Largest possible Chile

If, somehow, Argentina doesn't push into the Patagonia, then maybe Chile might try to move in and claim it all. Such a situation should need a longer lasting civil war in Argentina.

Other than that maybe, absent an Antarctic Treaty, Chile ends up successfully claiming a chunk of Antarctica.
 
I made a pretty big one once. Fed me for about a week.

"The largest serving of chili con carne weighs 1,097.69 kg (2,420 lb) and was achieved by Chris' Dream Chili Team (USA) in Minto, North Dakota, USA on 15 June 2013.

The attempt used a specially produced cooking pot which weighed 671.32 kg (1,480 lb) and had a volume of 1,317.32 litres (348 US Gal)."

Source

That'd feed you for a year!
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Go west, young chileno...

Chile was independent before Polynesia and New Zealand were claimed (officially) by France and Britain; an expansive Chile is certainly possible in the interval after independence (1827, if one counts the Chiloe Archipelago) and before the French and British establish their claims (French protectorate of Tahiti in 1842 and Treaty of Waitangi in 1840, respectively).

Obviously, if the French and British object, there is little the Chileans can do about it, but chronologically, it is possible.

Best,
 
I wrote up an outline about Chile once (it's floating around here somewhere) but I don't think very many read it. Chile ended up with all of Fire Island, half of Patagonia, a slice of Polynesia, the Antarctic Peninsula and some islands in the South Atlantic.
 
Chile was independent before Polynesia and New Zealand were claimed (officially) by France and Britain; an expansive Chile is certainly possible in the interval after independence (1827, if one counts the Chiloe Archipelago) and before the French and British establish their claims (French protectorate of Tahiti in 1842 and Treaty of Waitangi in 1840, respectively).

Obviously, if the French and British object, there is little the Chileans can do about it, but chronologically, it is possible.

Best,

They'd need quite a fleet to do that. In the second half of the century, they actually did have that, but prior to 1840, I'm not so sure. It's quite early for a small (in terms of population), freshly independent country full of social issues to go a-colonizing.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Undoubtedly; I did say "possible"...however,

They'd need quite a fleet to do that. In the second half of the century, they actually did have that, but prior to 1840, I'm not so sure. It's quite early for a small (in terms of population), freshly independent country full of social issues to go a-colonizing.

The conservatives had (more or less) ruled Chile from the end of the war of independence in the 1820s until the 1850s; the political scene in Chile in the 1830s after the 1829-30 civil war was stable enough that the Chilean conservatives ruled for two decades and fought and won the Confederation war with Peru and Bolivia in 1836-39, despite a population differential of 4 million to 1 million, and an economic differential of 3-1.

During the 1836-39 war, the Chilean fleet included some eight ships, ranging from impressed merchant brigs to several corvettes, including (eventually) the Libertad (24), Confederacion (22), Santa Cruz (20), and Valparaiso (20), and moved expeditionary forces ranging from 2,000 to 5,000 men into Peruvian and Bolivian territory.

So, yes, a Chilean movement "west" is unlikely, but not impossible.

Best,
 
The conservatives had (more or less) ruled Chile from the end of the war of independence in the 1820s until the 1850s; the political scene in Chile in the 1830s after the 1829-30 civil war was stable enough that the Chilean conservatives ruled for two decades and fought and won the Confederation war with Peru and Bolivia in 1836-39, despite a population differential of 4 million to 1 million, and an economic differential of 3-1.

During the 1836-39 war, the Chilean fleet included some eight ships, ranging from impressed merchant brigs to several corvettes, including (eventually) the Libertad (24), Confederacion (22), Santa Cruz (20), and Valparaiso (20), and moved expeditionary forces ranging from 2,000 to 5,000 men into Peruvian and Bolivian territory.

So, yes, a Chilean movement "west" is unlikely, but not impossible.

