MexiWank, would it work?

Well you are simplifying Mexican history quite a bit here, and ignoring a good bit of it that doesn't fit in with your scenario. But even assuming your version of it was correct, your final statement that the revolution occurs because the "masses can only be appeased for a certain time" is what undoes your whole house of cards. There is no way that the majority of Mexico's population is going to peacefully acquiesce to ongoing conservative rule for over century without constant coup attempts, revolts, etc....UNLESS the Conservatives enact some major reforms (such as seizure and redistribution of Church lands, reducing the political and economic power of the hacienderos, etc., to keep them happy. And if they do that, the Conservatives will have essentially given away their own agenda, which was to PREVENT reform. Thus, no conservative government could enact the reforms which would allow them to stay in power and prevent ongoing political instability.

Thi is absolutely correct, but history has seen many cases in which "conservatives" were either forced to adopt some reforms or convinced themselves out that making some concessions was the only way to keep some form of control or to save the country from a foreign domination.

The clearest case is Meiji Japan, were a group of Samurais radically reformed the country (even abolishing the Samurai class). Yet this Samurais had started attacking the Shogun for being too weak in the face of "barbarians", and did all what they did in the name of the Emperor. It was only when they got to power thet they realised they had to reform in order to keep the country strong (and to preserve some form of control).

In Argentina, for example, conservatives reformed the electoral system in 1912, universalizing sufrage. This led to the victory of the radical party i n 1916. Why did they do this, then? Because they thought it was better to lose the power in an election than to lose it in a revolution, cause that would give the radicals control not only of the excecutive, but of all the resorts of power.

I know both cases aren't similar, but I don't think it's ASB to hava an ATL in which a Mexican elite realise that some reforms are necesary in order to keep the independence of their country... and for their own survival.
 
Last edited:
Its not utterly impossible... but i think the most plausible central American spanish great powers would look southwards, into culturally and religiously similar southern-America, rather than northwards where they face strong anglo-saxon opposition.

Assuming that the Spanish - or even better, Iberian - lands in the New World from the tierra del fuego up to say, California and Texas inclusively, managed to have articles of confederation of their own and break from Spain as cleanly as the thirteen colonies broke from England, youd have one massive superpower in the making without even needing to touch the ARW. I admit I'm not entirely sure if the regional levels of nationalism where immensely greater than what existed in the thirteen colonies, however.


It's not so much a problem of nationalism (which existed, although it was more "regionalism" than modern "nationalism") but a problem of geografy. The 13 colonies were contiguos and easilly conected by sea. Going from Caracas to Buenos Aires can only be achieved by travelling thousands of mails fro dangerous Portuguese/Brazilian hostile waters or by talking a land rout that would imply crossing the Andes several times and travelling enormous distances through very poorly kept paths and very difficult terrains (the andes, deserts, plains, jungles, etc.). If you add Mexico in the mix the problem gets even more complex, as you now have to traverse Panama's itsmus. There's no way these lands would stay toghether once the unifyng factor (the Spanish Crown, located in Spain) is gone.

Of course, this doesn't mean that bigger units aren't possible. And Argentina that controls Uruguay, Paraguay and a great part of Bolivia or a Mexico that Controls Central America and part of the Spanish Caribbean are perfectly possible.

A


I would love to see a Mexico turn South after the Mexican-American war and turn itself into a Latin American power. Absorbing the smaller countries one after the other into a powerful state dominating South and Central America. Perhaps playing Brazil and Argentina off each other eventually allying with one to achieve dominance. The dynamics of the relationship and possible events between such a Mexico and a still power USA is pretty fun to imagine.

Mexico might absorve Central America, and some islands in the Caribean, but I don't think he could have gotten anything else. Of course, if Mexico is as big and powerfull as the O.P. wants, it will be an important factor in South America, and might play a decisive roll there, excerting a clear hegemony.
 
Top