File talk:Brazil provinces 1825.PNG

Santa Catarina

Creio que o estado de SC no mapa está errado: a parte oeste do estado pertencia a SP ou RS - e só foi anexada ao estado mais tarde. Lgtrapp (discussão) 02h21min de 31 de dezembro de 2009 (UTC)

Vide Questão de Palmas Lgtrapp (talk) 02:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Prezado, o mapa está de acordo com os livros "Citizen Emperor" (de Roderick J. Barman) e "História do Brasil" (de Pedro Calmon). --Lecen (talk) 22:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Então esses dois livros estão errados. Conferir mapas da época em vez de livros produzidos em outro século sem precisão.

International borders

This is really interesting map, but it flaws a lot with international borders. Contemporary state of Acre used to belong to Bolivia (not Peru), Paraguay was shaped differently and Chile didn't yet have Antrafagasta in times when Cisplatina belonged to Brazil. Aslo I'm not sure if there was a border between Colombia and Venezuela present.

The article has no goal of presenting a faithful description of the other countries' international borders, but only Brazil's. --Lecen (talk) 22:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

We cannot have an accurate representation of national borders without the correct ones for other nations (for example, how can we represent the borders of Mato Grosso before the War of the Triple Alliance without a precise design of Paraguayan borders?). And also many internal borders were flawed -- for instance, those of southern Goiás and the ones between Mato Grosso and Grão-Pará (see this map for reference). I have uploaded a new version correcting most (though not all) flaws.--Pedro 23:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

List of inaccuracies of the previous version (before April 2nd, 2012)

1. The north borders of Mato Grosso with Grão-Pará were not straight in 1825. They have only been redesigned into a straight line in 1900.
2. The region that is now the Western tip of Amazonas was part of Peru. There was a large indentation of Peruvian territory into Brazil by 1825.
3. The Western region of Santa Catarina, as already reminded by other users here in this page, was then part of Argentina.
4. The Município Neutro was only created in 1834. It did not exist by 1825.
5. The region known as "Cabeça do Cachorro" (Dog Head) was only annexed under Brazilian sovereignty by the Treaty of Bogotá in 1907. The first version of the map depicts it as part of Brazil, which was not.
6. Colombia and Venezuela were only one country (the Gran Colombia) by 1825.
7. The borders between Guyana and Venezuela were only defined as they are nowadays by the arbitration of 1899.
8. The borders between Brazil and Paraguay, as well as between Paraguay and Argentina, reflect present ones, not those of 1825, long before the War of Triple Alliance.
9. The borders between Bolivia and Paraguay reflect present ones, not those of 1825, more than 100 years before the Chaco War.
10. To be very precise, Bolivia only lost its coastline to Chile de jure in 1904, according to their Treaty of Peace and Friendship, but this had already been under Chilean de facto rule since 1879.
11. The argument that "the map intends only to show internal Brazilian borders" is nothing but a poor excuse. A historical map cannot be anachronic: it must reflect territory as it was, nor "partially contemporary" and "partially current".
12. To call an improving edition as "vandalism" is nothing but lack of ethics towards a fellow user, besides childish.

--Pedro 02:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Evidences of inaccuracies (historical maps)

It seems the author of the original maps, user Lecen, has abstained from commenting here (although he has indeed commented elsewhere since my last posting). Here are a few historical maps which contradict his version, all taken from the Wikimedia Commons repertoire:

1. Cary map of 1807, where we can see the Cabeça do Cachorro indentation into Brazilian territory
2. Pinkerton map of 1818, where the indentation is the most visible
3. Mitchell map of 1849, where we can see how different borders were both in the South and in Inner Amazon
4. Mitchell map of 1850, also with the visible Cabeça do Cachorro indentation
5. Colton map of 1855, the same as above
6. Johnson map of 1862, where we can clearly see the Acre indentation
7. Johnson map of 1863, again with the Cabeça do Cachorro indentation and the curved borders between Mato Grosso and Pará, as well as Mato Grosso and Amazonas
8. Johnson map of 1870, again with all the above, which are very different borders, both domestic and foreign, than those of Lecen's map

Not to mention the fact that, in all of the maps above, the international borders between other countries in the continent are radically different from the lines depicted in Lecen's map. The user made very beautiful maps, in a professional style which is admirable. However, they fail to meet one core prerequisite for a historical map: to represent the facts. Therefore, we are here arguing the obvious. The map needs correction, and it is nothing personal. --Pedro 02:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)