WI:Brazilian victory in Cisplatine War?

Is is possible for the Brazilian Empire to defeat the United Provinces of Rio De La Plata in the Cisplatine War?

You tell us.

First up, can you explain what the Cisplatine war was? Who fought in it? When? Why? How did it run in our timeline?

I don't know what it is about Latin American threads, but they always go like this. Someone posits an incredibly obscure reference: "What if Martinez had shot Umboca in the Ortega/Nyalathotep Crisis?" As if we're all supposed to know what the hell it was all about. Then if we're lucky, there's an impenetrable little discussion like "Well, then Pickman would have probably allied with Randolph Carter" "But what about Akely." Which goes on for half a dozen posts and then dies, and the rest of us are going WTF? Or you get a situation where it just dies on the order paper.

I dunno. I'd like to think that there's potential for more. Set out some background, explain some premises, inspire people to be interested, to do some research, to discuss and push and prod.

Don't mind me. I'm just being a curmudgeon.
 
Last edited:
You tell us.

First up, can you explain what the Cisplatine war was? Who fought in it? When? Why? How did it run in our timeline?
This was a war that pitted Brazil against Argentina (or, as known back then, Provincias Unidas del Río de la Plata) and Uruguayan rebels.

It went bad for Brazil for most of it, with the UPRP putting up a lot of pressure against Brazil, until its navy blockaded Buenos Aires. Then it became a stalemate.

This war is the reason why Uruguay exists.

So, with this at hand, a Brazilian victory would butterfly away Uruguay, but then they might have to deal with a stronger Republican rebellion once the Farrapos go up in arms a few years down the line.
 
What? The Cisplatine War was a Brazilian victory. Uruguay wasn't re-annexed to Argentina, and effectively became a Brazilian puppet.
 
You tell us.

First up, can you explain what the Cisplatine war was? Who fought in it? When? Why? How did it run in our timeline?

I don't know what it is about Latin American threads, but they always go like this. Someone posits an incredibly obscure reference: "What if Martinez had shot Umboca in the Ortega/Nyalathotep Crisis?" As if we're all supposed to know what the hell it was all about. Then if we're lucky, there's an impenetrable little discussion like "Well, then Pickman would have probably allied with Randolph Carter" "But what about Akely." Which goes on for half a dozen posts and then dies, and the rest of us are going WTF? Or you get a situation where it just dies on the order paper.

I dunno. I'd like to think that there's potential for more. Set out some background, explain some premises, inspire people to be interested, to do some research, to discuss and push and prod.

Don't mind me. I'm just being a curmudgeon.
But what about the Noriega crisis? :p
 
What? The Cisplatine War was a Brazilian victory. Uruguay wasn't re-annexed to Argentina, and effectively became a Brazilian puppet.
The Brazilian aim was to keep Uruguay as a province. The Argentine aim was to annex it. Brazil clearly lost the war on land, but the Argentines couldn't defeat our Navy, so finnaly Britain mediated the conflict and determined that Uruguay should be independent. It wasn't a Brazilian victory, it was a British one. ;)
 
You tell us.

First up, can you explain what the Cisplatine war was? Who fought in it? When? Why? How did it run in our timeline?

I don't know what it is about Latin American threads, but they always go like this. Someone posits an incredibly obscure reference: "What if Martinez had shot Umboca in the Ortega/Nyalathotep Crisis?" As if we're all supposed to know what the hell it was all about. Then if we're lucky, there's an impenetrable little discussion like "Well, then Pickman would have probably allied with Randolph Carter" "But what about Akely." Which goes on for half a dozen posts and then dies, and the rest of us are going WTF? Or you get a situation where it just dies on the order paper.

I dunno. I'd like to think that there's potential for more. Set out some background, explain some premises, inspire people to be interested, to do some research, to discuss and push and prod.

Don't mind me. I'm just being a curmudgeon.
I usually try to explain context, though that doesn't seem to imply a Latin American thread will get much comments anyway...
 
What? The Cisplatine War was a Brazilian victory. Uruguay wasn't re-annexed to Argentina, and effectively became a Brazilian puppet.
Gonzaga: "The Brazilian aim was to keep Uruguay as a province. The Argentine aim was to annex it. Brazil clearly lost the war on land, but the Argentines couldn't defeat our Navy, so finnaly Britain mediated the conflict and determined that Uruguay should be independent. It wasn't a Brazilian victory, it was a British one."


Yes, no country got what it wanted, but at least Argentina got a slightly better situation than before the begining of the war, when Uruguay was in Brazilian hands.

