Greater British presence in South America post-Napoleon?

This is part of my "Western British Empire" TL that I've been rewriting and working on bit by bit, but I was wondering how realistic it would be to have a greater British presence/control in South America?

I know that Guyana and Belize are givens by this point (post 1815). Given a weaker America (which happens in this TL) and some great luck, how feasible would it be to have a British Patagonia post-1815, along with maybe the Galapagos Islands, the city of Guayaquil, and maybe Uruguay?
 
An interesting way to go about this - which is actually very plausible as well - is to somehow prevent the Peninsular War. Before Napoleon marched into Spain, the British considered Spain a French ally, and therefore their enemy. They had a plan to support the independence movements in Spanish America, which was getting very serious attention just before the Peninsular War broke out. Britain was in fact preparing to send an expenditionary force under Arthur Wellesley (later to become the Duke of Wellington) to Venezuela to defeat the Spanish there. Their official goal was to support the pro-independence faction, but you can bet they would have made Venezuela into a client state. Independence leaders in fact desired European immigration to South America, so they would probably have welcomed British settlers (at least initially).

Of course, IOTL, Napoleon invaded Spain, and Wellesley's forces were sent to the Peninsula instead. Prevent Napoleon from marching into Spain, and you may very well end up with British Venezuela. And if that works out, I wouldn't put it past the British to grab some more parts of Latin America, if in any way plausible. I can see them grabbing Panama; they already knew that a canal in that region would be very lucrative someday...
 
An interesting way to go about this - which is actually very plausible as well - is to somehow prevent the Peninsular War. Before Napoleon marched into Spain, the British considered Spain a French ally, and therefore their enemy. They had a plan to support the independence movements in Spanish America, which was getting very serious attention just before the Peninsular War broke out. Britain was in fact preparing to send an expenditionary force under Arthur Wellesley (later to become the Duke of Wellington) to Venezuela to defeat the Spanish there. Their official goal was to support the pro-independence faction, but you can bet they would have made Venezuela into a client state. Independence leaders in fact desired European immigration to South America, so they would probably have welcomed British settlers (at least initially).

Of course, IOTL, Napoleon invaded Spain, and Wellesley's forces were sent to the Peninsula instead. Prevent Napoleon from marching into Spain, and you may very well end up with British Venezuela. And if that works out, I wouldn't put it past the British to grab some more parts of Latin America, if in any way plausible. I can see them grabbing Panama; they already knew that a canal in that region would be very lucrative someday...

That would be an interesting POD, but I had hoped to find a way post 1815, i.e. War of 1812 and by association the Napoleonic Wars. Although, perhaps there is a way to have a war of 1812 but no Napoleonic Wars...
 
That would be an interesting POD, but I had hoped to find a way post 1815, i.e. War of 1812 and by association the Napoleonic Wars. Although, perhaps there is a way to have a war of 1812 but no Napoleonic Wars...

In a word no. The War of 1812 was mainly prompted by the Napoleonic wars. The main reason that the British were searching all ships was an attempt to stop supplies from reaching France. Without the Napoleonic wars, Britain would have no reason to search neutral shipping, thus the casus belli for the war wouldn't exist.
 
In a word no. The War of 1812 was mainly prompted by the Napoleonic wars. The main reason that the British were searching all ships was an attempt to stop supplies from reaching France. Without the Napoleonic wars, Britain would have no reason to search neutral shipping, thus the casus belli for the war wouldn't exist.

Oh right, crap. Well then, any other suggestions for getting more British possessions in South America post-1815?
 

katchen

Banned
An interesting way to go about this - which is actually very plausible as well - is to somehow prevent the Peninsular War. Before Napoleon marched into Spain, the British considered Spain a French ally, and therefore their enemy. They had a plan to support the independence movements in Spanish America, which was getting very serious attention just before the Peninsular War broke out. Britain was in fact preparing to send an expenditionary force under Arthur Wellesley (later to become the Duke of Wellington) to Venezuela to defeat the Spanish there. Their official goal was to support the pro-independence faction, but you can bet they would have made Venezuela into a client state. Independence leaders in fact desired European immigration to South America, so they would probably have welcomed British settlers (at least initially).

