Maximum Chile

What is the furthest that Chile could reasonably expand? I can see it having all of the Land of Fire, but what about more of Patagonia?
Could it claim more Pacific Islands than just Rapanui?
What about claiming the Falklands, and having them and Britain fight a war in the 1980s? They did a lot of trade with Europe, so they might turn more towards the Atlantic.
Could they (or would they even want to) gain more of Boliva or Peru following the War of the Pacific?
What about economic power; could they ever be in a position to have the wealth to build (or jointly build) a Central America canal?
How big of a manufacturing base could they have?
A Chilean Motor Company?
 
OTL is just under the cut-off for being a Chile-wank as is.

Apart from southernmost portion of Patagonia and all of Tierra del Fuego and maybe a little bit more of the Peruvian coast I just don't see them gaining more than what they have.
 
I was thinking they might be able to grab Pitcairn, Henderson or Mangareva. Casting their net over eastern Polynesia before the French could set up a protectorate might be a little too much.
 
Direct territorial acquisitions are likely ASB, except for perhaps a few small Pacific islands, but they couldn certainly puppetize Bolivia, and there were always Chilean-Argentinian border disputes. If Santiago decided to get involved in the Argentine Civil Wars they likely could break away the border provinces such as San Juan, La Rioja, and/or Catamarca and net them into their own sphere of influence.
 
What about the tribes of Patagonia allying themselves with Chile? Raiding Argentine frontier settlements had already made them enemies of them.
 
What about the tribes of Patagonia allying themselves with Chile? Raiding Argentine frontier settlements had already made them enemies of them.

Why would the Mapuche ally themselves with Chile when settlers from both countries were encroaching on their lands?
 
Why would the Mapuche ally themselves with Chile when settlers from both countries were encroaching on their lands?

A good question. I suppose Chile could lie and promise they could keep their land, and once Argentina was dealt with, procede to stab them in the back. It wouldn't be the first time the natives of the New World were screwed over.
 
A good question. I suppose Chile could lie and promise they could keep their land, and once Argentina was dealt with, procede to stab them in the back. It wouldn't be the first time the natives of the New World were screwed over.

Which is exactly why they wouldn't accept the deal in the first place, knowing they would be backstabbed.
 
What about the tribes of Patagonia allying themselves with Chile? Raiding Argentine frontier settlements had already made them enemies of them.

Why would the Mapuche ally themselves with Chile when settlers from both countries were encroaching on their lands?

A good question. I suppose Chile could lie and promise they could keep their land, and once Argentina was dealt with, procede to stab them in the back. It wouldn't be the first time the natives of the New World were screwed over.

Which is exactly why they wouldn't accept the deal in the first place, knowing they would be backstabbed.

Actually, this is kind of what happened IOTL, around 1850. Why? Because the Mapuche weren't an unified block. They where divided among different factions.

I don't know much about how it was west of the Andes, but here's how it was on this side: at some point in the XVIII century, Mapuche began comming out of their homelands in OTL Southern Chile and (*Argentine) Neuquén and "Araucanized" (that is, they gave/imposse/whatever their language and much of their culture to) the Tehuelche and Pampa Indians of central and western Patagonia and the Pampas. Most of this process might have been peacefull, though there where some battles (at least there was a famous one arounf 1830). As a result of this process, by 1830ies onwards Mapundungum was spoken in the Argentine/Indian border, which passed then from Mendoza to Cordoba, and from there to the province of Buenos Aires.

Anyway, by 1850/60 what you had was a big "Confederation" of tribes led by Kalfukurá, who would raid Argentine “estancias” and capture cattle and horses. Most of the cattle they would sell to Chilenean traders. In fact, there where fluid relations between Kalfukurá and Chilenean officials. I think they even gave him a flag once, though I may be mistaken.

