Conquered Mapuche, Balkanized Chile?

[Arkenfolm]

It's often stated that a key reason Latin America never unified to any real degree after independence was the rough terrain and poor infrastructure. Large nations like (Gran) Colombia broke apart (and could have broken apart further).

So how many nations can we get on Chilean territory? Being so long and narrow and full of very rough terrain (vast deserts, high mountains/volcanoes, temperate rainforests, etc.), it could be a natural candidate for Balkanization.

The solution could be an early conquest of the Mapuche, no later than the late 18th century. Either conquered by Spain, or instead conquered by another power, like the Dutch who had interests in the Chiloe/Valdivia region. Or even the British at a later date. If the Mapuche are conquered early, then is a nation uniting all of modern Chile impossible? This would enable successful colonialism of that region and thus later potential for Balkanization.

What I'm thinking is we could get at least three nations on Chilean territory, with one based in Santiago, one at Valdivia/Chiloe, and one stretching south to Tierra del Fuego. Throw in maybe some Easter Island territory that probably won't be independent. Any better plausible post-colonial options? Can any of these nations manage to do better than OTL Chile?

 

[Gloss]

What I'm thinking is we could get at least three nations on Chilean territory, with one based in Santiago, one at Valdivia/Chiloe, and one stretching south to Tierra del Fuego. Throw in maybe some Easter Island territory that probably won't be independent. Any better plausible post-colonial options? Can any of these nations manage to do better than OTL Chile?

I'm not sure, if I'm getting the borders right, the 2 southern states are extremely underpopulated in comparison to the Santiago northern one.

 

[Lenwe]

What I'm thinking is we could get at least three nations on Chilean territory, with one based in Santiago, one at Valdivia/Chiloe, and one stretching south to Tierra del Fuego. Throw in maybe some Easter Island territory that probably won't be independent. Any better plausible post-colonial options? Can any of these nations manage to do better than OTL Chile?

No, to all your questions
The physical geography of Chile make The country ideally to be unites from more or less The Elqui's valley (Coquimbo in the attached map),in The North to the Chiloe's Strait, With Santiago as the breaker Point,
South of Santiago The country open in a extensive plain caged between The Andes and The Coast moutain Range(brigth Green in The map)

The Chiloé Island Is a good rich agricultural Land, but don't have any mineral wealth, strategic position or advantage that Help them to resist The anexation By Chile.
The Patagonia as was Said by @Gloss don't have the population to be viable as independent country, less than 300.000 in an área The size of Spain.

Now what Is Called Norte Grande, all The Land conquered from Bolivia and Perú don't have to be in Chileans Hands, but given The Richness of the Área and The Incapacity from Perú and Bolivia to proper control and Colonice The Área I doubt Chile Will resist trying to anex The Place, you have to remember that most of the place Before The 1871 war was inhábited by Chileans

 

[Lenwe]

Here a map of what was effectively Chile, in Blue, in 1830, as you could see the country was a Lot Smaller and less capable of Blakanization than Later, most of the 19 Century Chile was growing expanding and consolidating their domminion over what Today Is the Country

 

[Skallagrim]

Purely geographically speaking, you are right, @Lenwe. Your statement, quoted below, is accurate.

The physical geography of Chile make The country ideally to be unites from more or less The Elqui's valley (Coquimbo in the attached map),in The North to the Chiloe's Strait, With Santiago as the breaker Point,

Yet geography is hardly all that matters. Where do the Mapuche live, primarily? Right here. A different colonial era (especially if the Mapuche are taken under the wing of a power that isn't Spain) could easily end Chile as we know it in OTL. And why not? Before the Panama Canal, controlling the Southern Cone was big business. Suppose Britain takes control of Tierra del Fuego, southernmost OTL Chile (say up to and including Chiloe and its direct environs), as well as Patagonia when you get east of the mountains. Given that kind of position, Britain would be well-served to turn the Mapuche -- in the area mapped above -- on as a client/protectorate. If only to serve as a buffer against Spanish power projection from Santiago and environs.

So much for Chile's supposed geographic destiny. Naturally, it's true that there's a geographic logic to Chile as it is in OTL... but geography simply isn't all that's at play here (or anywhere, ever). In the above scenario, or something like it, the post-colonial era could easily see a much smaller Chile, with an independent Mapuche state to its south, and one or more post-British Southern Cone state(s) to the south of that.

 

[Lenwe]

Purely geographically speaking, you are right, @Lenwe. Your statement, quoted below, is accurate.



Yet geography is hardly all that matters. Where do the Mapuche live, primarily? Right here. A different colonial era (especially if the Mapuche are taken under the wing of a power that isn't Spain) could easily end Chile as we know it in OTL. And why not? Before the Panama Canal, controlling the Southern Cone was big business. Suppose Britain takes control of Tierra del Fuego, southernmost OTL Chile (say up to and including Chiloe and its direct environs), as well as Patagonia when you get east of the mountains. Given that kind of position, Britain would be well-served to turn the Mapuche -- in the area mapped above -- on as a client/protectorate. If only to serve as a buffer against Spanish power projection from Santiago and environs.

So much for Chile's supposed geographic destiny. Naturally, it's true that there's a geographic logic to Chile as it is in OTL... but geography simply isn't all that's at play here (or anywhere, ever). In the above scenario, or something like it, the post-colonial era could easily see a much smaller Chile, with an independent Mapuche state to its south, and one or more post-British Southern Cone state(s) to the south of that.

