Will the Empire of Brazil receive some sweet flavor?

[chief117]

Since some people are talking about railways:

I agree that they should be expensive investments in Brazil, as geography is indeed a big impairment, but it shouldn't stop you from being able to build a great railway system, though, especially in the late game. Brazil did have some good development of infrastructure in the late empire and early republic. The problem is that investments started to drop in the 20's and the size of Brazilian railway system actually got smaller in the 60's as the government started to move it's investments to roadways instead. The hardships imposed by the geography actually resulted in some interesting stories and daring engineering projects, such as the Curitiba-Paranaguá railway.

View attachment 723970
Total extension of the railway system in kilometers

View attachment 723971
Annual variation in kilometers

Or this Railway Bridge in the rural part of the state of Rio de janeiro, A belgium engineer project, It is considered the only iron and curved railway bridge in the world.

 

[joe9594]

I don't want to go into too much detail on what content we have at this stage but I can say we do have the Ragamuffin War as that was going on at the start of the game.

Since there are characters in V3 (like rulers and heirs) could you please please please have special events for a Garibaldi character to appear. Like a fairy step mother who shows up in support of liberal revolutions across the world. That would be so fun.


Also on an actually relevent note: I really hope that paradox puts good effort into south america since I think it could provide a really interesting and different experience.
I don't know a huge amount about it but my understanding south american nations tended to have challenges in terms of nation building which were not present in europe or even in homogenous asian nations like japan. These were challenges of terrain but also of culture with less solidarity between lower class people and upper class people within nations and more solidarity across nations based on a sort of semi-feudal conception of society.
Given that it might be interesting to see a rather different way of building your society compared to european nations. More emphasis on suporting upper or lower class people or maintaing a balance between them.
Obviously the differences between south american societies and others were not actually that huge and historically the impact of geography is more important but I think it would not be unreasonable to do for good gameplay reasons given that this is a society builder and that it relies on clearly stated (even exaggerated) models to create coherent simulation with a clear, understandable flow (despite the fact that these models are known to be pretty wrong like the marxian model of european nations engaged in colonialism primarily to acquire resources for industry when in reality ideas of national prestige and individual private interests were also extremely important).

 

[geogus]

In order to Paragauay to "win" the war in the game, would also be necessary in the game to have some mechaninc for not every war be a total a wara but a limited scope that could a win if reached.

For paraguay to "win" IRL it had to reach Montevideo (capital of uruguay) and hold it for a while.

If, to win, it has to total defeat brazil it will never achive it, brazil is simply to big and they cant even reach rio de janeiro

 

[Calahir]

Brazil Always have potencial this is the county of tomorrow after all.

And will always remain, some pricky people often add.

 

[lnCarvalho]

I declare this the best thread about brazillian history.

 

[geogus]

The funny thing is that he declared the war before the English equipment arrived, and that the fortress of Humaitá was built with support from Brazil.

Well, I think that for this to become feasible, and perhaps making a Paraguayan victorious, there should be a mechanism so that it can co-opt the provinces between rivers and corrientes, as well as Uruguayan rebels, which was the original Paraguayan plan. Unfortunately for the Paraguayans they were unable to co-op these allies.

EDIT: But it is good to remember that Paraguay resisted so much because of geography, Paraguay is in a place of difficult access and there were no maps of the region in the hands of the allies. After the fall of Humaita the war accelerated and soon Paraguay fell.

1) there was a weapons delivery from UK for paraguay that never arrived because brazil blocked the paraguay and Parana Rivers. If paraguay had won the naval battle of Riachuelo (and not simply win, but decisely win it) the deliver could have arrived.

2) Paraguay had a harsh marshy terrain that was unknown for the allies beyond the rivers banks and there were no maps, true.

But Paraguay has the merit of building an powerful defensive system in the areas known by the allies that was able to hold the line for two years and block the naval assets of the aliance.

Brazilians have the merit of conquering the paraguayan forts without much bloodshed.

After the major victory of the allies in the battle of Tuyuti, the biggest of the war, most and the best army of paraguay army was destroyed ( and could not be properly rebuilt because they had few reserve manpower)

All the paraguays could do from that moment was to hold behind their forts and hope the allies to front assault it in hopes of winning defending from a strong point.

And it worked in the beggining, the allies frontal assaulted the fort of Curupaity and suffered an devastating blow that paralised offensive operations for more than a year ( and de facto kicked Argentina and uruguay out the war, uruguay only kept a token force and argentina had to send its forces to fight rebellion that triggered after the defeat at curupaity)

Thats when Duque de Caxis was sent to lead the army, rebuilt it and adopted an strategy of encircle the forts of Humaitá instead of assault it.

The paraguayans were forced to abandon humaitá and built a second fortification in the doors of Assunção (angostura) that this time, they hoped, the allies would be forced to assault given there was no room for manouver this time.

