Had Argentina Been Anglophone, Would It Have Been More Prosperous & Populous Today? (ctd.)

Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: Before 1900' started by dovibear, Nov 22, 2018.

Loading...
  1. dovibear Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2013
    Location:
    Montreal
    In furtherance of post #57 and of what I've learned on this thread from others, it seems to me that in terms of setting up British settler colonies there are three main categories (increasing in level of difficulty) with regard to the ease of a British takeover in the face of an already-existing European population:

    1) the level of many Anglo areas (e.g. Australia/New Zealand, most of Canada outside Quebec, the United States outside much of the southern tier - i.e. Florida/Louisiana/Texas/Southwest/California)
    2) the level of Quebec or the Cape of Good Hope region (or, for that matter, much of the southern tier of the USA)
    3) the level of Ireland or Transvaal/Orange Free State

    Applying all this to the area of OTL Argentina/Uruguay in the event of British success at Buenos Aires in 1807, it seems to me that Patagonia, the southern Pampas (including OTL Bahia Blanca), Entre Rios, and the Chaco (and also Misiones, if you didn't have to go through Corrientes) would be in category 1. Uruguay and Santa Fe would be in category 2. Finally, areas like Buenos Aires, Corrientes/Paraguay (assuming that the Orientales under Artigas end up there and establish their own republic(s)), Cordoba, Mendoza/San Juan/San Luis, Tucuman/Catamarca/La Rioja/Santiago del Estero, and Salta/Jujuy/Oran would be in category 3.

    It's category 3 that would be the most difficult for the British to try to take over, and for which it would take much justification with respect to British aims to attempt such a takeover. As I said before, of all these category 3 areas in the Southern Cone, Buenos Aires would provide more justification than other such areas for various reasons, and even then, a protectorate/residency/suzerainty would initially be better than an outright takeover.

    Moreover, IOTL, were the people in Buenos Aires and elsewhere as rebellious in the mid- and late-19th century as they were through the 1820s?
     
    Flashman likes this.
  2. Lenwe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Location:
    Santiago
    I get your point but even then you get short you need a new category for the Difficult that is Argentina Conquest, a Category 4 if you like.

    These places will be Category 3, they are inhabited by Mapuches and Other araucanized pampean tribes, those guys use fire weapons, have a pretty much a secure base of operations from Chile, and constantly raid and burn Argentinean Cities, so they be a strong expensive headache to stop any British expansion of the area, they were so difficult to control that the Argentinea Goverment built a Trench, the Zanja de Alsina, to try to stop the Raids, There is a Reason Pretty much of the Pampas Weren´t colonized by Argentinean or Chilean until after the 1880, were both countries make a "pacification" of the area

    Yeah they could be, but I doubt it´s taht easy they are too far away and without easy access from the Sea

    No, Uruguay Without Montevideo is Easy to Conquest, category -1 if you like, But Montevideo is Night Impossible to conquest, the UK in the 1807 Take over the city with 6.000 men, but still they were repellead and expulsed of the City in the British invasions of the River Plate.

    Buenos Aires Alone is Category 4, the British Take over the City in 1807 with over 9.000-12.000 men, the Defeat was so contudent that the 1st Battalion, 71st Regiment of Foot colours captured By the Argentiena defenders are still in exhibition in Buenos Aires, if you read Spanish

    They a re more difficult than you belive, tier 3 is loable, tier 4 it´s not.

    They are still as rebellious Today as they were in the 1820
    [​IMG]
     
    Dan1988 likes this.
  3. dovibear Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2013
    Location:
    Montreal
    Lenwe, I was just saying "in the face of an already-existing European population" such as the Spanish of the River Plate, the French of Quebec, the Dutch of the Cape, and the Irish. When it comes to overcoming indigenous populations, the equation is quite a bit different, and I acknowledge the difficulties of conquering the Araucanized tribes in the southern Pampas and Patagonia. But that's not really different from the difficulties that the British faced in conquering the Maori population of New Zealand, the Indian population of the Prairies (Manitoba/Saskatchewan/Alberta), and the Aboriginal population of Australia, not to mention the black Xhosa/Zulu/Tswana populations of South Africa; or what the Americans were up to against the Indians of the Great Plains and the Southwest.

    Entre Rios is right next to Uruguay and much closer to the sea than Corrientes or certainly the Chaco; thus, Entre Rios could be settled pretty early on. The Chaco would be conquered at the same time just about as Patagonia - i.e. later in the 19th century.

    Montevideo was not by any means impossible to conquer - it happened in February 1807 under General Samuel Auchmuty. It wasn't exactly easy, but they did it. Auchmuty managed to keep Montevideo in order for several months right up to when the British withdrew from that city later that year, and he even set up a bilingual (English-Spanish) newspaper extolling the virtues of the British. They withdrew only because of the British defeat in Buenos Aires later that year under another British general, John Whitelocke, as part of a deal in the aftermath of that defeat to get British troops out of the region. Had the British been victorious in Buenos Aires, they certainly would have stayed in Montevideo!!!

