File talk:Brazilian Empire 1828 (orthographic projection).svg

This map shows the Provincia Cisplatina, Pirara, Misiones and regions of Acre as integral parts of Brazil, that is wrong for the following reasons:

• Provincia Cisplatina seceded in 1830.
• A part of Misiones (the zone of Palmas) became part of Brazil between 1890-1895.
• A part of Amapá (the zone of Oiapoque river) became part of Brazil between 1894-1900.
• The Acre became part of Brazil completely between 1899-1903.
• Pirara became part of Brazil in 1904.

--Shadowxfox (talk) 09:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

You say as Brazil had annexed, purchased or conquered those regions, when in fact they were all part of its territory since the independence in 1822. What occurred was that Brazil's neighbors also claimed those areas, but they later acknowledged as belonging to Brazil. The only region that was truly added to Brazil's territory, that is, that made Brazil's borders actually increase was the purchase of Acre in the early 20th century. Acre, indeed, had always belonged to Bolivia, and Brazil effectively bought it and added to its own territory. "Ow, but I'v seen old maps from X, Y or W country that made a certain region part of its own territory, not Brazil's", someone might say. It's obvious: back then there were no reliable maps. Only throughout the 19th century is that the continent was correctly mapped. Having said all that, I also recommend taking a look at this, this and this. Lastly, this 1855 map, as well as these 1864 and 1874 maps pretty much show that the areas were all Brazilians. --Lecen (talk) 14:46, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Shadowfox, the vast majority of people living in the Misiones and Oiapoque region were citizens of the Empire of Brazil. When Brazil and Argentina decided to finally mark the border of the Misiones territory, the United States was called to serve as arbitrator in the process, no wonder the dispute was quickly decided in favor of Brazil. Argentina had no real claim to the region, in the early colonial times the major force in the region were the Jesuits (from different nationalities), the civilians that explored and populated were mostly colonial Portuguese from São Paulo. When the Catholic Church established parishes in the Misiones territory they were normally in the Brazilian side since the Argentinian side was sparsely populated and most of the inhabitants were natives. Now, regarding French Guiana you are considering only one side of the story, you have to understand that the Portuguese and later Brazil also could claim the whole territory of French Guiana as territory, it was conquered during the Napoleonic period by Portuguese forces. The region was also colonized by the Portuguese since the XVII century, before the French. I don't see how you can say that the Oiapoque river was not Brazilian territory, Brazil accepted the French claim to modern French Guiana only, again, France lost any claims, if they even had any after 1817 in the South of the Oiapoque river, the population was mostly Brazilian, it has been occupied definitively by Portuguese and Brazilian troops since 1809. No wonder the Swiss government decided in favor of Brazil in 1900. In my view the case was similar to all those monarchs and pretenders in Europe that still call themselves "King of Jerusalem", they can claim it, but in the end they look like fools since they do not occupy it and are not recognized as such by other nations. Regards, Paulista01 (talk) 19:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I translated the article Evolução territorial do Brasil into Spanish Wikipedia, so I stuck to what he says the article and it seems that I saw only one side of the story.

I have read your references and I agree with you (Brazilian occupation of these territories were from 1820s onwards), but the map title says 1899 and still includes Cisplatina and Pirara, which were not part of Brazil at that time.

Well, I see the following solutions:

• Fix this map to match the time (ie removing Cisplatina)
• Make a new map, with the corners correspond to the maps as you have shown me (the old maps especially).
• Show on map territories were occupied after independence in a different color.
• Rename the file to something like Brazilian Empire (orthographic projection).svg removing date and including the previous solution.

--Shadowxfox (talk) 20:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

None of the above. The map is just fine and it follows precisely what history books tell. --Lecen (talk) 22:17, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The map is not fine, and it's a mix of maps from 1822 and 1889 because includes Cisplatina and the line of Acre is circa 1890. Yourself showed me several old maps, that if you look, does not correspond with what is shown here. this map from 1889 is correct, shows the borders at the time.--Shadowxfox (talk) 22:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

This 1889 map you just showed is exactly the same as the map we are discussing right now, which has Cisplatina and it shows Brazil in 1828. It would help a lot this discussion if you could simply either read the link to the FA about the Empire of Brazil I gave above or listen to what we are saying. Brazil did not conquer, annex, purchase any area except for Acre after 1822. --Lecen (talk) 22:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

This must be a joke, Brazil not annex anything? regions like Japura, Amapa, Roraima, Acre, Cisplatina, are examples of annexations, not by force of his army (except the last two), but by occupation from people the of Brazil (the so-called "uti possidetis de facto").

If this map represents the maximum extension of the empire (I think it is so), then must be clarified in the description of the same.--Shadowxfox (talk) 22:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Shadowfox, Yes, it represents the maximum extension of the empire. In the article Empire of Brazil, below the image it says: "Empire of Brazil at its largest territorial extent, 1822–1828, including former Cisplatina province". I believe the problem is the current title of the image, it is incorrect, it should say 1828 and not 1889. I believe Lecen asked yesterday to have the title of the image changed to: First Brazilian Empire (orthographic projection) 1828. However, another user took the label off because it is still being discussed here. Can you please take the red label off the image so the change can be implemented? Thanks Paulista01 (talk) 14:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that the maximum extension is clarified only in ONE wiki article (english), and the description of the file (used for ALL wikis) says otherwise, so the description should be changed to "Empire of Brazil at its largest territorial extent, 1822–1828, including former Cisplatina province" and the title of the file to Brazilian Empire (orthographic projection) 1828.svg. Are you agree? --Shadowxfox (talk) 06:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

No problem about that. --Lecen (talk) 11:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, I proceed to improve description and rename the file.--Shadowxfox (talk) 15:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Shadowxfox Paulista01 (talk) 17:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)