extent of British colonization in Southern Cone from 1807

Which outcome of a British victory in 1807 sounds the most realistic?


  • Total voters
    85
When I say "white South Africa", I mean those zones in South Africa where most of the whites live (with their neighbourhoods and farms that wouldn't at all be out of place in North America, Australia, etc.), as opposed to where most of the people of colour live.

Those zones are known as "South Africa." There isn't neat separation into white and black provinces. The Western Cape is sort of a Coloured province, and has a larger white population percentage than the rest, but most whites live in Gauteng, which has a solid black majority. Might as well talk about West London as a separate entity from the East End or about the Upper East Side and Upper West Side as separate entities from Harlem.
 
Long-term, yes.

What you need to remember about the British is that they always thought several steps ahead. In Europe, they didn't want to be invaded, which meant they didn't want potential launching ground Flanders in enemy hands, so they didn't want Flanders outflanked so they didn't want anyone being able to dominate Germany. In Asia, they didn't want India to revolt, so they wanted to be able to get troops there quickly, so they wanted to have control of Suez, so they wanted to control Egypt, so they didn't want Egypt lost, so they wanted to control the source of the Nile. Etc, etc.

So in this case, if they decide that Montevideo is a crucial strategic asset, they are going to be very concerned about even a notionally independent client state pointing a dagger at it just across the water. Especially when that client state is led by Catholics who could ally with France and/or Spain. Carmen de Patagones could potentially be attacked by land from Buenos Aires, meaning the Brits will want Buenos Aires. They might allow partial governance to the Portenos to get that, but they won't allow a territorial division. Of course, a revolt by Buenos Aires could cause the Brits to be kicked out of Montevideo too, but the circle has to be squared somehow.

The one part of OTL Argentina that could be excluded in the north. I could see the Brits feeling secure enough if they have a border around Cordoba and the salt flats.

Socrates: What you're saying about the British either completely winning or completely losing the Southern Cone east of the Andes, as well as a notionally independent client state between two British colonies in the area, is just the ideal that the British would want for the region. If the Brits are able to directly control Buenos Aires and so forth, as well as Uruguay and Patagonia/the far south Pampas, then the British achieve their ideal. If, on the other hand, they're unable to attain that ideal, the Brits will have to compromise by having Uruguay, Patagonia, etc. under their direct control but granting Buenos Aires and the rest of Argentina nominal independence with heavy political and economic British influence.

Another thing to consider is that in this scenario, the Royal Navy keeps watch over the mouth of the River Plate as well as the waters off Patagonia. It's only in the event of a world war that the British might have to transfer their forces away from the River Plate, to another theatre of engagement.

One more thing, given the generally quite poor state of transportation inland through the 1800s, it would be difficult though not impossible to attack Carmen de Patagones from Buenos Aires by land.
 
Socrates: What you're saying about the British either completely winning or completely losing the Southern Cone east of the Andes, as well as a notionally independent client state between two British colonies in the area, is just the ideal that the British would want for the region. If the Brits are able to directly control Buenos Aires and so forth, as well as Uruguay and Patagonia/the far south Pampas, then the British achieve their ideal. If, on the other hand, they're unable to attain that ideal, the Brits will have to compromise by having Uruguay, Patagonia, etc. under their direct control but granting Buenos Aires and the rest of Argentina nominal independence with heavy political and economic British influence.

Another thing to consider is that in this scenario, the Royal Navy keeps watch over the mouth of the River Plate as well as the waters off Patagonia. It's only in the event of a world war that the British might have to transfer their forces away from the River Plate, to another theatre of engagement.

One more thing, given the generally quite poor state of transportation inland through the 1800s, it would be difficult though not impossible to attack Carmen de Patagones from Buenos Aires by land.

But I don't see how the British fail to take Buenos Aires over the longer term if they have a permanent establishment in Montevideo and has a major naval presence. The only way Buenos Aires will maintain its independence is if (a) Buenos Aires somehow expels them from Montevideo, or (b) if another country achieves naval supremacy (in which case (a) is likely to happen anyway).
 
But I don't see how the British fail to take Buenos Aires over the longer term if they have a permanent establishment in Montevideo and has a major naval presence. The only way Buenos Aires will maintain its independence is if (a) Buenos Aires somehow expels them from Montevideo, or (b) if another country achieves naval supremacy (in which case (a) is likely to happen anyway).

