what if Bolivia and Peru won the War of the PAcific

well this is my first what if i was just curious to what people would think the world would be like if Chile lost the War of the Pacific or if it was even likely that they would?
 
Bolivia wasn't likely to win alone. IOTL the Chileneans defeated them very easily. But Peru did put a serious fight, and they seemed to be winning at one point; so maybe if Peru had defeated the Chileneans completelythe Peruvians could have forced the Chileneans to retire not only from Peru, but also from the occupied Bolivian coast. Not likely, but possible.

How would the world look like???

Well Bolivia would probably be in a better shape. Not necesarly waaaaaay better, but at least a little better than now.

It would be interesting to see how this Alternate Bolivia looks like. Nowadays Bolivia is divided between the Eastern and Western regions. In this ATL, the West may be better, less poor than in OTL, as it would be more in contact with the the sea.

Peru would also be better, as it would have kept Tacna and Arica. I don't know enough of its history to say what would have changed.

And Chile? Well, maybe she will try to get more of (Argentinian) Patagonia in order to compensate what she lost in the North. However, unless she losses the war before the celebration of the treaty of 1881 (which is prcatically ASB), she would have to accept the basic outline of the division eatablished by the treaty:
CONTINENTAL PATAGONIA: East of the Andes-Argentina; West of the Andes _ Chile
TIERRA DEL FUEGO: Divided longitudinaly

All she could have done would be to take a harder position during the actual negotiations carried out to map the region and mark the limits whiich had been drawn on paper in 1881 without enough knowledge of the terrain. But since Argentina would probably still be strong in 1880 and 1890s, the margin Chile would have had to negotiate would have been quite small.

So, I don't sea any territorial gain for Chile in this scenario worth mentioning(If there had been no Pacific war at all, that would be another matter)

So, Chile would be in a worst shape, as it would have lost (or, more preciselly, failed to conquer) a territory with valuable mineral resources without gaining anything in return. Chilenean internal history would have been quite different.

The rest of the world? No idea...
 
well this is my first what if i was just curious to what people would think the world would be like if Chile lost the War of the Pacific or if it was even likely that they would?

It is very likely. Neither the command nor the performance of the Chileans was great in the war, only its equipment was better. If Hilarión Daza had fought for the maritime provinces instead of cowardly retreating to the mountains without giving battle and leaving Peru to continue the war alone the Chileans would have a hard time. In fact, after victory the Chileans were so ashamed of their forces' performance that they invested heavily in Prussian advisors and equipment and sent observers to any other war of mention in the world to apply their lessons in their country.

Second, another thing that would have put the balance on Peru's side would be a victory in the maritime campaign. The territory near Antofagasta is so arid that most of the supplies and troops moved there by sea, and for this reasons the Chileans didn't launch further land campaigns till they won naval superiority. Peru fought better at sea than Chile, at least in the first part of the war, but the problem was that they had very few units compared to the enemy. Once they lost their only ironclad (the Huáscar)with Captain Grau on board they were definitely screwed. So give them some ships more, and they most likely would win the naval campaign, thus putting the Chileans in Antofagasta in an uneasy position and allowing the Peru-Bolivians to retake the city. This is basically what I did in my TL.

And finally, this would not make the already defunct alliance win the war, but if the Peruvian elite in Lima had invested a coin in the defence of the capital, instead of going to opera and thinking that the war was something far, the 1881 Chilean assault on Lima could have been repelled and possibly with heavy loses on the Chilean side. A subsequent offensive on Tacna/Arica could have forced an armistice in which Chile wins the Bolivian territories and the Peru-Bolivian alliance is repelled forever, but in which Peru retains her territory intact.
 
Peru and Bolivia should have tried to ally with the Mapuche natives of Araucania.

This might be enough to help Peru and Bolivia, but I'm not sure if this would be too advantageous.
If the Mapuche rise up in outright war against Chile more than likely the territory in Argentina that the Mapuche live in would also rise. The Mapuche would then have to contend with two nations, Chile and Argentina.

I think the threat of Brazil invading would still hinder Argentina from joining the fray as in OTL, but the Argentinians would crush those Mapuche living within their borders. While Peru and Bolivia may win, the Mapuche will be the real losers as the Chilean army and Argentinian army crush the Mapuche.
 
If Chile cedes any territory it would only be to the Copiapo River, but I cannot see Chile losing so badly that they would need to.

Agreed. The Copiapo River is the maximum southern extent of Bolivia from the War of the Pacific. More likely is that Bolivia holds Antofagusta and possibly a bit more is conquered.