Of course, IOTL, Napoleon invaded Spain, and Wellesley's forces were sent to the Peninsula instead. Prevent Napoleon from marching into Spain, and you may very well end up with British Venezuela. And if that works out, I wouldn't put it past the British to grab some more parts of Latin America, if in any way plausible. I can see them grabbing Panama; they already knew that a canal in that region would be very lucrative someday...
Why would the British want Panama?
The British were already occupying Nicaragua's Mosquito Coast. They knew that a locked canal from Lake Nicaragua was feasible and much easier to build due to less of a problem with Malaria and Yellow Fever in Nicaragua than in Panama. It is Nicargua, Honduras, El Salvador and possibly Guatemala and Costa Rica that the British would likely have seized and colonized---initially with African slaves, with Indian coolies after 1808, making Central America a very different place indeed than much of the rest of Latin America. Venezuela too, as an extension of British Guiana.
And Patagonia and very likely the entirety of Argentina and Paraguay and eastern Bolivia and the western Amazon, creating a British belt across South America from Venezuela all the way to Cape Horn between the formerly Spanish Andean countries and formerly Portuguese Peru.
 
Why would the British want Panama?
The British were already occupying Nicaragua's Mosquito Coast. They knew that a locked canal from Lake Nicaragua was feasible and much easier to build due to less of a problem with Malaria and Yellow Fever in Nicaragua than in Panama. It is Nicargua, Honduras, El Salvador and possibly Guatemala and Costa Rica that the British would likely have seized and colonized---initially with African slaves, with Indian coolies after 1808, making Central America a very different place indeed than much of the rest of Latin America. Venezuela too, as an extension of British Guiana.

I stand corrected. :) Of course, they miight still end up grabbing Panama in the end, to connect 'British Central America' and British Guiana/Venezuela via land.
 
With regards to British expansionism in Central America, wouldn't that clash with America's Monroe Doctrine, as well as their filibustering of Latin American nations in the area shortly thereafter?
 
With regards to British expansionism in Central America, wouldn't that clash with America's Monroe Doctrine, as well as their filibustering of Latin American nations in the area shortly thereafter?

IOTL, the British enforced the Monroe Doctrine, because it furthered their interest (namely keeping other European nations from interfering too much in the Americas). At the time, the American navy was a joke, while the British navy was the most powerful fleet on earth. The British can shrug off any American objections to their Latin American plans, and just go ahead with it anyway. who's going to stop them? With what fleet?

I don't even think there will be a Monroe Doctrine in a scenario where it's clear that the British won't be supporting such a thing. And if the USA institutes such a doctrine anyway, they won't be able to enforce it.
 
IOTL, the British enforced the Monroe Doctrine, because it furthered their interest (namely keeping other European nations from interfering too much in the Americas). At the time, the American navy was a joke, while the British navy was the most powerful fleet on earth. The British can shrug off any American objections to their Latin American plans, and just go ahead with it anyway. who's going to stop them? With what fleet?

I don't even think there will be a Monroe Doctrine in a scenario where it's clear that the British won't be supporting such a thing. And if the USA institutes such a doctrine anyway, they won't be able to enforce it.

Perhaps the British could pick and choose their use of/compliance with the Monroe Doctrine? I ask because part of the "Western British Empire" TL is that Canada is focused upon more, has a greater amount of immigration, and becomes a Dominion in 1857 and eventually starts to "retain stewardship" of British possessions in the Americas, and part of west Africa.
 
If Brits take over South America in 1800s-1860es... then they could intefere in the ACW and dissolve and takeover ( incorporate in Canada ) USA?

Thus, British super-Argentina ( like in my link ) would possess most if not all of S America, and British super-Canada will hold most if not all of N America.

The non-English speaking peripheral territories could be incorporated in these 2 Brit unions the same way French-speaking Louisiana or Quebec were integrated in OTL respectivelly USA and Canada.

The compactly populated by "latinos" ( spanish and portugese speakers ) territories could be held separatelly as "colonies" = non-self-governing entities until they are admitted in the British unions when the British very intensive immigration policy ( with usual mixture of Central AND Eastern Europeans - Brit Argentinized and Canadized respectivelly - tips the balance into English speaking majorities. ).

THUS:

British N America and British S America will:

- engulf the whole of the continents

- meet eachother at Nicaraguan canal built with joint effort by the two Unions with investment from the metropoly - UK.

- replace the existing Spanish and Portugese speaking majorities by new English speaking immigration and natural growth populations.

- British Empire will such way furnish itself with TWO super-USA level "white", settler Dominions.

- the "empty" lands would exist as long as non-self-governing territories within the structure of these Unions - until enough internal new-population pressure, economy and internal policies make it possible and necessary to be incorporated and established new member-States. In late 1990es-early 2000es most if not all of the total area of the both Americas shall turn into mosaic of member-states.

