British Rio de la Plata?

[Socrates]

Seriously, I'm looking at articles like the Maitland Plan in Wikipedia and it looks like the British were waging this war in the stupidest way possible, disregarding completely logistics and assuming that they would win just because of the supreme might of being British (TM). They don't even seem to have a clear idea of what to do with the territories or deal with the population, calling for direct annexation once and then talking of supporting independentist armies a minute later. There is no talk of securing positions either. Apparently they believed that taking Buenos Aires was enough to march to the Andes and once in Chile, well, they could walk all the way to Ecuador without meeting the slightest resistance.

That looks like a recipe for disaster, and it was in real life. The first time they took Buenos Aires, they got kicked out by an army coming from Montevideo. The second time they took Montevideo, then got kicked out by an army coming from Buenos Aires.

You talk like there is one city lying there to take and that defence is only going to be mounted from Spain. It isn't. There is an army and militias in La Plata and armies that can be levied in Peru and Chile and send there. You say that it is hard to do that. Yet, the British plan is to do exactly that in the opposite direction, coming all the way from the sea and wrongly assuming that they have popular support and their rivals have not.

Oh, I agree that the British plan to use place after place as jumping stones for the next one until you get to Peru is ridiculous. But if we assume as taken that the British are successful in their initial invasion (potentially with a POD of a better invasion plan), than it's certainly plausible they could take and hold Montevideo and Buenos Aires for a few years. Once this happens, plans to get to Chile are obviously going to go badly, causing a retreat to the coastal Argentinian cities. But I think it is viable for the British to hold onto these cities, and slowly deal with any guerilla attacks that might happen from the countryside. A slow subjugation of the countryside East of the Andes is possible.

And yet, the last time they went to war against Portugal just some years before they won with no need of the Mighty British (TM) to save their sorry asses, while the Mighty British (TM) is not coming with an offer of self-government under the arm as far as we know.

Sorry - can you clarify what war you're talking about here? I agree that if the British do not offer some degree of voice in a political situation then it'll develop into a quagmire the British would have to eventually withdraw from. My argument is that they would follow the Canadian example, but I accept that's not inevitable.

No, but it was a small colony isolated from everything but the sea and African tribes that had no love for it. And when the British occupied it there were no Netherlands to speak of since they had been invaded by France.

Now, if the Netherlands were free at the time of the war and the whole east of Africa from Egypt to the Cape had been colonized by the Dutch for 300 years, I think they would have done something.

Spain was hardly a free country in the 1807-1814 period.

 

[TyranicusMaximus]

So the British lose one, maybe two wars over the area, and that means they can never even take Rio de la Plata?

 

[Faeelin]

There may be some British army regiments that would fight in South America from 1807 to roughly 1815 instead of in the Peninsular War and conflicts in India, Ireland, etc. that they fought in OTL, but the Peninsular War and stuff like that would go on more or less as OTL. This is so, because the 1806-07 British invasions in the Rio de la Plata involved only a relatively small fraction of the regiments that fought in the Peninsular War, and subsequent conflicts in South America would not have involved many more regiments than were already used there.

Do you have a cite for this? The subjugation of the Cone would require at least 10,000 troops; and in OTL Britain was stretched pretty thin a his point. Witness calls to bring the troops home from Spain for instance.

It seems to me that Britain's troops will have to come from somewhere. And if Britain just keeps a thousand troops in Buenos Aires, I'm not sure why the locals don't rebel.

Firstly, the River Plate is not very accessible by land from the heartland of Spanish South America.

Mmm. And yet in OTL Argentina sent troops to Upper Peru and Paraguay with no real problems during this period. This suggests troop movements are possible.

Secondly, there is a hostile neighbouring power with grand designs on the area: Brazil.

But OTL shows that the Argentines revolted against Spain despite Brazil's presence.

Seriously, I'm looking at articles like the Maitland Plan in Wikipedia and it looks like the British were waging this war in the stupidest way possible, disregarding completely logistics and assuming that they would win just because of the supreme might of being British (TM).

I'm inclined to agree. It's funny how we laugh at Napoleon's plans to invade India through persia, or subdue Outremer, but British Argentina? Oh that's on the cards.

 

[Socrates]

I'm inclined to agree. It's funny how we laugh at Napoleon's plans to invade India through persia, or subdue Outremer, but British Argentina? Oh that's on the cards.

You raise fair points, but I really don't see why its ASB for the world's preeminent naval power can't take and hold a population of 500,000 located on the ocean. If France had become a pre-eminent naval power during this period, a French Argentina is also very feasible, IMO. Hardly projecting power over the Iranian plateau against a population of a quarter billion...