So what you're saying is that in the shorter term, as a compromise, the British stick to Uruguay, Patagonia, and the like in terms of formal control, while over the longer term, the British either attain their ideal of formal control of the entire region (including Buenos Aires) or lose formal control altogether?
 
either British Argentina as a whole or just British Patagonia?

Based on Socrates' understanding, it now seems to me that an 1806-07 British victory in Buenos Aires could result in either one of two longer-term outcomes:

1) All or almost all of Argentina/Uruguay is ultimately under British control, including Argentina proper (Buenos Aires, the Littoral, Cordoba, Cuyo, the northeast, and the northwest), Uruguay, and Patagonia*/Fireland/the Falklands-Malvinas - Argentina proper being annexed later in the 19th century

2) Only Patagonia*, plus Fireland and the Falkland/Malvina Islands ultimately remains under British control while both Argentina proper and Uruguay become independent under very heavy British influence (in 1810 and later in the 19th century, respectively)

*including much of the OTL far southern part of Chile

Note that the shorter-term outcome is early independence under British suzerainty for Buenos Aires (and all of Argentina proper), but direct British control of Uruguay and of outposts in Patagonia, like I've expressed time and again in this forum these past few months.

Please let me know what you think!
 
Based on Socrates' understanding, it now seems to me that an 1806-07 British victory in Buenos Aires could result in either one of two longer-term outcomes:

1) All or almost all of Argentina/Uruguay is ultimately under British control, including Argentina proper (Buenos Aires, the Littoral, Cordoba, Cuyo, the northeast, and the northwest), Uruguay, and Patagonia*/Fireland/the Falklands-Malvinas - Argentina proper being annexed later in the 19th century

2) Only Patagonia*, plus Fireland and the Falkland/Malvina Islands ultimately remains under British control while both Argentina proper and Uruguay become independent under very heavy British influence (in 1810 and later in the 19th century, respectively)

*including much of the OTL far southern part of Chile

Note that the shorter-term outcome is early independence under British suzerainty for Buenos Aires (and all of Argentina proper), but direct British control of Uruguay and of outposts in Patagonia, like I've expressed time and again in this forum these past few months.

Please let me know what you think!
Something like this?
L76XGwJ.png

Pink means British controlled and English speaking territory in the long run, light pink is British controlled land in the short term(Entre Rios, Litoral and Banda Oriental), probably bilingual(or maybe English speaking in Uruguay and Entre Rios and Spanish in Buenos Aires and Litoral) and yellow is land that Britain would eventually take later or even not take, maybe it would stay Spanish speaking.
 
Something like this?
L76XGwJ.png

Pink means British controlled and English speaking territory in the long run, light pink is British controlled land in the short term(Entre Rios, Litoral and Banda Oriental), probably bilingual(or maybe English speaking in Uruguay and Entre Rios and Spanish in Buenos Aires and Litoral) and yellow is land that Britain would eventually take later or even not take, maybe it would stay Spanish speaking.

Sounds like a good plan!

An alternative could be for just the Banda Oriental and possibly Entre Rios/Corrientes to be in light pink and for Buenos Aires (city and original province) and Santa Fe to be included in the yellow, assuming that Britain grants Buenos Aires independence (albeit under British suzerainty) within 6 months to 3 years after the British victory in Buenos Aires in July 1807.

As well, I'm wondering why you're including the far eastern Banda Oriental in Brazil?

Plus, not all the Misiones Orientales (western OTL Rio Grande do Sul) has to be included in the light pink; just the far southwestern part that wasn't given over to Portugal in 1801 and that was OTL claimed by Uruguay until 1851.
 
Sounds like a good plan!

An alternative could be for just the Banda Oriental and possibly Entre Rios/Corrientes to be in light pink and for Buenos Aires (city and original province) and Santa Fe to be included in the yellow, assuming that Britain grants Buenos Aires independence (albeit under British suzerainty) within 6 months to 3 years after the British victory in Buenos Aires in July 1807.

As well, I'm wondering why you're including the far eastern Banda Oriental in Brazil?

Plus, not all the Misiones Orientales (western OTL Rio Grande do Sul) has to be included in the light pink; just the far southwestern part that wasn't given over to Portugal in 1801 and that was OTL claimed by Uruguay until 1851.
The map´s colors are about an united British controlled Rio de la Plata, but I guess you idea is also plausible.