The mention of Brazil threatening Argentina got me thinking: We might see a general south american war spill out of this conflict. think about it. Argentina intervenes on Peru/Bolivia's side (or Chile's, if the Mapuche rise and inadvertently cause an alliance between the two nations), and Brazil jumps on a distracted Argentina. Now throw in a Paraguay recovering from the war of the Triple Alliance (but, most likely filled with irredentist sentiment) and weged between two opposing combatants, both of which relieved it of territory 10 years before; an Uruguay on the rise yet still divided between Blancos and Colorados (after the war the tentative agreement was the Colorados held Montivideo and the coast, the Blancos the inland regions, but feuding was not uncommon); and an Ecuador troubled with internal turmoil (the military government supressed a rebellion in 1877, and was thrown out in 1883), which was embroiled in a territorial dispute with Peru since 1840 which would spark several wars (in fact, Peru had already intervened in ecuador several times), and the not to distant presence of Colombia and Venezuela hovering over each other's heads (COlombia would probably back ecuador, and venezuela would then oppose colombia), and we can see the entire continent on one side or another, especially with foreign intervention (and the Guyanas get sucked in). Perhaps irredentist sentiment in the defeated nations leads to a more polarized region, and conflict perhaps coinciding with World War One? Just a thought, what do you think?
 
Last edited:
I think it's quite unlikely Brazil going to war against Argentina during the Pacific War. It would cause even more unrest in the Army, which was already plotting against the monarchy. Moreover, there is no real threat against the Brazilian territory or policies.
The only way I can imagine Brazil becoming involved in the Pacific issues is if Bolivia and Peru win the war and somehow the Bolivians decide that they are strong enough to claim again the lands Brazil got from Bolivia during the government of Melgarejo. IOTL they declared void all the border agreements done by Melgarejo, but the one with Brazil was recognized later. Maybe Daza, who IOTL was against Melgarejo, could decide to retake the lands by force. If he does it, then the war would be hard, in a very difficult terrain, but much more for Brazil than Bolivia. Then, with a foreing threat, Brazil would go to war, possibly needing to bring Paraguay and/or Argentina to her side.
 
Agreed. The Copiapo River is the maximum southern extent of Bolivia from the War of the Pacific. More likely is that Bolivia holds Antofagusta and possibly a bit more is conquered.

The mention of Brazil threatening Argentina got me thinking: We might see a general south american war spill out of this conflict. think about it. Argentina intervenes on Peru/Bolivia's side (or Chile's, if the Mapuche rise and inadvertently cause an alliance between the two nations), and Brazil jumps on a distracted Argentina. Now throw in a Paraguay recovering from the war of the Triple Alliance (but, most likely filled with irredentist sentiment) and weged between two opposing combatants, both of which relieved it of territory 10 years before; an Uruguay on the rise yet still divided between Blancos and Colorados (after the war the tentative agreement was the Colorados held Montivideo and the coast, the Blancos the inland regions, but feuding was not uncommon); and an Ecuador troubled with internal turmoil (the military government supressed a rebellion in 1877, and was thrown out in 1883), which was embroiled in a territorial dispute with Peru since 1840 which would spark several wars (in fact, Peru had already intervened in ecuador several times), and the not to distant presence of Colombia and Venezuela hovering over each other's heads (COlombia would probably back ecuador, and venezuela would then oppose colombia), and we can see the entire continent on one side or another, especially with foreign intervention (and the Guyanas get sucked in). Perhaps irredentist sentiment in the defeated nations leads to a more polarized region, and conflict perhaps coinciding with World War One? Just a thought,

I think that to a achieve a generalized South American conflict you'd need a very huge number of sucesive facts and coincidences, which makes such a war quite difficult to happen. There weren't in the late XIX century antagonistic alliances as in Europe, and there weren't ideological or cultural reasons to fight either. Each country care about himself, and, at the most, its inmediate neighbours. There were territorial disputes, yes; but it Argentina didn't care about Peru or Venezuela, and probably this was reciprocal.

Still, it's an interesting idea!

An involment of Argentina in the War of the Pacific is not thaaaat improbable. But Argentina gained a lot by manteining her neutrality: she consolidated her control of the pampas and Patagania, AND got recognition of that control from Chile through the Treaty of 1881. Although there was never an explicit nor implicite menace of entering the war if the Treaty wasn't sign, the fear of an Argentinian involvment was probably in the Chilenians' mind when they sign a Treaty which was, in their eyes, quite favourable to Argentina. So, why would Argentina enter the war if she could get a lot without the need of doing so???
 
This might be enough to help Peru and Bolivia, but I'm not sure if this would be too advantageous.
If the Mapuche rise up in outright war against Chile more than likely the territory in Argentina that the Mapuche live in would also rise. The Mapuche would then have to contend with two nations, Chile and Argentina.

There were already Mapuche "uprisings" in those years in both countries during the pacific war. In Argentina, the Amerindians had being expelled from the pampas in 1879, but those who hadn't been captured were still fighting in the mountains and forests of Neuquen. This lasted at least till 1885. And I think thet something similar happened in Chile.

But, even if the Mapuche got a few triumphs, such us the destruction of the fort "Los guanacos" in 1881, in Chos Malal (Neuquen, Argentina), they weren't a real match for modern profesional armies like the Argentinian or Chilenians ones of those years. By late 1870s, when both Argentina and Chile had managed to equip their armies with modern weapons, the Mapuche didn't stand a chance. Sadly. :(

To give you an idea: in 1882, 800 warriors led by the caciques Saihueque, René Curá and Namuncurá attacked the fort "Primera División", defended by just 20 soldiers (armed with Remingtons) and 15 troperos . Guess who won?

A more generalized uprising than IOTL might have caused a few problems in Chile, which had a much higher Mapuche population than Argentina, and whose Mapuche population was not that far from important cities. But I don't think she'll need to send back many troops to put and end to it. If she needs to send back any...
 
I think the threat of Brazil invading would still hinder Argentina from joining the fray as in OTL, but the Argentinians would crush those Mapuche living within their borders. While Peru and Bolivia may win, the Mapuche will be the real losers as the Chilean army and Argentinian army crush the Mapuche.

I agree...
 
I remember hearing when I was in Chile that Peru and Bolivia wanted Argentina to declare war on Chile.

And btw I also heard that Chile had Britain's support.
I have also read that Bolivia offered Chile a deal that was: Bolivia would give it's coastline to Chile in exchange for help to conquer the South Parts of Peru.
l
Some things I found on youtube. V
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnFsmj4M9sM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-nmkJCWYpI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiWwGn9kZgk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-nmkJCWYpI
 
I remember hearing when I was in Chile that Peru and Bolivia wanted Argentina to declare war on Chile.

yes, that's right. As I said, Argentina gained a lot during the war without the need of entering. So, the most sensible position was probably not to enter the war. But, since the most sensible course of action is not allways adopted (in fact, it rarely is), it might not be that hard to have a TL in which argentina gets involved...

And btw I also heard that Chile had Britain's support.

I didn't know this, but is likely.

I have also read that Bolivia offered Chile a deal that was: Bolivia would give it's coastline to Chile in exchange for help to conquer the South Parts of Peru.


Nor this. Interesting!




A good video, but... ¿los soldados de Chacabuco*? (The soldiers of Chacabuco?) Yeah, only in Chacabuco this soldiers where fighting side to side with Argentinian soldiers in order to free Chile from absolutist Spain. And here, well, these soldiers were fighting in orden to conquer its neighbours territory. A bit different, isn't it???

*That's the way the song refers to Chilenean soldiers
 
yes, that's right. As I said, Argentina gained a lot during the war without the need of entering. So, the most sensible position was probably not to enter the war. But, since the most sensible course of action is not allways adopted (in fact, it rarely is), it might not be that hard to have a TL in which argentina gets involved...



I didn't know this, but is likely.




Nor this. Interesting!





A good video, but... ¿los soldados de Chacabuco*? (The soldiers of Chacabuco?) Yeah, only in Chacabuco this soldiers where fighting side to side with Argentinian soldiers in order to free Chile from absolutist Spain. And here, well, these soldiers were fighting in orden to conquer its neighbours territory. A bit different, isn't it???

*That's the way the song refers to Chilenean soldiers
Some of those links may be wrong but at least one is from a documentary filmed in chile about the war of the pacific.
The one that says Batalla de La Concepción & Epopeya", La Guerra del Pacifico & POPEYA La Guerra del Pacifico 1de2
are from the documentary.

BTW the other thin Bolivia offered Chile was an alliance.
 
[...]Peru fought better at sea than Chile, at least in the first part of the war, but the problem was that they had very few units compared to the enemy. Once they lost their only ironclad (the Huáscar)with Captain Grau on board they were definitely screwed.

You forgot about Indepedencia - the second Peruvian ironclad. And it can be said that the loss of Huáscar was an effect of earlier loss of Indepedencia - which happened because of bad luck, anyway...
 
In terms of trying to build up Peru's navy, they were negotiating for three of Austria-Hungary's broadside ironclad battleships at this time, and the deal almost went through, but for a last-second intervention by an admiral.
 
Some of those links may be wrong but at least one is from a documentary filmed in chile about the war of the pacific.
The one that says Batalla de La Concepción & Epopeya", La Guerra del Pacifico & POPEYA La Guerra del Pacifico 1de2
are from the documentary.

Knight Templar, I'm not saying they're historically wrong. In fact, I find them interesting. Thanks for the link:)

What I was saying is that calling Chilenean soldiers who fought in the War of the Pacific "soldados de Chacabuco" is something I found a bit odd, because the reasoms why Chilenians fought in Chacabuco were completely different from the ones they fought in 1880. In a way, one can say thet one they fought in the Pacific they were precisely betraying the legacy of Chacabuco.

What I was critizising was a part of a documentary made in the 80s in Chile (under Pinochet's government, by the way) who exalts the Chilenean military who died during the war of the Pacific by referring to them as "soldiers of Chacabuco". Chacabuco was the batttle in which Chilenians and Argentinians freed Chile from Spain. Personally, I didn't like the fact they used that phrase for soldiers who weren't precisely fighting to free their country.

But this sort of historical manipulation is something quite common, not only in Chile. During the 70s, some of the Argentinian military used to quote San Martin daily, dispite the fact they were doing precisely what San Martin had condemned: fighting against their own people. And I think that also Vichy France used the figure of Joanne of Arch as a symbol of her regime (I know the free French did the same too). So, it's nothing surprising.
 
Top