Talk:Empire of Brazil

Article is no longer reliable

There have been major changes into the article that makes him no longer reliable, including changes to its national borders that make no sense. Brazil had parts of its territory that were claimed by some Spanish-American nations, which is why their maps may conflict with Brazilian maps. However, Brazil never annexed Colombian territory, for example. It was always Brazilian and Colombia eventually recognized that. The sole territory taken by Brazil was Acre in the early 20th century. See this map from 1856, for example. And the changes in the maps are just among some of the misleading changes. If they are not reverted, I’ll be forced to request the removal of the FA status.--Lecen (talk) 04:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Also a misleading claim that Brazil was unitary. The country had several self-governing provinces, with elected houses of representatives, as well as municipalities with their own elective bodies. The changes have gone too far. --Lecen (talk) 05:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

So, was the Empire of Brazil a federal parliamentary semi-constitutional monarchy since 1824? I thought federalism in Brazil was introduced by the military junta in 1889. 115.84.94.155 (talk) 04:20, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

While the 1824 Constitution granted only minimal rights to the provincial governments, the power exercised by the provinces was expanded when the constitution was amended in 1834. The degree of federalism evolved over time. • Astynax ^talk 16:17, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Lecen. What's wrong with the current map exactly? It is pretty much identical to the one you linked, witht the exception that yours does not include Cisplatina/Uruguay and also shows the western part of the current state of Santa Catarina as being part of Argentina. As for the unitarian claim issue, I partially agree with you, but it's undeniable that Brazil was a unitary state at least from the adoption of the first constitution in 1824 up to the Aditional Act in 1834, which gave the country some (this is an important word) federalist nature by the creation of the "Provincial Legislative Assemblies", the presidents of the provinces were still nominated by the central government and the senators still held their office for life. The conclusion, therefore, can only be that from the Aditional Act onwards Brazil was neither a unitarian state nor a federal one in the strict sense of these terms. This is also the conclusion of Miriam Dolhnikoff in her work Pacto imperial: origens do federalismo no Brasil do século XIX. It is reasonable then to either clarify the unitarian nature of the State by adding the date of the institution of the Aditional Act or to remove the claim completely, I'm more in favor of the first option. This is an interesting topic nonetheless. Torimem (talk) 19:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Map in infobox

The map Empire of Brazil at its largest territorial extent, 1822–1828 has been made by combining the present-day territories of Brazil and Uruguay. This is not correct.

Brazil grew vastly to the west after 1828, not reaching its present extent until 1909. If this well-known fact requires a source see Burns, E. Bradford (1995). "Brazil: Frontier and Ideology". Pacific Historical Review. 64 (1). University of California Press: 1–18. doi:10.2307/3640332. JSTOR 3640332., pp. 1 and 3. Or see the article Uti possidetis#The Brazilian frontier movement into Spanish-claimed lands.

Brazil's largest territorial extent was not under the Empire, but now, and dates from 1909.Ttocserp 02:19, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Flag in infobox

Should it be the first (1822–1870) or second flag (1853–1889)? Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 17:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Just to add to this, there are apparently multiple versions of this flag... I've started a discussion at WT:VEX#One of these flags is incorrect. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 02:45, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

This article is a bit rose tinted at the start

Brazil is a brilliant country, I love it, but this article is a bit rose tinted, painting the time of the monarchy as some comparative utopia, compared to neighbouring republics, when there were some revolts and wars in the time of monarchy, and yes arts did well, but it did well after as well. I like how the era is not painted as some awful, Hellish time, that is good, as we get too much of history painting the past as awful, and it is good we honour the past, as we stand on its shoulders, and there were some great things from this era, but surely this article has parts written by royalists, which is OK, but they should not just idolise it as a golden era of the past, there were some good things and some bad things, and the opinionizing should be left to readers to decide, we can decide it was brilliant, but it is not for encyclopaedias to do that, the opinions should be more nuanced, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:B3AD:FF01:81DD:D02B:88C0:DD65 (talk) 12:11, 20 October 2024 (UTC)