Patagonian Colonization

An ideal I'm considering for a TL project, but I don't know much about the topic: What European powers would be most likely to establish a colony in the Patagonia region prior to the expansion of Argentina and Chile? If such an establishment is possible, when is it most likely to happen?

I'm sorry it's not more specific, but I'm not really sure if this ideal is possible at all, so am trying to keep it open to all options.
 
Wales/G.B.:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welsh_in_Patagonia

They did so in 1865 with the governmewnt's accord. But they established a colony separated from the rest of Argentina by hundreds of miles of hostile "Indian Land", and one can easily imagine a TL where things go very bad for Argentina (i.e. Civil war, war againsty Brazil, etc.) in the 1870ies, and there is no Conquest of the desert in 1879-81, so the Welsh seek for British protection against an Indian or a Chilenian threat. A Welsh country under British "protection" micht have been created. The Welsh had come here precisely to escape from the British cultural influence, but might have asked their help if they where in danger.

G.B.:

Britain might have occupied Tierra del Fuego and Santa Cruz at any point between 1833 and 1880, simply by launching an expedition from the Falklands. I think that what saved us was Darwin: he gave such a horrid description of Patagonia than the British thought it was worhtless [1]

The French:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Araucania_and_Patagonia

Spain

Spain tried to colonize the region in the XVI century and then again in the late XVIII century, without success. But, had her efforts being sustained, she might have easily succeeded. [2]

Of course, in that case, Patagonia would probably follow the fate of Chile and Argentina, and will be lost for Spain when the revolution begins. Or won't it? Maybe it's stays loyal and becomes a Canada's analogue (extremly unlikely, but interesting nevertheless).

Pretty much anybody else.

The Dutch are the main condidates as the were the ones who first circunnavigated Tierra del Fuego-. They were traders, and might have easily seen the strategic value of the place.



[1] This is a baseless and unfounded theory of mine, not to be taken seriously.


[2] I mean, she could have succeded in colonising the place in the XVI and the XVIII centuries. After the independence of Argentina and Chile, any Spanish attemp to colonize Patagonia is ASB, given the state in which Spain was a the time (although their colony in Chiloé might have survived a bit longer in an ATL).
 
Last edited:
It's highly unlikely, but it would be interesting if Japan had.

Japan had opened in the second half of the 19th century and their were several waves of immigrants (admittedly in the late 1890's) from Japan, so perhaps if Japan was more bold and decided to try and form a colony early on in its attempts to reverse the unfair-treaties/get prestige they could have sent immigrants/colonists to Patagonia, quietly of course, since most would'nt exactly be keen on a Japanese colony in the America's.
 
So would the safest bet for trying to have colonial settlement perhapse be from Great Britain during the early 19th c.? For example, perhapse someone within the upper levels of government, having come across this opinion of the Falklands from Samuel Johnson following the Falklands Crisis of 1770:

Samuel Johnson said:
"This was a colony that could never become independent, for it could never be able to maintain itself."

decides that, while Britain and France seemed to have declared the area of Tierra del Fuego as terra nullius for global transportation (on Wiki but without sources, so I'm a little uncertain but will run with this for now), that following the reestablishment of British control in 1833 it is decided that a colonial settlement of the Patagonian region, perhapse in modern Santa Cruz Province of Argentina, to make a self maintaining colony that includes the Falklands.

What does everyone else think?
 
Last edited:
If you wanted to bind it to the Falklands you'd be better off doing it in 1777 when the British first got involved there. By 1833 it's somewhat too easy for the British to get turfed out, especially as I seem to recall the Argentines made their own Patagonian colonies, mainly to control the Cape, around the same time. So did Chile, actually, hence the border down there. Much easier to do it a bit before, while it's still under Spanish control, as you can either use a war to grant the area de jure to Britain, or you can use the danger of war to prevent the Spanish turfing the colonists out themselves.