    Do you truly think that the people of Buenos Aires have been more rebellious than in Cordoba or Mendoza or Tucuman or Salta?
     
  4. unprincipled peter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2013
    Location:
    New York
    to be fair, the first one was wildly successful, at first. However, it was more of a rogue attack, not part a planned/organized invasion, and the conquering troops were too few to hold on to the city long term, and transportation of the day took too long to write home about the success and get the necessary backup troops/supplies.

    The second one was plagued by incompetent leadership. But, the first invasion caused the portenos to fortify, making the task more difficult for the invaders.

    If the second invasion were the first one, they would have taken the city. The problem is in keeping it.
    As stated, Montevideo was conquered by the British. It was also conquered a decade later by the Portuguese. It's a tough nut to crack, but it's not invincible.

    Whitelocke messed up the invasion of Buenos Aires. An alternate invasion doesn't automatically mean victory, but W's hesitation and tactics ensured defeat.

    The problem comes later. There's going to be a demoralizing guerrilla campaign that will last until the British decide they've had enough.
     
    Lenwe likes this.
  5. unprincipled peter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2013
    Location:
    New York
    Entre Rios/Corrientes have easy access via navigable rivers. Buenos Aires can make it difficult, but not impossible.
     
    Lenwe likes this.
  6. Masked Grizzly Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2011
    Would an ATL Paraguay that retained Formosa and part of Salta as a result of avoiding the the War of the Triple Alliance (along with possibly Chile) have been in a position to take a number of the leftover Argentine territories?
     
    Lenwe likes this.
  7. Lenwe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Location:
    Santiago
    dovibear, I get you, But I was referring in the point specific where you Mentioned that "Patagonia, the southern Pampas (including OTL Bahia Blanca)" will be easy to control, my point was that these lands will be not easy to control because they weren´t in European Hands.
    And of all the other native groups you mentioned lack something that the Mapuches Have.
    Maori population of New Zealand, Don´t have native Iron weapons Industries,Horses and cultural use of horsemanship, use of Firearms, and how to procure Firearms without European or "white" Interference
    Xhosa/Zulu/Tswana populations of South Africa,Don´t have ,Horses, use of Firearms and how to procure Firearms without European Interference
    Indian population of the Prairies A secure base of operations were they could retire, and boost their numbers outside the European influence


    Yeah here my bad I was only thinking in the Chaco and Corrientes.


    But the Question is could the British maintain both? if they don´t take Buenos Aires, They Lost Montevideo(second invasion), And if they don´t take Montevideo They Lost Buenos Aires(first invasion)

    Taking into account they rebelled five times with the intention to make Argentina a centralized Country, under Buenos Aires Guidance, and only stopped trying when the Federation give a Preponderant Importance to Buenos Aires, Resisted the Anglo-French Blockade ,and defeated all the tries of the blockade to land troops,then Yes.

    Of the lot you mentioned the least rebellious are Salta and Mendoza
     
    Dan1988 likes this.
  8. dovibear Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2013
    Location:
    Montreal
    How soon would such a Buenos Aires-based guerrilla campaign start after capture in June-July 1807? (Or perhaps with a protectorate rather than full British colony there's less strong of a guerrilla campaign if at all?!)

    IOTL, control of Formosa was disputed between Argentina and Paraguay until the War of the Triple Alliance. ITTL, Paraguay, Santa Fe, and/or Corrientes could jockey for control of it, and when the British (now in possession of Santa Fe) are serious about taking over the southern Chaco (including Formosa) in the later 19th century, the southern Chaco ultimately gets incorporated into the "white dominion" Argentine Confederation and fills it up with British and other settlers - a frontier more or less no different from Patagonia. Paraguay isn't in control of anything west of the Paraguay River.

    Well, I'm sure that in turn, the Mapuches and so forth lacked something or another that the Maori or South African blacks or the Indians of the North American Great Plains had. I mean, all of these groups were quite formidable foes in their own ways; it all balances out.

    If the second invasion is more of a complete success, such that they take Montevideo and they also manage to take Buenos Aires, the British could hold onto Montevideo and - to some degree maybe - Buenos Aires. But as I've outlined over and over, I see each of their trajectories to be different.

    Interesting that Salta is among the least rebellious of that lot of interior regions plus Buenos Aires, given that in Salta there was an Artigas-like guerrilla figure by the name of Güemes.
     
  9. Lenwe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Location:
    Santiago
    Well if we go by OTL precedent Between a Week and a month? for a outrigh conquest.
    For a forced protectorate, like the one over Uruguay by Brazil, between six months to a year?


    Ok, fair enough, this thread is not the palce to have this discussion. We need a new one.


    yes, but after Gúemes, you don´t have any more notable Caudillos and rebels from Salta.
     
