independent Argentina with enhanced British influence + British Uruguay

Yes, M is easier to keep and defend, but BA is still going to foster Uruguayan insurgency for a long while. With enough boots on the ground, Britain can occupy one or both, but the boots will need to stay there for a long time. As soon as they start any reduction in forces, the Spanish will be looking to regain territory. It's like Iraq and the US. US can take any city it wants. Holding it and remolding the power structure is another matter.

the only way to control BA from M is to back a war lord/faction, and give him enough support to stay in power. What that gives you is trade rights, which they can get anyway without all the resource drain - either by returning the cities back to Spain in exchange for trade, or by setting up an independent country. But that doesn't give you your colony.

So, we're back to massive boots on the ground to control BA and M, and they're going to be there a long time. the spanish are not going to accept a foreign overlord easily.

All this is assuming that Spain gets BA, M, etc. back in 1808 once Spain becomes a British ally. On the other hand, at that time, Spain is very much the junior partner compared to Britain, Spain is in need of an ally in the war against Napoleon, and meanwhile Britain is trying to keep as much of what it captures as possible, especially of strategic value. Plus, my presumption has been all along that Britain holds onto both sides of the Plate until it tires of Buenos Aires around 1810 (if not before) and Buenos Aires becomes a British client state (with pro-British parties ruling much of the time) while Montevideo remains a British colony. Therefore, unless Spain gets back Buenos Aires (the city and province as it was then), it will be difficult to impossible for Uruguayan insurgents to be based anywhere in Buenos Aires.
 
OTL, Carlota, Spanish princess turned Portuguese Queen (technically regent at that point), attempted to assert authority over the Spanish colonies. this was after France deposed the Bourbons in Spain, which I insist has to be averted, so maybe this butterflies her attempts. She wanted an Absolute Monarchy, which alienated a lot of the colonists, and she was a Portuguese Queen, which alienated a lot of the colonists, and Wiki says she was opposed by the British (although it doesn't say why). But, there was significant support, and some obscure source I read said that a kingship was offered to Pedro Carlos, nephew of Charles IV and grandson of mad Maria, raised in the Portuguese court, but he refused. So, there's plenty of sentiment for a monarchy. You could have the British install Pedro Carlos as a puppet king. OTL he dies in 1810/11, but maybe a change of climate out of the humid tropics of Rio gives him a longer lifespan. He does end up with a son of his own before he goes, so the regent could be a toady of Britain. You still end up with the same problem: the colonials are going to be opposed to any regime in bed with the British as a protectorate. But maybe the royal angle gives it just enough hint of legitimacy to make it work.

Once the independent British client state of Buenos Aires/Argentina gets going from ca. 1810, someone from the Iberian (or other European) royal line does sound like a fantastic idea for that new country, as seen in another TL, and here and here. That's more or less like what the British did in Iraq and in Egypt once those countries became independent of formal British rule.

What do the Brits trade for in Bahia Blanca? This isn't north america where there's a viable fur trade.

To have a colony be appetizing, it needs to be profitable. the indians in the south are no joke. there's a reason Europeans didn't move in until late in the 19th century. militarily, you can overcome the hurdles involved.

The Brits could buy cattle hides, horses, etc. in their Patagonian trading posts, and the Indians in turn could buy British manufactured goods. There'd also be hunters and whalers and sealers aplenty. Later on, there could be wars between the Indians and the British colonists in Patagonia. To make an analogy, in New Zealand before the official establishment of the British colony in 1840, British and other traders bought flax and timber from the Maori, and many hunters, whalers, etc. were attracted to New Zealand; as the colony was developing, the colony fought off the Maori and the Maori barely made it at one point.
 
Britain still got trade rights and economic control over the region. They didn't get their colony, but you want that more than they did.

the only way to control BA from M is to back a war lord/faction, and give him enough support to stay in power. What that gives you is trade rights, which they can get anyway without all the resource drain - either by returning the cities back to Spain in exchange for trade, or by setting up an independent country. But that doesn't give you your colony.

I still say Britain will quickly realize it's not worth the resource expense. As in OTL, they can get what they want without physical possession. Perhaps they can affect a smoother transition to independence, so that Argentina doesn't go through the massive civil disruption/wars that it did OTL. that would be a victory in itself. But that doesn't get you your spot of British pink on the map.