I must admit, British settlements in, and ownership of, the Cape has often intrigued me. It was the British theory that control of the world's oceans and maritime movement could be achieved by the strategic control of five locations: If I remember, they are Gibraltar, Singapore, Cape Horn, the Cape of Good Hope/Cape Colony, and I think the other was the Suez, though I think this theory predated the Suez Canal so I'm uncertain. Similarly I wonder about Britain controlling the Panama Canal. Could have some interesting repercussions...or alternatively may make little difference whatsoever.
 
If you wanted to bind it to the Falklands you'd be better off doing it in 1777 when the British first got involved there. By 1833 it's somewhat too easy for the British to get turfed out, especially as I seem to recall the Argentines made their own Patagonian colonies, mainly to control the Cape, around the same time. So did Chile, actually, hence the border down there. Much easier to do it a bit before, while it's still under Spanish control, as you can either use a war to grant the area de jure to Britain, or you can use the danger of war to prevent the Spanish turfing the colonists out themselves.

See, I was of the opinion that trying to do so in the 1770s would be out of the question, unless there was a different outcome from the Falklands Incident I mentioned breifly earlier. The Conquest of the Desert wasn't until the 1870s if I understand correctly; meanwhile, between 1770s and the 1870s, since those are the years already used, there was an almost on again off again cycle of settlement by one group and action by another to remove said group - even the US got involved with the USS Lexington. I also figured I'd make more sense to wait until later, that way any conflict over the region would lack Spain and could maybe take place before Argentina and Chile are fully on their feet, leaving only France as a major rival. (For my story, not to say too much, the US wouldn't be a threat).

I must admit, British settlements in, and ownership of, the Cape has often intrigued me. It was the British theory that control of the world's oceans and maritime movement could be achieved by the strategic control of five locations: If I remember, they are Gibraltar, Singapore, Cape Horn, the Cape of Good Hope/Cape Colony, and I think the other was the Suez, though I think this theory predated the Suez Canal so I'm uncertain. Similarly I wonder about Britain controlling the Panama Canal. Could have some interesting repercussions...or alternatively may make little difference whatsoever.

I find it interesting too, and that's why I want to play around with it. I had thought of maybe having Napoleon involved somehow (yes, my POD is early enough to have that happen but not completely throw him away) although I'm now also interested with the ideal of a British colony in the area with a heavy Welsh influence...:eek:
 
Damn you, I was about to post a 'Who are you going to vote for in the British Patagonia elections?' thread!:mad::D

Anyway I think Britain is the most likely candidate, if as others have said, Argentina had a slightly worst time, or concentrated on the Rio Plata region and grabbing land from Brazil, Uraguay, and Paraguay, while also strengthening it's friendship with the British Empire, and maybe actually becoming a voluntary member of the Empire as was discussed at several points, and agreeing to sede Patagonia to Britain, in exchange for access to Tierra Del Fuego and the Malvinas maybe?

I spent 6 months in Patagonia and it is already ATL, the Welsh areas of which there are several (Trelew, Gaiman, Puerto (Porth) Madryn with it's 'Monument to Welsh Women', the Swiss areas, the Irish street names, the fact that all maps show the Malvinas as part of Argentina, and even tourist videos show the Malvinas as if you can visit them easily from Rawson or somewhere!:D One of the farmers leaders even has a British accent!
 

Paul MacQ

Donor
I note the Nordic countries might have had people compatible with climate, have been thinking places that the Swedish or Danish could create colonies, not sure how they would get on with the Spanish so close. Would they be an option?.

Was thinking of place other countries might not show much interest in so no struggle starting until Colony Established , And are there Minerals worth mining in Patagonia
 
And are there Minerals worth mining in Patagonia

There was some gold in Tierra del Fuego (There was a brief gold fever in the late XIX century that atracted immigrants from all over the world for a short time). There's also some gold in the mountains near Esquel (not accesible with pre-modern technology, though). And there was probably a certain amount of silver in the norhern part of western patagonia when the Spanish came.

Other than that, there's oil (quite a lot) and natural gas, and there's also coal in the Southwest of santa Cruz.

Overall, not that much, as far as I know. But I'm sure I'm forgetting something.
 
19351659.jpg


A really rough map of British Patagonia, the white plates are provincial names, the red lines are provincial borders.
 
Top