In 1806 and 1807 the United Kingdom attempted to invade the Viceroyalty of Rio de la Plata. In the first invasion, British forces captured Buenos Aires and were met rather amiably by the ruling class. Had the British managed to retain control over the viceroyalty and defeat the Spanish at sea, what sort of effects would this have on South America?
British Rio de la Plata?
- Thread starter Dangimill
- Start date
yofie
Banned
Either a different way for Argentina gaining independence from Spain, or a British dominion or two - with subsequent independence - in present-day Argentina and Uruguay (see, for example, www.britishargentina.com) that would turn out more or less like Canada with both anglophone and Spanish cultural elements, or perhaps at least a British protectorate (similar to the Ionian Islands) or Hong Kong-like colony around the Rio de la Plata.
If it's the middle option, then the Southern Cone east of the Andes evolves into an area where a slight majority speak English and the rest speak Spanish - with English areas especially in the Pampas, Uruguay, and Patagonia, and Spanish areas in the Cuyo (e.g. Mendoza) and Northwest, and mixed areas around Cordoba and in the northeast. There would have been many fewer wars, with the exception of British armies conquering places like Cordoba and so on from the Spaniards and criollos, as well as some rebellions for more self-government (like the Lower and Upper Canadian Rebellions of the 1830s). Argentina and Uruguay in this case are developed, First World countries much like North America or Australia/NZ in large part because of anglophone institutions, civil society, and free market economies that are comparatively lacking in Hispanic societies. No military coups, Peronism, Dirty War, Falklands War, hyperinflation, or anything like that!
Last edited:
yofie
Banned
Not really much different from the Battle of Quebec City in 1759 between the British and the French. Believe me, it was a very tough battle, and the French-speaking citizens in Quebec City were dead set against British control - but they had no choice in the end. It was only by luck on the side of the British that the British were able to win that battle. And the French won a subsequent battle the following year close to Quebec City, but by then it was too late for the French anyhow. So too, the Spanish-speakers in Buenos Aires wouldn't tolerate British rule, but had the British made different military moves, the criollos would have had no choice either!
Faeelin
Banned
I don't know, I Just have a hard time buying this.
Let's say the British win in 1808, somehow. They take Buenos Aires. God Save the King!
But OTL shows that the Argentines were willing to fight for years to defeat the Spanish monarchy, with whom they had cultural, commercial, etc. links. And early Argentine history also shows that control of Buenos Aires didn't make the rest of the nation fall in line.
So, the situation does not seem analogous, because for various reasons the Quebecois chose not to resist when the Argentines, based on OTL, would have.
But wasn't Quebec a lot less populated then Argentina at the time? (seriously not sure, so I'm not being snarky
)No, they would have a choice. Unless I'm mistaken there is not a large, far more fertile and populated British colony bordering the Viceroyalty of La Plata.
Not to mention that the conquest of Buenos Aires, or all the Rio de la Plata settlements for that matter, would not automatically give the British control of all of OTL Argentina as these threads always assume. The interior would continue to be ruled out of Córdoba.
yofie
Banned
Maybe, but it would simply go the way of Lower Canada's Patriote rebellions of 1837 - there, numerous French-Canadians (and some anglos) fought against British authority, intending to create a republic in Quebec but without success. A similar rebellion occurred in Upper Canada at the same time, and Louis Riel and the metis fomented one rebellion in 1870 and another in 1885 (both in the Prairie provinces in Canada) - all were put down by the British or Canadian government.
As for impacts of a successful British conquest on the rest of South America, if all of OTL Argentina and Uruguay is under British control, that would mean more British influence on the continent than just economic, and the surrounding countries (i.e. Peru, Brazil, Chile, Bolivia, and Paraguay) are all somewhat wealthier per capita than in OTL.
When the British took over the Dutch Cape Colony in present-day South Africa starting in 1806, the Afrikaners didn't resist British rule, at least not to the point of actively fighting for a return of control of their colony, except for the Great Trek 20-30 years later and forming their own inland republics. The point is, that the Cape Colony, like a would-have-been British Rio de la Plata colony but unlike New France, never bordered a large and populated British colony or series of colonies. So in the case of the Viceroyalty, the hard-core criollos would have maybe fled Buenos Aires for Córdoba and other inland locations (as the Marquis de Sobremonte did), and they would have fled to neighbouring countries like Chile once the inland locations would have been captured.
