a prince who was a member of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, a (somewhat) German house, so they could’ve chose him instead
12:26 I loved the video, but as a Brazilian I think that Dom Pedro II should not necessarily have a son, since Count D'eu, his daughter's husband, proved to be an excellent leader in the war in Paraguay and he doesn't seem to have many reasons to believe that it would be different in the third reign
1.What if Henry V didn’t die so early? 2.what if the daughters of Joseph I of the Holy Roman empire seceded and Inherited Hapsburg dynasty ? 3. What If Frederick. The great had married Maria Teresa. 4. What if Ivan The Sixth wasn’t overthrown and ruled Russia?
Here are some exciting ideas for future alternate-history scenarios: What if the exile and death of Catherine of Aragon resulted in higher tension between the Kingdom of England under the House of Tudors and the Holy Roman Empire under the Hapsburg Dynasty because of the rumor that Herny VIII poisoned Catherine? What if the rumors were true, and what if this led to war between the two nations and sides chose to aid the English and Hapburgs? Would Catherine's cause of death lead to England having an alternate English Civil War, and would Mary Tudor be the one to start the civil war to avenge her father, or would it be the nobility and the ordinary people who rise up against Henry VIII? What if The Rukird Dynasty survived with the survival of Tsarveich Ivavnoich of Russia? What if the Rurikds rule Russia instead of the Romavos? And what would Russia be like under the Rurikd Dynasty? What if the Ethiopian Empire had survived and could unite East and South Africa and form the African Union? What would a united Africa be like under the Empire of Ethiopia? What if Liberia was prosperous and expanded to become a greater Western African power? What if Biafra won the Nigerian Civil War and survived through the 20th century and 21st century? Which of these ideas do you like best, Mr. US of Z, and which one are your favorite and why? And which ones do you think would be a good scenario for an alternate history video?
While not bad this feels another video more tilted how if than what if. Honestly I doubt this leads to a Central Powers Victory as much as it pushes the war into a stalemate peace deal.
Vocês tem algum projeto para trazer dublagens para seus canais ia ser muito bom os canais que já fazem isso tem uma qualidade de baixa pelo menos aqui em português
Brazil's Coup of 1889 is an example of how to kill the spirit of your people and doom your country to mediocrity and perpetual decadence. Not the same but it reminds me of Russia's October Revolution.
Brazil was already doomed to mediocrity and perpetual decadence, by maintaining the slavery for many decades and destroying every industrialization and descentralization attempt during the Empire. When the Republic was proclaimed, it was lagging far behind all the neighbours of the South Cone, including the former failed state of Argentina. Our monarchists are delusional beyond belief, indeed.
An often overlooked factor is that from Argentina to the southern united states there is a prevalence of tropical diseases introduced by the first Africans kidnapped to the country that not only devastated the native population but also severely compromised the growth of the European populations in the region so that Africans were the only population with the natural immunity required to populate the land, but if Africans arrived as immigrants instead of slaves, history would unfold very differently.
Nice video, but crowning a Honhenzoller as the emperor is nonsense, you could have solved that problem crowning Pedro of Saxe-Braganza son of Pedro's the II youngest daughter. You'd have a liberal prince with german roots and a legitimate claim to the throne. The republican coup wasn't at it's origin a republican coup but a political one, Marechal Deodoro wanted to depose the prime minister the Viscount of Ouro Preto, an abolitionist and Princess's Isabel ally, things only went south when Benjamin Costant, a republican, lied to him that the emperor had nominated Gaspar Silveira Martins, a Deodoro's personal rival, as the new prime minister. Pedro didn't react even knowing that he could have easily defeated the republicans, but that was of no surprise since he after the Paraguayan War condecorated desertors like the general Duke of Caxias; the emperor was a coward that abandoned his people to tyrants of which he was the only opposition. His family gave no support for any of the restaurationist movements, neither to Silveira Martins and the Federalistas in '93, nor the Patrianovistas from the 20's through the 30's.
I can't help but notice that the Naval aspect of this is poorly researched, like you didn't at all acknowledge the naval arms race of the late 1800s and 1900s (the latter known as "the south American dreadnought race")
The big difference between Brazil and the USA is in the way each country was occupied. The vast majority of the USA was occupied by Europeans willing to change their lives. They went to develop their lives and consequently the country. Brazil was occupied by Portugal to have its wealth extracted and sent to Europe. Portugal left behind to Brazil the scum of Portuguese society (thieves, bandits and vagabonds) and the largest slave population on planet Earth abandoned to their fate. Can you measure the difference? An example: When Europeans came to Brazil with the same spirit as the Europeans who came to the United States, there was a similar result. The development of southern Brazil, with the population mostly made up of European descendants, is the most developed and balanced. These southern states are made up of emigrants who came after the American dream, settled and developed the place. The Ideal was different, it was never extractive but productive. Anyway, this is the big difference between Brazil and the United States: The purpose of their emigrant population was totally different, thus affecting the structure of each country.
American geography offers an unmatched advantage in the coast of building waterways and railways, coupled with an abundance in coal and oil that Brazil could never match
I stopped watching when you said that today Brazil is “politically tense” as if the land where a buffoon like Trump is about to return to power is not.
Who would win in a comments section: Brazilians or Kaiserboos?