Meanwhile, there where groups in Neuquen, a province surrounded by rivers and close to the Andes, where the main political figure was Sayweke. In bad terms with Kalfukura, he was an ally of the Argentine government. Every year he travelled to Carmen de Patagones, wherte the Argentine government would give him "rations" (mate, tobacco, alcohol, guns, and so on). In exchange, he was named coronel and given a flag (a way of asserting argentine soveraignity where he lived). He also had to refrain his vasal tribes from joining Kalfukura's main in their raids on the Argentine border, and had to refrain his Tehuelche vasals in Patagonia from raiding the Argentine sponsor Welsh settlement in the Chubut valley. Unfortunately, all this loyalty didn't gain him much when the Argentine army invaded. In theory, the person who led the campain in Neuquen had instructions not to cross the river and leave Sayweke alone, but, amidst the confussion, the fact that Indian refugees cross the river and seek refuge with sayweke, and other stuff (as this guy disregard for his instruction) the fact was that Sayweke ended up at war with the Argentine army. He was the one that caused it more problemes, but was finally captured in 1885.


In all, Patagonian history was quite interesting. Chile could definetely have got the Southern most part of Patagonia, and even the whole of it if it had been lucky.

Here’s a map I made of Argentina in 1870. The Norhten border is wrong, since most of Chaco was in Indian hands. But you get the idea…

445px-Argentina_topo_blank.jpg
 
Last edited:
If Santiago decided to get involved in the Argentine Civil Wars they likely could break away the border provinces such as San Juan, La Rioja, and/or Catamarca and net them into their own sphere of influence.

If they get involved, it backfire against them. However, if things goes terribly wrong in Argentina, and the country balkanizes, some of the western provinces might seek an allience which Chile, or might even join it (Mendoza, San Juan, for example), to get access to the sea to their products and avoid being landlocked. After all they where once part of Chile, and culuraly not that different.

But this would only happen, as I sead, if everything goes so wrong this side of the Andes that the country ends up splitting in different states. If not, it would never happen, as, even if they wanted, they will be easily reconquered by whoever controls Buenos Aires or Eastern Argentina. (If the attack is in winter, for example, Chile would have a hard time sending supplies across the Andes...)
 
Could Chile make the Chico or Disaedo River as the southern border with Argentina?

Maybe I should ask what would weaken Argentina. <gasp> The Welsh presence?


Would this map be a little too much?

Untitled.jpg
 
While it could expand somewhat more into Southern Patagonia and possibly take Moquegua from Peru, the below is what I think a larger Chile would most likely look like in general;

Alt. Chile.png
 
While it could expand somewhat more into Southern Patagonia and possibly take Moquegua from Peru, the below is what I think a larger Chile would most likely look like in general;

This seems like it could be it. Just add a few Pacific islands, and I guess this Chile would claim the Falklands but the claim wouldn't be much stronger than Argentina's claim in OTL.

Additionally, if Argentina is weakened in TTL (say Paraguay only fought Argentina and won rather than picking up a fight with everyone around him) the Northwest provinces of Argentina could be broken off. As time passes, once Chile gets Bolivia's coastline, they would likely be brought under Chile's influence.
 
Could Chile make the Chico or Disaedo River as the southern border with Argentina?

Maybe I should ask what would weaken Argentina. <gasp> The Welsh presence?


Would this map be a little too much?

I think them having the Western provinces of Argentina, with Argentina intact, is a bit too much.

Getting the border in Deseado River is feasable. All you need is to have Argentina distracted elsewhwere in the 1870ies, let's say, if there's a civil war, or a war with Brazil, for example. Chico river, as in the map, is a bit too far North, I think.
.
 
Last edited:
This seems like it could be it. Just add a few Pacific islands, and I guess this Chile would claim the Falklands but the claim wouldn't be much stronger than Argentina's claim in OTL.

.

It would be weaker indeed. They could claim they inherited from Spain, who was there for 40 years (till 1811) as Argentina does. But they couldn't be able to say they have send colonists and a gobernor after achieving independence, as Argentina does
 
Top