  10. dovibear Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2013
    Location:
    Montreal
    Guerrilla warfare was used extensively by the Boer side during both Boer Wars in the Transvaal and the Orange Free State. The Boers won the first Boer War of 1880-81 and the British won the second Boer War of 1899-1902 (militarily anyway), thus paving the way to the formation of the Union of South Africa. So too, in any battle between Buenos Aires guerrillas and British forces, it could go either way. If the British win the first time, they get to control Buenos Aires at least as a protectorate, maybe even outright. If they lose, they could still provide suzerainty over an independent Buenos Aires republic just like after the first Boer War the Transvaal, for a time, was independent under British suzerainty. And the British could try their luck again in Buenos Aires a few decades later.

    Although, I'm not familiar enough with the nature of the Buenos Aires forces nor of the Boer forces and how they compare.
     
  11. Masked Grizzly Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2011
    Understand. On top of all of Patagonia could this ATL Argentine Confederation have also eventually taken other parts of Chile such as Los Lagos and Los Rios given an earlier enough POD?
     
  12. M79 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2007
    If you want Argentina to prosper give it an equivalent of Brazil's Pedro II in 1825 or 1830. For even more striking results have Pedro killed shortly after coming to power. Brazil likely fractures and Argentina might stretch from Iquitos to Ipenema
     
  13. dovibear Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2013
    Location:
    Montreal
    I don't see ATL Argentina taking over any more of OTL Chilean territory than its part of Patagonia, south of Chiloé Island. I see Chile as wanting to expand southwards to Los Lagos, Chiloé, etc.
     
    John I of Brazil and Lenwe like this.
  14. Threadmarks: more details on post-1807 fates of Montevideo and Buenos Aires

    dovibear Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2013
    Location:
    Montreal
    I've thought more about the possibility of pro-independence guerrilla/rebel warfare in the River Plate area after a British success in 1807. Beating back the guerrillas would be easier in Montevideo and the Uruguayan countryside than in Buenos Aires and its hinterlands for a number of reasons. Uruguay has the advantage of a smaller existing population, a significant naval base that's now in British hands, and - just as importantly - Portuguese troops who come over from next door in Brazil to assist the British (after all, the Portuguese and British are allies). That makes a British victory over the Uruguayan guerrillas more likely, and thus for Uruguay to remain a British colony (with the Portuguese agreeing with the British to pull back into Brazil and retaining navigation rights for the River Plate to be shared with the British).

    By contrast, the likely difficulty of the British beating back the Buenos Aires guerrillas contributes to the British agreeing to make Buenos Aires a British protectorate or, more likely, a vassal state under British suzerainty for a time (cf. Boer republics) or else something akin to Cuba in the decade or so after the Spanish-American War (independent but with strong American military and political influence). Under those circumstances, the British certainly retain trading rights in Buenos Aires and may - just may - intervene politically at times. Fast forward a few decades, as I've explained before, and the British take full control of Buenos Aires when Rosas or someone like him threatens to expel the British from the whole region.
     
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2018
  15. deathstrokenorris Ah Israel, que país tan interesante

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2016
    But of course!

    If Argentina was controlled by Britain the country would be highly successful, just like any African country the USA. The mighty minds of the british master race and the Protestant work ethic ™ would see to that.

    Argentina would be a highly successful country at least, just like Canada, Australia and New Zealand (it's not like a lot of factor had something to do with it) or a world power of the caliber of the US (it's not like the US is an impossible to repeat situation).

    Zeig Victoria,
    All Hail Britannia!
     
  16. Lenwe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Location:
    Santiago
    The true The Boer and Argentina situation áre completly different, yeah superficially they look similar, but that is not The case.
    The boers repúblic were as much a colonial State as the English, they have shallow roots in the área and nowhere to turn to ask for help.
    In Argentina, until after The Paraguay war, they could ask for help from Paraguay, Chile, Perú and Bolivia, not always "oficial" but it Will be there None The less, in equal parts because they have a Lot of "american" solidarity and áre afraid that if one of them fall, all of them Will fall and Will be prey of one or another European power
     
    Dan1988 and John I of Brazil like this.
  17. Masked Grizzly Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2011
    Am thinking in terms of an ATL British Argentina/Uruguay having a major port or few in the Pacific, alongside its existing South Atlantic ports.

    Had the British been able to take Uruguay at minimum, it would have been interesting to see what name they give the territory.
     
    John I of Brazil likes this.
  18. Cantra Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2018
    Location:
    An alternate Earth
    I believe it would have been. The English system of governance was far superior to the ways of the Spanish Empire's, the Spanish Empire fell due to poor decisions and poor government decisions too. The British Empire survived and thrived due to its democratic stance and overall a better living standard than that of the Spanish.

    All of Spain's former colonies fell into military dictatorships, ineffective democratic states and the like, while Britain's didn't. Even Spain today, faces issues with corruption.
     
    dovibear and John I of Brazil like this.
  19. deathstrokenorris Ah Israel, que país tan interesante

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2016
    I think you should inform all those african and asian colonies of that.
    Right. The democratic and thriving colonies. Like Kenya.
     
    Dan1988, cpip, Ciniad and 2 others like this.
  20. Cantra Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2018
    Location:
    An alternate Earth
    Spain didn't colonize Kenya.
     
Loading...