 

[Tocomocho]

Oh, I agree that the British plan to use place after place as jumping stones for the next one until you get to Peru is ridiculous. But if we assume as taken that the British are successful in their initial invasion (potentially with a POD of a better invasion plan), than it's certainly plausible they could take and hold Montevideo and Buenos Aires for a few years. Once this happens, plans to get to Chile are obviously going to go badly, causing a retreat to the coastal Argentinian cities. But I think it is viable for the British to hold onto these cities, and slowly deal with any guerilla attacks that might happen from the countryside. A slow subjugation of the countryside East of the Andes is possible.

Ok, let's assume for a POD that the invasion is delayed fora year while they pen a cohesive plan.

It's 1807 and the British go for Montevideo first while a concerted Portuguese invasion marches south from Brazil (Portugal itself is just being invaded by France and Spain). While the bulk of the Spanish army in La Plata has been sent there in anticipation of an attack as in OTL, it gets caught by the double attack and crushed. Then the British proceed east and take Buenos Aires.

Now it's May 1808 and they have secured the coastal settlements around the Plate River. What do they do?

A) Do they keep with the campaign in Argentina or
B) Do they reach a peace with the Cadiz government (securing their current gains of course) and support it against the French as per OTL?

In the second case the British La Plata could end being just the territory of Buenos Aires excluding whatever part is being given to the Portuguese (with Paraguay going independent by default more or less like IOTL). They secure it while they are dealing with the French, and by the time Napoleon gets beaten it could be used as a base to expand into the interior if they want (it completely fucks up the timeline of Latin American wars of independence but that's another story - so yeah, maybe the British do end with their colony bordering the Andes in the end, but at the ironic cost of making the continuation of Spanish rule in the Perus and Chile secure by making the population there wary of a British takeover - the free card here is to know what happens in New Granada).

That said, I'm not hostile to the idea of a British Argentina per se, but to the one that it can be accomplished in a single campaign in a matter of months.

Sorry - can you clarify what war you're talking about here? I agree that if the British do not offer some degree of voice in a political situation then it'll develop into a quagmire the British would have to eventually withdraw from. My argument is that they would follow the Canadian example, but I accept that's not inevitable.

My bad. Just like in North America with Britain and France, there were wars in the Brazil/Uruguay region every time Spain and Portugal went to war during the 18th century. These were centered in the northern border and the Sacramento Colony.

I think I got mixed the conflicts. The last one time there was war, if I'm not wrong, was during the War of the Oranges in 1801, which was more like a draw. Spain kept Uruguay but Portugal managed to occupy a series of settlements to the east of the Misiones department. Portugal offered to withdraw from them in exchange of Spain returning the city of Olivença but Napoleon's invasion fucked it up and the region is today part of the Brazilian state of Rio Grande do Sul.

Spain was hardly a free country in the 1807-1814 period.

In better or worse situation, but there was a Spanish government the entire time. And France had not yet invaded when the British arrived in 1806-1807.

Also, remember that the first time the British occupied the Cape they did only to protect it from a French takeover and handed it back to the Dutch after a few years. The second time I suppose that the locals had already been used to them. So it's a different situation.

 

[Faeelin]

You raise fair points, but I really don't see why its ASB for the world's preeminent naval power can't take and hold a population of 500,000 located on the ocean. If France had become a pre-eminent naval power during this period, a French Argentina is also very feasible, IMO. Hardly projecting power over the Iranian plateau against a population of a quarter billion...

The British don't have unlimited resources, as shown by their reticence to send troops to Spain and to land campaigns in OTL. It's not as simple as the UK just ordering up 5k more troops that it had around OTL. They will have to come from somewhere.

There are also the implications to consider for Spain, which I am leery of glossing over. ATL Britain looks like it's planning to partition the Spanish Empire, no? Why would anyone in Latin America want to trade or ally with it, and would Spanish resistance to Napoleon be as strong?

 

[yofie]

Seriously, I'm looking at articles like the Maitland Plan in Wikipedia and it looks like the British were waging this war in the stupidest way possible, disregarding completely logistics and assuming that they would win just because of the supreme might of being British (TM). They don't even seem to have a clear idea of what to do with the territories or deal with the population, calling for direct annexation once and then talking of supporting independentist armies a minute later. There is no talk of securing positions either. Apparently they believed that taking Buenos Aires was enough to march to the Andes and once in Chile, well, they could walk all the way to Ecuador without meeting the slightest resistance.

That looks like a recipe for disaster, and it was in real life. The first time they took Buenos Aires, they got kicked out by an army coming from Montevideo. The second time they took Montevideo, then got kicked out by an army coming from Buenos Aires.

