Earlier Patagonian colonization

Looking at the historical maps we've got, it looks as if nobody really wanted to touch Patagonia at all until the 19th century. Why is that, and how can it be colonized sooner (preferably not by a major colonial power, more prferably by a German state, and even more preferably before 1800)?

Best bet seems to be the Chubut River area, maybe because of attempt at converting the "Patagonian Giants" (not that they actually existed, but it would be as a good a reason as any back then) described by a survivor of Magellan's trip around the world, or in pursuit of gold one might think in the possesion of such giants.
 
It wasn't conquered earlier because it wasn't worth the effort. The Mapuche were a strong, feircly resistant people, and the land they lived in was cold, mountainous, and desolate. The Incas and the Spanish both tried to conquer Patagonia.
 

Keenir

Banned
Looking at the historical maps we've got, it looks as if nobody really wanted to touch Patagonia at all until the 19th century. Why is that, and how can it be colonized sooner (preferably not by a major colonial power, more prferably by a German state, and even more preferably before 1800)?

have plagues decimate the populations of otters, beavers, bison, and muskrats.

...the English and French will then eagerly snatch up the news from Magellan about vast herds of fur-bearing critters down there. (siblings of the llama, if I recall)
 
have plagues decimate the populations of otters, beavers, bison, and muskrats.

...the English and French will then eagerly snatch up the news from Magellan about vast herds of fur-bearing critters down there. (siblings of the llama, if I recall)
How fine is the quality of Llama or Alpaca fur? If somebody actually brought a sample of it back and it became fashionable enough, that might do the trick. One wouldn't even really need a horrid plague that destroys the North American ecosystem, either.

Wikipedia mentions difficulty with traditional wool spinning techniques and Alpaca fur until some sort of 'cotton warp,' which I haven't the damndest idea about but I doubt it involves the CSA and Dilithium crystals.
 
Last edited:

maverick

Banned
Conquering Patagonia is really hard, especially if you are doing it from the north!:p

I don't think a German state could colonize Patagonia, no German prince was too strong or too interested before the Monroe Doctrine kicked in.
Maybe Bradenburg-Prussia or Hannover-Britain in the 1700s, although I doubt they'd be more successful than the Spanish.
 
Conquering Patagonia is really hard, especially if you are doing it from the north!:p

I don't think a German state could colonize Patagonia, no German prince was too strong or too interested before the Monroe Doctrine kicked in.
Maybe Bradenburg-Prussia or Hannover-Britain in the 1700s, although I doubt they'd be more successful than the Spanish.
But what I don't understand is that Patagonia, especially southern Patagonia which borders on Tierra Del Fuego and the Straits of Magellan, seems to be (to my untrained eyes) of strategic importance. I mean, it's one of two southern exits from the Atlantic to forgein waters. Wouldn't it make sense to try and create a self-sustainable colony to support a base or fort or something to try and control a key point in shipping? And that's just one aspect.

Wouldn't conquering the Mapuche be worth it (or, if we're in a 21st century mood, legitamitely befriending & allying, though God knows how), gain access to good lands (near the rivers, at least) and the Andes ("M'lord, think of what may be in those ranges!"), not to mention the Straits?
 
Last edited:

Rockingham

Banned
But what I don't understand is that Patagonia, especially southern Patagonia which borders on Tierra Del Fuego and the Straits of Magellan, seems to be (to my untrained eyes) of strategic importance. I mean, it's one of two southern exits from the Atlantic to forgein waters. Wouldn't it make sense to try and create a self-sustainable colony to support a base or fort or something to try and control a key point in shipping? And that's just one aspect.

Which is exactly why the spaniards and then the brits had the falkland islands instead. Easier to occupy, smaller, and performing the exact same strategic function. Why occupy a huge chunk of frozen deserts and mountains when you have the falklands?

As for a german conquest, they'd probaly need other bases further north with which to reach it. So an earler german colonialism might do the trick....

Best cantidate in the 19th century is probaly france, after all they'd lost most of their american empire at this point; only problem is whether the british would tolerate a french patagonia....
 
Which is exactly why the spaniards and then the brits had the falkland islands instead. Easier to occupy, smaller, and performing the exact same strategic function.
True. I had forgotten about the Falkland Islands.
Why occupy a huge chunk of frozen deserts and mountains when you have the falklands?
It isn't really that desolate. Looking through Wiki and Google and such, there's clearly good greenery about there. It's just that a few parts resemble the Nevada desert in appearance. Chubut province (kinda north/central Patagonia), for instance, goes through the southern 45th parallel, which in the northern hemisphere goes through Michigan, Wisconsin, and the northern tip of New York state, just to give a little frame of reference.
 
