AHC: Scandinavian Patagonia

The challenge: have Patagonia colonized by a Scandinavian country and have them keep Scandinavian culture until the 20th century, while the rest of South America is Spanish-Portuguese.

If they remain a colony, a dominion, something like the Commonwealth or go independent, it's up to you. It can be Danish, Swedish or Norwegian, or even have a unified Scandinavia colonize the region. Perhaps even have Scandinavians control the whole River Plate or part of it.

Is it doable?

Norway exported a lot of people to the US during the 19th century. Just under a million people I think. And I seem to remember there was some Bohemian interest in Patagonia as a place to found utopian communities. Although I cannot find a referece for that at the moment.

Anyway, if the US shuts its borders or somehow become unattractive, I don't think it would take much to redirect the surplus population to Patagonia. Such stream of people can become self-reinforcing.

Umbral said:

Norway exported a lot of people to the US during the 19th century. Just under a million people I think. And I seem to remember there was some Bohemian interest in Patagonia as a place to found utopian communities. Although I cannot find a referece for that at the moment.

Anyway, if the US shuts its borders or somehow become unattractive, I don't think it would take much to redirect the surplus population to Patagonia. Such stream of people can become self-reinforcing.

Click to expand...

Perhaps Norwegian or other Scandinavian court invests in the area after a Norwegian Magellan first finds a passage to the Pacific? Lucrative trade with the Philippines and China prompts the establishment of harbors and trading posts in Patagonia, while said Scandinavian country (perhaps a unified Scandinavia) puts their hands on Atlantic islands, like the Falklands, Saint Helena, maybe even the Azores. For this we would probably need Portugal to be less inclined towards exploration so Scandinavians can take their place. What do you guys think?

Falklands etc would certainly be interesting to Norway during the age of whaling. Maybe the Argentine government saw an opportunity to fill up its sparely populated southern parts during the 19th century, and things just took off?

Argentina was a first world country around 1900. We could either have the country take a different turn from there, or split up during later troubles.

Web estimates say Argentina had a population of about 1 million in 1850, rising to 4 million in 1900. Estimates seem to vary. If just the Norwegian immigration to the US in the period goes to Argentina, it seems Argentiana could very easily be about 50% Norwegian-descended by today.

If nothing else, this would make for a very different political culture and history than the current latin one.

Now that's a challenge. It shouldn't be too difficult to allow for some more substantial and lasting Scandinavian colonies in North America with a point of divergence as late as Columbus' (re)discovery of the Americas. In fact, I believe it to be fully reasonable to allow for the Scandinavians to establish a notable chain of islands in the Caribbean. But as far south as South America...

It's gonna be a difficult one. You'll have to go back to the Middle Ages (perhaps a failed Reconquista to keep the Spaniards and Portuguese out of the high seas?), I reckon, possibly even as far back as the Viking Age if you want an outright colony to be established there lasting into the 1900s.

Umbral said:

Falklands etc would certainly be interesting to Norway during the age of whaling. Maybe the Argentine government saw an opportunity to fill up its sparely populated southern parts during the 19th century, and things just took off?

Argentina was a first world country around 1900. We could either have the country take a different turn from there, or split up during later troubles.

Web estimates say Argentina had a population of about 1 million in 1850, rising to 4 million in 1900. Estimates seem to vary. If just the Norwegian immigration to the US in the period goes to Argentina, it seems Argentiana could very easily be about 50% Norwegian-descended by today.

If nothing else, this would make for a very different political culture and history than the current latin one.

Click to expand...

Not bad, although what I'm thinking is Patagonia colonised by Norway (or Denmark or Sweden or any combination of them) directly instead of the Spanish. So, basically that Argentina never really owns Patagonia, same with Chile.

Makemakean said:

It's gonna be a difficult one. You'll have to go back to the Middle Ages (perhaps a failed Reconquista to keep the Spaniards and Portuguese out of the high seas?).

Click to expand...

Or perhaps Spain never unites after the Reconquista and has Aragon, Castille and Portugal constantly fighting each other? Maybe an Iberian Hundred Years War while Scandinavia Unites early on and begins exploration?

Possibly...but the real problem is that todays Canada and the US is just so much closer. As is the Caribbean. I can see Scandinavians going the extra distance south from the Amazonas jungles to more familiar climates, but the really close areas must be blocked somehow.

Umbral said:

Possibly...but the real problem is that todays Canada and the US is just so much closer. As is the Caribbean. I can see Scandinavians going the extra distance south from the Amazonas jungles to more familiar climates, but the really close areas must be blocked somehow.

Click to expand...

Okay, let's try a different approach. Since Patagonia has not been colonised by the Spanish, although attempts were made in the 16th century. The area has been taken by Chile and Argentina in the early 19th century. So, we can have South America colonized by Spain and Portugal as per OTL. But we need Scandinavians taking the area before Chile and Argentina could make a move. Moreover, it should be strong enough to defend itself against their agression by the time they declare independence. However, North America already has to be taken by the British and French so the Scandinavians have to turn to the south, it being the last uncolonized piece of land. Perhaps by this time they could already possess some crucial Atlantic islands?