Brazilian kaiserboos
Brazilians, we are everywhere
brazilaboos!
brazilians
brazillians have to many buffs paradox clearly knew who would realistically win
Man...., this one of the few "gringos" that make alternate history about brazil, i am loving this vídeos.
We are all going to Brazil
Indeed we are
@@DeanMonsieur NOOOOOoo0o0O!!!!!!!!!
In alternate South America, Brazil comes to you
I'm from brazil. But I Think this meme is getting old in nowadays and please stop ruining my Nationality you getting make me sad ☹😢😭
@@joanemartins1610 I really don’t see a reason to care given that I’ve seen what people say about every other country on this planet. Being known as a place that actually isn’t too terrible to visit is one of the far more mild things.
Wouldn’t it be more fitting to assume Crown Prince Alfonso didn’t die from epilepsy when he was 2 years old? It would make more sense than a random Prussian Prince assuming the throne without any ties to the Braganza family, not even a royal marriage.
@@jefferyhanderson7849 A família real do império alemão tinha relação direta com a família real brasileira. Tanto que o próprio Kaiser Guilherme II queria restaurar a monarquia no Brasil depois do golpe republicano, pois ele tinha muita afinidade com Dom Pedro II.
I don't believe that Brazil needs a Prussian prince to ally with Germany, Pedro II's mother is Maria Leopoldina of the house of Habisburg, she is the daughter of Francis II, the last emperor of the Holy Roman Empire or Francis I, the first emperor of Austria, and Princess Isabel's sister was married to Luís Augusto de Saxe-coburgo-Gota, which is a Germanic house, therefore the Brazilian imperial house already has family connections to make an alliance, and the dissatisfaction with Princess Isabel was that she was an anbulicionist, and in this Timeline, slavery was abolished previously, her as empress is not an issue
interesting
wasnt Dom Pedro II daughter marie a claiment to the throne of bavaria
@@the_roman_emperor_fisheater I don't know but, D. Pedro I was a dauther with Amélia de Leuchtenberg, he married twice
@@the_roman_emperor_fisheater and "Mathilde Maria da Baviera" (in Portuguese) is the mother of the current chef of the imperial hause of Brazil
Her being the Empress *was* the biggest issue. She was deemed incapable to govern even by the main supporters of the Monarchy - too naive, incapable of political articulation, and too dependent on her husband, that was detested in every political circle. Even without the coup of 1889, there was a political consensus between Liberals and Conservatives that she was beneath the position, and her presence in the succession line helped substantially the Republican cause.
What next, does a Walloon painter take over France and start WWII?
@@fresholiveoil6490 the ITALIAN LINES Have collapsed. the Germans are barely able to to hold!!!!
@@fresholiveoil6490 a Corsican sculptor but yes
@@Mrwhoisdreks Napoleon round 2
Actually round 3. 4 if you consider Napoleon III
Belive the Hohenzollen prince is a mistake, most likely the chosen sucessor would be Prince Peter August of Saxe-Coburg and Braganza, grandson of Peter II and called "the Preferred" by media. That would create a more smooth transition as he was from the Imperial family, and would take the throne as Don Peter III adn was 23y at the time, being put foward as a representative of a new era for the country, playing the [ "modern leadership role". The amount of rebellions and post-abolition instability on the hinterlands of Brasil, together of the huge pan-american republican sentiment among the urban elites would not allow a foreing German prince to role for much, especially if the country was more of a player in the global economy, as those groups would for sure have Britsh and American support, and mostn likely also French, as a kin to the Kaiser rulling another state would not be well taken in the era.
Thank you for this incredible information! I will admit, while researching this scenario I focused more on European candidates in the Hohenzollern family in order to achieve the World War I outcome, which, to be fair, isn’t intended to be the most realistic in and of itself and is moreso a way to craft an interesting narrative. Perhaps in the future we may take a closer look at Peter August!
Great video, hello from Brazil! 🇧🇷 Long live the emperor, long live the monarchy
Hello man, I'm from Brazil 🇧🇷. I ❤this type of story content.
@@pietroguillou9580 me to
As a Brazilian, i say" obrigado" to you. Can you do a video on what if Brazil invaded French Guyana?
I think it would be very likely for Brazil to enter the First World War on the side of the Central Powers. Mainly with Empress Dona Isabel I in command, even though Emperor Consort Gastão was French.
Will you continue this scenario? A hello from Brasil! 🇧🇷
Oh boy i'm going to need a tread for this, but alright, let's go:
Talking as a Brazilian, historian and specialist in Imperial Brazil, i need to answer: No...
The Brazilian Empire was indeed the most successful Latin American political experience that existed, in some aspects it was even more modern and democratic than the United States at the same time.
We do praise the immeasurable success the Monarchy achieved politically, but make no mistake: The Brazilian Empire was miserable. The video captures perfectly the feudal-like elements present in the colonial era, but i gotta say, it derails when assessing the Empire itself.
The lack of education, neglect and influence restricted only to the small segments of the elite in contrast to a United States that expanded a system of public schools and social development is a massive NO. It was the other way around.
