British Argentina (continuing from 2008-09 thread)

That map, however, is a bit misleading, since it shows as settled lands which were in fact in Indian hands. Here's a map of the territory that would become OTL Argentina in 1809, with its population numbers:

Population 1809.jpg
 
What I meant with my previous post is this:

While there is a tiny bit of truth in the notion that in 1810 the May revolution was at first Buenos Aires thing, the notion that the rest of the country only recognized it because of the Armies sent North by the Assambly is entire false. Yes, these armies help, but only a bit: many place recognized the Revolution even before the armies from Buenos Aires arrived. And the only reason why the revolution was able to survived was because there was local support for it. The "army" that defended Salta was composed mostly by Salteños. The army that would liberate Chile was recruited mostly in Cuyo.

The question is, even if the british conquer Buenos Aires, would they find support, specially in the interior, not only to conquer the rest of what's now Argentina, but also to defended it from the inevitable Spanish counteratacks, from both Chile and (OTL) Bolivia? Who would give them supplies and men for the advancing British armies? Would the people living in the conservative interior side with them, or would they prefer to side with the more culturaly closed armies from the neighbour Spanish colonies? Where would they find the men need it to conquer Salta and Cuyo, while, at the same time, make sure nobody will rebell in Buenos Aires or Uruguay? Remember they'd also need men to defend the southern border from Amerindian raids.
 
Last edited:

yofie

Banned
What I meant with my previous post is this:

While there is a tiny bit of truth in the notion that in 1810 the May revolution was at first Buenos Aires thing, the notion that the rest of the country only recognized it because of the Armies sent North by the Assambly is entire false. Yes, these armies help, but only a bit: many place recognized the Revolution even before the armies from Buenos Aires arrived. And the only reason why the revolution was able to survived was because there was local support for it. The "army" that defended Salta was composed mostly by Salteños. The army that would liberate Chile was recruited mostly in Cuyo.

The question is, even if the british conquer Buenos Aires, would they find support, specially in the interior, not only to conquer the rest of what's now Argentina, but also to defended it from the inevitable Spanish counteratacks, from both Chile and (OTL) Bolivia? Who would give them supplies and men for the advancing British armies? Would the people living in the conservative interior side with them, or would they prefer to side with the more culturaly closed armies from the neighbour Spanish colonies? Where would they find the men need it to conquer Salta and Cuyo, while, at the same time, make sure nobody will rebell in Buenos Aires or Uruguay? Remember they'd also need men to defend the southern border from Amerindian raids.

All of this might be true, but in every place that's conquered (e.g. Buenos Aires and Montevideo, and eventually Cordoba, etc.), you would have British garrisons to defend against Spanish counter-attackers and rebels. In the second British invasion of Buenos Aires in July 1807, there were 10,000 British troops. Another several thousand men (along with supplies) would have been sent forth if necessary. The British could carry out their battles in Cordoba or the Cuyo or Tucuman like they did in the Boer republics of South Africa.

Also, there was (and would have been) Spanish resistance in the Rio de la Plata itself in 1806-07, and at least many of the Spanish would have eventually warmed up to the British. So too, there would have first been Spanish resistance to the British in places like Cordoba, but then the Spanish would have acquiesced eventually after a British win.

Fine, so Salta/Jujuy as well as OTL Bolivia defeats the British, but the other places could have had at least a fighting chance of British wins.
 

yofie

Banned
In furtherance of the previous post, I'd be interested in knowing: If present-day Ontario and the Midwest (including Western New York and Western Pennsylvania) - which were under French control - as well as present-day Quebec had had large French populations in 1759 (at the time of the British conquest of Quebec):

a) Would these upstream French settlements have launched counter-attacks against the British presence along the Saint Lawrence River that would have potentially doomed the British there?
b) Would the British have pressed against the French areas further upstream than the Saint Lawrence?

Another analogy that could maybe be useful is Israel: Shortly after Jews started to "return" to Palestine in the early 1900s, they had already faced attacks and massacres from local Arabs. In 1948 after the Declaration of Independence of the State of Israel, it was under attack from the surrounding Arab countries. Israel won. Similar thing happened in 1967 (as well as an Israeli takeover of the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Golan Heights - previously administered by neighbouring Arab countries) and to a lesser extent in 1973. Point is, Israel is still here today despite threats from its Arab neighbours. A persistent British presence in the Rio de la Plata and beyond would definitely have survived as well.
 
Last edited:
Top