Had Argentina Been Anglophone, Would It Have Been More Prosperous & Populous Today? (ctd.)

[dovibear]

Equitable land ownership (ie, small family owned farms instead of large tracks for relatively few landowners) is important. But it relays on the political realities in the ground. Any invading force will need local support and that support will have to be bought with large tracts of land.

That's even truer in a place like Buenos Aires with many potentially rebellious Spanish people than in a less-inhabited place like Entre Rios or the southern Pampas, even if the latter has many hostile Indians that need to be conquered. (The Indians are nomadic while the Spanish in/near a place like Buenos Aires have farms of their own already.) In less-inhabited places, after they're ready for British colonization (no matter how long it takes for the enemies to be subdued), that's where there's an opportunity for more equitable land ownership. Even IOTL, some parts of Entre Rios and Santa Fe had more equally distributed land.

And just how exactly does the process of buying local support with large tracts of land work?

 

[juanml82]

That's even truer in a place like Buenos Aires with many potentially rebellious Spanish people than in a less-inhabited place like Entre Rios or the southern Pampas, even if the latter has many hostile Indians that need to be conquered. (The Indians are nomadic while the Spanish in/near a place like Buenos Aires have farms of their own already.) In less-inhabited places, after they're ready for British colonization (no matter how long it takes for the enemies to be subdued), that's where there's an opportunity for more equitable land ownership. Even IOTL, some parts of Entre Rios and Santa Fe had more equally distributed land.

And just how exactly does the process of buying local support with large tracts of land work?

Any British governor will need local support. As always, that kind of support can be achieved by finding people genuinely willing to support him (few), intimidate them (maybe more, but they may also be intimidated by the insurgents) and through bribery. A cheap way to bribe people is to point to a point in the map and say: "Hey, do you see this patch of land? I have a decree in desk to sign which will grant it to you. Of course, if I get deposed, my enemies won't recognize it and will seize it. Oh, and did you mention something about having some 100 armed guys already? I'm short of men to defend the decrees I want to sign and every little help counts!"

 

[dovibear]

Any British governor will need local support. As always, that kind of support can be achieved by finding people genuinely willing to support him (few), intimidate them (maybe more, but they may also be intimidated by the insurgents) and through bribery. A cheap way to bribe people is to point to a point in the map and say: "Hey, do you see this patch of land? I have a decree in desk to sign which will grant it to you. Of course, if I get deposed, my enemies won't recognize it and will seize it. Oh, and did you mention something about having some 100 armed guys already? I'm short of men to defend the decrees I want to sign and every little help counts!"

Muchas gracias, mi amigo!

 

[Derff]

No.

 

[rfmcdonald]

I'm sure that actively dispossessing Boers introduced a destabilizing factor to South Africa?!

Yes, and look at how South Africa evolved substantially as a result. British imperialism made things worse.

In the case of Argentina, a country that is doing decently OTL and could have done much better with a few minor tweaks, the introduction of British rule to Argentina adds multiple destabilizing factors to the country's trajectory. If this British Argentina, disunited as it may be, ever ascends, it will be fragile in doing so.

 

[dovibear]

Yes, and look at how South Africa evolved substantially as a result. British imperialism made things worse.

I think that South Africa is even more complicated a case than Argentina for the simple reason that whereas in Argentina the inhabitants are mainly European (especially with massive immigration around the turn of the 20th century just like OTL) from either linguistic group and the indigenous people are reduced to a small minority, in South Africa only a minority are white (either Afrikaner or Anglo) and the majority are non-white, most of the latter being blacks of Xhosa, Zulu, Sotho, Tswana, or other ethnicities. In other words, a British Argentina only has to deal with Spanish rebellions (plus some Indian attacks), whereas the British in South Africa had to deal with Boer and black African rebellions. I therefore don't see a British Argentina having apartheid the way South Africa did, though there would be Anglo-Spanish tensions.

An even better analogy than South Africa, and certainly better than Canada/Quebec, might possibly be Ireland in general and, from the later 20th century, Northern Ireland in particular. Ireland/Northern Ireland has two main "white tribes" that have been mutually hostile even more than the Anglos and the French in Canada/Quebec, while at the same time there isn't a non-white majority.

In the case of Argentina, a country that is doing decently OTL and could have done much better with a few minor tweaks, the introduction of British rule to Argentina adds multiple destabilizing factors to the country's trajectory. If this British Argentina, disunited as it may be, ever ascends, it will be fragile in doing so.

A few minor tweaks, as in with the OTL cultural heritage and 19th century history but that at least Peronism and maybe also the 1930 coup are butterflied away?