The Brazilian Empire and Dom Pedro I in particular actually made colossal efforts to improve the educational system. Pedro I is actually extremely underestimated as an Emperor because we often overlook the stability and development of the Empire with Dom Pedro II, but it was his father that had plans, ideals and projects for the new Nation, Pedro II only had a successful reign because he knew how to placate the status quo and promote gradual reforms, while his father was almost a revolutionary in how aggressive he wanted to push for change.
When Dom Pedro I consolidated his position as Emperor and the question of the Monarchy under him was already decided, the goals of Pedro I were:
1- He wanted slavery abolished and he would not compromise on that. It was to end and to be purged of society as fast as possible
2- Pedro I wanted the Empire to directly operate social services in the likes of Education and Healthcare
3- Pedro I drafted a bill that would establish the complete expropriation of slave ships and integrate them into the Imperial Armada. The Armada would be tasked to fund and transport immigrants from Europe without cost to those who moved to Brazil
4- Pedro I was resolute on making sure tyranny would have no place in the Empire. He wanted a Constitutional Monarchy and would not accept anything different. He praised freedom of speech, of the press, of religion, of property. For the time, Pedro I was a radical liberal. Although he himself was authoritarian, he made sure to enforce his ideals on the layout of the Empire.
5- Pedro I, just like Pedro II was a Patreon of culture. He wanted to see installed and developed the means for a thriving and rich culture in Brazil, aiming to rival the likes of Vienna, Paris and Rome.
With that said, let's go into how History played out. The video gets a lot of things right, but also a lot of wrongs. So a quick recap:
[...]
1822-1823: The Empire was already solidified, the Monarchy was ensured not to be an ephemeral experience like the First Mexican Empire and the territorial domain was drawn with the adhesion of Grão-Pará as part of the Empire. The War of independence was raging on, but in a much smaller scale than any other american national (possibly only Canadian independence was more peaceful than the Brazilian one), as historians here even avoid calling the conflict a "War", more often citing "Portuguese resistance", as combat was mostly restricted to suppression of a few loyalist cells in provinces all across the Empire with the actual efforts of the Portuguese crown to crush the rebellion happening at sea and as the Imperial Armada performance was so great, Portuguese soldiers barely reached land, if at all. Cohesion and unanimous support of all social classes under Dom Pedro I was so strong that independence was won by the Ipiranga, it was a war Portugal could not win.
1823: As planned, the constitutional assembly gathered to write the imperial constitution as Dom Pedro couldn't bring himself to rule an absolute monarchy. Unlike the popular version of events that the 1823 project was a Democracy in the making that was ruthlessly removed by a power-hungry Emperor in a display of tyranny that lead to the 1824 constitution being imposed rather than promulgated legitimately with political means that secured the powers of the monarch is completely false.
What really happened was that the constitution of 1823 was already written and the assembly was in the final phase of voting the text before it could become Law. What's terribly misleading about the event is the wrongful assumption that "democratically" elected representatives of the people would do a better job than the Crown. As 2024 marks the 200th anniversary of the Imperial constitution, i wrote a scientific paper comparing both projects and currency is awaiting publication, but the main point i put into that research is that the 1823 "mandioca" constitution was an abomination. It was terrifically authoritarian and if it went through, everything the Empire had that was bad would be worse.
According to the text, there was no religious freedom, only the Catholic faith was accepted and political rights were conditioned to professing catholicism. The election system was just as terrible as 1824, but with the catch that the latter demanded property to vote counted in money, while 1823 had land as the necessary to vote, measured by ounces of mandioca plantation, hence the name "the mandioca constitution". The project also established a monarchy that unlike popular belief was so authoritarian that i'd hesitate calling it Constitutional. We're not talking about a British style monarchy, not even a Prussian Constitutionalism, we're talking of Bourbon Restoration levels of authoritarianism, a complete failure of Constitucional Monarchy. According to it, the Executive branch and the Emperor were one in the same. A prime minister? Unthinkable. A cabinet to carry out the duties of government? Out of the question. The executive was totally invested in the Emperor and nothing else could act on its behalf, the Executive was THE Emperor alone. It doesn't end here, though. The most absurd part of the constitution was in the legislative, which had the Emperor as its head and a parliament that despite having the authority to vote and pass laws, a bill could only be discussed if the Emperor himself brought it to the table, which means: no law, no political decision, no reform or parliamentary decision could be made without the emperor's consent. In the hands of rulers in the likes of Pedro I, Pedro II and Isabel this could have worked, even helped in abolishing slavery earlier, but from a democratic point of view, it was a disaster. No one who values representative government, democratic principles and hold dear the values of popular sovereignty could ever accept what was written in that document.