As for the aftermath, both country have influenced Uruguay ever since, at times the Argentine influence been stronger, at times the Brazilian one is greater. Nowadays, the Brazilian influence is probably stronger in the economic sphere, but culturaly, the Argentine influence is greater, given we have the same language. But Uruguay isn't a puppet of anyone.
 
Is is possible for the Brazilian Empire to defeat the United Provinces of Rio De La Plata in the Cisplatine War?
Sure. Have the Brazilian army defeat the Argentine one at the Battle of Ituzaingo and route it. With the Brazilian Navy blockading the River Plate, Argentina probably wouldn't be able to support a counter-offensive. Brazil probably can't found an invasion of the United Provinces by that time either, but any peace treaty by that ATL time would be favourable to Brazil.

I don't know the consequences for Brazil. As for Argentina, Rivadavia and his attempts at an unitarian constitution will fall, Dorrego is likely to be elected (as in OTL) as his successor and, with the Argentine defeat at Ituzaingo, the returning army might not coup him. He might not be able to hold into power in the long run anyway, but it could butterfly away Rosas.
The thing is, that Argentine military defeat might actually benefit Argentina, or United Provinces of the South in ATL, as it provides a chance for political stability as it removes a fair portion of the unitarian party military support. Also, while the peace treaty should be favourable to Brazil, it also ends border issues with Brazil and meddling in Uruguayan politics also becomes impossible, as there is no Uruguay. There might not be enough internal support for a jingoistic attempt to retake the Cisplatine Province (as the Uruguayans would be competitors), so in the long run, relations between the United Provinces and Brazil could actually be better than in OTL.
And no Uruguay also means the War of the Triple Alliance, as we know it, can not start - again, no meddling in Uruguayan policies. That doesn't mean Solano Lopez wouldn't, eventually, try to invade the United Provinces to get a sea port, but the United Provinces might not (and should not) be allied with Brazil in ATL.

And of course, that begs the question: without Uruguay, where are wealthy Argentines and Brazilians going to store the money they don't want their governments to know they have? Guess Paraguay would end up as both a fiscal and customs paradise in ATL
 
Last edited:
Sure. Have the Brazilian army defeat the Argentine one at the Battle of Ituzaingo and route it. With the Brazilian Navy blockading the River Plate, Argentina probably wouldn't be able to support a counter-offensive. Brazil probably can't found an invasion of the United Provinces by that time either, but any peace treaty by that ATL time would be favourable to Brazil.

I don't the consequences for Brazil. As for Argentina, Rivadavia and his attempts at an unitarian constitution will fall, Dorrego is likely to be elected (as in OTL) as his successor and, with the Argentine defeat at Ituzaingo, the returning army might not coup him. He might not be able to hold into power in the long run anyway, but it could butterfly away Rosas.
The thing is, that Argentine military defeat might actually benefit Argentina, or United Provinces of the South in ATL, as it provides a chance for political stability as it removes a fair portion of the unitarian party military support. Also, while the peace treaty should be favourable to Brazil, it also ends border issues with Brazil and meddling in Uruguayan politics also becomes impossible, as there is no Uruguay. There might not be enough internal support for a jingoistic attempt to retake the Cisplatine Province (as the Uruguayans would be competitors), so in the long run, relations between the United Provinces and Brazil could actually be better than in OTL.
And no Uruguay also means the War of the Triple Alliance, as we know it, can not start - again, no meddling in Uruguayan policies. That doesn't mean Solano Lopez wouldn't, eventually, try to invade the United Provinces to get a sea port, but the United Provinces might not (and should not) be allied with Brazil in ATL.

And of course, that begs the question: without Uruguay, where are wealthy Argentines and Brazilians going to store the money they don't want their governments to know they have? Guess Paraguay would end up as both a fiscal and customs paradise in ATL
So the end result would be quite remarkable Paraguayan wank? :) Someone should write such a TL.
Paraguay is a so fascinating place, and really deserved better than its OTL fate.
 
Yes, no country got what it wanted, but at least Argentina got a slightly better situation than before the begining of the war, when Uruguay was in Brazilian hands..
While in Brazil the defeat in Uruguay helped to undermine Pedro I's position, and worsened the finnancial crisis of the government.
 
You tell us.

First up, can you explain what the Cisplatine war was? Who fought in it? When? Why? How did it run in our timeline?

I don't know what it is about Latin American threads, but they always go like this. Someone posits an incredibly obscure reference: "What if Martinez had shot Umboca in the Ortega/Nyalathotep Crisis?" As if we're all supposed to know what the hell it was all about. Then if we're lucky, there's an impenetrable little discussion like "Well, then Pickman would have probably allied with Randolph Carter" "But what about Akely." Which goes on for half a dozen posts and then dies, and the rest of us are going WTF? Or you get a situation where it just dies on the order paper.

