Why did Paraguay fail to be an important country in South America during the 19th Century?
- Thread starter Francisco Fernando
- Start date
For the same reason someone would follow Stalin
Lopez killed all opposition, even his brother when he asked for peace. All people surrounding him were either his close family members of some loyalist officers who know that could be arrested or killed by war crimes, and forcefully conscripted recruits, some of them without any equipment
Another problem for Paraguay is the fact that Argentinians could block navigation on Parana river (they really did it IOTL), thus cutting Paraguay's main trade route.
@Svetonius21 But it could still be a trading center even if Argentina block it.
I like the capitalism and "establishing special tourist program," "no can enter," and "then can never leave again"
Lots of rulers have tried this, but the more usual result is mass resistance to conscription and mass desertion from the army. To rule a state and army, one must get people to get people to get people to get people to do what one wants. When one's orders mean hardships or death for the underlings, they all stop obeying.
On the contrary, Lopez had a lot of his men follow him to their deaths.
And that's what's surprising. Merely giving orders fails, nearly always. History is replete with leaders who were deserted or overthrown by their own followers. It's the ones who are followed over a cliff that are remarked on.
His family had ruled the country for a long time before the war, he had eliminated all opposition
The north korea comparation with Paraguay at the time fits the narrative, no one would oppose him, and the soldiers disbanded in the last battle, a curiosity is that when the brazilian cavalry noticed all the paraguayans running, they immediately identified Lopez because he was the only fat men in the entire army
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
Having spoke before on preventing Argentine reunification, does anyone more knowledgeable about the period have any idea for a specific PoD? Would think something after the secession of Buenos Aires (1852), but prior to the Battle of Cepeda (1859), would be best.
And aside from how Paraguay might have been a more powerful country in (southern) South America, I'd think the effects would be just as intersting. For example, if Brazil had to face the Paraguayan military alone, without Argentina, sometime in the 1869's and 70's, and managed to suffer territorial or other loss as a result, how would that effect the sizeable empire? For example, would the path toward Brazilian abolition be affected?
CONSOLIDATE: Another thought -- would Paraguay's ambition be aided if, in addition to Argentina not getting involved, Britain had diplomatically or otherwise supported the CSA during the ACW? My thinking here being that this would prove politically disasterous for the government, making them very nervous just a few years later about supporting a slave empire like Brazil?
And aside from how Paraguay might have been a more powerful country in (southern) South America, I'd think the effects would be just as intersting. For example, if Brazil had to face the Paraguayan military alone, without Argentina, sometime in the 1869's and 70's, and managed to suffer territorial or other loss as a result, how would that effect the sizeable empire? For example, would the path toward Brazilian abolition be affected?
CONSOLIDATE: Another thought -- would Paraguay's ambition be aided if, in addition to Argentina not getting involved, Britain had diplomatically or otherwise supported the CSA during the ACW? My thinking here being that this would prove politically disasterous for the government, making them very nervous just a few years later about supporting a slave empire like Brazil?
Last edited:
The Uk DID NOT supported Brazil, this is just another myth as Brazil had it's relations cut off with England because of the Brazilian questions (Or Question Christie) in 1863. At the time that the war began the Brazilian navy was installing naval batteries in the coast expecting a british invasion
"The situation came to a head in 1863 when Christie sent an ultimatum for reparations for two minor incidents at the end of 1861 and beginning of 1862. The Brazilian government refused to yield, and Christie issued orders for British warships to capture Brazilian merchant vessels as indemnity. While Christie had been instructed to accept a Brazilian offer of arbitration if it was made, he was later accused of not informing the Brazilian government of this until after military action had been taken; he had indicated he wanted to teach Brazil a "lesson". Brazil prepared itself for the imminent conflict, The Brazilian government severed diplomatic ties with Britain in June"
Brazil had it's ties with Uk broken during the war, the equipment used by Brazil were leftovers from the american civil war.
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
Ah, thank you for the catch. Though if Brazil was using ACW leftovers, having the CSA do better in said war could still be an effective secondary (or third, etc) PoD.
A curiosity about that is that Brazil bought the spencer Rifle for the cavalry, but the cavalrymen were very troubled because they couldn't understand how to use a gun that could be fired seven times before reloading