I used this map as a guide:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe....svg/2000px-Mapa_de_argentina_en_1816.svg.png

I´m not sure what area this region occupies, the map is just approximated anyway.
 
The map´s colors are about an united British controlled Rio de la Plata, but I guess you idea is also plausible.

I used this map as a guide:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe....svg/2000px-Mapa_de_argentina_en_1816.svg.png

I´m not sure what area this region occupies, the map is just approximated anyway.

I want to clarify: The areas that are in pink, would that be the area that would eventually become a British dominion and then a Commonwealth country?

When you say that the areas in light pink (more correctly, beige) would belong to the British only in the shorter term, would it mean that there would be independence in the longer term, or what? If so, would it be a different independent country than the areas in yellow?

Oh, by the way, I would include Chiloé Island in Chile, since that's been continuously colonized from the 1500s by the Spaniards and then the Chileans.
 
I voted 'Only Uruguay and Some Parts of Argentina' since it was the closest option but realistically even in a perfect scenario the most I think you would likely see would be Britain claiming Uruguay and slightly more of Brazil than our timeline's Uruguay, say the border running along the Ibicui river and then following its general path to the middle of Ducks' Lagoon which would cover the south-western half of Rio Grande do Sul. It provides them a solid foothold and IIRC Uruguay had the best harbour in the region. The British were mostly interested in trade so partner it with an agreement giving them transit rights along the Salado, Paraguay, Parana, and its tributaries, rivers for access to the interior and you're all set.


Plus, if the British are already at it in Uruguay, they're much more likely to go for much if not all of Patagonia as well, including the Strait of Magellan, Tierra del Fuego, and the Falklands, so that Patagonia, too, becomes a British colony (at least eventually), and would become at least 90% Anglo and, of course, First World.
Why would they go for Patagonia? For a start there's Argentina in the way who might be somewhat miffed, plus was the area really all that attractive? You'd have highly restive natives that would need to be subdued in return for what at the time IIRC didn't seem massively enticing land. The Falklands would likely still be claimed although in this scenario I'd see them being made a part of Uruguay for administrative purposes. This does seem like a case of painting the map red for the sake of it.
 
Why would they go for Patagonia? For a start there's Argentina in the way who might be somewhat miffed, plus was the area really all that attractive? You'd have highly restive natives that would need to be subdued in return for what at the time IIRC didn't seem massively enticing land. The Falklands would likely still be claimed although in this scenario I'd see them being made a part of Uruguay for administrative purposes. This does seem like a case of painting the map red for the sake of it.

As the British take over the River Plate starting in 1807 (no matter that Buenos Aires relatively soon thereafter breaks away and declares independence), they automatically take over the Spanish outposts on the Patagonian coast. Such outposts include Carmen de Patagones and Puerto Deseado - not to mention the Falklands. They also take over the Strait of Magellan, because that is quite a strategic waterway. More British outposts then develop along the Patagonian coast, for trading, military, hunting, and whaling/sealing purposes. All these outposts and things like that become the basis, over several decades, of the British making a claim over all of Patagonia. When that eventuality comes about, sheep raising helps make Patagonia more enticing for settlers; in fact, in OTL, far southern Patagonia and Tierra del Fuego were largely settled by sheep farmers from Scotland, Ireland, New Zealand, etc. And it's not harder, I'm sure, for the British to fight off the natives there than it was to fight off the restive Maori in New Zealand. This is why I've been thinking of Patagonia as well as Uruguay for the British to take over in the long term, and I don't think I'm painting the map red/pink just for its own sake.

Another consideration is that just as Argentina proper (the nominally independent country) is between British Uruguay and British Patagonia (for ATL), so too places like Cote d'Ivoire, Togo/Benin, southern Senegal, and Guinea/Guinea-Bissau (all former French or other non-British colonies) are located between the ex-British colonies of West Africa.
 
Last edited:
perhaps protectorate option for Buenos Aires?