To have a colony be appetizing, it needs to be profitable, which means it needs stability. the colonials were getting ideas of independence prior to 1806 - it hadn't erupted yet, but the rumblings are there - and that was with a Spanish king. they sure as heck are going to be restless with a British overlord, whether it's directly or as a puppet state. Your biggest hurdle is motive. They can achieve trade without a protectorate and/or an Uruguayan colony and all the expenses involved. that's my main disagreement with your plan. Hand Wavium provides the motive, and the ability is there. I'd stick with occupation of both BA and M. Alternately, I'd go with an attempt at installing a king on a throne and forget about occupation. Go with creating a strong monarchy who will keep peace and foster economic growth. Create an ally rather than a protectorate under your thumb. It's a radical notion for the time (actually helping someone for future gain over abusing them for immediate gain), but history has shown that strong economies foster strong trade.

I think the following could constitute an attempt to create common ground (and I've based all my premises mentioned in this thread on that): Even though the new British Foreign Secretary, Viscount Castlereagh, made a famous memorandum in April-May 1807 that Latin America should be subject to British economic but not political influence, this would hold everywhere in Latin America only if the British subsequently lose in the River Plate (and, by extension, Patagonia), which is what transpired in OTL. My thinking is that if the British do make a victory in BA in June-July that year under Whitelocke, the Castlereagh memorandum would have still been applicable elsewhere in Latin America but not quite as much in the River Plate.

What this means is that inside the River Plate, under those circumstances, trade would have been a major goal for the British but not necessarily the only one. Elsewhere in Latin America, of course, trade would have remained the major goal for the British. Thus, in my opinion, it would have been worth the administrative and other expenses for the British in maintaining their Plate colony.

At first, the British would have had all the Plate, but most probably they would have gotten tired of BA and would have granted BA independence under British suzerainty, probably supplying BA with a new king from the Iberian or French lines. British forces in BA would have been triaged to Montevideo and join the British forces already in Montevideo. BA would have then been supervised from the naval bases in M and elsewhere along the Uruguayan coast across from BA, which would automatically have cut down on administrative/military costs in having to maintain bases on the BA side. If afterwards British forces also tire of Montevideo, which I don't see as so likely, then the British concentrate their colonial activities in Patagonia, at first starting with relatively little but picking up steam in subsequent decades.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Thanks for the response, but as Lincoln once said:

TFSmith121, here are the leading PODs for British success in 1806:

1) no bad weather in early August 1806 (at the time of the OTL Reconquista) to impede Popham, Beresford, etc.
2) Liniers is killed or captured

And in 1807:

1) someone different (more competent than Whitelocke) is chosen as the commanding officer
2) Whitelocke is somewhat more competent at the time - after all, even incompetent people have their competent days; besides which, not one of Whitelocke's mistakes by themselves was fatal to the mission, but all of them put together were, and even incompetent officers have been known to be sometimes victorious in military campaigns. Plus, his lieutenant, Leveson-Gower, performed even worse.
3) (just like in 1806) Liniers is killed or captured

But Britain did have the resources to create whole new colonies in the Cape, Trinidad, Mauritius, Ceylon, Malta, etc. as well as while fighting France. (They were captured by the British right around the same time, give or take.) Why shouldn't there be room for the Plate (or at least a part thereof)?!.

Thanks for the response, but as Lincoln once said when Ben Wade said anybody could replace McClellan:

"You can say anybody, but I must have somebody."

The obvious difference between the Plate and anywhere else the British scooped up in this era was the Platenos et al were a) white; b) Catholic; and c) culturally and societally pretty distinct from northern European Protestants...

Anyway, good luck.

Best,
 
Thanks for the response, but as Lincoln once said when Ben Wade said anybody could replace McClellan:

"You can say anybody, but I must have somebody."

The obvious difference between the Plate and anywhere else the British scooped up in this era was the Platenos et al were a) white; b) Catholic; and c) culturally and societally pretty distinct from northern European Protestants...

Anyway, good luck.

Best,

Most of the people in Malta were (and are) white, Catholic, and distinct from northern European Protestants; the same thing was true with the ruling classes in Trinidad and Mauritius.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Malta had been a imperial plaything for decades if not

Most of the people in Malta were (and are) white, Catholic, and distinct from northern European Protestants; the same thing was true with the ruling classes in Trinidad and Mauritius.

Malta had been an imperial plaything for decades if not centuries; likewise the West (and east) Indies, albeit for decades...

If you don't see the differences, okay, whatever works, but given the history of Anglo-Argentine relations, especially when the British tried anything more than simple economic imperialism, as written before, this has Ireland/South Africa/Quebec written all over it.

Best,
 
Last edited:
Malta had been an imperial plaything for decades if not centuries; likewise the West Indies, albeit for decades...

