WI a French/Canadian Patagonia... in the XVIII century?

When people think of a French Patagonia, they tend to think on the XIX century and of Orelie Antoine de Tounens's project of a Mapuche indepenpendent kindom, ruled by him and backed by France. The possibilities of success for this project were, for many reasons, extremly few.

However, a century earlier, in 1764, the French carried out a more serious attempt to colonise the region. In that year, the French, led by Louis de Bougainville founded a settlement on some islands they calles Îles Malouines. It was aimed to be a permanent settlement. Most of the colonists were French canadians who had left Canada after the British took control of the place. Bougainville himself had fought in the French and Indian war.

The idea was, in a way, to recreate French Canada, but in the southern part of the Americas. This settlement was suppose to be only the begining of a much larger project. Eventualy, from the safety of their base, the French were supposed to make alliances with the natives in the continent, and establish different settlements on the coast.

The colonny went very well, as the colonizers were used to the type of harsh weather they found there. But eventually the Spanish found out of the settlement, and protested. The French argued that it was better for the Spanish that the islands were French than British. But the Spanish didn't buy it, stating that all Patagonia and all Southern islands belong to them. Eventually, the French backed down, aknowledge Spanish rights and rendered them the islands (in 1767). Most colonists left and were replaced by Spanish settlers. Some chose to stay.

But what if Spain had been distracted by internal problems, and hadn't pushed enough? What if the French had stayed, expanded the colonny, and had tried to settle in the continent? Would they have succeeded?
 
Awesome idea, I've always wondered if Patagonia could've been more developed if Buenos Aires didn't have such control over it. Does Patagonia have any good natural harbors?
 
Before the natural resources of the region were useful, it's hard to imagine anyone going through the effort of colonizing the place. Maybe someone could start a penguin-meat craze in Europe or something.
 
When people think of a French Patagonia, they tend to think on the XIX century and of Orelie Antoine de Tounens's project of a Mapuche indepenpendent kindom, ruled by him and backed by France. The possibilities of success for this project were, for many reasons, extremly few.

However, a century earlier, in 1764, the French carried out a more serious attempt to colonise the region. In that year, the French, led by Louis de Bougainville founded a settlement on some islands they calles Îles Malouines. It was aimed to be a permanent settlement. Most of the colonists were French canadians who had left Canada after the British took control of the place.

Or, more accurately, a lot of them were Acadians that were deported during the Dérangement. Other than that, it does sound like an interesting idea worth pursuing. Getting les Îles Malouines would be a cakewalk (and, thanks to their method of making dikes, which they learned from the Mi'kmaq, could actually increase the land area of the islands), and could be an easy recreation of l'Acadie. As for the others - well, they'd actually have to find a way to coëxist with the Mapuche as they did with the Mi'kmaq, but it's possible.

(BTW, check your PM box, Almirante ;))
 
Yes, I find the interaction between the new settlers and the Mapuches the most fascinating part of this idea. Unlike in Canada, with it's access to furs as a trade good, what does Patagonia have? Without a trade good like fur, is there a large incentive for the kind of cross-cultural interaction between the settlers and the natives like in Canada?
 
Knowing the French were more cordial to the natives than its European counterparts, maybe the Mapuches can slowly be incorporated into this colony.
 
Knowing the French were more cordial to the natives than its European counterparts, maybe the Mapuches can slowly be incorporated into this colony.

The Mapuche lived nowhere close to the Falklands or the mainland Patagonia nearest to the islands. Nice try.

I've noticed that in every single thread about South America, you always bring up the Mapuche. Contributing to the oft-neglected subjects is good, not doing any homework ever and clinging to your pre-formed romanticised ideas isn't.

Possession of the Falklands will be important vis a vis sealing and whaling ventures. If the French can control said trades, they stand to make a fairly substantial profit, thus making the Falklands a viable colony (in the crown's eyes, of course).
 
Thanks for the comments!

I'll make clear some points about the natives before going into other subjects.

It seems that, around the XVI, there were in Patagonia three large families of Amerindians:

- The Aonikenk (called "Tehuelche" by the Mapuche and "Patagones" by Magellan) lived in continental Argentinian Patagonia

- The Gennakenk (later called "pampas" by the Spaniards) lived in the Pampas and Northern Patagonia. Some say the Querandíes, the Indians the first Spanish met, were Pampas.

- The Mapuche (called "Araucanos" by the Spaniards) lived in Central and Southern Chile, and, maybe, in the Western part of Neuquen.

- Other groups lived in Southern Chile and in Tierra del Fuego.

The Tehuelche and the Pampas were closely related. The Mapuche weren't.

Of course, this is a very simplified scheme. Names differ according to the author. The reality is extremely complex, and much is ignored. But what's clear is that, in the XVI century, there were no Mapuches in Patagonia East of the Andes (except, maybe in Neuquen) nor in the Pampas.

Originally, the ways of living of the Mapuche and the rest were quite different. The Mapuche had a bigger population and tecnologies the Tehuelche and the Pampas lacked. They had textiles, for example, which the Tehuelche didn't have.