1823: So we finally get to the Night of Agony. Mainstream narrative goes in the line that Dom Pedro just didn't like the constitution, thought he didn't have as much power as he wanted and the project was too liberal for his liking, so he just dissolved the assembly and went on to impose a text of his approval in 1824. This is also false, as the chain of events that lead to the dissolution of the assembly was far more nuanced than what's told. The constitutional assembly took a deeply xenophobic stance against the Portuguese, which was a problem. The project restricted citizenship for Portuguese-born subjects and took quite the effort to deny political rights to them. The important detail is that by the time, half of the population was Portuguese-born and the percentage of portuguese people among lawyers, doctors, artists, scientists and prominent figures was even higher, we cannot forget about the thousands of portuguese that came with Dom João VI to Rio de Janeiro and the many more foreigners that came after on his orders during the period of the United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil and Algarves. The denial of citizenship to such a massive group obviously caused trouble. One key event was the beat up and lynching of a shop keeper by a mob after being mistaken by another person who wrote a highly xenophobic article in the city's press. Violence between brazilians and portuguese rose and riots were starting to break out. In response to this, Dom Pedro brought the imperial army to the city to maintain order. The assembly took this act as insult and told the emperor they would not continue to draft the constitution with the army in town, this being the event that soured the relationship between the assembly and the emperor. Pedro tried to compromise, ordering the army to stay 40 miles away from the building, but it didn't work. The people were rioting and the court was about to face a rebellion. The military commanders told the emperor they couldn't keep the peace if the assembly continued to be hostile to them, until one of the generals in town finally said that either the emperor dissolve the assembly or a bloodshed would be inevitable. It is told that the letter Pedro received before rushing to the assembly (long lost and its content unknown) terrified the emperor so much that he bolted out of the palace in despair to arrive at the assembly and decree its dissolution. His own words: "The constitution will be twice as liberal, worthy of Brazil and of me".
1824: As Pedro I took upon himself to write the constitution, he gathered 10 appointees to form a commission that would replace the assembly. Unlikely popular belief, Pedro didn't disregard everything the 1823 project envisioned, and as the one who read both drafts in detail, i can safely say that everything good about the 1823 constitution made into 1824 untouched or improved.
The imperial constitution had social and political achievements that are short of revolutionary. It fixed the electoral process despite still being deficient, rearranged the distribution of powers, eased the legislative process, reassessed the provincial system, expanded citizenship, granted political rights such as property, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, the right to a fair trial, abolished torture, the presumption of innocence and the entire section of article 179 of the imperial constitution. The biggest criticism of 1824 was the separation of powers into 4 instead of 3: Executive, Legislative, Judiciary and Moderator. People often think the moderator power, exclusive to the emperor was a tool of authoritarianism, which simply isn't true. It gives a set of prerrogatives to the emperor but are quite limited, the most important of which being the power to dissolve the lower House of Parliament, a constitutional arrangement that exists in the strongest of democracies to this very day, like the power to dissolve parliament by the British monarch that also extends to the Commonwealth realms. Many also try to argue that the 1824 constitution was tyrannical because the emperor was the head of the Moderator and the Executive Powers, but just as i pointed out before (and its honestly unbelievable that i had to write a scientific paper to expose this because of incompetent historians), in the 1823 draft, the emperor also headed 2 powers, but instead of the Moderator, it was even more absurdly, the legislative power. If in the early project the executive and the emperor were one in the same, the final document shared the executive power among the Emperor, Ministry and Governors, being the figure of the President of the Council of Ministers (somewhat analogue to a British prime minister) being introduced in 1847. If in 1823 the emperor was head of the legislative, Dom Pedro I ensured the sovereignty of the assembly, with the Emperor having little say in it, the main reason why both emperors tried, but could not force an abolition of slavery earlier.
[...]
The main victories of the imperial constitution, however, were the social rights. It made public and free education a constitutional guarantee (the next time such thing would happen was only in 1917 in Mexico, almost 100 years later), it envisioned the system of public healthcare (embrionary, of course, but public healthcare in Imperial Brazil would play a massive role in the Yellow Fever epidemic in the 1850's), granted citizenship regardless of color (something unthinkable in the United States for a long time), the Empire would see black politicians elected to parliament by 1828 while the USA would only see such a thing in 1870. A freed slave was a citizen, a full one after the 1881 electoral reform, an institutional arrangement that was set in a forgotten little tropical Empire that coexisted with the depressing Dread Scott decision. The Brazilian Empire way ahead of the United States in many aspects, which finally brings me back to the initial assessment: It was the other way around.
The narrative of the United States investing in public schooling and social welfare is fiction, specially when compared to Brazil, that had social rights since 200 years ago that the USA doesn't have to this day. There's a distinction that need to be made: the effort put into development of social welfare is one thing, the degree of success achieved is another. In regards to how much effort Brazil and the US put into social development, it isn't even a competition, Brazil struggled and put its resources to develop a social state in such a proportion that makes the american one seem neglectful. The degree of success, however, gets the trophy to America, but it is false to believe imperial Brazil neglected social development in any way, specially compared to America, that had no political obligation to do so. Despite ending with an index too low to be acceptable, the Empire fell no short of long-term success. Many historians agree that in 1822 the number of literate people was lower than 1%, with empirical evidence being found in rich prominent slave dealers or landowners that couldn't read, documents mostly being handled by the clergy. By 1889, the number of people that could read ranged from 15% to 30% in more generous estimations. It's still too low, but a colossal achievement nonetheless. Education in the Empire was mandatory to every city, town or village to have at least one public school and when the government failed to meet that end, it payed private schools for the tuition of poor people, it was the inception of the today's controversial "Cotas system". There's no way any (honest) scientific assessment to demerit the monarchy's achievements in education and social welfare.
