A divided Patagonia?

[rfmcdonald]

This r/imaginarymaps map, one in a series, imagines a Patagonia divided between multiple rival powers perhaps after the model of the Guyanas.

Could Patagonia, only in the 19th century incorporated into independent Argentina and Chile, have seen something like this occur? The region does have a relatively strategic location at the margins of existing empires, while the Falklands on the fringes of Patagonia did end up falling under the British empire after a French interlude. Might Tierra del Fuego been similarly vulnerable, or even territories on the Patagonian mainland?

(I wonder whether de Tounens' unrecognized kingdom declared in the Mapuche lands might have been made to exist with sufficient foreign patronage. A French Second Empire bid there, too or instead of in Mexico? France had cooperated with Spain elsewhere, Spain supporting the starts of the French adventures in Indochina and Mexico, and Spain at this time was actively waging the Chincha Islands War against ex-Spanish South American countries. Why mightn't France have tried to get itself involved in Patagonia, too, as a sort of spin-off of an alliance with Spain here, too?)

 

[Arkenfolm]

Divided, yes, but it would be a 16th/17th century PoD. The Dutch might be more successful in Chile and focus on it assuming they also are developing Australia (gold and sandalwood?), since the Roaring Forties make for relatively quick sailing between the Cape of Good Hope, Cape Leeuwin, and Cape Horn. The climate is more similar to the Netherlands than South Africa too. Since it's at the fringe of the Spanish Empire, there might be more incentive to send settlers there, although they might also go the French route and tread lightly on the Mapuche to be the lesser of the two evils. Long term, if they hold it, then more settlers will arrive. The British might seize it at some point, or they might just grab Tierra del Fuego and the southern parts of Araucania. We can get the French there by having them settle Chubut or other more southerly parts of Patagonia, maybe as part of some protectorate over the Mapuche (and enforced on Argentina as a settlement of some debt).

So that's a French, British, and Dutch country, and barring the British one which will look more like New Zealand than Guyana, will perhaps demographically be similar to the Guyanas. Dutch Araucania will have a lot of indigenous people, blacks (from South Africa), and especially Javanese and other Malays, since European settlement will be sparse at first. However it will be much more white than Suriname, and probably the whitest colony the Dutch will own. French Patagonia will have sparse white settlement (although there will be plenty, likely) and will have a substantial indigenous population, and perhaps be the emptiest of the three overall.

Any 19th century PoD would just have British Patagonia (along Tierra del Fuego and the mainland along the Strait of Magellan) and French Patagonia (somewhere else in the region). It would likely lead to both Chile and Argentina being pro-American and anti-Franco-British because they claimed those lands. The US would protest too, but at the point in time this would happen they wouldn't be able to do much about it. No other European power would ever be allowed to annex that area (and aside from the Germans or MAYBE the Italians, no one could).

 

[rfmcdonald]

I see the strategic location of Patagonia being of most note, frankly, though that will not really come until the French and British become active in the Pacific alongside the Spanish in the later 18th century.

 

[Arkenfolm]

I see the strategic location of Patagonia being of most note, frankly, though that will not really come until the French and British become active in the Pacific alongside the Spanish in the later 18th century.

There are decent places for farming in both the Chilean and Argentine portions, with the Chilean portions more easily accessible and defended (the Argentine side is most similar to the Great Plains).

Earlier settlement of Australia is needed, and the incentive for that comes from its position as a stop on the Brouwer Route to Indonesia at first, and later from its wealth of sandalwood and gold. The problem is we'd need a different Dutch mindset, since the Dutch were very bad at being settler colonialists. Portugal, on the other hand, would work for the South Africa and Australia pre-requisites but then we'd need to alter the Tordesillas line since it would be much more difficult to get Portugal involved in Chile than OTL's expanding Brazil past the Tordesillas line. So let's go with the Dutch, and let's have them be more successful in their revolt against Spain (they gain at least Antwerp) and they have a policy of sending people to places like South Africa and Australia which like OTL will recruit Huguenots, Germans, Jews etc. in addition to Dutchmen. Australia will obviously be secondary, but the initial settlements (around OTL Perth, Albany, etc.) will grow, subdue the locals, and attract African and Indonesian labour to further grow. More northerly outposts will get the sandalwood and gold. Eventually OTL Victoria will be settled by the Dutch, and there's definitely a lot of gold there. At this point, the best route available back to the Netherlands is going by way of Tierra del Fuego through the Southern Ocean. It helps especially if this stronger Netherlands can also seize Valdivia and Chiloé and get friendly relations with at least some Mapuche leaders. This is possible, assuming the Dutch have the money to invest in it.

This is all by the late 17th century BTW, so we can do this rather early. The British and French will come later.

 

[AlternateEagle]

Magelland has a cool flag