It seems to me that even if the British were still copying the Maitland Plan as they invaded the Rio de la Plata area, once they encountered troubles from the Spanish-Argentine side on their way to Chile, the British would have reconsidered their plan and would have found it much more practical to try to capture Cordoba, Tucuman, Salta, etc. than to go on straight to Valparaiso. And travelling to Chile from Buenos Aires in those days, after all, meant either crossing the Andes or sailing around Cape Horn - both very chancy propositions. Once the British would take over the Argentine interior, if ever that was to pass, the British would have been too exhausted to even try for Chile, Peru, etc.

Do you have a cite for this? The subjugation of the Cone would require at least 10,000 troops; and in OTL Britain was stretched pretty thin a his point. Witness calls to bring the troops home from Spain for instance.

The British contributed as many as 50,000 troops to the Peninsular War, 5 times as much as how many were used in the British invasions of the Rio de la Plata. A few more troops to the La Plata region wouldn't have hurt.

 

[Faeelin]

The British contributed as many as 50,000 troops to the Peninsular War, 5 times as much as how many were used in the British invasions of the Rio de la Plata. A few more troops to the La Plata region wouldn't have hurt.

The invasions which lost, yes?

If you are talking about holding down the region, I don't see how you can do it with less than 20,000 troops.

 

[yofie]

The invasions which lost, yes?

If you are talking about holding down the region, I don't see how you can do it with less than 20,000 troops.

Even if 20,000 troops are required for said purpose, that is just a 10,000-troop loss from the Peninsular War, which brings down the number of British troops in the Peninsular War to 40,000. That is not so bad, and still leaves a large number of capable British troops and generals, like Wellington, Moore, and Picton in the Peninsular War. And the Portuguese and Spanish troops fighting on that side could make up for the loss of 10,000 British troops to South America at that time.

 

[Siculi]

Even if 20,000 troops are required for said purpose, that is just a 10,000-troop loss from the Peninsular War, which brings down the number of British troops in the Peninsular War to 40,000. That is not so bad, and still leaves a large number of capable British troops and generals, like Wellington, Moore, and Picton in the Peninsular War. And the Portuguese and Spanish troops fighting on that side could make up for the loss of 10,000 British troops to South America at that time.

I'll note that half a million Platinense is really a lowball amount which excludes Uruguay, Paraguay and Alto Peru (which more than triples the amount).

 

[Faeelin]

Even if 20,000 troops are required for said purpose, that is just a 10,000-troop loss from the Peninsular War, which brings down the number of British troops in the Peninsular War to 40,000. That is not so bad, and still leaves a large number of capable British troops and generals, like Wellington, Moore, and Picton in the Peninsular War. And the Portuguese and Spanish troops fighting on that side could make up for the loss of 10,000 British troops to South America at that time.

I don't get the mouth. If 20k troops are required, why is it just a 10k troop loss?

 

[Socrates]

Regarding some of the posts on here, I'm more sympathetic to the idea that these particular invasions weren't very viable than the argument that the whole idea of a British invasion is impossible. Bear in mind the number of troops given to the peninsular campaign was by far the bigger British deployment of troops in this period.

I'll note that half a million Platinense is really a lowball amount which excludes Uruguay, Paraguay and Alto Peru (which more than triples the amount).

If you include Uruguay its only an extra 130,000. Considering the distances involved, I don't see the British being particularly concerned about the largely native populations of Bolivia and Paraguay threatening their control of Montevideo and Buenos Aires. I don't think anyone is arguing here that the British will instantly subjugate half of South America in six months. We're arguing they can hold Buenos Aires and Montevideo in the first couple of years after an invasion, and then slowly expand their power into the hinterland in the following decades.

ATL Britain looks like it's planning to partition the Spanish Empire, no?

No more so than their previous successful invasion of Cuba, the commercial centre of the Spanish Empire.

Why would anyone in Latin America want to trade or ally with it, and would Spanish resistance to Napoleon be as strong?

Brazil, an ally of the British Empire, would quite happily trade with it, and most of Argentina's historic trade has been with either Brazil or Europe.

Spanish resistance to Napoleon would be just as strong, as once they kick out the Napoleonic regime they will be more free to fight for their empire back, or even have a decent chance of getting it given back, in a similar manner to the Cape Colony.

 

[Faeelin]

No more so than their previous successful invasion of Cuba, the commercial centre of the Spanish Empire.

In 1763. A great while longer.

Spanish resistance to Napoleon would be just as strong, as once they kick out the Napoleonic regime they will be more free to fight for their empire back

Would it be? Lurking in the back of every Spaniard's mind is going to be, "are the British using us as an end to destroy Spain as well?"