With all that said, for any brave reader that didn't die of boredom until now, how does it explain the deplorable state Brazil is now and was back then if at least for a time, it was so successful? Brazil was a poor nation with too few resources to invest in creating wealth. 99% of the Brazilian economy invested in building up an educational system would not amount to 1% of the American economy doing the same. Until the purchase of Alaska, Brazil was a country larger than the USA, yet the population deficit was so big it could not sustain an economic system different than the extractivist mercantilist way that it was. By the time the monarchy ended in 1889, Brazil had the same population the USA had in 1776. A country bigger than the Roman Empire had no more than 15 million people while America reached 75 million. Without labor and human resources, it's impossible to generate wealth that allows massive investments in infrastructure that create the means for the development of an industrial economy. It was no failure of government or the people, the economic reality simply did not allow a breakthrough for Brazil.
Just as the video suggests, to turn Brazil into a superpower, Slavery had to end earlier, the Empire had to endure and industry needed to be stimulated. I'm sad to say, but that's mostly wishful thinking. The way slavery developed and enrooted in the Brazilian economy through the centuries, not to count the massive number of slaves in Brazil compared to the rest of the world. It is simply impossible to think or imagine abolition happening any earlier than 1870. The complete abolition would devastate Brazilian society. There would be no employment for the freed, no affordable labor for the rich and no housing to keep everyone, everything would just come crashing down from the top down and i frankly see no way the nation could recover from this. If Pedro I abolished slavery in defiance when he abdicated, it would just be reinstated later by the oligarchy that made up the disastrous regency. Brazil chose the right way to end slavery, but not the right methods. Pedro I signed a treaty to end transatlantic slave trade with Britain in 1826, the incorporation of the treaty into law was made in 1831 with the Feijó Law, which since was approved without an abolitionist emperor to enforce, the slaveowner elite made the law into fiction, not enforcing any of it until the Eusébio de Queiroz Law in 1850 reformed it properly. The freedom of womb would only come in 1871 with Princess Isabel forcing the approval of the law, yet corruption and fraud were so rampant in attempt to violate the law, abolition could only be done in 1888, again by Isabel imposing to the assembly "Abolish Slavery now or else". The population growth, gradual abolition, immigration and all the prosperity the Empire enjoyed were results of only the partial implementation of what Pedro I planned all those years back. It was too late.
In conclusion, even in a scenario where the empire survives, by WW1 it would be a nation with 30 million people considering we're lucky. The Imperial Armada could beat the American navy? Yes, it could, american senators said so when the Riachuelo was commissioned for the navy and a tryout sort of happened in the Bahia incident when the Imperial Armada really engaged the American navy and chased it out of brazilian waters. But even if we're taking into account an empire capable of actually beating the US militarily, Brazil had no resources or population to stay at war for long and even less to change the outcome of the War, so in the end the scenario simply doesn't make sense. The German plan to install Ludwig Gaston and restore the empire was just a delusion of Wilhelm II. If the Monarchy is to remain, just remove 15th of November, 1889. Unlike suggested and the fallacious theories made up by historians throughout the years, there was no crisis of the Monarchy, the Empire wasn't in trouble nor unstable, it fell at its peak when it was stronger than ever, the monarchy even more. The detailed accounts of the coup that overthrew Pedro II points out to all being an accident. Pedro II didn't knew it was a coup, he didn't thought it would last as he told the austian ambassador heading to exile that this was just another mutiny, the emperor didn't understand the severity of the situation and the military who carried out the coup didn't want to topple the Monarchy, but the ministry. It happened at dawn while everyone was sleeping and ended with the people not understanding WTF had just happened, many thought it was a parade, because if they knew the imperial family was being exiled, the entire nation would revolt. It was a year after the abolition of slavery, the political situation was prosperous, reforms were underway, bills drafted, the economy growing, Princess Isabel was universally beloved, specially by former slaves who even formed the "Black Guard of the Redemptress" to protect the Monarchy, Isabel and the black people. The "need for a male heir* would not change the outcome. It's a fallacy the idea that Pedro II gave up on the monarchy because he didn't trust the crown to a woman. The documents show he did take seriously the future reign of his daughter and he sincerely cared about it, giving instructions and teaching her governance on the best of principles. Isabel also shown that she was ready and would be an excellent empress, as her regencies in Pedro's absence amounted to 4 years of ruling, with abolitionist reforms in each one of them. The face of Isabel's reign was already defined, it would be an era of social and economic reform to transition the backwards Empire Pedro II inherited to the modern Empire he left. In the end, marshall Deodoro da Fonseca only went through with the Republic when faced with the possibility of punishment, but remained a monarchist at heart and constantly plotted to bring Pedro back during his short presidency. What really happened in 1889 was a political convulsion that no one understood and ended up accidentally toppling the only successful political experiment of Latin America. It is the most devastating political accident of modern Western Civilization? Yes, but an accident nonetheless. Nothing had to be changed for the Empire to endure, that's why even though the monarchy's survival would necessarily result in a richer Brazil, it wouldn't turn the country into the Canada of the South overnight, meaning that no way the Empire would reach WW1 in conditions to change the outcome despite being more than able to put up a fight (and win)
I can list all my sources and translate documents for anyone interested, just reach out.
TLDR: No
Not making ALL of uruguay being annexed by Brazil in the thumbnail is a CRIME
Uruguay? You mean province of Cisplatina?
@@Dornana yeah
@@Dornana what the hell is uruguay
Brazil ended its dream of being a superpower when it became a republic
How? dose republic stops Brazil being superpower.
@@danielsilfeemais e vdd vivo no Brasil e todos meus professores de história falam isso pq com a República veio a ditadura fascista de Vargas 1932-1947 e a ditadura militar de 1964-1988 .
@@carioca6959 Vargas era um Salazar wannabe, até o nome do regime copiou
Honestly, I’d say it’s much less a Catholic vs Protestant thing when it comes to work ethic, and more a Northern Europe vs Southern Europe as a cultural baselines for these places that lead to the divide, with it being a coincidence that southern Europe mostly stayed Catholic while northern
Europe ended up more going Protestant. The tendency towards following aristocracy following along a similar rule, but also with the caveat of even moreso being motherland specific.
Literally so underrated amazing work
This timeline could have been possible if the ideas of José Bonifácio, minister of D. Pedro I, and defender of independence could have been implemented. He advocated the abolition of slavery, give land to former slaves, the implementation of public education and industrialization. Unfortunately, the Parliament controlled by the agrarian elite prevented these reforms and the result is the current situation, our timeline.
So we meet again, Senhor Z
What if the Ottoman Empire industrialized (dude used steam thing to cook kebab a hundred years before Britain, maybe someone saw potential in it and told the sultan)
The Ottomans’ chances of industrialization depended on whether they had undergone political reform at least a century before the Tanzimat, when they lost key points in the East (Yemen, Al-Hasa, Maldives), and it was becoming clear that the State was not eternal as it intended to be.
The Ottoman problem was fundamentally political; the state was too decentralized, the elites were dominated by merchants and trade guilds, and the meager budget was sustained by heavy tax on agricultural production, which killed the emergence of an agrarian elite in its infancy.
Without landed elites, without even the most basic accumulation of capital, with trade guilds, and without tariff barriers (which the merchant class, allied with the ulema, were fiercely opposed to), manufactures had neither the incentive nor the capital to keep up with technological advances, and was swept away by British competition when it arised. Even tariffs could help, but the Ottomans didn't tried.
The only reasonably successful attempt was in Muhammad Ali’s Egypt-but it was too late, too structurally lagging, and even that was gradually aborted by British dumping.
Even if Taqi ad-Din's turbine had been perfected to the point where it could power industrial machinery, this would not have been enough to produce an industrial revolution. More than that, the material, legal, and structural conditions needed to exist to allow this result.
Theoretically, in the sixteenth century, the productive power of the Ottomans might have been in a position to start the process - but without an agrarian elite, the continued presence of guilds, and without customs barriers, the tendency was for the technology to be copied - as many others were, such as the steel and the water wheel - without the Ottomans being able to keep up.
The only viable solution would be extensive state reform, starting with the abolition of the Timariot Corps, the privilege of timar, and the taxes on agricultural production; the abolition of capitulations and privileges to guilds; the abolition of the quasi-sovereign Eyalets and their conversion into Vilayets under direct supervision (which only occurred in 1864); and the extensive adoption of tariffs to finance the state and protect the industry. Abolish slavery - although it was never the predominant labor force, it was a factor on the delayed development in several regions, especially North Africa and Mesopotamia. And perhaps create a public education system.
What if the Byzantines won the battle of manzikrit?
I have three words for this: That. Was. Awesome. I like how you made a scenario about Brazil becoming a global superpower after Brazil industrialized earlier, abolished slavery, and had Pedro II inspired by the enlightened monarchs. I did not expect Pedro II to bring Prince Fredrich Karl of Prussia to become the Third Emperor of Brazil, and that was a bold move for him to bring a candidate who had the potential to lead Brazil to greatness. But Don Pedro II could choose any candidate from the Royal or Imperial Houses of Europe.
He chooses a member from like Wettin, Hanover, Oldenburg, Holstein-Gottrop, Gotha-Saxebourg ( later became The House of Windsor), and heck, he could choose the Orleans, the Romavos, and possibly the Bonpartes.
But Prussia's choice would later be good for Brazil. Knowing that Prussia had kings who were military geniuses like Frederick the Great, Brazil would be in good hands with a Hohenzollern Prince who would use his authority as the New Brazilian Emperor to reform the country into the modern century. But so far, this is a great video, my friend. Keep up the great work; no matter what happens or anybody says, keep posting these videos; they are entertaining and educational to watch, and I really mean it!
I got a hand to you; having a Third Emperor of Brazil who is energetic like President Theodore Roosevelt and friends with him would be a blessed timeline, even though I'm not from Brazil. And I do have some questions related to video. Are Prince Fredrich Karl of Prussia and Princess Isabella of Brazil married, or have they not wed yet? So far, this is a great video, and I give this video 100 out of 100!
If this video has a sequel, what do you think of the idea of "What if Brazil forms a Greater Brazilian South American Empire in the 21st century?" What are your thoughts, ideas, and opinions on this sequel idea, Mr. US Of Z?
alternate history for the Caribbean and Central/South America is slept on, seeing this felt great
We need a part 2!!!
Speaking as a brazilian here: why the hell would Pedro II give the crown and throne of a Brazil to a Prussian prince instead of passing it to his daughter or grandson?
I don't think the people, and more importantly the agrarian elite, would ever just accept a foreigner taking the throne, even if Pedro II gave it to him. The country would likely be plunged into a three-way civil war with loyalist of the Braganza family, loyalist to the Hohenzlorren family and republicans seeking to overthrow the monarchy entirely. You don't simply crown a german prince Emperor of Brazil and it's a peaceful transition of power, it would upset the established laws of sucession and create great political turmoil and civil unrest. Pedro II likely knew this even in our timeline, he probably wanted to hold onto power until his grandson came of age or his daughter became a more capable ruler - when he thought that wouldn't be possible without bloodshed (civil war upon abolition of slavery) he abdicated instead of holding onto power with military force.
A more likely scenario would be for Crown Prince Alfonso to survive to adulthood, ensuring from early on that the line of sucession is clear and stable. He would likely be tutored by his father and trusted teachers and scholars, adopting a similar mentality of the responsability of ruling as an enlightened despot. The rest of the scenario would be unchanged, except for siding with Germany in WW1 - despite the Braganza family being tied to Austria-Hungary (Maria Leopoldina was a Habsburg), their largest economic parter has historically been Great Britain, so they'd either stay neutral or join the Entente.
I think that Pedro II's daughter should still have been empress but married to the Prussian prince.
Do more videos about Brazil, specifically the First Brazilian Republic and its presidents.
i was thinking about it someday, millions of brazilians and mexicans arriving europe to fight germany
In the gta Verse, Brazil would be an empire rather than an oligarchical republic. An empire so stable that it would join the allies in world war 1. As Brazil had German industrialists and would influence the country. However, because of the fear of the wrath from the United States, they must kick German elites out of the country and even turn on Germany by joining the alliance with UK and France as Russia was withdrawn from Germany. And this gave Brazil a boost of reputation within the world itself. As it was a German industry holdout, then it was turned ally as US’ Monroe Doctrine won’t allow foreign influence within the Americas. And Brazil must turn against the Germans and join the war in Europe. Using German industry against the Germans and its allies. The US does stay away from the war front. But they do aid the UK and France with supplies and volunteers.
very interesting scenario, not one i ever thought about before
I don't see the UK declaring war on Brazil
There were people in the south that wanted to industrialize, northerners refused to sell them the necessary equipment
Brazil probably would also take over the Portuguese colonies and Portugal it self
Very interesting choices of change not what I expected at all but I think it a bit of an unexpected turn to pick a Prussian prince to become the 3rd emperor of Brazil and not pick one of Don Carlos of portugal linage to perhaps maintain that connection but then again too being independent nation of Brazil it would be still very resentful of portugal in this time. So I could be very wrong as well lol but still an awsome what if
That was awesome.
With a more modernized Brazil in this timeline, there would likely be less Italian Catholics in America as Brazil is majority Catholic and immigration would be split between the two.
I like this scenario but i don’t think they need a German Emperor to join the Central Powers in WW1, Isabel was married to a prince who was a member of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, a (somewhat) German house, so they could’ve chose him instead
12:26 I loved the video, but as a Brazilian I think that Dom Pedro II should not necessarily have a son, since Count D'eu, his daughter's husband, proved to be an excellent leader in the war in Paraguay and he doesn't seem to have many reasons to believe that it would be different in the third reign
1 and 3 watched, time for no.2
1.What if Henry V didn’t die so early?
2.what if the daughters of Joseph I of the Holy Roman empire seceded and Inherited Hapsburg dynasty ?
3. What If Frederick. The great had married Maria Teresa.
4. What if Ivan The Sixth wasn’t overthrown and ruled Russia?
BRAZIL IS BEST! 🪇🪇🪇🇧🇷🇧🇷🇧🇷🇧🇷
Gran-er Colombia soon..?
@@DeanMonsieur YES PLEASE 🇨🇴🇨🇴🇨🇴🇨🇴
@@DeanMonsieurGran-Colombia bad, Brazil gud
Brasiiilllll🇧🇷🇧🇷🇧🇷🇧🇷🇧🇷🇧🇷🇧🇷
I don’t think Brazil alone could provide enough materials to Germany with a British blockade in the way that’s just completely absurd.
Did someone say BRAZIL
Could you make a video what if Portugal continued to be a superpower during the 18th and 19th centuries just like the United Kingdom?
Comment for the UA-cam Algorithm Gods😑🙏
Could you do a series like this on Aaron Burrs attempted country?
Here are some exciting ideas for future alternate-history scenarios: What if the exile and death of Catherine of Aragon resulted in higher tension between the Kingdom of England under the House of Tudors and the Holy Roman Empire under the Hapsburg Dynasty because of the rumor that Herny VIII poisoned Catherine? What if the rumors were true, and what if this led to war between the two nations and sides chose to aid the English and Hapburgs? Would Catherine's cause of death lead to England having an alternate English Civil War, and would Mary Tudor be the one to start the civil war to avenge her father, or would it be the nobility and the ordinary people who rise up against Henry VIII?
What if The Rukird Dynasty survived with the survival of Tsarveich Ivavnoich of Russia? What if the Rurikds rule Russia instead of the Romavos? And what would Russia be like under the Rurikd Dynasty?