True, the interior would still be ruled from Córdoba; however, the British would have pressed on to Córdoba and to other interior locations in due course once they were finished with conquering the Rio de la Plata. Actually, the British had plans to capture Valparaiso, Chile, once they finished with Buenos Aires and Montevideo, but to consolidate the gains made in the Rio de la Plata, it would pay more to go into the interior. A lot closer, and you wouldn't have to cross the Andes or sail around the treacherous Cape Horn like you would going to Chile. Besides which, Buenos Aires did control the entire Viceroyalty of La Plata as well as its own intendency, and the British would have been intent on finishing off the entire Viceroyalty. So Córdoba would have been the next logical major step in taking over that part of Spanish South America.
yofie
Banned
Spain's other colonies would definitely fear British invasion, but I think they would have revolted against Spain more or less as in OTL for the simple reason that the criollos fomenting the independence revolutions would have still felt a loss of legitimacy from Spain with Joseph Bonaparte's invasion of Spain in 1808. And the British would have been too occupied with the former Rio de la Plata viceroyalty as well as the Peninsular War in Spain/Portugal to deal with the rest of Latin America.
I'm not sure the situation is that analagous. If Quebec had remained a colony of an authoritarian France, I'm pretty sure they would have had a long, tough fight against the imperial power. One of the reasons the Quebecois largely (but not entirely) came to peace with Britain as a power is because they gained far better democratic rights under Britain than under France. I imagine a similar situation would be likely with Argentina.
You also have the policy the British did in South Africa: immigration of loyalist Britons. I could certainly imagine a situation a few years down the line of Britain having firm control over Buenos Aires and Montevideo with a loyalist elite of Britons and anglocised locals, with much less authority among Spanish farming communities in the countryside.
Boer trek equivalents are also very possible: in an empty land, it's easier just to decamp than revolt.
Faeelin
Banned
We know how OTL Argentina wanted and got more democracy. They revolted and formed their own nation. Why would they prefer the yoke of Britain to their own government?
I mean, the reason Britain lost in OTL is because the people of the region rose up, fought back, and won. So we know they weren't welcoming the British army as liberators. And that the region would spend years at war to resist Spanish rule. I am not sure why the same region's fate in OTL is less relevant than how Quebec acted 60 years beforehand.
And I would quibble with the notion of more democracy in Quebec. The Quebec Act wasn't passed for 12 years, until 1775.
Of course, the British weren't greeted as liberators when they tried invading Hispaniola, either.
One also wonders about the knock on effects in Spain, if when Napoleon replaces the bourbons the British are partioning the Spanish Empire.
So let's assume that the British quell initial revolts and set up their style of colonial government. The Argentine people solidify their rebellion into one idea (avoiding the OTL civil war) and expel the British government by, say, 1820. Would this somehow affect the national identity? What language would they speak?
They wouldn't, and if they had their own government they would never go back to British rule. But rising up and fighting is not an easy thing to do, and people generally refrain from doing it if the rule is "good enough" due to the huge risks of the transition. Once they are defeated the first time, if there is a increasing prosperity, no large scale repression, and an increased voice in governance, we would have a Quebec-style situation.
Except for winning, which we have changed in this scenario, how is that different to Quebec?
Because in this scenario, the imperial power is the dominant naval power and a stable government with huge financial resources. That is more similar to the Quebec example than Argentina in OTL, where Spain was poor, third-rate European power, underwent huge amounts of civil strife, and had its navy mostly destroyed in the Napoleonic Wars.
A fair point, but how many examples do you have countries being conquered and then throwing off the imperial power within a decade of being conquered. It's the long term governance that matters.
I would say there's a big difference between the attitudes of city merchants who know they can prosper under British rule, and escaped slaves that in all likelihood would be put back into bondage. It's worth considering that the whites of Hispaniola would have been happy to fall under British rule (due to fear of the slaves, so accept its not a very valid test case.)