Last edited:
But what I don't understand is that Patagonia, especially southern Patagonia which borders on Tierra Del Fuego and the Straits of Magellan, seems to be (to my untrained eyes) of strategic importance. I mean, it's one of two southern exits from the Atlantic to forgein waters. Wouldn't it make sense to try and create a self-sustainable colony to support a base or fort or something to try and control a key point in shipping? And that's just one aspect.

Well, Tierra Del Fuego is a different story. I believe the Chileans and Argentines did claim Tierra Del Fuego some time before they conquered Patagonia. Chile also claimed Chiloe Island, which was south of the Chile-Araucania border.

Wouldn't conquering the Mapuche be worth it (or, if we're in a 21st century mood, legitamitely befriending & allying, though God knows how), gain access to good lands (near the rivers, at least) and the Andes ("M'lord, think of what may be in those ranges!"), not to mention the Straits?

Well, that did actually happen. As someone said before, France stood the best chance of colonizing Patagonia in the 19th Century... An eccentric French explorer travelled to Patagonia and made friends with the Mapuche, having the Mapuche chiefs declare him their king. He founded the "Kingdom of Araucania and Patagonia", but unfortunately his home country of France was uninterested in helping him. This arguably gave Chile and Argentina more incentive to conquer the region.

Now, I wonder what the prospects would be of appealing to Britain instead of France... Would it possible to have a British puppet state comprising Araucania, Patagonia, and perhaps Tierra Del Fuego (taken as collateral in the presumed war with Chile and Argentina), ruled by an ex-French national? Perhaps the Falklands would be added to the kingdom's territory.
 
-BUMP-

I also find it rather strange that nobody tried harder to colonize Patagonia, specially Tierra del Fuego (given its strategic importance). After all, it was very sparsely populated (South-Central Chile and Neuquen were its denser area, but even there the population wasn't very high).

There was an attemp by the Spanish in the XVI century, but it failed completely. There were also a few Spanish settlements on the Eastern Patagonian shore in the late XVIII century, but both also failed. The only succesfull one was the Spanish colonization of Chiloe.

I'm not sure why:

- Yes, the Mapuche/Araucanos were strong, and had defeated te Incas and the Spaniards... but the Mapuche were only in Southern/Central Chile (from Chiloé to Maule River) and in the Northwest of present day Argentinian Patagonia (western Neuquen). They didn't "Araucanized" the pampas and most of continental Patagonia till the 1700s, after their adoption of horses. And even then the population in Santa Cruz or Chubut remained extremly low. There, most of the ancient inhabitants - the Aoniken (named "Tehuelche" by the Mapuche and "Patagones" by Magellan) - survived rather untouched, although heavily influenced culturally by the Mapuche. The Tehuelche couldn't have seriosly opposed to a serious colonization attempt.

- Yes, the Eastern shore is rather arid and windy, and the western one had a people who weren't willing to submitt. But that doesn't seem enough. After all, the Welsh proved that the Chubut valley was fertile, and so had done the Spanish in Floridablanca (the settlement was abandoned in not becouse crops had failed, but for other reasons) and in Carmen de Patagones.

- I think the main reason was that the (apparent) hostility of the environment convined with the (apparent) absence of gold or silver, and with the lack of an exploitable workforce (the Mapuche were too rebellious, and the Tehuelche and the Pampas were too few).

Still, even if this explains why we don't see the kind of colonization we may see in Peru in the XVI century, it doesn't explain why nor the Spanish in the XVI century, nor the Dutch in the XVII nor the British later didn't took Tierra del Fuego for strategic reasons. After all, it's closer to the Magellan strait and the Drake passage, and it has resources the Malvinas haven't (like wood or gold). These would have made a settlement sustainable (at least more sustainable than the one in Malvinas), and less dependant from the ouside world in case of need.

The island could have been used as a base to control the only ocean route between the Pacific and the Atlantic. It would also be profitable, as they could hunt whales and sealions at its coasts (for oil), raise sheep for wool, mine gold and (later) refine oil.

Fortunatly, nobody noticed this lands, till we were strong enough to control them.:D:D:D

(There was a British Anglican mission in Ushuaia in the XIX century, which was somehow under the authority of the Fallklands governor, or whoever was in charge there. But they handed it to Argentina in 1884. Guess the Brits aren't that bad after all...;):p)
 
Though it wasn't controlled by Spain they still technically owned it. You'd have to go through the trouble of both conquering the land and beating Spain (and anyone else who feels like helping Spain)
 
Top