I grant that Malta had been an imperial plaything for a long time beforehand, and the same thing with the West Indies in general. Trinidad, though, was a Spanish colony all the way until its takeover by the British in 1797, even though many French settlers with their slaves and so forth were lured by the local Spanish rulers in the 1780s from Martinique and other French-speaking West Indian islands.

As for Mauritius, that's not in the West Indies at all - it's in a group of islands in the Indian Ocean off the east coast of Africa, on the way to India. Mauritius was first settled by the Dutch in the 17th century, but the Dutch abandoned that island in 1710; soon thereafter, the French came over. It was from the French that the British took it over in 1810.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Fine, but still, there's an inherent difference

I grant that Malta had been an imperial plaything for a long time beforehand, and the same thing with the West Indies in general. Trinidad, though, was a Spanish colony all the way until its takeover by the British in 1797, even though many French settlers with their slaves and so forth were lured by the local Spanish rulers in the 1780s from Martinique and other French-speaking West Indian islands.

As for Mauritius, that's not in the West Indies at all - it's in a group of islands in the Indian Ocean off the east coast of Africa, on the way to India. Mauritius was first settled by the Dutch in the 17th century, but the Dutch abandoned that island in 1710; soon thereafter, the French came over. It was from the French that the British took it over in 1810.

Fine, but still, there's an inherent difference between a nascent nation-state of continental dimensions and any number of "useful islands that get batted around on a regular basis by any one of a number of imperial powers."

And along with the to be expected resistance from the Argentines-to-be (overt and covert), there's no payoff for the British; at least with the Cape it makes a handy place to stop on the way east, and the various tropical territories (islands and otherwise) raise profitable items like sugar, cotton, spices, tobacco, whatever.

Argentina, at this point, is largely a place for beef and leather, which doesn't strike me as something London will spend much to gain or keep, otherwise, especially when once independent, the Argentines (and the rest of the Americas, for that matter, north and south) will be happy to produce and sell whatever the British market can bear...

Which takes us back to the 1806-07 strategic situation; there's just really not much profit in it for London et al.

Best,
 
Last edited:
Fine, but still, there's an inherent difference between a nascent nation-state of continental dimensions and any number of "useful islands that get batted around on a regular basis by any one of a number of imperial powers."

And along with the to be expected resistance from the Argentines-to-be (overt and covert), there's no payoff for the British; at least with the Cape it makes a handy place to stop on the way east, and the various triopical territories (islands and otherwise) raise profitable items like sugar, cotton, spices, tobacco, whatever.

Argentina, at this point, is largely a place for beef and leather, which doesn't strike me as something London will spend much to gain or keep, otherwise, especially when once independent, the Argentines (and the rest of the Americas, for that matter, north and south) will be happy to produce and sell whatever the British market can bear...

Which takes us back to the 1806-07 strategic situation; there's just really not much profit in it for London et al.

Best,

TFSmith121: Let's just say that Uruguay (or at least the Uruguayan coast), but not Buenos Aires etc., would be to South America outside the Guianas and Patagonia as Hong Kong has been to China proper. In other words, a British enclave within a vast space popular with informal empires in the 19th and early 20th centuries; Latin America and China were both quite popular with economic imperialists from countries like Britain. As well, South America was seen in the early 19th century as rich in trading and market opportunities, second or third only to India and possibly China - so that would make up for the relative lack of desirable agricultural products like sugar, tobacco, spices, etc. in the Plate area. This consideration is what attracted Sir Home Popham, a British naval officer, to the Plate in 1806 in the first place with his private, unauthorized mission that triggered the British invasions of 1806-07.
 
Last edited:
Fine, but still, there's an inherent difference between a nascent nation-state of continental dimensions and any number of "useful islands that get batted around on a regular basis by any one of a number of imperial powers."

And along with the to be expected resistance from the Argentines-to-be (overt and covert), there's no payoff for the British; at least with the Cape it makes a handy place to stop on the way east, and the various triopical territories (islands and otherwise) raise profitable items like sugar, cotton, spices, tobacco, whatever.

Argentina, at this point, is largely a place for beef and leather, which doesn't strike me as something London will spend much to gain or keep, otherwise, especially when once independent, the Argentines (and the rest of the Americas, for that matter, north and south) will be happy to produce and sell whatever the British market can bear...

Which takes us back to the 1806-07 strategic situation; there's just really not much profit in it for London et al.