Interesting. Would have to think about that some more.
yofie
Banned
There may be some British army regiments that would fight in South America from 1807 to roughly 1815 instead of in the Peninsular War and conflicts in India, Ireland, etc. that they fought in OTL, but the Peninsular War and stuff like that would go on more or less as OTL. This is so, because the 1806-07 British invasions in the Rio de la Plata involved only a relatively small fraction of the regiments that fought in the Peninsular War, and subsequent conflicts in South America would not have involved many more regiments than were already used there.
The difference is that Quebec was in a rock and a hard place. It was under-populated and placed between a hostile Protestant nation to the south (the USA) and was ruled by a hostile Protestant nation (Britain). Quebec had no choice but to cooperate since resistance would have been futile. They chose to cooperate with the British instead of the Americans not because the British were benign (they were not) but because they were a distant power compared to the Americans who were right next door. Britain was also easier to deal with for Quebecers because they knew that the British lived in constant fear that they would lose British North America to the expansionist United States and so they had to cooperate with Quebecers for the survival of BNA.
The situation would have been different in South America where resistance would haven been more successful because the rebels would have had support from the South American heartland.
yofie
Banned
OK, but the Afrikaners didn't resist the British at first after the latter's takeover there, and the only hostile nations the Afrikaners were surrounded by at the time were the indigenous African ones, not any European ones.
As for the Spanish in the Rio de la Plata and at least part of the interior, there would have been resistance to the British, but they would have become less pro-Spanish once Spain was taken over by Napoleon's brother in 1810. In other words, more of them would have switched affiliations to being pro-British after that takeover, which sparked the Spanish American independence movement in OTL.
Firstly, the River Plate is not very accessible by land from the heartland of Spanish South America. The support they would be relying on would be the Spanish mainland - which is likely to get its navy destroyed in the Napoleonic Wars as in OTL. Bear in mind Britain controlled the seas. Spain's primary focus in the aftermath will be to hold together the rest of its Empire, not trying to reaquire somewhere from the dominant world power. The locals will know this well.
Secondly, there is a hostile neighbouring power with grand designs on the area: Brazil. I think we could have a very similar situation to Quebec, with the Argentinians, largely a merchant economy willing to accept rising prosperity and a somewhat representative government, rather than the repression they might get under Portuguese/Brazillian rule.
Thirdly, consider the fact the Afrikaans didn't manage to escape from British rule despite the lack of another power nextdoor.
Seriously, I'm looking at articles like the Maitland Plan in Wikipedia and it looks like the British were waging this war in the stupidest way possible, disregarding completely logistics and assuming that they would win just because of the supreme might of being British (TM). They don't even seem to have a clear idea of what to do with the territories or deal with the population, calling for direct annexation once and then talking of supporting independentist armies a minute later. There is no talk of securing positions either. Apparently they believed that taking Buenos Aires was enough to march to the Andes and once in Chile, well, they could walk all the way to Ecuador without meeting the slightest resistance.
That looks like a recipe for disaster, and it was in real life. The first time they took Buenos Aires, they got kicked out by an army coming from Montevideo. The second time they took Montevideo, then got kicked out by an army coming from Buenos Aires.
You talk like there is one city lying there to take and that defence is only going to be mounted from Spain. It isn't. There is an army and militias in La Plata and armies that can be levied in Peru and Chile and send there. You say that it is hard to do that. Yet, the British plan is to do exactly that in the opposite direction, coming all the way from the sea and wrongly assuming that they have popular support and their rivals have not.
And yet, the last time they went to war against Portugal just some years before they won with no need of the Mighty British (TM) to save their sorry asses, while the Mighty British (TM) is not coming with an offer of self-government under the arm as far as we know.
No, but it was a small colony isolated from everything but the sea and African tribes that had no love for it. And when the British occupied it there were no Netherlands to speak of since they had been invaded by France.
Now, if the Netherlands were free at the time of the war and the whole east of Africa from Egypt to the Cape had been colonized by the Dutch for 300 years, I think they would have done something.