- British Super-Canada and Super-Argentina would be integrated within the British Empire sharing currency, customs, military ... etc. but later could be sought full integration with UK, turning it into United Kingdom of England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales... together with 100+ N and S British American "home nations" + several dozens of such African and Australia-Oceania and Asian ( Pearl river basin area, Hong Kong, Strait Settlements - Singapore+, Borneo... ) entities. Non-federal, non-imperial, but unitary United Kingdom with devolved local authorities in each "home state" and supremacy of the London Parliament.

- The only non-settler , hence non-full-member territories of the British Empire would be the Indian Empire, to which could be attached the non-settler territories in Africa, Arabia and SE Asia.

- such world would possess almost perfect Oceanic vs. Land geopolitical dichotomy.

v809.jpg


UK+Indian Empire = British Empire vs. German-Russian domination of Eurasia.
 
Congratulations you just bankrupted Britian fighting a hundred wars forever and come great European was #3452534 the common world opinion will be which side will fuck up Britain more if they win?
 
taking possession of spanish america is arguably doable. keeping it an English possession is nearly impossible. The criollos decided in the first decade of 1800 that they were going to be free or semi autonomous. As Belgano said at the time of the first British invasion of Buenos Aires, "we'll either have the same master, or none at all" (not verbatim, but close enough). All the naval power in the world isn't going to put England in command on land.

Britain very wisely saw that being a major trade partner is better than having possession administratively. South America was a British sphere of interest for a century until WW1 interrupted everything.

If you need a British land possession, Uruguay may be doable. At the time of the second invasion of Buenos Aires, Britain took control of Montevideo and then stupidly gave it up voluntarily. Things would get sticky a year later when Spain flip flops and is now an ally instead of an enemy, but at that point Spain is in no position to demand England vacate it. Neither Argentina, nor Portuguese Brazil can kick them out if they're determined to stay. Argentina can lend support to harrass them. Artigas is going to cause trouble, but Portuguese Brazil managed to shut him up, so England can certainly do it. From there, England can now control the trade of the region. probably take Entre Rios, as it's scarcely populated. Maybe even encroach on southern Brazil. Get too big, though, and they're biting off more than they could chew. Give a decade or so there, and then when they're rested, they could probably take Patagonia if they sent in enough troops to wipe out the natives ('Indians'), but why? Britain isn't hurting for places to send it's excess population, and there is no real trade in the region.

Central American countries are probably small enough and remote enough from other countries that they would get no support for resisting the British. Everywhere else is just too big/populated for England to take over
and maintain possession if the locals don't want to be possessed.

Ultimately, the need to take over south america disappeared with south american independence.
 
taking possession of spanish america is arguably doable. keeping it an English possession is nearly impossible. The criollos decided in the first decade of 1800 that they were going to be free or semi autonomous. As Belgano said at the time of the first British invasion of Buenos Aires, "we'll either have the same master, or none at all" (not verbatim, but close enough). All the naval power in the world isn't going to put England in command on land.

Well yeah, I'm not trying to turn South America into a second Scramble For Africa or anything. I'm just looking for a few more British possessions beyond the Falklands and Guyana.

Britain very wisely saw that being a major trade partner is better than having possession administratively. South America was a British sphere of interest for a century until WW1 interrupted everything.

True enough on the trade partner part. As I mentioned though, I'm just looking for a few more semi-strategic places, such as Guayaquil, and maybe Uruguay. Patagonia would also be a plus, but a touch more difficult.

If you need a British land possession, Uruguay may be doable. At the time of the second invasion of Buenos Aires, Britain took control of Montevideo and then stupidly gave it up voluntarily. Things would get sticky a year later when Spain flip flops and is now an ally instead of an enemy, but at that point Spain is in no position to demand England vacate it. Neither Argentina, nor Portuguese Brazil can kick them out if they're determined to stay. Argentina can lend support to harrass them. Artigas is going to cause trouble, but Portuguese Brazil managed to shut him up, so England can certainly do it. From there, England can now control the trade of the region. probably take Entre Rios, as it's scarcely populated. Maybe even encroach on southern Brazil. Get too big, though, and they're biting off more than they could chew.