If things go worse in South America, and the Chile/Argentina area isn't doing well, maybe a more successful Scandinavia could simply buy the place?

Umbral said:

If things go worse in South America, and the Chile/Argentina area isn't doing well, maybe a more successful Scandinavia could simply buy the place?

Click to expand...

Perhaps the Argentine Civil War goes on longer and fractures the nation? Could the independence of Chile be postponed (San Martin never crosses the Andes for example?) so the conflict lasts well into the 1830's while Scandinavia simply grabs Patagonia and begins settlement. How lucrative is fishing and whaling in the area exactly? Could it warrant large scale settlement?

During the height of whaling, the area was very lucrative indeed. But by "the area" I mean the Falklands, Antarctica, South Georgia area. Could Scandinavia grab the Falklands form Spain instead of the UK?

I don't know how big whaling was in the 1830s or how good the ship tech for that was.

Umbral said:

Could Scandinavia grab the Falklands form Spain instead of the UK?

Click to expand...

Afaik Spain was not particularly hell-bent on keeping the islands, they had enough on their plate already. I can see Scandinavia taking them, provided they become a sufficiently strong naval power by this time. A united Scandinavia is in a very good position to become a decent naval power which could wrestle a declining Spain. They could also exert some influence in the area, such as taking part in the British-French blockades of Rio de la Plata for example.

No longer the Falklands, or Malvinas...it is NYE LOFOTEN!

Ultima Ratio said:

Afaik Spain was not particularly hell-bent on keeping the islands, they had enough on their plate already. I can see Scandinavia taking them, provided they become a sufficiently strong naval power by this time. A united Scandinavia is in a very good position to become a decent naval power which could wrestle a declining Spain. They could also exert some influence in the area, such as taking part in the British-French blockades of Rio de la Plata for example.

Click to expand...

Hell ... a united Scandinavia would be a leading naval power as long as it's united (hence lowering the amount of 'internal' drain on naval power projection) depending on when it happen ... reshuffling Kalmar into a surviving unity, and you could have a likely contestant for the whole length of the colonization spree (not that this is easy as pie mind you, due to conflicting interest specially between the Danish Nobles, itching for a good fight in North Germany and Swedish Merchant needing North Germany to trade their massive Iron Ore supplies) ... what they might lack in pure manpower, they have in know how and great, cheap timber from the North Scandinavian forests

Patagonia was basically free for the taking until the mid 1800's. There were a couple of tiny settlements here and there, but overall, there was no European population. However, there was a relatively large native population and they discouraged (to put it mildly) any intruders. If you could put together a large enough scandinavian army to drive out (can you say exterminate?) the natives, you've got a large enough army to keep out Chile or Argentina.

The question, though, is why? all but the very northern part of it is worthless for agriculture and mineral extraction (some exceptions). The Chileans/Argentinians only wanted it because the other one did, not because it was seen as any kind of economic asset.

If you can put together your scandinavian army, go for Bahia Blanca and grab the unpopulated (by Europeans) southern Pampas (unpopulated due to the natives) and then work your way south into Patagonia.

Umbral said:

Falklands etc would certainly be interesting to Norway during the age of whaling. Maybe the Argentine government saw an opportunity to fill up its sparely populated southern parts during the 19th century, and things just took off?

Argentina was a first world country around 1900. We could either have the country take a different turn from there, or split up during later troubles.

Web estimates say Argentina had a population of about 1 million in 1850, rising to 4 million in 1900. Estimates seem to vary. If just the Norwegian immigration to the US in the period goes to Argentina, it seems Argentiana could very easily be about 50% Norwegian-descended by today.

If nothing else, this would make for a very different political culture and history than the current latin one.

Click to expand...

And where did you put the 2 million Italians, 1 million Spanish and 1 million of French, Germans and Poles?

50% is not going to happen. The thing is Norwegians won't settle in the Pampas. Maybe Northern Patagonia, but then there isn't that much space like in the US. Irrigation had to be done.

Umbral said:

If things go worse in South America, and the Chile/Argentina area isn't doing well, maybe a more successful Scandinavia could simply buy the place?

Click to expand...

Not going to happen. From the 1830s the UK de facto recognized the area was to be partitioned between Argentina and Chile. And thats the only opinion that matters.

Ultima Ratio said:

Perhaps the Argentine Civil War goes on longer and fractures the nation? Could the independence of Chile be postponed (San Martin never crosses the Andes for example?) so the conflict lasts well into the 1830's while Scandinavia simply grabs Patagonia and begins settlement. How lucrative is fishing and whaling in the area exactly? Could it warrant large scale settlement?

Click to expand...

Chile would have gone independent sooner or later. 1825 exagerating.