I think you're trying to balance a penny on its side here, when its going to fall one way or another. Either the British get ejected from the area, or they dominate Argentina. They are not going to tolerate a state in the middle of their two colonies that can potentially invite in the French/Spanish/boogeyman of choice. It would be a constant thorn in their side. And we know how the British dealt with thorns in their side: they pressured them into submitting diplomatically, or else they went to war. They are far more likely to hand governance over to the Spanish-speakers in the wider federation (as they did with the Afrikaans in South Africa), than to accept a territorial division. If the Spanish speakers resist such a federation, the British will go to war. They will either lose that war, and get kicked out of Uruguay too, or they will win the war, and impose their peace.

So in this case, if they decide that Montevideo is a crucial strategic asset, they are going to be very concerned about even a notionally independent client state pointing a dagger at it just across the water. Especially when that client state is led by Catholics who could ally with France and/or Spain. Carmen de Patagones could potentially be attacked by land from Buenos Aires, meaning the Brits will want Buenos Aires. They might allow partial governance to the Portenos to get that, but they won't allow a territorial division. Of course, a revolt by Buenos Aires could cause the Brits to be kicked out of Montevideo too, but the circle has to be squared somehow.

The one part of OTL Argentina that could be excluded in the north. I could see the Brits feeling secure enough if they have a border around Cordoba and the salt flats.

But I don't see how the British fail to take Buenos Aires over the longer term if they have a permanent establishment in Montevideo and has a major naval presence. The only way Buenos Aires will maintain its independence is if (a) Buenos Aires somehow expels them from Montevideo, or (b) if another country achieves naval supremacy (in which case (a) is likely to happen anyway).

Based on Socrates' understanding, it now seems to me that an 1806-07 British victory in Buenos Aires could result in either one of two longer-term outcomes:

1) All or almost all of Argentina/Uruguay is ultimately under British control, including Argentina proper (Buenos Aires, the Littoral, Cordoba, Cuyo, the northeast, and the northwest), Uruguay, and Patagonia*/Fireland/the Falklands-Malvinas - Argentina proper being annexed later in the 19th century

2) Only Patagonia*, plus Fireland and the Falkland/Malvina Islands ultimately remains under British control while both Argentina proper and Uruguay become independent under very heavy British influence (in 1810 and later in the 19th century, respectively)

*including much of the OTL far southern part of Chile

Note that the shorter-term outcome is early independence under British suzerainty for Buenos Aires (and all of Argentina proper), but direct British control of Uruguay and of outposts in Patagonia, like I've expressed time and again in this forum these past few months.

I'm wondering now, based on what Socrates is saying: Maybe some decades after the British let go of direct control of Buenos Aires and allow/encourage Buenos Aires (and at least part of Argentina proper) to declare independence ca. 1810, say in the 1840s-1860s, the British could try again to impose their ideal of taking over the entire region and make a protectorate out of Buenos Aires and the rest of Argentina proper, even as Uruguay and Patagonia remain actual British colonies?

At least that time around, there is already an independent state upon which the British could make a protectorate. This way also, the British wouldn't worry about totally absorbing Argentina proper into the British Empire while keeping it within the British sphere in terms of more than just heavy political/military influence. It might just work, especially as Argentina proper is most probably in the throes of civil war just like in OTL (unless the British manage to tone down or even stop civil war in the area).

If the protectorate option does work, then Argentina proper (or part of it anyway) is a British protectorate in the longer term, and Uruguay and (eventually) Patagonia are British colonies. Sometime earlier in the 20th century, under this scenario, all three parts merge to form one country - sort of like how British India and the Princely States (essentially British protectorates) merge in 1947 to form the independent country of India.
 
The big plan is to make the British Capitalism antagonizes a buch of potentially friendly nations for a big desert? If it controls the Plate, it will piss off Brazil, if it controls a Spanish speaking area it woud piss off the rest of South America and possibly Spain (as it didn't recognize Argentina's independence until the 1850's IRCC).

Also, the nation which controls Buenos Aires and most of the humid Pampa will want to control the desert as well

climas+de+argentina.gif
 
The big plan is to make the British Capitalism antagonizes a buch of potentially friendly nations for a big desert? If it controls the Plate, it will piss off Brazil, if it controls a Spanish speaking area it woud piss off the rest of South America and possibly Spain (as it didn't recognize Argentina's independence until the 1850's IRCC).

Also, the nation which controls Buenos Aires and most of the humid Pampa will want to control the desert as well

climas+de+argentina.gif
Pissing of those nations would not be as negative for the British as you seem painting.
 
Top