Best,

Agreed. Although if they really plan to take friggin' New Zealand, they'd need to find a copious source of colonists quick.
However, a bunch of islands in Polynesia are definitely within the realm of possibility. On the other hand, what motivation could there be? They'd still a bigger fleet quickly, and that sort of things is expensive. The country is fairly stable and rich by South American standards, but it's not like such a venture promises many returns. May be a prestige project for some local strongman, although in that case, it might also backfire later.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Well, the 1836-39 war ended at Yungay, which is

more than 300 miles north of Lima.

6100 Peruvians and Bolivians were defeated by 4500 Chileans and 800 Peruvians. The commander was Manuel Bulnes, who served as president between 1841 and 1851, and previously had been responsible for the final defeat of the Mapuche tribes, which was definitely a hybridized "native/Western" culture, and so was a little more of a challenge than the typical resistant native culture of the era.

Actually, I could see Bulnes reaching out into Polynesia, and points west. The Chileans occupied the Juan Fernandez Islands in this period, which are a lot closer to the mainland, of course, but shows they were thinking of the oceanic frontier. Bulnes also ordered the settlement/colonization of what became Punta Arenas, basically to secure Chilean control of the Straits; he definitely was a strategic thinker.

Being married to the daughter of a previous president and brother-in-law to another didn't hurt; he was well integrated into the elite.

Best,
 
I think expansion to the north is more feasible if Chile later doesn't desire to reach an understanding with Argentina and claim all of the patagonia. A more crushing defeat in the war of the pacific or in the war of the confederación for Perú and Bolivia. There was unconditional surrender for both nations if I remember correctly. You could rip off La Paz, Oruro and Potosí (modern regions) from Bolivia in a carthaginian peace and add more minerals for Chile to exploit after saltpeter industry implodes (= chilean economy) in the beginning of the XX century..

If you want a PoD:

1.- José de San Martín doesn't reject becoming director supremo of Chile, creating a good chance of Chile and Argentina emerging as one independent country instead of two. Bernardo O'Higgins then becomes the commander of the expedición libertadora del Perú... and because of this there probably won't be a Perú or a Bolivia at all. You could somehow shift the political center to Chile due to an devastating argentinian civil war. There you have an unified southern cone but how long can you keep it that way?

2.- Diego Portales is not killed in the war of the confederación by a regiment. He was the political mastermind behind the first years of Chile and the person who really excercised control of the government, most importantly, he predicted most of the problems for Chile that would appear in the XIX century and maybe with him alive Chile could solve or avoid them.
 
more than 300 miles north of Lima.

6100 Peruvians and Bolivians were defeated by 4500 Chileans and 800 Peruvians. The commander was Manuel Bulnes, who served as president between 1841 and 1851, and previously had been responsible for the final defeat of the Mapuche tribes, which was definitely a hybridized "native/Western" culture, and so was a little more of a challenge than the typical resistant native culture of the era.

The war against the Confederation is bad, quite bad, conflict to gauge Chilean strength in the 1830s. Most of the primary sources and later works, including that of Bulnes’ son himself, acknowledge a parity of forces, if not outright numerical superiority on the part of the Restauradores, in Yungay (With figures for the Confederados ranging from 6,000 to 4,200 men.)
[FONT=&quot]
Also, besides having at least 1 Peruvian for every 5 soldiers, the expeditionary force counted, and relied heavily, on local support, without which its victory could have been at best dubious. One need only look to the first expedition under Blanco Encalada, which landed in territories that sympathized entirely with Santa Cruz. [/FONT]
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Sure, but it was more simply to illustrate that

Sure, but it was more simply to illustrate that:

a) Chile was - reasonably - stable in this period, and so various "neo-colonial" adventures were possible; and
b) They could mobilize and support expeditionary forces beyond a naval landing party.

Again, I didn't say it was likely that Chile would "go west" simply that is was possible (more so than any of the other Pacific-coast Latin American republics).