I dunno. I'd like to think that there's potential for more. Set out some background, explain some premises, inspire people to be interested, to do some research, to discuss and push and prod.

Don't mind me. I'm just being a curmudgeon.
I feel the same when I read really specific American Civil War questions. If one doesn't know the basics of the context - chances are - he or she won't be very helpful in a specific question.
But a generic reference to an unambiguous event or historical figure shouldn't shut people out. If one wants to keep up, well... there's always this.
 
I feel the same when I read really specific American Civil War questions.
I'm not really thrilled with those either. In the event of specific and obscure American Civil War questions, I have the same questions and quibbles... and ultimately, the same basic question. Why should I care?

It seems to me when throwing these questions or issues out there, its worth while to meet the average reader half way by providing a bit of background, of context, explain why its important and significant.

I do a Latin American timeline, Axis of Andes. I don't treat my subject matter as some state secret, or demand that my readers be well versed on fine points of South American history.

If one doesn't know the basics of the context - chances are - he or she won't be very helpful in a specific question.
Indeed.

But a generic reference to an unambiguous event or historical figure shouldn't shut people out. If one wants to keep up, well... there's always this.
Which begs the question: Why bother?
 
Because there's bound to be some people out there who're interested in the obscurer points of Latin American history. The board's got a pretty diverse mix of posters with an eclectic range of AH interests.
 
Will this make Dom Pedro I stay as Emperor?
maybe, but as someone pointed out earlier it might mean that the War of the Ragamuffins goes differently with Uruguay revolting, possibly leading to the Riograndense Republic and the Juliana Republic gaining independence, which probably wouldn't be good for the monarchy.
 
Will this make Dom Pedro I stay as Emperor?
I think it depends on how Brazil wins the war. Only winning at Ituzaingó (or Passo do Rosário, as we call it) wouldn't make the conflict end as a Brazilian victory. Our army was still in bad conditions, the government finnances were in bad conditions and we were depending on mercenary troops that were revolting because they weren't being paid. It all depends on how longer could Argentina continue the fight, and even then we probably would have to face "guerrillas" in the countryside.
So, we probably only would have a longer war, creating even more difficulties to the government. I don't think the situation for Pedro I would be much improved by 1831.
 
maybe, but as someone pointed out earlier it might mean that the War of the Ragamuffins goes differently with Uruguay revolting, possibly leading to the Riograndense Republic and the Juliana Republic gaining independence, which probably wouldn't be good for the monarchy.
One of the greatest reasons why the "Farrapos" revolted was that due to the taxes imposed by the central goverment the beef produced in Rio Grande do Sul could not compete with the imported meat from Uruguay. If Uruguay is Brazilian then it would have the same taxes as Brazil, and we probably wouldn't import meat from Argentina. So this problem wouldn't exist. Also, considering that most of the leaders of the Farrapos originally had lands in Uruguay (that were lost when Brazil needed to give them independence) they would be a lot less to complain, even more considering that the grassland there to raise cattle was better than in Rio Grande do Sul.
 
Which begs the question: Why bother?
That's the beauty of it: you don't have to.
And if the sheer mention of a war between the Empire of Brazil and the United Provinces doesn't wheet your curiosity of what's it all about, you're not likely to be any more interested if the OP bothers to describe the war in question.
 
I think it depends on how Brazil wins the war. Only winning at Ituzaingó (or Passo do Rosário, as we call it) wouldn't make the conflict end as a Brazilian victory. Our army was still in bad conditions, the government finnances were in bad conditions and we were depending on mercenary troops that were revolting because they weren't being paid. It all depends on how longer could Argentina continue the fight, and even then we probably would have to face "guerrillas" in the countryside.
So, we probably only would have a longer war, creating even more difficulties to the government. I don't think the situation for Pedro I would be much improved by 1831.
Say, if the imperial troops had focused on defending Montevideu and Colónia after driving the Argentineans out of Cisplatine, would this problem still be that relevant? The Armada can prevent enemy troops from crossing into the province by patrolling the Uruguay River, after all.

How much time can the Argentineans hold out with the La Plata blockaded? I think the biggest concern for Buenos Aires won't be the Brazilians, but the unsatisfied non-porteños; they have had their exports cut off and their sons send to die in a far away land which means nothing to them. How long untul they pressure the President to make peace?

Another question which should be considered is how is the Imperial Government actually take and preserve control over Cisplatine? The Uruguayans hated the foreign invaders and they have a very much active resistence movement, the Thirty Three. Could we see some Brazilian gaúchos founding some kind of militia to deal with those rebels and defend their interests in the south?
 
Top