Coal started being used in the U.K. because it was cheap and they had a lot of it once wood(charcoal) was no longer an option. Much of the early industrial revolution was water powered. Other options could be tried, like earlier use of natural gas, ethanol or wind power.
AHC: South American super power
- Thread starter Peabody-Martini
- Start date
Maur
Banned
Gran Colombia? In 1800 it's half the (6m) US population at roughly 3 millions. Mexico is better contender with almost 6m pop, too, Brazil is still at 2.5m, and La Plata (let's include Chile and Bolivia and Para/Uruguay) is about the same level (with half in Bolivia, Argentina and Uruguay were basically empty at that time). Surprising given how empty USA was century earlier.
Still, other POD or somewhat different immigration patterns could tip the scales compared to OTL, but i don't see how lack of coal is not going to prevent real industrialisation, which both USA and the countries/regions in Europe that were leading it had plenty of.
Granted, the beginning was with light industry, textiles and stuff, but it soon changed. Not to mention that the colonial economy of large parts of SA isn't helping either...
archaeogeek
Banned
The numbers I got are close to 4 million for Gran Colombia, about 3 million for Rio de la Plata + Chile (but Chile and Paraguay account for a million) and 3 million for Brazil. The total population of the US in 1800 is 5 million according to populstat which uses the census. Total population of the US at independence is barely above 3 million. They might be for 1810 or independence though.
Maur
Banned
If we talk about late (and by that i mean early XXc), sure, electricity is available and you actually get hydropower important in few places, but in the beginning, it was coal or nothing. Electricity didn't "exist" yet, wind and water power was of the old agricultural windmill kind (and how do you get railroads with that?), and gas? I don't know, but i guess it wasn't so easy to use with early industrial technology. Even oil probably wasn't.
Maur
Banned
Well, 2.5 and 3 is close enough. What are the borders of Gran Colombia? I counted only Venezuela, Ecuador and Colombia.
My bad about USA. I should have specified i meant whole CONUS, not the area of USA at that time (which is what should be used)
That said, 5 vs. 3 (or 4) isn't that big difference, especially when real XIXc immigration is going to make starting numbers not so important, so, yes, population isn't that big of a restraint that i thought at first.
archaeogeek
Banned
Gran Colombia is Venezuela, Ecuador (inc. its lost territories in Amazonia), Colombia, Panama; it also contested territory in Guyana and Costa Rica (but not after the 30s that I can find and they barely added up to 100k people at the time) and almost ended up grabbing Santo Domingo as a state (and only failed to do so because of Haitian invasion; however since it happened before the Colombian civil war I don't think it sticking together would mean it gets it right off; it will, however, probably lead to a Colombian-Haitian war down the line and whether they grab the whole island or only the spanish half depends more on great power wrangling than Colombian or Haitian prowess on the battlefield I suspect, also whether adding a population of a quarter million potentially rebellious creoles is worth it). Population-wise, Panama is only about 100k people at the time, and I admit it might be 3 or 3,5 instead of 4, the book I had was a bit fuzzy on some numbers.
That's actually why I said "maybe not superpower but a chance at being on the level of the great powers" - which IOTL Argentina was anyway once its political situation stabilized and if it remains united and stable as Rio de la Plata would likely be, economically it was on the level of the great powers but lacked the population to play as one of the big men.
Also some maps of the republic from the 1830s do include a larger slice of Amazonian territory north of Acra labelled as "territory occupied by the Brazilians"
I forgot oil which Venezuela has a lot of.
As for hydro power used in the U.K. and the U.S. in the Eighteenth and nineteenth centuries is a lot more complex than you would think, to the point of being a lost art. All you need is water running downhill.
As for hydro power used in the U.K. and the U.S. in the Eighteenth and nineteenth centuries is a lot more complex than you would think, to the point of being a lost art. All you need is water running downhill.
Maur
Banned
Well, the book i use is from seventies, so, there 
(although it's good!) It's estimates on Native Americans numbers are of the lower end kind, which could explain the slightly lower numbers for SA. But i agree, generally.
(although it's good!) It's estimates on Native Americans numbers are of the lower end kind, which could explain the slightly lower numbers for SA. But i agree, generally.Coal can be transported, hydropower can't until electricity, that's the main problem.