In order to bypass it Caxias used the manouver of pissiquiri, he built an road in the other bank of paraguay river, which was an marsh considered unpassable, bypassed Angostura and used the fleet to cross the army the river betwenAssunção and the paraguayan army. Instead of going for the capital he turned back and attacked the paraguays armies from the back and destroyed it.

 

[Rakdar]

that's a funny statement, why would you think listening to monarchists would be a bad idea? or rather why do you think their opinion of 19th century brazil would be prejudicial to the game?

As a general rule, Internet monarchists idealize the period as a golden age of the country. Most of the time, in their minds Brazil had the second most powerful navy of the world, the second best railway system, zero corruption in politics and, of course, the greatest myth of all, that the state operated in spite of slavery instead of because of it. This glorification of the past, mostly based on misinformation, is a classic case of appropriation of historical memory by a political movement in order to promote their agenda in the current day. However, as is always the case, their concept of the past and their grasp of facts are flawed. To give one example, monarchists like to point out how Brazil had a median inflation of 1.8% because Brazil today has a lot of past trauma with hyperinflation. We have an economic culture whose principal fear is inflation. So the monarchists throw around this data to show how Imperial Brazil was so great, at the same time ignoring that such a low inflation rate implies an economic system of little complexity, slow growth and low overall consumption (=welfare), which adequately describes a plantation-based economy. Another one is monarchists claiming Brazil had a strong currency that abided to the gold standard at all times (which is great for current day politics because Brazilians are obsessed with having a strong currency, again because of our inflation trauma), but that is just false.

he will get older evetually hahaha, but yeah its a good question he should have Isabel at some point she should be the heir.

Not necessarily. Pedro II had two sons who died in infancy, the princes Dom Afonso and Dom Pedro Afonso. Their early deaths aren’t set in stone. Indeed, their very existence isn’t set in stone, since Pedro II is still unmarried in 1836. If Vicky 3 has dynastic marriages as a diplomatic feature, which I hope it does, Pedro II might marry a different bride altogether and never have his RL children.

 

[LoLuecoLueco]

I think this post by Rakdar might be one of the finest pieces i've read on this forum today

 

[Lord Hoosier]

I am interested in the ways slavery and Brazil might be handled. I have heard that Pedro II and his administration tried to abolish it slowly without a Civil War like the one in the United States. Will there be an incentive to try to do likewise not only in Brazil but in other slave based economies like the US? This is an interesting period for slavery in the Western Hemisphere as the Brits had largely stopped the Trans Atlantic Trade, but the Republics (and Empires) of the Americas still had huge enslaved populations. I hope there is an interest group for Abolitionists, with maybe some trying a gradual and political abolishment while others advocate for open attacks on the institution like John Brown here in the US. I am pleased that PDX had taken this issue seriously and honestly and I hope that there will be an incentive to seriously consider it's implications and the implications of its abolishment.

 

[Rakdar]

I am interested in the ways slavery and Brazil might be handled. I have heard that Pedro II and his administration tried to abolish it slowly without a Civil War like the one in the United States. Will there be an incentive to try to do likewise not only in Brazil but in other slave based economies like the US? This is an interesting period for slavery in the Western Hemisphere as the Brits had largely stopped the Trans Atlantic Trade, but the Republics (and Empires) of the Americas still had huge enslaved populations. I hope there is an interest group for Abolitionists, with maybe some trying a gradual and political abolishment while others advocate for open attacks on the institution like John Brown here in the US. I am pleased that PDX had taken this issue seriously and honestly and I hope that there will be an incentive to seriously consider it's implications and the implications of its abolishment.

That’s just the thing. They did not try to abolish slavery gradually. That’s one of the Internet monarchist myths I was talking about. They did not try to abolish slavery at all. Pedro II and his family may have been personally abolitionist, but Brazil was a constitutional monarchy. The Emperor was the head of state, but (after 1847) not the head of government. Said government did their damned best to protect slavery as an institution ever since the conservatives got back in power in 1837 with a political platform of neglecting the 1831 banishment of the slave trade. Between 1837 and 1850 hundreds of thousands of slaves were imported despite it being technically illegal. This happened because the government not only relied on tax revenue linked to the slave economy (most of all exportation tariffs), but also because said government relied on plantation owners as a political coalition to back them up. The slave trade only ended in 1850 because of British pressure (see the 1845 Aberdeen Act, which equated slavery with piracy and allowed Britain to confiscate Brazilian slave ships).

The next abolitionist law was the 1871 free womb law, which was said to be “the last word on slavery in Brazil” and only happened because of the Paraguayan War and the defeat of the CSA. The Brazilian imperial elite resisted all the way until 1888 to finally abolish slavery, only because they were defeated by an amalgamation of a civilian-led abolitionist mass movement, military insubordination and increasingly violent slave rebellions and uprisings. The abolition of slavery took place not because the Brazilian state wanted to abolish slavery gradually, but because the opposition to slavery grew so intense that they were forced to abolish it. Not coincidentally, the monarchy was overthrown the following year, after the centralized and conservative imperial state had outlived its purpose.

 

[Lemont Elwood]

Brazil definitely have unique flavour...

Confederados - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Some dixie colonies were created in Mexico and Belize too!

While not proper colonies, Dixies also served as mercenaries in the Egyptian wars against neighboring peoples.

 

[Bradley Hutson]

That’s just the thing. They did not try to abolish slavery gradually. That’s one of the Internet monarchist myths I was talking about. They did not try to abolish slavery at all. Pedro II and his family may have been personally abolitionist, but Brazil was a constitutional monarchy. The Emperor was the head of state, but (after 1847) not the head of government. Said government did their damned best to protect slavery as an institution ever since the conservatives got back in power in 1837 with a political platform of neglecting the 1831 banishment of the slave trade. Between 1837 and 1850 hundreds of thousands of slaves were imported despite it being technically illegal. This happened because the government not only relied on tax revenue linked to the slave economy (most of all exportation tariffs), but also because said government relied on plantation owners as a political coalition to back them up. The slave trade only ended in 1850 because of British pressure (see the 1845 Aberdeen Act, which equated slavery with piracy and allowed Britain to confiscate Brazilian slave ships).

The next abolitionist law was the 1871 free womb law, which was said to be “the last word on slavery in Brazil” and only happened because of the Paraguayan War and the defeat of the CSA. The Brazilian imperial elite resisted all the way until 1888 to finally abolish slavery, only because they were defeated by an amalgamation of a civilian-led abolitionist mass movement, military insubordination and increasingly violent slave rebellions and uprisings. The abolition of slavery took place not because the Brazilian state wanted to abolish slavery gradually, but because the opposition to slavery grew so intense that they were forced to abolish it. Not coincidentally, the monarchy was overthrown the following year, after the centralized and conservative imperial state had outlived its purpose.

Just out of curiosity, what kinds of people were most involved with the abolitionist movement in Brazil? Here in the United States it was mostly Northerners, especially Northern farmers who didn't want plantation owners hogging all the good land out west. Was there any sectional tension in Brazil like in the US?

 

[chief117]

since Pedro II is still unmarried in 1836. If Vicky 3 has dynastic marriages as a diplomatic feature, which I hope it does, Pedro II might marry a different bride altogether and never have his RL children.

this would be very nice, diplomatic marriages just to do a boost in the opnion side, super cool idea man

 

[gustavotoniato]

That’s just the thing. They did not try to abolish slavery gradually. That’s one of the Internet monarchist myths I was talking about. They did not try to abolish slavery at all. Pedro II and his family may have been personally abolitionist, but Brazil was a constitutional monarchy. The Emperor was the head of state, but (after 1847) not the head of government. Said government did their damned best to protect slavery as an institution ever since the conservatives got back in power in 1837 with a political platform of neglecting the 1831 banishment of the slave trade. Between 1837 and 1850 hundreds of thousands of slaves were imported despite it being technically illegal. This happened because the government not only relied on tax revenue linked to the slave economy (most of all exportation tariffs), but also because said government relied on plantation owners as a political coalition to back them up. The slave trade only ended in 1850 because of British pressure (see the 1845 Aberdeen Act, which equated slavery with piracy and allowed Britain to confiscate Brazilian slave ships).

The next abolitionist law was the 1871 free womb law, which was said to be “the last word on slavery in Brazil” and only happened because of the Paraguayan War and the defeat of the CSA. The Brazilian imperial elite resisted all the way until 1888 to finally abolish slavery, only because they were defeated by an amalgamation of a civilian-led abolitionist mass movement, military insubordination and increasingly violent slave rebellions and uprisings. The abolition of slavery took place not because the Brazilian state wanted to abolish slavery gradually, but because the opposition to slavery grew so intense that they were forced to abolish it. Not coincidentally, the monarchy was overthrown the following year, after the centralized and conservative imperial state had outlived its purpose.

To be fair, there was an effort by the Imperial State to abolish slavery, not least because the imperial elite knew that this was an institution that in the medium term was condemned to disappear, and that if Brazil wanted to be a power and a civilized nation it needed to be based on Free Work . The big problem was how, slavery, unlike the USA, was not an institution located in a geographical region and was not concentrated only in the aristocracy, it permeated the whole of society. It should also be noted that they were frightened by fear of what had happened a few years ago in Haiti - the slave revolution that killed the entire former elite - so even the anti-slavery and freedom-oriented dictates were restrained. It is interesting to note that the issue of slavery is almost absent in the writings of the period of independence.