Could be, I 'm no seeing how you could Pull it anyways

 

[David II]

Maybe if you butterfly away the chilean occupation of the Magellan Strait and manage to put an english or french colony down there, it could work.

 

[Arkenfolm]

I'm not sure, if I'm getting the borders right, the 2 southern states are extremely underpopulated in comparison to the Santiago northern one.

By OTL standards, but if you look at the land available to them and then look at the resources, you'd have something like the PNW or British Columbia.

No, to all your questions
The physical geography of Chile make The country ideally to be unites from more or less The Elqui's valley (Coquimbo in the attached map),in The North to the Chiloe's Strait, With Santiago as the breaker Point,
South of Santiago The country open in a extensive plain caged between The Andes and The Coast moutain Range(brigth Green in The map)

The Chiloé Island Is a good rich agricultural Land, but don't have any mineral wealth, strategic position or advantage that Help them to resist The anexation By Chile.
The Patagonia as was Said by @Gloss don't have the population to be viable as independent country, less than 300.000 in an área The size of Spain.

Now what Is Called Norte Grande, all The Land conquered from Bolivia and Perú don't have to be in Chileans Hands, but given The Richness of the Área and The Incapacity from Perú and Bolivia to proper control and Colonice The Área I doubt Chile Will resist trying to anex The Place, you have to remember that most of the place Before The 1871 war was inhábited by Chileans

Certainly Chile can (and possible will) try regardless to gain the lands Bolivia and Peru held. But just like the War of the Pacific, annexing Chiloe requires naval supremacy. It was not an inevitability that Chiloe's royalists would fall to pro-independence forces. If the Mapuche have more or less been subdued by the late 18th century, then much of OTL Chile is opened to settler colonialism.

Here a map of what was effectively Chile, in Blue, in 1830, as you could see the country was a Lot Smaller and less capable of Blakanization than Later, most of the 19 Century Chile was growing expanding and consolidating their domminion over what Today Is the Country

True, but Chile could still be Balkanized even before it won the War of the Pacific, especially since IIRC Chile already controlled Valdivia and Chiloe at that point. The central government didn't have much rule over the southern parts of their country around the time of independence although IIRC they were slowly gaining power over the Mapuche since the 1840s. Chiloe had a notable Royalist streak in the wars against Spain.

 

[Ricardolindo]

It's often stated that a key reason Latin America never unified to any real degree after independence was the rough terrain and poor infrastructure. Large nations like (Gran) Colombia broke apart (and could have broken apart further).

So how many nations can we get on Chilean territory? Being so long and narrow and full of very rough terrain (vast deserts, high mountains/volcanoes, temperate rainforests, etc.), it could be a natural candidate for Balkanization.

The solution could be an early conquest of the Mapuche, no later than the late 18th century. Either conquered by Spain, or instead conquered by another power, like the Dutch who had interests in the Chiloe/Valdivia region. Or even the British at a later date. If the Mapuche are conquered early, then is a nation uniting all of modern Chile impossible? This would enable successful colonialism of that region and thus later potential for Balkanization.

What I'm thinking is we could get at least three nations on Chilean territory, with one based in Santiago, one at Valdivia/Chiloe, and one stretching south to Tierra del Fuego. Throw in maybe some Easter Island territory that probably won't be independent. Any better plausible post-colonial options? Can any of these nations manage to do better than OTL Chile?

A good point of divergence would be in the late 17th century with Captain General Marcos José de Garro's plan, to invite the Mapuche chiefs and elders into a conference where they would be imprisoned so that the Araucanía could be pacified relatively bloodlessly, being accepted by King Charles II.

 

[Arkenfolm]

A good point of divergence would be in the late 17th century with Captain General Marcos José de Garro's plan, to invite the Mapuche chiefs and elders into a conference where they would be imprisoned so that the Araucanía could be pacified relatively bloodlessly, being accepted by King Charles II.

His deceit would need to be followed up with an intense military operation to smash the Amerindians further, assuming the other Amerindian leaders wouldn't accept the Spanish-controlled Mapuche's orders. It's worth noting that Spanish New Mexico (a peripheral colony) fought the Comanche (and other Amerindian forces like the Utes, Apache, and Navajo) to a standstill in the late 18th century. Considering the position of Chile, a similar victory might have happened in the same era or earlier, since it's easier to supply Chile than New Mexico.

 

[Ricardolindo]

His deceit would need to be followed up with an intense military operation to smash the Amerindians further, assuming the other Amerindian leaders wouldn't accept the Spanish-controlled Mapuche's orders. It's worth noting that Spanish New Mexico (a peripheral colony) fought the Comanche (and other Amerindian forces like the Utes, Apache, and Navajo) to a standstill in the late 18th century. Considering the position of Chile, a similar victory might have happened in the same era or earlier, since it's easier to supply Chile than New Mexico.

I'm well aware that Juan Bautista de Anza managed to militarily force a treaty on the Comanche, in the late 18th century. That's one of the reasons, that, New Mexico had a much higher Hispanic population than Texas and California, at the time of the Mexican-American War. It's also one of the reasons why Hispanics descended from Spanish colonial settlers, ie the Nuevomexicanos, are still the largest ethnic group in New Mexico, nowadays, another reason being, that, there was less Anglo migration to New Mexico than to the rest of the cession, because New Mexico is mostly arid and/or mountainous.
But, not to deviate from the subject of the thread, could a conquest of the Araucanía in the late 17th century lead to a conquest of Patagonia? Would the Spanish get interested in exploring the far south of South America?