Embossed print books existed prior to the advent of Braille, or even of 
the night writing aka sonography that inspired Louis Braille to develop 
the Braille code. Personally, I can touch read embossed print much faster 
than I can touch read Braille, but that's mostly lack of practice and 
Braille does have several advantages over embossed print.

First of all, embossed print is bulky. Braille is Bulky, but is a 
significant improvement over embossed print. To put some numbers to this, 
consider the following:

-The point used for measuring font sizes is 72 points to the Inch, and the 
modern inch is defined as 25.4 mm, so a point is roughly 1/3 of a 
millimeter. -As such, 12-point font, aka standard print, is 1/6 in or ~4.2 
mm tall on average. -Standard size for Braille dots is 2.5mm or roughly 10 
dots per inch. A standard braille cell is 3 dots high and a computer 
braille cell is 4 dots high. This gives standard Braille a point size of 
22.5 and computer Braille a point size of 30. -The Americans with 
Disabilities Act recommends letters be at least 5/8" or ~16 mm tall with a 
line spacing of 1" for embossed print on accessible signage. That's 
roughly equivalent to 45-point font.

Of course, those are modern measurements, not the measurements of the 
early 1800s, but I suspect the modern measurements aren't far off from the 
historic ones, and naturally, knowing that Braille is roughly 2-2.5 times 
as tall as standard print and embossed print large enough to be easily 
touch read is nearly 4 times as tall ignores the losses in characters per 
line... but hey, if you have access to a word processor that can tell you 
how many pages a document will be when printed, try changing between 12, 
24, and 48 point font and see what happens to the page count... Braille 
typically uses heavier paper, and presumably inherited the paper stock 
that was used for embossed print, so that's another aspect of bulk to 
consider. And embossed print really does need to be that big for touch 
reading to be practical

Next, Braille is easier to generate than embossed print.

-If you wanted to emboss a page of print by hand, for best results, you'd 
need an embossing stamp for every character you wanted to use, and that 
includes two stamps for every letter you want to do both upper and 
lowercase for. A full set of stamps would likely be expensive and take up 
quite a bit of space, even made with modern manufacturing... and while 
there are ways of doing embossed handwriting/drawing, they generally 
require special, consumable materials that are quite pricey.

-Braille can be handwritten using a slate(generally consisting of two 
plates, one with a grid of debossed dots, the other with a match grid of 
cutouts to guide the Brailler) and stylus(here, a handle with a blunt 
point needle used to push a sheet of paper positioned between the two 
plates of the slate into the debossed dots).

-Braille typewriters are actually quite a bit simpler mechanically than a 
print typewriter, while an embossing typewriter would be at least as 
complex with the added challenge of fitting in larger versions of the part 
of the mechanism that makes a mark on the paper... and perhaps with the 
added challenge of having to strike the paper from both sides at the same 
time.

-A digital Braille Embosser can produce embossed print if its able to go 
"off grid" and do graphical work, but again, Braille is equivalent to 
10DPI, so the result would be very pixelated. For a computer-controlled 
embosser to produce text with smooth lines, it would likely need a full 
set of embossing stamps or special materials.

-You might be thinking "But label makers do embossing" and indeed they 
do... but a standard label maker produces print too small for touch 
reading, would need to be scaled up quite a bit and require wider tape to 
make touch readable labels. A Braille labeller can be made nearly 
identically to its print counterpart, use the same label tape, and in 
theory, interchangeable wheels would probably be enough to convert a 
labeller from print to braille and back.

-The only general purpose tactile display on the market I'm aware of is 
the Orbit Graffiti... and it costs in the neighborhood of 15 grand. 
Braille displays aren't cheap, but they start at a few hundred. In theory, 
one could probably build an embossed 14-segment display, but it would have 
several disadvantages compared with a Braille display:

--Each cell would need to be larger, meaning fewer cells overall or a much 
larger device. -Braille cells have only one component, the dot. 14-segment 
displays have at least two, full-sized segmants, and half-sized segments, 
and that's assuming the top/bottom horizontal segments, all six vertical 
segments, and the 4 diagonal segments can be made mechanically identical.

-A Braille display needs only 1 byte per character, a 14-segment display 
needs 2 bytes per character. That might not be a big deal with modern 
technology, but it does mean the 14-segment display needs more bandwidth 
and memory to handle the same amount of text.

-The 14-segment display was likely designed with English in mind and 
probably doesn't handle non-latin characters well. A Braille display can 
handle any language with a Braille code.

Thirdly, Braille cells are small enough to fit under most people's 
fingertip, while touch reading embossed print often involves tracing 
something larger than one's fingertip. With sufficient practice, touch 
reading Braille is faster than touch reading embossed print because one 
can identify a Braille character with a single touch.

And there are probably other advantages Braille has over embossed print 
I'm either forgetting or am unaware of.