Best,
Not even beef. Before refrigerators, Argentine meat was horrible and sold to be eaten by slaves, as it could only be preserved by salting it. I think the first good export product Argentina ended up having was wool, and only after good sheeps were smuggled in, during the 1820s
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Economic imperialism is one thing;

TFSmith121: Let's just say that Uruguay (or at least the Uruguayan coast), but not Buenos Aires etc., would be to South America outside the Guianas and Patagonia as Hong Kong has been to China proper. In other words, a British enclave within a vast space popular with informal empires in the 19th and early 20th centuries; Latin America and China were both quite popular with economic imperialists from countries like Britain. As well, South America was seen in the early 19th century as rich in trading and market opportunities, second or third only to India and possibly China - so that would make up for the relative lack of desirable agricultural products like sugar, tobacco, spices, etc. in the Plate area. This consideration is what attracted Sir Home Popham, a British naval officer, to the Plate in 1806 in the first place with his private, unauthorized mission that triggered the British invasions of 1806-07.

Economic imperialism is one thing; political imperialism, which by definition requires a government structure, police/courts, garrison, etc, is another...

Imperialism exists for economic or strategic gain (often inter-related); what's the gain over historical reality for the British in trying to maintain control? Bragging rights doesn't do it... there needs to be a payoff, monetary or otherwise.

Best,
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Fair point!

Not even beef. Before refrigerators, Argentine meat was horrible and sold to be eaten by slaves, as it could only be preserved by salting it. I think the first good export product Argentina ended up having was wool, and only after good sheeps were smuggled in, during the 1820s

Fair point!

As a Porteno, what do you think? The concept seems close to astronomically unlikely, most notably because the Argentines-to-be had made it clear they could see off any expeditionary force the British could afford to send...

Best,
 
Fair point!

As a Porteno, what do you think? The concept seems close to astronomically unlikely, most notably because the Argentines-to-be had made it clear they could see off any expeditionary force the British could afford to send...

Best,
The Portuguese/Brazilians tried -and failed - to keep Uruguay for almost ten years. Granted, at the end of the day they were expelled by the army of the province of Buenos Aires, and the British could have fared better than the Brazilians (or not. The Brazilian Army included highly trained Prussian mercernaries and they still were defeated).

So I think it's a matter of applied force vs. expected gains. The Argentine and Uruguayans to be would see it as independence and own rule. The British would see it as nipping at the edges of the Spanish Empire, which they achieve as well with independence, and profit, which they also achieve through independence.

I could see them trying to control the Magellan Strait but they may very well believe even fighting the Mapuche in the Patagonia isn't worth the effort. As for the cities in the River Plate... well, this site is alternatehistory.com instead of history.com but I think the conditions aren't there during the early 19th century to convince the British to fight their way in.
Maybe you could make a point if the independence wars are butterflied away and the Viceroyalty continues until the time of the second industrial revolution (not easy, I think, as the Spanish Empire is likely to be shaken by analogues of the Carlist Wars in such a timeline anyway) and some conditions remain the same - namely, it's more profitable to help the Spanish colonies to secede than to conquer them from Spain. It could make a point for a British colonization of the Patagonia, since military advances later in the century, such as smokeless gundpower, makes it easier to fight the Mapuches.
 
I could see them trying to control the Magellan Strait but they may very well believe even fighting the Mapuche in the Patagonia isn't worth the effort.

If the British could fight the Maori (known for their warlike nature at various times) in New Zealand successfully, they could successfully fight the Mapuche too.
 
The Portuguese/Brazilians tried -and failed - to keep Uruguay for almost ten years. Granted, at the end of the day they were expelled by the army of the province of Buenos Aires, and the British could have fared better than the Brazilians (or not. The Brazilian Army included highly trained Prussian mercernaries and they still were defeated).

So I think it's a matter of applied force vs. expected gains. The Argentine and Uruguayans to be would see it as independence and own rule. The British would see it as nipping at the edges of the Spanish Empire, which they achieve as well with independence, and profit, which they also achieve through independence.

Well, in the British colony of Uruguay, pro-independence Uruguayans could make a Boer-like trek to Paraguay/Misiones or the Chaco or something like that, not unlike the OTL temporary Oriental Exodus to Entre Rios led by Artigas, the Uruguayan nationalist.

As for the cities in the River Plate... well, this site is alternatehistory.com instead of history.com but I think the conditions aren't there during the early 19th century to convince the British to fight their way in.

The conditions are even worse in that regard in Buenos Aires than Montevideo.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Many thanks... makes sense

The Portuguese/Brazilians tried -and failed - to keep Uruguay for almost ten years. Granted, at the end of the day they were expelled by the army of the province of Buenos Aires, and the British could have fared better than the Brazilians (or not. The Brazilian Army included highly trained Prussian mercernaries and they still were defeated).

