Spain Keeps Chiloe

The Chiloe Archipelago in southern Chile was historically one of the last royalist holdouts during the independence wars in South America, and was only conquered in 1826. In fact, Spain didn't recognize Chiloe as part of Chile until 1844. What it Spain kept the Chiloe archipelago in the peace settlement with Chile? Could it be used as a starting point for Spanish colonization of Patagonia? It would definitely be a sticking point with the Andean countries during the next decades, as it would make Spain seem intent on reconquering her former colonies.
 
...Heading towards a Spanish Tierra del Fuego, perhaps? Keep going!

This isn't a timeline, it's a proposition.

I think this will have some major effects on South American militancy. Perhaps they even ask other European nations for diplomatic aid? Britain was quite close to Argentina during this time period, was it not?

America's Monroe Doctrine will play quite a large role here. Nearly every power in Europe except Britain largely ignored it (the US has no credible army or navy yet), whereas Britain was a firm believer in the opening of new markets in South America. This might cause some sort of crisis between Spain and Britain. I doubt Spain will try and colonise Patagonia. More likely it becomes a thorn in Spain's side as Chile continuously claims it and eventually causes a war between the two countries, which Spain loses due to Britain and the US aiding Chile (as well as any Chilean allies on the continent). Spain becomes even more of a washed up country than in OTL's late 19th Century, and is forced to sell or give up its remaining colonies to Britain, France and probably Germany for good measure. The US goes for Cuba and the like.
 
No TL?!

You started something interesting, here - Spain can't hold Chiloe without at least the Estrecho de Magallanes under its control and a base at Punto Arenas. And if Britain takes it over...roll on British Tierra del Fuego Colony...

Thanks!
 
You started something interesting, here - Spain can't hold Chiloe without at least the Estrecho de Magallanes under its control and a base at Punto Arenas. And if Britain takes it over...roll on British Tierra del Fuego Colony...

Thanks!

I think if Spain were restricted to owning the Magellans only, I don't think Britain would be in a rush to deprive them of it, just as Britain made little attempt to win French Guiana and their handful of islands after their power was essentially removed from the Americas. Of course, this could be because the UK never really went to war with France (or Spain) after the Napoleonic Wars anyhow, and I don't think the Magellans are enough of an incentive to change that TTL. Unless Chile or Argentina (or possibly later on, a Monroe-obsessed USA) went after it, I think it's entirely possible they could just end up keeping it in perpetuity, in the same way that the UK still owns the Falklands, and that two of the Guyanas are still European possessions. The Magellan Straits lost their strategic value not long after this POD with the Panama Canal anyway, so there's not even any reason for anyone to go down there, and the Magellans alone are never going to be a military threat to anyone, not even the countries which border it.
 

Arrix85

Donor
I think it's entirely possible they could just end up keeping it in perpetuity, in the same way that the UK still owns the Falklands, and that two of the Guyanas are still European possessions.

Just one Guyana is still european (the French one). Anyway I think that the strategic value of the Magellan Straits endured for few decades ( from the 1820's to the 1910's) making it a potential target for the british or both Chileans or Argentinians. In the end this lands are too far away for Spain ( a declining power) to manage to keep for so long (almost 90 years).
 
Thank you Arrix85 for those few kind words...

...Chiloe is an intriguing footnote and I'd love to see it settled by Maori...
 
Just one Guyana is still european (the French one). Anyway I think that the strategic value of the Magellan Straits endured for few decades ( from the 1820's to the 1910's) making it a potential target for the british or both Chileans or Argentinians. In the end this lands are too far away for Spain ( a declining power) to manage to keep for so long (almost 90 years).

Slip of the mind, sorry. And you may have a point. I'm still not certain that the Spanish would be seen as enough of a threat by the British to warrant annexing the islands, but perhaps, I guess.
 
Don't forget that Spain went to war with Chile and Peru in the .... 1860s IIRC over some other islands. It could still power project, if a bit crappily

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
It will certainly screw Chile's expansion in Patagonia, to the point it may not happen at all. If the Spanish manage to hold it, they will have the advantage that Chile needs to deal with the Mapuche before becoming strong in the area. Also, the people in Chiloe were pretty independent so they disliked to be controled by someone else. Giving autonomy to them is of extreme importance

A Spanish Chiloe won't have much effect in Argentina, Uruguay or Paraguay, but it will certainly make Chile and Peru to be more militarized.

I think it could lead to two scenarios. One where Chile is unable to settle in Punta Arenas and colonize their side of Patagonia because of the sole presence of this Spanish stronghold, which leads to Patagonia being Argentinean or British. And the other where Chile's expansion is done by crossing the Andes and thus leading to a war with Argentina.

The thing is that it all depends on how well defended the Island is and how much importance is given by Spain. Spain will certainly claim the whole Patagonia, but having a strong presence in the Pacific side is difficult. Chiloe is the only really good land in it. Settlers will be scarse before late 19th Century, and military presence, especially the navy, will have to be in a really good shape, because Chile will try to take the island.
 
The thing about Spanish Patagonia is that Chiloe is rather far north - basically on the border of the uncolonised Patagonia and Chile/Argentina. I honestly don't think it's much a foothold at all.
 
The thing about Spanish Patagonia is that Chiloe is rather far north - basically on the border of the uncolonised Patagonia and Chile/Argentina. I honestly don't think it's much a foothold at all.

Actually it is. With it you basically control most of the Islands to the South before a city in the Magellanes Strait is founded. Chiloe people were and are really close connected to the sea, and in fact most of the Chilean settlers in Patagonia(both sides) were from Chiloe. In Spanish, people from the Island are called Chilotes, and because of them being most of the Chileans who went to Patagonia, is common among Argentines to call the whole Chileans as Chilotes.
But leaving names apart, Chiloe gave Chile a foothold beyond tha Mapuche controlled lands.
 
I would agree with Petete since at the point where Chiloe is, the distance from the coast to the Argentinean border on the mainland is less than 20 miles, and the terrain is pretty much mountains all the way. Chiloe and bits of the islands to the south look like the first relatively flat region on the Pacific coast north of Tierra del Fuego.

How developed was Chiloe at the time? From reading the Wiki page on the area it looks like it would be a good spot for whaling in the area, so the cities on the western coast would probably grow quickly. It looks like Chiloe wasn't even part of the Audencia of Chile at the time of independence, and instead directly part of the Viceroyalty of Peru. Given time and the likeliness of eventual independence for Spain's colonies, is Chiloe likely to become its own country or join Chile?
 
How developed was Chiloe at the time? From reading the Wiki page on the area it looks like it would be a good spot for whaling in the area, so the cities on the western coast would probably grow quickly. It looks like Chiloe wasn't even part of the Audencia of Chile at the time of independence, and instead directly part of the Viceroyalty of Peru. Given time and the likeliness of eventual independence for Spain's colonies, is Chiloe likely to become its own country or join Chile?

Well Chiloe has it good things and it bad things. For one side they have their own culture, their own dialect of Spanish, their own way of living and didn't depend on anyone else, which is a good thing as they aren't tied to Chile. There are plenty of food sources nearby and the climate is template. Being on an island, they are very connected to the sea, and they tend to be expert seamen. Their economy is esentially just a subsistence economy, with the exception of whaling, which started appearing at this time.

Yes but Chiloe isn't Chilean, it's Spanish - so it isn't Argentina we'd have to worry about as such.

Actually, Argentina is of big importance. If Chiloe is Spanish, either Patagonia is Argentinean or Chile will have to colonize it through Neuquen, thus involving Argentina in a future war.
 
Actually, Argentina is of big importance. If Chiloe is Spanish, either Patagonia is Argentinean or Chile will have to colonize it through Neuquen, thus involving Argentina in a future war.

I said 'as such'. Why wouldn't Chile be the immediate problem? You guys have said yourselves that Chile and Peru would be more militant in this scenario, and I suspect (and I'm just going out on a limb here :rolleyes:) that such militancy will be directed at the Spanish colony right offshore. My point is, Argentina and Chile have allies in Britain and America, and potentially each other, and Peru, so what chance does Spain have at doing anymore colonising of the Americas?
 
I said 'as such'. Why wouldn't Chile be the immediate problem? You guys have said yourselves that Chile and Peru would be more militant in this scenario, and I suspect (and I'm just going out on a limb here :rolleyes:) that such militancy will be directed at the Spanish colony right offshore. My point is, Argentina and Chile have allies in Britain and America, and potentially each other, and Peru, so what chance does Spain have at doing anymore colonising of the Americas?

Almost none. They will be limited to islands. Maybe Spain can colonize and settle some islands near to Chiloe, and claim some more to the South, but nothing more than that.

They won't try colonising the Strait of Magallanes or Tierra del Fuego because they won't see any profit from it. OTL, Argentina and Chile started colonizing the area for one reason. To prevent the other from grabing that piece of land. Chile founded Punta Arenas to be used as a base from where to expand in Patagonia, and to prevent Argentine expansion in Patagonia. To be honest, the only valuable lands in Patagonia in a 19th Century point of view, where the ones North of the Chubut river and in the East side of Patagonia. And those can't be taken by Spain

ITTL, Spain doesn't have a reason why to take what they can of Patagonia.
 
I think we've reached a misunderstanding...

I was under the impression that you guys were expecting Spain to have a go at Patagonia, hence why my argument was directed at that.
 
I think we've reached a misunderstanding...

I was under the impression that you guys were expecting Spain to have a go at Patagonia, hence why my argument was directed at that.

Yes, it seems we had:D
As I said, a Spanish Chiloe controls most of the Pacific Islands to the South(and North of Magallanes Strait), BEFORE someone decides to found a city in the Strait. Then they just control half of those islands. By control I don't mean settling and having actual control over the lands because that's impossible because of geography, but instead being able to claim the lands and when borders are settled, to be the owner of them.

That's the best Spain can get, because they won't colonize the Strait or Tierra del Fuego.
 
Top