On the one hand, Napoleon, who wants a Bonaparte in Madrid. On the other hand the British want the Spanish Empire to themselves.

Might be knock on effects elsewhere, of course; a lot of Britain's allies always found it ominous that Britain pled it had no troops for Europe, but could always find men to send to the Caribbean, Latin America, etc.

 

[yofie]

I don't get the mouth. If 20k troops are required, why is it just a 10k troop loss?

10,000 OTL British troops in La Plata + 10,000 ATL additional British troops = 20,000 ATL British troops in La Plata (if that much are really needed)

50,000 OTL British troops in Peninsular War - up to 10,000 ATL British troops fighting in La Plata instead = at least 40,000 ATL British troops in Peninsular War

 

[Faeelin]

10,000 OTL British troops in La Plata + 10,000 ATL additional British troops = 20,000 ATL British troops in La Plata (if that much are really needed)

50,000 OTL British troops in Peninsular War - up to 10,000 ATL British troops fighting in La Plata instead = at least 40,000 ATL British troops in Peninsular War

So you're positing the British leave no troops after their stirring victories?

 

[yofie]

So you're positing the British leave no troops after their stirring victories?

I'm just saying that if indeed the requirements of a sustained British campaign in southern South America called for at least 10,000 more British troops than OTL, and if such a thing required that those troops correspond to 10,000 of those who OTL fought in the Peninsular War as you say, it would not have made such a dramatic difference in the outcome of the Peninsular War - perhaps a minor difference. At any rate, still a British/Portuguese/Spanish victory in that war by all means.

 

[Horatius Cocles]

err... A minor problem: What's the economic reason to the British take Argentina? Cattle and Wheat?

 

[Tocomocho]

err... A minor problem: What's the economic reason to the British take Argentina? Cattle and Wheat?

As I said earlier, they didn't really have an actual idea of what to do with it in 1806-07.

But previous plans called merely for a trading base where they could smuggle products past the Spanish monopoly, and get their hands in some of the undeclared gold that made it to La Plata from Peru. That's what I had in mind when I had them making peace and allying with the Cadiz government in 1808.

As I said, it's absurd to have the British fighting the Spanish in South America and allied to them in Europe simultaneously. Coming 1808 they'll have to choose.

 

[Socrates]

err... A minor problem: What's the economic reason to the British take Argentina? Cattle and Wheat?

I believe the British had their aims on Argentina for decades, as they felt it would make a successful settler colony, with trading cities and good farming in a temperate zone, in a part of the world they had little influence.

In 1763. A great while longer.

Apologies: I don't quite follow what you mean by "A great while longer". I assume it means "A lot earlier". I still don't get what difference it makes. The British already have form for trying to nab parts of the Spanish Empire, it was pretty much official policy. I don't see why anyone would be so shocked about it.

Would it be? Lurking in the back of every Spaniard's mind is going to be, "are the British using us as an end to destroy Spain as well?" On the one hand, Napoleon, who wants a Bonaparte in Madrid. On the other hand the British want the Spanish Empire to themselves.

"A Bonaparte in Madrid and turning Spain into a client state of France" is more accurate. The mainland Spanish populace is always going to care more about mainland Spain than it is about an outlying part of their Empire.

Might be knock on effects elsewhere, of course; a lot of Britain's allies always found it ominous that Britain pled it had no troops for Europe, but could always find men to send to the Caribbean, Latin America, etc.

Quite possibly.

 

[yofie]

If the British do take over the Rio de la Plata area, then surely there would be substantially greater British political as well as economic influence in much of South America as a whole than OTL. What difference would that have made in terms of wars like the War of the Triple (in this case, Double - British Empire and Brazil) Alliance, the War of the Pacific (Chile vs. Bolivia/Peru), and the Chaco War relative to OTL? Would these wars have been shorter, for example? Although I know that the reason why these wars took even longer than warranted was because there was lots of local guerrilla action, plus that the two sides had been very far apart at the start of each of these conflicts.

I'm also thinking that with a British takeover of the Rio de la Plata area, Great Britain and Portugal/Brazil more or less respect their common border, and as a result there is hardly any warfare if at all - maybe a border dispute or two that might have skirmishes at most, followed by a peace treaty. And so, that would increase Uruguay's likelihood of being a part of Argentina even after the individual British colonies there federate together in the late 1800s sometime, barring subsequent calls from Uruguayans to govern themselves and not be absorbed in Argentina (due in part to the rivalry between Buenos Aires and Montevideo), and barring the prestige that Uruguay would get for remaining a British crown colony while Argentina federates (almost cf. New Zealand vs. Australia).