In all honesty initial population isn't too terribly important. Most Latin American nations received large amounts of Southern European immigration during the later 19th century (some more than others obviously) and its fair to assume that the immigration would have started even earlier, if said nations were both stable and prosperous.
Gran Columbia if unified and stable, has alot going for it. Energy wise it has significant coal reserves in Columbia, major oil deposits on both Venezuela and Columbia, as well as enormous hydroelectric potential. Mineral wise both Venezuela and Columbia have large amounts gold and gems, Venezuela has major deposits of Iron and Aluminum, not to mention smaller deposits of scattered about it region. Geographically said nation would have access to both the Atlantic and Pacific, and would most likely control the Panama Canal. Columbia and Ecuador both possess exceedingly fertile soil, and productive fisheries.
Considering this, Gran Columbia has a great shot, if stable, of becoming a great power by the 20th century.
Gran Columbia if unified and stable, has alot going for it. Energy wise it has significant coal reserves in Columbia, major oil deposits on both Venezuela and Columbia, as well as enormous hydroelectric potential. Mineral wise both Venezuela and Columbia have large amounts gold and gems, Venezuela has major deposits of Iron and Aluminum, not to mention smaller deposits of scattered about it region. Geographically said nation would have access to both the Atlantic and Pacific, and would most likely control the Panama Canal. Columbia and Ecuador both possess exceedingly fertile soil, and productive fisheries.
Considering this, Gran Columbia has a great shot, if stable, of becoming a great power by the 20th century.
Lets say by 1816, we have Rio de La Plata+Chile being the United provinces. If we could have them by in peace and avoid separationism via a confederation with big rights to the states and etc. Then the country would grow in population as they avoid the wars. The pressure in Chile would surely help to do an earlier conquest of Patagonia. Maybe up to Colorado river and even a town in the south like Punta Arenas. There is coal near Punta Arenas. Not much but it could support industrialization to the point when oil becomes important. So lets say that by 1825 or 1830 someone discover the coal. First it would only be possible to exploit the deposits near the coast, taking the coal by ships to Buenos Aires or Valparaiso. When railroad becomes important, the bigger deposits inland and in Rio Turbio would be possible to exploit using the railroads to take coal to the ports. So by 1845 or 1850, if the country remains stable it could create a railroad from this city in the south to Buenos Aires or Neuquen(which would be like Omaha in the US, connecting the interior with the rest of the country). There is lignite in some other parts of Patagonia, and in Tierra del Fuego. There is the iron from Bolivia and Chile. Chile would surely become the industrial core of the country, which with time would turn to the Buenos Aires-Cordoba area.
Remember that immigrants prefer climates similar to that in their countries of origin. That's why Southern and not Northern Brazil received immigrants, why Chile received immigrants, why the USA and Canada did so. Colombia also received immigrants, but IIRC, most where Arabs and Syrians.
To some extent that is true, however I think you are underplaying the role of economics. No one wants to exchange poverty for poverty in a foreign land. Its not a coincidence that the nations receiving the most immigration, were amongst the most stable/prosperous. Southern Brazil got immigrants because that is where the nation encouraged immigration, and southern Brazil wasn't as dominated by a landholding planter aristocracy.
archaeogeek
Banned
Thinking of it, IIRC, the main coalfields are pretty much on the border provinces; Venezuela's main coal fields are in Zulia, and checking wiki the area mentioned, Cerrajon, is in Guajiro (which was at the time in the department of Santa Marta and the old province of Santa Marta).
Last edited:
Maur
Banned
I'm not that knowledgeable about geography/territorial divisions there. It's on the coast, right? So should be easily reachable?
Why did it take such long time to start mining coal there? I guess no heavy industry to speak of in Colombia/Venezuela meant no domestic demand to even prospect?
archaeogeek
Banned
On the coast, but it's not 100% under control at the time; basically the region occupies the same rough position in Colombia as the Cherokee nation lands did in the south, except minus the trail of tears. The population of the area is still about 40-50% Guajiro and it's the single biggest native concentration in both countries. I seem to recall there being a war in the mid 18th century against the Guajiro tribes and they had a really shitty relationship with the spanish colonists and their allies. Basically they'll need to either be very lucky and have leaders with good business sense or life will suck even more in their position; on the plus side, though, the coal fields are not solely in lands they inhabit. And even with luck it probably will anyway.
On the other hand, Maracaibo and Santa Marta are old colonies dating back to the 16th century.
Last edited: