During the Triple Alliance War Bolivia still had its coast line....the Pacific War was few years after.

Triple Alliance War (aka Paraguayan war) was from 1864 to 1870. The Pacific war was from 1879 to 1883.

Ah my bad then. Maybe Bolivia would join Paraguay's side, and combat the Argentines, and Brazilians while their forces are concentrated on Paraguay. Chile would probably declare war, but maybe with the help of Peru sending troops, it could work. I'm not sure.
 
Ah my bad then. Maybe Bolivia would join Paraguay's side, and combat the Argentines, and Brazilians while their forces are concentrated on Paraguay. Chile would probably declare war, but maybe with the help of Peru sending troops, it could work. I'm not sure.
And why would they do that?
 
Well you Have this Wrong, as before the War most International Commentators Were Expecting fast and Swift Peru-Bolivian Victory, and the USA was the one supporting, and actively intervening, in Favor of Peru, getting Trade, and Weapons, Embargoes Against Chile, as "The press in the United States was also almost unanimous in predicting the sound defeat of Chile"(Mellington, Herbert (1948). American Diplomacy and the War of the Pacific. Colunbia University Press. p. 31) .
This is because Peruvian Forces come from a fairly recent process of modernization (hopeless badly done but this is not know before the war), have the most powerful Navy in the South Pacific, and the Chilean Army was in his historical low,because there was a economic crisis in the country, again because, in part, for the Bolivian kerfuffle. Chile never bought Mauser Chilean Forces Bought Gras y Comblain II, rifles, that use the same munition. What Chile did buy was Krupp Artillery.

Peru-Bolivia have all the Support the USA could muster with Chile having neither Help or Support from any European Power, but also without trade, and weapons embargoes from Europe, (except England that stop the sell to both side of warships)

Here read it in the Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Pacific#cite_ref-209

If Anything the Chilean Victory in la Guerra del Pacifico, put stop to the USA intervention in South America, as the Chilean action doing the same again in the Panama Crisis of 1885


Granted I may be hazy on the details on the rifle models but I am merely regurgitating what I read in the museum which contradicts what you read. Yes everyone predicted a Peru/Bolivia victory that is true but Chile was indeed in a more stable political position. And no Peru was not as you portray a “modern” army I saw the paintings and photos of the war. My eyes don’t deceive me lol. Sometimes actually seeing primary sources is somewhat more valuable than Wikipedia.
 
I was thinking, during the turmoil of the Paraguayan war, Bolivia would declare war on Chile to get their coastline back. I'm just trying to think of something.

Are you thinking of the Chaco War? I don't think Bolivia would be up for a two front war.

But possibly, you could escalate things. Supposing that either Peru or Chile intervened against Bolivia, and it degenerates from there. The trouble is that there wasn't that system of interlocking alliances that dragged everyone down in the 1st World War.
 
Portugal goes to reclaim Brazil, bringing US into War, to avoid U.K. sending troops to Brazil to help there ally Portugal, and that's just a starting thing
 
South America was always irrelevant in world history after the Latin Wars for independence. After that South America is a footnote
I too take an issue with that statement. The colonial exploitation of South America and to a lesser extent the Caribbean is literally the only reason the European powers were able to establish global dominance. Fair enough, you said after the wars of independence, but you miss the fairly obvious and important point that South America continued to function as the commodities supplier that allowed Europe to develop itself, and later acted as the main focus of resistance against American imperialism throughout the 20th century (not to mention the whole continent's role in the Third World movements during the Cold War). I'm willing to pin this statement of yours down to ignorance rather than bigotry of course, and I agree with you that South America is vastly underrepresented in our Euro-centric historiography and even in this forum, with the idiotic "nothing ever happens in South America" meme, if that is what you (quite poorly) meant to say.
 
I too take an issue with that statement. The colonial exploitation of South America and to a lesser extent the Caribbean is literally the only reason the European powers were able to establish global dominance. Fair enough, you said after the wars of independence, but you miss the fairly obvious and important point that South America continued to function as the commodities supplier that allowed Europe to develop itself, and later acted as the main focus of resistance against American imperialism throughout the 20th century (not to mention the whole continent's role in the Third World movements during the Cold War). I'm willing to pin this statement of yours down to ignorance rather than bigotry of course, and I agree with you that South America is vastly underrepresented in our Euro-centric historiography and even in this forum, with the idiotic "nothing ever happens in South America" meme, if that is what you (quite poorly) meant to say.

Yes, I meant the whole South American irrelevancy thing. Sorry if I didn't state that clearly. I was trying to say that South America is rarely mentioned in big, and huge events, and how politics of the U.S, Canada, and Europe are given more attention than the isolated world in South America.
 
Portugal goes to reclaim Brazil, bringing US into War, to avoid U.K. sending troops to Brazil to help there ally Portugal, and that's just a starting thing

How the hell could Portugal reclaim Brazil post independence? Have they gone mad? With no foothold post 1822/24, less manpower, ships and money and pretty much ruined by the Napoleonic wars? Brazil was favored by the Napoleonic wars by the way, and besides, Britain didn't want to loose the Brazilian market and Austria was favorable to the kingdom of Brazil.
 
I too take an issue with that statement. The colonial exploitation of South America and to a lesser extent the Caribbean is literally the only reason the European powers were able to establish global dominance. Fair enough, you said after the wars of independence, but you miss the fairly obvious and important point that South America continued to function as the commodities supplier that allowed Europe to develop itself, and later acted as the main focus of resistance against American imperialism throughout the 20th century (not to mention the whole continent's role in the Third World movements during the Cold War). I'm willing to pin this statement of yours down to ignorance rather than bigotry of course, and I agree with you that South America is vastly underrepresented in our Euro-centric historiography and even in this forum, with the idiotic "nothing ever happens in South America" meme, if that is what you (quite poorly) meant to say.

I do not. While South America was important in the economic sense after the wars of independence almost none of it was vital to the history of Europe and North America, since Africa, India and East Asian colonies and resources were able to supplant most if not all of the exclusivity that the resources of South America once enjoyed for the industrialization and wars of the northern hemisphere.

And beyond economic importance in world history, not only from Europe/NA but from Asia and Oceania dismiss South America from history from all sources I have read. Even South American historians tend to tell the history of the region without assigning it more than local or regional importance, never global.
 
Top