It does raise the issue that if the goal in Santiago is "a short victorious war" to gain legitimacy for the conservatives and (presumably) divert liberal energies overseas, then going west was certainly less likely to cost as much in financial or political capital as going northeast, east, or southeast. For one thing, the locals are less likely to shoot back...

With the caveats that the French and British don't block these moves, of course.

Best,
 
Sure, but it was more simply to illustrate that:

a) Chile was - reasonably - stable in this period, and so various "neo-colonial" adventures were possible; and

Absolutely.

b) They could mobilize and support expeditionary forces beyond a naval landing party.
That's what I was getting at. They could mobilize their forces, and have a friendly environment support them.

If they can pull treaties with the natives, similar to the Brits, then it's all good. Otherwise...
 

TFSmith121

Banned
I think we're violently agreeing;

Chile, as far as the South American republics generally and the West Coast especially, has a maritime orientation that is different then most of the rest; "una larga y angosta faja de tierra" in more ways than one.

Because of this, the "frontier" - which in Peru was the Oriente/Amazon, in Chile was either a) the south, or b) the Pacific.

And while expansion to the north and east was certainly possible, the reality is that would lead to conflict with peer competitors that would be expensive, in lives and finances.

Whereas the Pacific - at least until the 1840s - was still "open"... at least in terms of European claims.

Again, I don't think a "sail to the west" was likely, but it was possible; more so than for Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador, and Colombia.

And, if the British and French didn't object (much less the Americans and the Germans later in the century) such a colonizing movement could have had some interesting impact on South Pacific politics and societies in the Twentieth Century.

Best,
 
What about a POD from 1570s where Juan Fernandez, with the open approval of Chilean Colonial authorities, did sail off towards the west, returns and his finds of a mountainous , fertile island with broad rivers is taken a bit more serious by the authorities who direct later colonist expeditions to sail there. If they arrive in the South Island they will find a largely under populated but potentially rich piece of real estate and with the addition of a European/South American food package be able to create a thriving if not prosperous colony. From such a base the rest of New Zealand and much of the South Pacific is open to exploitation. It would be 60-70 odd years before Tasman skirted West Coast and not until the 1770s that James Cook would be around. I'm certain though any earlier and sustained Chilean-Spanish colonisation would surely have inspired earlier outside interest.

In reality Juan Fernandez was sailing under the authority of Chilean Governor-General and not those of the Vice Royals of New Mexico or Peru so they would be calling the shots, at least in the early stages. This was at the time of native counter attacks in Chile who recaptured and destroyed numerous colonial centres and farms and there may well have been plenty of Colonists willing to make the move.
 
What about a POD from 1570s where Juan Fernandez, with the open approval of Chilean Colonial authorities, did sail off towards the west, returns and his finds of a mountainous , fertile island with broad rivers is taken a bit more serious by the authorities who direct later colonist expeditions to sail there. If they arrive in the South Island they will find a largely under populated but potentially rich piece of real estate and with the addition of a European/South American food package be able to create a thriving if not prosperous colony. From such a base the rest of New Zealand and much of the South Pacific is open to exploitation. It would be 60-70 odd years before Tasman skirted West Coast and not until the 1770s that James Cook would be around. I'm certain though any earlier and sustained Chilean-Spanish colonisation would surely have inspired earlier outside interest.

In reality Juan Fernandez was sailing under the authority of Chilean Governor-General and not those of the Vice Royals of New Mexico or Peru so they would be calling the shots, at least in the early stages. This was at the time of native counter attacks in Chile who recaptured and destroyed numerous colonial centres and farms and there may well have been plenty of Colonists willing to make the move.
Yeah, but Chile and New Zealand (which would go under a different name ITTL) are so far apart that, once the independence wars begin, they'll split into two separate nations.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
A Spanish-speaking "Aotearoa" would be interesting

Something between South America and the Phillippines in culture, maybe?

Best,
 
Top