However, by 1870, there were Mapuches even in the province of Buenos Aires, and Mapundungun was the lingua franca from Chubut to Buenos Aires. The Tehuelche kept living in Patagonia, but they had adopted not not only mapundungun names, but also religious rites of the Mapuche, like the "ngillatun". The Tehuelche who lived in Patagonia formed a sort of confederation, and were the "vassals"(for lack of a better word) of a Mapuche chief living in Southern Neuquen, named Saihueque.

Two decades ago, it was believed that Aracucanization or Mapuchization of Patagonia and the Pampas had started in the XVIII century, or even earlier, and that it involved large displacement ot Mapuche living west of the andes. Now some scholars argue that Mapuchization started during the late XVIII as a result of internal changes in the way of life of the Tehuelche and the Pampas. Their society and their tastes grew more complex, and so they adopted the more sofisticated Mapuche ways (who had, in turn been changed due to contact with the spanish in Chile). According to this view, massive Mapuche migrations did occur, and so did clashes with the locals, but that didn't happened till the first half of the XIX century. The araucanization predates these migrations.

In any case, in the area we're interested (the coast of Santa Cruz, close to The Malvinas), Araucanization must have been weak or none existance by XVIII (at least as far as we know). There were horses, though, as the horse was introduce in southern Patagonia in the XVII century, from Buenos Aires. It never reached Tierra del Fuego, though.

So, to sum up, the French wouldn't have encounter any Mapuche in the 1770ies in Santa Cruz.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I find the interaction between the new settlers and the Mapuches the most fascinating part of this idea. Unlike in Canada, with it's access to furs as a trade good, what does Patagonia have? Without a trade good like fur, is there a large incentive for the kind of cross-cultural interaction between the settlers and the natives like in Canada?

In the late XVIII century, and specially in the XIX century, whalers and sailors came to the Patagonian coasts mainly to hunt sealions (for the oil industry). Natives would trade with them, offering them guanaco meat, feathers, leathers and "quillangos" in exchange for western products.

Much later, when the Welsh settled in Chubut (in 1865), the Tehuelche established a semipermanent camp around their colony. They would exchange these products for bread, butter, iron and other stuff. The same had happened when the Spanish made a colony in the 1780ies that was soon abandoned. If the French establish an outpost, the Amerindians would probably camp nearby and trade with them.

However, the Indians might not be happy for them expanding much further. And since the locals weren't involved in a destructive war against nobody, it's not that the French would be seen by them as an usefull military ally. The Spanish were very far away, and the Mapuche weren't inerested in the Southern part of Patagonia...
 
Does Patagonia have any good natural harbors?

Yes, the main of them is Puerto San Julián, in Santa Cruz, but there are others.

The problem is that sometimes natural harbours are far from were rivers reach the sea, and, since Eastern Patagonia is very dry, lack of water for crops is a problem. The wealsh, for example, disembarked in Puerto Madryn but establish their colony 100 miles South, along the Chubut valey, due to the lack of water.
 
Make Patagonia a worse version of Australia. What I mean by that, is that it should become a penal colony at first until it develops itself. This would first be food and fishing, then mining.
 
Make Patagonia a worse version of Australia. What I mean by that, is that it should become a penal colony at first until it develops itself. This would first be food and fishing, then mining.

Actually that probably has some merit...

So lets say the Spanish are just a little less paranoid about their Peruvian Gold..
The French Bourbons are their allies after all. So simply have them have a secret protocol to the treaty ceding Louisiana to keep it out of British Hands for some Unspecified compensation in exchange after the final peace with Britain is established. Its not that far off and then The French can continue to play up the greater security angle against the English. Were all Bourbons right...and there is little of value known at the time so its not like its going to grow extremely large until it gets fully explored..

Spanish settlements are way far north at this time. And say if the Colorado was agreed as the natural separator for the French and Spanish Spheres all the better.

To be sure if agreed the Spanish will pay a little more attn to B.A.

The Tehuelche peoples are likely to be assimilated by the French instead in this case and will be the French guides in exploring the terr. In all likelyhood the best this will be is a French version of N.Z. with the bulk of settlement after 1800, and only small scale settlements on the coast prior to then.

But I do like the idea of it being a repository for certain French Hotheads when the time comes., or a place for the French to go if the harvest is particularly bad.
 
*snip*
So, to sum up, the French wouldn't have encounter any Mapuche in the 1770ies in Santa Cruz.
Right, I see. I think we all were more using "Mapuche" more as a placeholder for the natives, but considering they're settling on the Flaklands, maybe it doesn't matter so much. Considering how cold and rather inhospitable the whole area is, perhaps what we might see is a slow expansion from the French base in the Falklands out to Patagonia, on the very edge of the coast, perhaps leaving the Spanish a large buffer area in Northern Patagonia to avoid any conflicts. How does this sound?
 
Right, I see. I think we all were more using "Mapuche" more as a placeholder for the natives, but considering they're settling on the Flaklands, maybe it doesn't matter so much. Considering how cold and rather inhospitable the whole area is, perhaps what we might see is a slow expansion from the French base in the Falklands out to Patagonia, on the very edge of the coast, perhaps leaving the Spanish a large buffer area in Northern Patagonia to avoid any conflicts. How does this sound?

It sounds quite logical. However, if the French, for example, start selling guns to the natives, and if this guns reach the Pampas Indians, who used to raid Spanish estancias in the border of Buenos Aires and Santa Fe, relations between France and Spain might worsen...
 
Top