I will keep that in mind as a possibility, and how it might affect the world. Thanks! :)

Give a decade or so there, and then when they're rested, they could probably take Patagonia if they sent in enough troops to wipe out the natives ('Indians'), but why? Britain isn't hurting for places to send it's excess population, and there is no real trade in the region.

Well, in the early 1800's, the Welsh were getting a bit uppity. Some were setting up colonies in parts of America, but were assimilating rather quickly. My idea was that the Welsh (along with Scots from the Highland and Lowland Clearances) would set up colonies in Patagonia where they would be isolated and be able to speak the language and enjoy their culture freely, hopefully working with as opposed to the natives. They could help prevent Chilean and Argentinian expansion in the region, and may ultimately ask Britain for protection and become a British colony of sorts.

Central American countries are probably small enough and remote enough from other countries that they would get no support for resisting the British. Everywhere else is just too big/populated for England to take over
and maintain possession if the locals don't want to be possessed.

I had thought about British Nicaragua being a possibility.

Ultimately, the need to take over south america disappeared with south american independence.

Yeah, fair enough. :p
 
Britain could always purchase the Galapagos from Ecuador. It was difficult, to say the least, to encourage people to come to the islands and the only thing it offered were giant tortoises so if the British are offering a decent sum of change, the islands could be given to them. It's not going to be so good for the distinct wildlife there if too many people come to live there. :(

Now for British Guayaquil, you could have the British be more proactive in the Latin American Wars of Independence and assist the Free Province of Guayaquil's fight for freedom from Spain. I'm not sure whether the British would turn Guayaquil into a colony, protectorate probably. Unless the population desires to be put under British administration because their population is too small. (The Free Province only had 70,000 people living in Guayaquil's territory.)
 
Britain could always purchase the Galapagos from Ecuador. It was difficult, to say the least, to encourage people to come to the islands and the only thing it offered were giant tortoises so if the British are offering a decent sum of change, the islands could be given to them. It's not going to be so good for the distinct wildlife there if too many people come to live there. :(

Now for British Guayaquil, you could have the British be more proactive in the Latin American Wars of Independence and assist the Free Province of Guayaquil's fight for freedom from Spain. I'm not sure whether the British would turn Guayaquil into a colony, protectorate probably. Unless the population desires to be put under British administration because their population is too small. (The Free Province only had 70,000 people living in Guayaquil's territory.)

You've more or less proposed what I figured was possible for Britain on South America's west coast. :p

In this TL I had imagined that Britain, seeing an opportunity to acquire a strategic and large port in South America, would come to Guayaquil's aid. I would have Ecuador's war for Independence go a little more poorly and take a bit longer so that Guayaquilenos would end up feeling distinct from Ecuadorians, resulting in a protectorate. It might be a colony, but I doubt this given the history, language, and culture of the region combined with a lack of significant British military presence in the area at the time.

I had also imagined that Britain/Guayaquil might have bought the Galapagos islands and tied them to the protectorate for administration purposes. Similar to how Belize was at one point a part of Jamaican administration.
 
This might look far fetched a lot but:
If i'm not mistaken José de San Martín was offered the title of Director Supremo (equivalent to President at the time) of Chile; in OTL he declined in favor of a chilean: Bernardo O'Higgins, if he accepted O'Higgins (OTL the one who took the title) would have marched to Perú with the Expedición Libertadora del Perú instead of San Martín and taken forcefully everything up to Ecuador (given his extremely dictatorial character). In Chile San Martín would have strange effects and arguably this could lead to an unified Chilean-Argentinian government and in the end only one nation. She would deny releasing Perú and Bolivia as sovereing nations. This Union would be extremely unstable, leaving the opportunity open for Britan to colonize Patagonia as the dirigents in the Andes would be more worried about keeping the country from disintegrating than to colonize further south, one of the first objectives of the chilean government, in Argentina i'm not sure, pardon my lack of knowledge.

In the north the problems would be worst, given Perú would trying to maintain it's status as sovereing over south america as a whole (as in the Inca or in Peruvian Viceroyalty) more than in OTL (in reality there was resistance to the Expedición by the ruling class as oppossed to the rest of the continent where they saw the opportunity to gain more power in the worst case and of liberty in most and best). So with O'Higgins probably in charge of the northern territories this problem would worsen. England could sneak and take Ecuador and the Galapagos if a civil war starts from tensions between who governs (as in Argentina if I recall correctly).

Taking Uruguay also would not be far from this. However, this could backfire horribly for the British if the monster on the southern cone survived or even if Santiago and Bueno Aires keep the link.
 
Top