Also, if a British Argentina is fragile in ascending, then at the very least there's a British southern Pampas/Patagonia/Fireland (Tierra del Fuego), especially once the fearsome Indians are dealt with?!

Although, then again, Canada was kind of fragile in ascending too, albeit in a different way. There's no inherent geographic logic in having Newfoundland, the Maritimes, southern Quebec/Ontario, the Prairies, and British Columbia all belonging to one single country. Except that the original four provinces of Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia united in 1867 as a collection of remaining British colonies in North America especially in the wake of the US Civil War, plus there was a need to make a link to British Columbia (another North American British colony not in the US) by railroad.

 

[juanml82]

Also, if a British Argentina is fragile in ascending, then at the very least there's a British southern Pampas/Patagonia/Fireland (Tierra del Fuego), especially once the fearsome Indians are dealt with?!

Keep in mind there isn't much to do in the Patagonia either, specially between the late 19th and early 20th century. The place is mostly a semidesert, so you either have the valleys in Rio Negro, some 500 km away from the coast or you need large tracts of land for sheep grazing. There is coal in the mountains, also hundreds of kilometers away from the coast, and some oil, but not nearly as much as in the Middle East, Venezuela or Mexico.

 

[Lenwe]

Keep in mind there isn't much to do in the Patagonia either, specially between the late 19th and early 20th century. The place is mostly a semidesert, so you either have the valleys in Rio Negro, some 500 km away from the coast or you need large tracts of land for sheep grazing. There is coal in the mountains, also hundreds of kilometers away from the coast, and some oil, but not nearly as much as in the Middle East, Venezuela or Mexico.

That is one of the reasons Chile decided to leave the place to Argentina than fight a war over the Pampas, a war Chile probably could win, but Argentina waited until Chile was involved in the War of the Pacific, to press with force their claims

 

[dovibear]

Keep in mind there isn't much to do in the Patagonia either, specially between the late 19th and early 20th century. The place is mostly a semidesert, so you either have the valleys in Rio Negro, some 500 km away from the coast or you need large tracts of land for sheep grazing. There is coal in the mountains, also hundreds of kilometers away from the coast, and some oil, but not nearly as much as in the Middle East, Venezuela or Mexico.

That's still enough to support an economy with a population that's small enough - probably no more than 5 million at most. Besides which, the southern Pampas do have substantial agricultural activities, like wheat-growing and beef cattle.

 

[Lenwe]

That's still enough to support an economy with a population that's small enough - probably no more than 5 million at most. Besides which, the southern Pampas do have substantial agricultural activities, like wheat-growing and beef cattle.

No, not really most pampas are used as Pastorial and Cattle lands, only recently the land was put under cultivation by the surge in the price of the soy bean

 

[dovibear]

No, not really most pampas are used as Pastorial and Cattle lands, only recently the land was put under cultivation by the surge in the price of the soy bean

I'm having in mind chiefly the southwestern part of OTL Buenos Aires province - i.e. around Bahia Blanca. If one looks at the cropland density map carefully for those parts plus the eastern part of OTL La Pampa province, one will see that it is greater than either Patagonia or further west in the southern Pampas.

 

[Lenwe]

I'm having in mind chiefly the southwestern part of OTL Buenos Aires province - i.e. around Bahia Blanca. If one looks at the cropland density map carefully for those parts plus the eastern part of OTL La Pampa province, one will see that it is greater than either Patagonia or further west in the southern Pampas.

Those lands were the most affected by the Mapuche´s Malones and couldn´t be extensive colonized until after 1879 and the Conquer of the deseert, those parts you see heavily cultivate weren´t even part of the argentina territory, they are just outside the Zanja Alsina until 1851 more or less

EDIT: that being said if the British attempt the colonization of OTL Bahia blanca around 1810-1818 there will be little resistance from the Natives and Argentina proper d until 1830-1835 more or less

 

[juanml82]

And why would the British want to stick to the area for fifty years? For the Argentines, the answer was simple: It was their country, they've lived around the River Plate basin and the Mapuches raided either them or their business partners'. The British have no such stakes.

 

[dovibear]

Those lands were the most affected by the Mapuche´s Malones and couldn´t be extensive colonized until after 1879 and the Conquer of the deseert, those parts you see heavily cultivate weren´t even part of the argentina territory, they are just outside the Zanja Alsina until 1851 more or less

EDIT: that being said if the British attempt the colonization of OTL Bahia blanca around 1810-1818 there will be little resistance from the Natives and Argentina proper d until 1830-1835 more or less

And why would the British want to stick to the area for fifty years? For the Argentines, the answer was simple: It was their country, they've lived around the River Plate basin and the Mapuches raided either them or their business partners'. The British have no such stakes.

