5

This question already has an answer here:

Why did the South-American Portuguese colonies unite into one country, Brazil, whereas the South-American Spanish colonies split into many different countries, i.e. Argentina, Peru, Chile, etc?

marked as duplicate by Tom Au, Mark C. Wallace, Pieter Geerkens, Semaphore, Steve Bird Nov 5 '15 at 21:37

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

  • 1
    The other question seems to be about why Spanish America fragmented into several different countries, and this one seems to be about why Portuguese America remained united. It doesn't look like a duplicate. – Luís Henrique Jul 28 '16 at 18:59
12

Historically, there weren't multiple Portuguese colonies in South America. There was just one. The Portuguese governed Brazil as a single unit since 1549, when the failed Captaincies were merged. This became the Viceroyalty of Brazil (1775), the Kingdom of Brazil (1815, still ruled by the Portuguese Crown), the independent Empire of Brazil (1822, when Pedro I rebelled against his father, the King of Portugal), and finally the current republic (1889).

In contrast, the Spanish colonies were governed as multiple independent areas.

  • 7
    This is correct, but, despite not being explicitly asked, it would be even better if you also explained why did Spain chose to govern them as multiple entities, while Portugal decided to create only one. – o0'. Jul 14 '15 at 8:31
  • 3
    I'd imagine distance - Brazil's coast is a small area compared to Argentina, Chile, Equador, Venezuela and so on. The inability to travel from West to East easily (Cape Horn is no joke) would require at least two groups at a minimum. – Oldcat Jul 16 '15 at 17:11

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.