Now, the imperial family itself is known to be an abolitionist, but the emperors of Brazil were never absolute monarchs, the only one who tried to concentrate powers and override legislative power, Pedro I, was forced into abdication.

But, returning to the theme of slavery, efforts to bring migrants to Brazil were related to the replacement of slave labor and the attempt to whiten the country. As a matter of fact, it would be interesting if the black pops here had some marker to represent the preference for white labor. And that it was possible to make a decision to remove this marker later.

 

[gustavotoniato]

Just out of curiosity, what kinds of people were most involved with the abolitionist movement in Brazil? Here in the United States it was mostly Northerners, especially Northern farmers who didn't want plantation owners hogging all the good land out west. Was there any sectional tension in Brazil like in the US?

I don't know exactly by social cut, but as far as I remember it was a transversal movement in society, in the end there was a lot of debate about how and when the abolition would be carried out and no longer if it would be carried out.

After the Paraguayan war it was just a matter of time, after all enslaved people fought for the glory of the empire and received commendations. Which placed the army as an opponent of slavery.

But what I do know are abolitionist societies, which were frequented by great intellectuals. I also know that in the province of Ceará the jangadeiros refused to transport slaves led by Dragão do Mar.

 

[Duarte]

As a general rule, Internet monarchists idealize the period as a golden age of the country. Most of the time, in their minds Brazil had the second most powerful navy of the world, the second best railway system, zero corruption in politics and, of course, the greatest myth of all, that the state operated in spite of slavery instead of because of it. This glorification of the past, mostly based on misinformation, is a classic case of appropriation of historical memory by a political movement in order to promote their agenda in the current day. However, as is always the case, their concept of the past and their grasp of facts are flawed. To give one example, monarchists like to point out how Brazil had a median inflation of 1.8% because Brazil today has a lot of past trauma with hyperinflation. We have an economic culture whose principal fear is inflation. So the monarchists throw around this data to show how Imperial Brazil was so great, at the same time ignoring that such a low inflation rate implies an economic system of little complexity, slow growth and low overall consumption (=welfare), which adequately describes a plantation-based economy. Another one is monarchists claiming Brazil had a strong currency that abided to the gold standard at all times (which is great for current day politics because Brazilians are obsessed with having a strong currency, again because of our inflation trauma), but that is just false.

As monarchist my self, I agree that is often the case, while brazillian monarchists do oddly(well i guess I now know why) focus on the inflation bit ( wich is a ridiculous point considering the current global deflationary pattern of world economics) they are far from alone in that regard, indeed the issues with the Brazilian empire are often overlooked, heck even in Portugal where we too had abolished slavery where often the source of slaves for the brazillian markets something that A: most don't know (let alone monarchists) B: few bother to care about it. In fact the brazillian abolishment of slavery had a tremendous impact on Portuguese colonization of Africa (colonization in general is, to my great dismay, something that is often ignored by, or worse supported by many a monarchist mainly western ones)

 

[Slaughter]

No navigable rivers is pretty bad news, you can't have a proper Paraguayan war without those. It just becomes a brazilian stomp. The Paraguayan War was a hard fought conflict because Paraguay was pretty much a marsh-island between multiple rivers, full of hellish malarial swamps. Which meant the war wans't just a matter of marching troops until they reached Assunção.

I don't want to go into too much detail on what content we have at this stage but I can say we do have the Ragamuffin War as that was going on at the start of the game.

But no Cabanagem? It went from 1835 to 1840, dozens of thousands died, and the fighting happened in big parts of the north. Gimme that sweet Grão-Pará tag. It will be super cool!

There's also the Balaiada and Sabinada revolts which start one year later.

One thing I would love to see presented is the scenario that the Empire disintegrated in its various provinces, or even that the Empire of Amazonas was created in the North of the country, with the daughter of Dom Pedro I as empress.

Yes, early Vicky for Brazil should really be a turning moment where the existance of Brazil as a unified nation is challenged. Seeing a fragmented Brazil here should be possible.

Empire of Amazonas?

you were looking for a monarchist, here I am

Ave Glória, Ave Império

I suppose anyone can call themselves an empire but does that title really fit Brazil?

It was called the Empire of Brazil, so yes?

Also it kinda owned half the continent.

What do you guys think?

View attachment 723754

Nice but where Cabanagem at?

 

[maxk94]

I hope for many sweet flavour packs in Vic3 for each region on the world!

 

[MinhowMinhow]

The Emperor was the head of state, but (after 1847) not the head of government. S

What did happened in 1847?


About industrialization, why didn't the emperor made state owned industries? At least to have economic power control over the country, it could had started in weapons industry and expanded to all other goods.

 

[gustavotoniato]

What did happened in 1847?

It is when the figure of the President of the Council of Ministers is created.