So I think it's a matter of applied force vs. expected gains. The Argentine and Uruguayans to be would see it as independence and own rule. The British would see it as nipping at the edges of the Spanish Empire, which they achieve as well with independence, and profit, which they also achieve through independence.

I could see them trying to control the Magellan Strait but they may very well believe even fighting the Mapuche in the Patagonia isn't worth the effort. As for the cities in the River Plate... well, this site is alternatehistory.com instead of history.com but I think the conditions aren't there during the early 19th century to convince the British to fight their way in.
Maybe you could make a point if the independence wars are butterflied away and the Viceroyalty continues until the time of the second industrial revolution (not easy, I think, as the Spanish Empire is likely to be shaken by analogues of the Carlist Wars in such a timeline anyway) and some conditions remain the same - namely, it's more profitable to help the Spanish colonies to secede than to conquer them from Spain. It could make a point for a British colonization of the Patagonia, since military advances later in the century, such as smokeless gundpower, makes it easier to fight the Mapuches.

Many thanks... makes sense.

Really, finding an economic payoff for British imperialism in Latin America proper (or any European power; France in Mexico, Spain in the Dominican Republic, etc.) seems pretty close to unobtanium, given the level of economic gain made possible by independence.

Best,
 
If the British could fight the Maori (known for their warlike nature at various times) in New Zealand successfully, they could successfully fight the Mapuche too.
The Maori's ranks were depleted by disease and internal infighting - and they surrendered. The Mapuches wouldn't surrender and would present an united front, as they did OTL. On top, they'd be supplied by Argentina and Chile.
Later in the century, they could be defeated. But to fight them for vast expanses of desert during the 1830s? What's in it for the British? Better stick to a few ports in the coast, take out the Onas in Tierra del Fuego and seize the unoccupied Falklands so the Americans don't end up setting up shop there.

Well, in the British colony of Uruguay, pro-independence Uruguayans could make a Boer-like trek to Paraguay/Misiones or the Chaco or something like that, not unlike the OTL temporary Oriental Exodus to Entre Rios led by Artigas, the Uruguayan nationalist.
They could fight until the British believe enough is enough

The conditions are even worse in that regard in Buenos Aires than Montevideo.
I don't think so. There is very little to gain before refrigeration and railroads. The only real economic activity the British can consider worth it is wool, but why would they fight a war for grazing grounds for sheep, when they can buy the wool anyway once the Spaniards are gone?
 
Last edited:
The Maori's ranks were depleted by disease and internal infighting - and they surrendered. The Mapuches wouldn't surrender and would present an united front, as they did OTL. On top, they'd be supplied by Argentina and Chile.
Later in the century, they could be defeated. But to fight them for vast expanses of desert during the 1830s? What's in it for the British? Better stick to a few ports in the coast, take out the Onas in Tierra del Fuego and seize the unoccupied Falklands so the Americans don't end up setting up shop there.

juanml82: In OTL, the Chileans did defeat the Mapuche in the 1850s or so in Chile south of the Bio-Bio, while the Argentines did the same on their side in the Desert Campaign around 1880.

In Patagonia in the beginning of TTL, the British stick to a few points along the coast, seize the Falklands, and fight the natives of Tierra del Fuego and seize that plus the Strait of Magellan. Eventually, with more advanced technology, the British fight the Mapuche and thereby make Patagonia as a whole into a British colony.

I don't think so. There is very little to gain before refrigeration and railroads. The only real economic activity the British can consider worth it is wool, but why would they fight a war for grazing grounds for sheep, when they can buy the wool anyway once the Spaniards are gone?

juanml82: Wool and hides would probably be the main economic activities. But besides that, if nothing else, Montevideo would be useful for the British as a naval base much more than Buenos Aires, as it's closer to the open Atlantic - pretty much already a Royal Navy zone by then - and has a significantly better natural harbour (and Montevideo would complement other Atlantic naval ports under British control very well). There would be other British naval establishments along the Uruguayan coast also, and the interior would be incorporated into the British colony as a buffer zone around Montevideo and the coast, if nothing else.

Also, why else were the British much more successful OTL in Montevideo in February-September 1807 than in Buenos Aires in June-July 1807?! I mean, sure, the commander of the Montevideo campaign was more competent than that of the Buenos Aires campaign. Even so, I think it's a testament of how a) the Montevideo population was so much smaller than that of Buenos Aires and easier for the British to control and b) Montevideo was in even more of a frontier zone than Buenos Aires, and more recently founded, and thus the elites were less well-rooted than the Buenos Aires elites.
 
Top