Besides, the UK wanted no one there, too important for communications.

unprincipled peter said:

Patagonia was basically free for the taking until the mid 1800's. There were a couple of tiny settlements here and there, but overall, there was no European population. However, there was a relatively large native population and they discouraged (to put it mildly) any intruders. If you could put together a large enough scandinavian army to drive out (can you say exterminate?) the natives, you've got a large enough army to keep out Chile or Argentina.

The question, though, is why? all but the very northern part of it is worthless for agriculture and mineral extraction (some exceptions). The Chileans/Argentinians only wanted it because the other one did, not because it was seen as any kind of economic asset.

If you can put together your scandinavian army, go for Bahia Blanca and grab the unpopulated (by Europeans) southern Pampas (unpopulated due to the natives) and then work your way south into Patagonia.

Click to expand...

I don't want to dissapoint you, but real life is not Europa Universalis. Southern Pampas was officially recognized Argentine by the British. Also it's no land for Scandinavians. Too hot for them.

I will put it this way from my knowledge of the area. After the 1800s, if the UK aprooves, Scandinavia the Southern half for sure. Maybe also up to Neuquen, but thats it. In Chile everything South of Chiloe. Your limit of time is 1833. Or whenever the British try to get the Malvinas/Fk. That made Chile first and then Argentins serious about Patagonia.

Goodlands are plenty. We are too lazy to develop them, they need irrigation, not profitable crops, someone willing to go(like Norwegians).

Now, Tierra del Fuego, inhabited by Scandinavians could very well become an Iceland on steroids.

A Scandinavian Patagonia granted to Sweden at the Congress of Vienna fits in well with the Swedish retention of Finland TL that Thorsen is already working on and which he has taken through Napoleon's defeat in Russia. It would be the logical way to reward Sweden for it's services to Spain in the Peninsular War in that TL. And in any case, post Congress of Vienna would have been the right time for Sweden to demand of the European powers the right to establish colonies in Southern South America. And that demand would probably have been granted. A few years later, Great Britain might not have tolerated it. But at the Congress of Vienna, Lord Castelreagh might have been inclined to be reasonable given that Sweden had remained an ally for as long as she could.

southern pampas (and eastern Patagonia) up til the mid 1800's belonged to Argentina on a map, and that's about it. Treaties are made to be broken. As long as the balance of power is held, Britain would probably welcome a large colonizing expedition, as it expands their sphere of influence and trading base. It's really a moot point. no one wanted it except the natives, and Chile/Argentina because it made them look good on the map. The main impetus for Argentina to finally wage earnest war against the natives was Chile did it first on their side and were making noises about claiming the east, and Argentina didn't want Chile on the east coast. It isn't happening, because it isn't worth it, but IF you magically conjured up a sizeable enough invasion force to hold off the natives, and do it any time pre 1850ish (especially if you do it at a time that Britain is at odds with Spain (if prior to independence) or Argentina, there isn't a darn thing Chile or Argentina can do about it. Once they're settled, possession becomes 9/10ths of the law.

unprincipled peter said:

southern pampas (and eastern Patagonia) up til the mid 1800's belonged to Argentina on a map, and that's about it. Treaties are made to be broken. As long as the balance of power is held, Britain would probably welcome a large colonizing expedition, as it expands their sphere of influence and trading base. It's really a moot point. no one wanted it except the natives, and Chile/Argentina because it made them look good on the map. The main impetus for Argentina to finally wage earnest war against the natives was Chile did it first on their side and were making noises about claiming the east, and Argentina didn't want Chile on the east coast. It isn't happening, because it isn't worth it, but IF you magically conjured up a sizeable enough invasion force to hold off the natives, and do it any time pre 1850ish (especially if you do it at a time that Britain is at odds with Spain (if prior to independence) or Argentina, there isn't a darn thing Chile or Argentina can do about it. Once they're settled, possession becomes 9/10ths of the law.

Click to expand...

No sir. First of all, most of the natives from Patagonia lived there. They used horses. Professional armies do not have a good time when fighting these wars. Just ask the British in 1806/7. You don't magically pull it. You know whats happening? You bring your army, they are attacked over again and they also die of hunger. Distances are huge. Logistics will prevent them from succeding every time. Where do they get wood? Or food? Or what do they produce?

Argentina can and will get everything north of the Colorado, because thats the first defensible river you got. Check the Campaign to the desert(not the conquest). Its because the only ones who can really defeat the natives are those who play their game. Playing defensive does not work and is expensive, investigate the zanja de Alsina.

Argentina and Chile are focused at the time on the Pampas and Araucania. In those you are getting nowhere. They tought nobody would challenge them in Patagonia, so they didn't rush. Malvinas/Fk changed that. If you go before that, you can get northern Patagonia. The southern part is easier, they had to get there by sea.

So, for Northern Patagonia it has to be arou d the 1830s. Settling there needs a lot of irrgation work. First, where do you get the people to settle back then, before the massive emigrations, and then how do you pull those works.