Ideal location for capital of United South America

[dreadnought jenkins]

So I was pondering the geography of South America, and I thought of something that interested me.

With a PoD in the 1400s or going forwards, say one colonial power eventually puts all of South America under its control. Barring that, they put the vast majority of the continent under its control.

Centuries later, the power loses control of its colonies. This could be a republican revolt, a royal fleeing overseas, whatever. The end point is, though, that the colonies unite under one state.

In such a situation, where would ideal capital locations be? In a pre-Panama canal era, (maybe) pre-railroad era, where would be a good location to effectively run/coordinate the varied states within the country?

 

[Alligator]

Pre-railroad, it would definitely have to be coastal or near-coastal. Probably Lima, Peru in case of a rebellion in the Andes.

 

[oshron]

there is actually one interesting possibility for this. y'know how Mexico City was built on top of Tenochtitlan when the Spanish conquered Mexico? that was mainly because it was an extremely important and defensible location with lots of significance and established routes and roads and whatnot around it that the Spanish could use in their colonial effort.

why do i bring up the Aztecs, you ask? well, until recently, it was thought that the Amazon was basically a "wet desert" where no civilization could thrive, just nomadic and semi-sedentary tribes in the rainforest. but, iirc, there was actually a big civilization there (i wanna say Cambeba but i've yet to confirm that) which kept the rainforest in check but was wiped out by European diseases before any Westerner could even lay eyes on it. if the actual limits of this civilization and a hypothetical location for a capital or other major city could be located, that could determine exactly where a hypothetical South American capital could be

the alternative, of course, is to apply the same rule to some other region with known civilizations, namely the Inca, or to have the Europeans just build a new capital in the middle of nowhere from their perspective that becomes a new and more important location, much like many OTL cities did. if i were to place it somewhere besides an OTL location like Rio or Buenos Aires, i'd suggest at the mouth of the Amazon for much the same reason that New Orleans is around the mouth of the Mississippi

 

[Alligator]

if i were to place it somewhere besides an OTL location like Rio or Buenos Aires, i'd suggest at the mouth of the Amazon for much the same reason that New Orleans is around the mouth of the Mississippi

Malaria being transmitted from the Old World would make a capital on the Amazon very difficult to maintain.

 

[oshron]

a fair point, but just an idea

 

[dreadnought jenkins]

Would it be more likely to have a capital around Brazil on the Atlantic, or Peru on the Pacific side?

Or would highlands in Columbia be better, or even some where along the Parana river?

The capital at the Amazon is an interesting idea. Malaria probably kills it during the early modern period, but countries have moved capitals before... So, maybe in the modern period.

 

[Mikestone8]

There isn't one - which is at least part of the reason there has never been a unites South America.

 

[Arkenfolm]

There isn't one - which is at least part of the reason there has never been a unites South America.

Basically this. But if there had to be one in the pre-Panama Canal era, the best would probably be either Buenos Aires, Montevideo or Rio de Janeiro. Santiago/Valparaiso might work for the West Coast of South America, but overall you'll want something on the east coast between Buenos Aires and maybe Salvador de Bahia at northernmost, definitely not further north than Recife. The only inland site I can think that might work (besides the aforementioned Santiago) is Asuncion. Manaus might be interesting, but only after the advent of widespread air traffic.

 

[telynk]

You'd probably want it to be somewhere with relatively easy access to both coasts. In North America, much of the west coast wasn't properly colonized until the 19th century, so both the USA and Canada could get away with eastern capitals. However, in south America, OTL Peru and chile would be much more important much earlier on, so you'd need easy communication between the coasts. So i'd say you either need a northern capital in otl Columbia or Panama (maybe cartagena or Panama city. I think Bogota is too far inland to have access to water-borne communication routes), or a capital in the southern cone (on the Rio de la Plata or around santiago/Valparaiso). I'don't probably vote for the southern cone due to the better climate for European colonizers and the proximity to Cape horn as the only possibility for moving the navy from coast to coast (i'd imagine that a united south America would be fairly navslly focused as their only land border would be a narrow strip in panama).

 

[Thanksforallthefish]

In post-1900 PODs, Montevideo is the ideal choice. It is located in a historically neutral and peaceful nation, it is not a very large city so it can be devoted to administration with little trouble, has a pleasant climate, and it is easily accessible by sea and other transport routes. OTL UNASUR has its HQ in Montevideo, after all. (EDIT: Apparently not. I was thinking of Mercosur)

Pre-1900? I'm not sure. A coastline is obvious. Rio de Janeiro, Buenos Aires or Lima seem the best choices.

There are many natural barriers to guarantee good communications before the advent of railroads and telecommunications (and the Spanish/Portuguese did not invest too much in inland infrastructure; they basically sent all production to the ports). Someone mentioned Asunción, and it's worth considering:

It's right at the center of the Plata Basin, accessible by several rivers (though the Iguazú Falls provide a formidable barrier). A power centered in the Plata Basin and more focused in river trade would find it a good capital.

Another great idea is Guayaquil. Not only it was the place of the conference between Bolivar and San Martín, but it also is in a neutral position, and easily accessible by sea.

I think I've heard proposals for a capital in Iguazú Falls (combining Puerto Iguazú and Foz de Iguazu probably). But to me, it sounds like a supervillian lair

 

[ben0628]

So I was pondering the geography of South America, and I thought of something that interested me.

With a PoD in the 1400s or going forwards, say one colonial power eventually puts all of South America under its control. Barring that, they put the vast majority of the continent under its control.

Centuries later, the power loses control of its colonies. This could be a republican revolt, a royal fleeing overseas, whatever. The end point is, though, that the colonies unite under one state.

In such a situation, where would ideal capital locations be? In a pre-Panama canal era, (maybe) pre-railroad era, where would be a good location to effectively run/coordinate the varied states within the country?

For this to happen two things need to happen (don't know if its plausible or not).

1) Don't split up the Viceroyalty of Peru
2) Spain needs to completely control Portugal.

Do these two things and you could make the argument that Lima could remain the capital of a United South America, at least temporarily. If a United South America could happen though, it'd probably federalize, meaning they'd either build a new capital altogether in the middle of the Continent or eventually move the capital to the east coast, probably Buenos Aires, Montevideo, or Rio de Janeiro