The British do develop such stakes once they set up shop in the Rio de la Plata area and at scattered points further south, for the purposes of trade, setting up some naval bases, and (in/around the Patagonian outposts) also hunting/whaling/missionary activities. Even if they cede Buenos Aires to make it an independent country for a number of years or decades due to excess rebellious activity, they keep Uruguay/Entre Rios (even with a potential Portuguese challenge) and start to develop the area around OTL Bahia Blanca as well. It's not less worth it for the British than New Zealand or Australia or the Cape Colony/Natal are. Once you make even a small presence there you've already set up stakes there. The Araucanized tribes with their malones will not stop the British any more than Maori or Aboriginal or Xhosa/Zulu attacks did!!!!

 

[juanml82]

The Araucanized tribes with their malones will not stop the British any more than Maori or Aboriginal or Xhosa/Zulu attacks did!!!!

Yes, they will and that's what you fail to see. An insurgency with safe haven in a neutral country can be impossible to defeat. Unlike the Maori or the Zulus, the Mapuches had that safe haven. They've a lot harder to deal with. IOTL, the Mapuches weren't defeated until they've lost that safe haven

 

[dovibear]

Yes, they will and that's what you fail to see. An insurgency with safe haven in a neutral country can be impossible to defeat. Unlike the Maori or the Zulus, the Mapuches had that safe haven. They've a lot harder to deal with. IOTL, the Mapuches weren't defeated until they've lost that safe haven

So then the British could go to war against the Mapuche in that safe haven in southern Chile. Or they could have the Chileans do it.

In terms of the Maori, even if they didn't have a safe haven in a neighbouring country, they had fortified villages which made the battles go on for decades between the British and the Maori. For more info, see more on the New Zealand Wars.

For more on the wars with the Xhosa and the Zulu, click here and here.

 

[juanml82]

So then the British could go to war against the Mapuche in that safe haven in southern Chile. Or they could have the Chileans do it.

So they are going to war against most of the Viceroyalty of the River Plate, including Uruguay, the Mapuches, they conquer land the Portuguese claim their own and, on top, they also go to war against Chile

 

[dovibear]

So they are going to war against most of the Viceroyalty of the River Plate, including Uruguay, the Mapuches, they conquer land the Portuguese claim their own and, on top, they also go to war against Chile

Why didn't the Argentines IOTL just go to Mapuche country in southern Chile to defeat the Mapuche, once they realized where the safe haven was?

 

[Lenwe]

Why didn't the Argentines IOTL just go to Mapuche country in southern Chile to defeat the Mapuche, once they realized where the safe haven was?

Because you have to cross one of the most difficult terrains in the world, far of any supply lines, up to the Second highest, The widest and THE longest mountain range in the world, into a cold rainy jungle, in a territory dominated by an enemy with more than 300 years of experience in war against European style armies, and Because the Mapuches Killed them?
Really read about the Arauco War, that to a point, is a still ongoing conflict


EDIT:

So then the British could go to war against the Mapuche in that safe haven in southern Chile. Or they could have the Chileans do it.

Chileans aren´t interested in curtail the Malones into Argentinean lands, they are a source of richness, and a escape valve for the "hostile tribes" that let the Chilean government work with allied tribes. Plus in the scenario you are working there will be territorial conflict between England and Chile especially around the Magellan strait, the fjords and Punta Arenas, so is in the interest of Chile, that the English colonies are attacked by "neutral" parties not associated officially with the Chile government.

In terms of the Maori, even if they didn't have a safe haven in a neighboring country, they had fortified villages which made the battles go on for decades between the British and the Maori. For more info, see more on the New Zealand Wars.

The new Zealand war lasted barely 30 years, the Arauco war 300, the Mapuches also have fortified villages called Pukara here and extensive book and study of the tactics, formations and weapons used by the mapuches in the 300 years period in English

 

[Lenwe]

Yes, they will and that's what you fail to see. An insurgency with safe haven in a neutral country can be impossible to defeat. Unlike the Maori or the Zulus, the Mapuches had that safe haven. They've a lot harder to deal with. IOTL, the Mapuches weren't defeated until they've lost that safe haven

And up to a point support and provisions from Chilean elements, not "officially" but 300.000 cow heads temp to anybody, specially if you legally buy to an "allied" Mapuche Toqui