What if the Ethiopian Empire had survived and could unite East and South Africa and form the African Union? What would a united Africa be like under the Empire of Ethiopia?
What if Liberia was prosperous and expanded to become a greater Western African power?
What if Biafra won the Nigerian Civil War and survived through the 20th century and 21st century?
Which of these ideas do you like best, Mr. US of Z, and which one are your favorite and why? And which ones do you think would be a good scenario for an alternate history video?
USA with stripes but no stars feel quite strange on 3:17
A very interesting story
While not bad this feels another video more tilted how if than what if.
Honestly I doubt this leads to a Central Powers Victory as much as it pushes the war into a stalemate peace deal.
Isabel being replaced by a foreigner noble to the throne is *completely* absurd.
What if princess Leopoldina take the control of the HRE and Pedro II became his aucessor
Let's go bigger: What if all the Spanish colonies united just like the American colonies?
mexico abolished slavery in 1832…… and do what if Vicente Gurrerro Survived?!??
What if America became Georgist during the Great Depression? What if Argentina adopted a Distributist economic system in the 20th century??
Vocês tem algum projeto para trazer dublagens para seus canais ia ser muito bom os canais que já fazem isso tem uma qualidade de baixa pelo menos aqui em português
Can you do videos on why Argentina is not a superpower.
Love it
Brazil's Coup of 1889 is an example of how to kill the spirit of your people and doom your country to mediocrity and perpetual decadence.
Not the same but it reminds me of Russia's October Revolution.
Brazil was already doomed to mediocrity and perpetual decadence, by maintaining the slavery for many decades and destroying every industrialization and descentralization attempt during the Empire. When the Republic was proclaimed, it was lagging far behind all the neighbours of the South Cone, including the former failed state of Argentina.
Our monarchists are delusional beyond belief, indeed.
An often overlooked factor is that from Argentina to the southern united states there is a prevalence of tropical diseases introduced by the first Africans kidnapped to the country that not only devastated the native population but also severely compromised the growth of the European populations in the region so that Africans were the only population with the natural immunity required to populate the land, but if Africans arrived as immigrants instead of slaves, history would unfold very differently.
I have been forcefully sent to Brazil 😔
Nice video, but crowning a Honhenzoller as the emperor is nonsense, you could have solved that problem crowning Pedro of Saxe-Braganza son of Pedro's the II youngest daughter. You'd have a liberal prince with german roots and a legitimate claim to the throne.
The republican coup wasn't at it's origin a republican coup but a political one, Marechal Deodoro wanted to depose the prime minister the Viscount of Ouro Preto, an abolitionist and Princess's Isabel ally, things only went south when Benjamin Costant, a republican, lied to him that the emperor had nominated Gaspar Silveira Martins, a Deodoro's personal rival, as the new prime minister.
Pedro didn't react even knowing that he could have easily defeated the republicans, but that was of no surprise since he after the Paraguayan War condecorated desertors like the general Duke of Caxias; the emperor was a coward that abandoned his people to tyrants of which he was the only opposition.
His family gave no support for any of the restaurationist movements, neither to Silveira Martins and the Federalistas in '93, nor the Patrianovistas from the 20's through the 30's.
I can't help but notice that the Naval aspect of this is poorly researched, like you didn't at all acknowledge the naval arms race of the late 1800s and 1900s (the latter known as "the south American dreadnought race")
"menor"
The big difference between Brazil and the USA is in the way each country was occupied. The vast majority of the USA was occupied by Europeans willing to change their lives. They went to develop their lives and consequently the country. Brazil was occupied by Portugal to have its wealth extracted and sent to Europe. Portugal left behind to Brazil the scum of Portuguese society (thieves, bandits and vagabonds) and the largest slave population on planet Earth abandoned to their fate. Can you measure the difference?
An example: When Europeans came to Brazil with the same spirit as the Europeans who came to the United States, there was a similar result. The development of southern Brazil, with the population mostly made up of European descendants, is the most developed and balanced. These southern states are made up of emigrants who came after the American dream, settled and developed the place. The Ideal was different, it was never extractive but productive. Anyway, this is the big difference between Brazil and the United States: The purpose of their emigrant population was totally different, thus affecting the structure of each country.
I don´t get it, what claim to the throne would a protestant prussian have?
Sorry but Don Pedro 2 had his heir. His daughter.
we are not just going to Brazil we are staying in Brazil
So would Germans Brazilians replace Japanese Brazilians This world
Let's go Brazil will dominate the Cold War
Great scenario
now we won't go to brazil but Brazil will come to us LOL.
American geography offers an unmatched advantage in the coast of building waterways and railways, coupled with an abundance in coal and oil that Brazil could never match
I'am brasilian , here is hell
Yeah bro, intankable
Diagnosis: you're a mongrel
Vibe
🎉🎉🎉🎉
A comment
Stop pronouncing our language with spanish accent 🥲
I busted
@@Tired_VLR 💀
Yum
Man, the maps are terrible
Bolivia's map make me almost vomit, thats fucking disgusting and horrible
I stopped watching when you said that today Brazil is “politically tense” as if the land where a buffoon like Trump is about to return to power is not.
What if the Byzantines had won the battle of manzikrit?