Some of you guys are erroneously applying concepts of nationality and nationalism to an area which had yet to consolidate a nation state and wouldn't do so until well into the 20th century.
Last edited:
I mean I can buy the idea that local Spanish-speaking populations would be against Brazilian rule in most situations(even if it wouldn't exactly be true), the problem is that considering the population sizes the idea that occupation would be impossible because of that(especially as we go past the mid 19th century) doesn't seem to be reasonable, for example let's extend the argument to similar cases(Ireland, Quebec and many other European populations under multi-national empires) and yet many of those empire survived and weren't constantly fighting rebels and those examples have demographics skewed in favour of the locals but Uruguay and Entre-Rios do not.Some of you guys are erroneously appling concepts of nationality and nationalism to an area which had yet to consolidate a nation state and wouldn't do so until well into the 20th century.
I mean I can buy the idea that local Spanish-speaking populations would be against Brazilian rule in most situations(even if it wouldn't exactly be true), the problem is that considering the population sizes the idea that occupation would be impossible because of that(especially as we go past the mid 19th century) doesn't seem to be reasonable, for example let's extend the argument to similar cases(Ireland, Quebec and many other European populations under multi-national empires) and yet many of those empire survived and weren't constantly fighting rebels and those examples have demographics skewed in favour of the locals but Uruguay and Entre-Rios do not.
Well Uruguay population declined from 200k to about 130k in 1850 as far as I know, so on that front the same is possible as well.Paraguay ran out of men, as in 70% of the male population.
Not sure they wanted to in that case, plus it's not like Argentina was not going to accept that in any case, a partition would have been more likely but the important land would have gone to Argentina by virtue of geographic location(Asuncion).Brazil did not annex Paraguay. It could not.
They couldn't afford to fight because they lost key battles on land, if they won those they would have added a land victory over the already significant sea blockade.It gave up on Uruguay because it could not afford to continue fighting the insurgents.
Just like Mexico is fighting the US, Bolivia and Peru are fighting Chile? Such conflict would be solved like the many others IOTL, especially because the demographic component behind it wouldn't survive that long especially if Brazil keeps on winning, at worst the conflict would be a one sided grudge.Brazil would be fighting today with Argentina if they tried to hold this area. Yes, I am serious.
Not sure what you are trying to say there with your comparison, tribes fighting one another would seem to something more solvable than some clear cut ethnic delineation.These populations had been fighting one another since the 1500's. The consolidation of the Portuguese and Spanish Crowns under Phillip II did nothing to help the continuing conflict. This is not the English trying to retain control of Ulster, this is more like Irish tribes fighting one another, replace the Irish with Iberians.
Are you joking right? Brazil kept on fighting in the Platine region for decades and with some land gains as well, even if minor.Uruguay was eventually controlled by Spanish speakers de facto, not de jure. Brazil had no legal or physical claim to the lands west of the Uruguay river. She stopped claiming the Spanish dominated lands because it was easier to expand into the jungle than fighting.
The population stayed around 130k for 2 decades until 1850, it didn't climb back after the war.The population loss in Uruguay was caused by Uruguans fleeing to Argentina,
Nothing that the Brazilians can't stop or didn't involve themselves in OTL as well(considering the tens of thousnad of troops they put in various civil wars in Uruguay and Argentina), this time though the dynamics would be different.from whence they continued to support the fighting, both with Brazil and rival political parties. It became the national sport during the early 19th Century.
That's the worst way one can describe the War of the Triple Alliance. The Brazilians put 4.5 times more men in the war than Argentina anyway.And? That's not important for the situation in 1820s, apparently Britain not being able to take Buenos Aires with a couple to a dozen thousand men is supposed to mean something?
How so? There were many rebellions but there wasn't any particular time when the entire country was close to crumbling.
Brazil needed Argentine help to defeat Paraguay.
.Just like Mexico is fighting the US, Bolivia and Peru are fighting Chile? Such conflict would be solved like the many others IOTL, especially because the demographic component behind it wouldn't survive that long especially if Brazil keeps on winning, at worst the conflict would be a one sided grudge.
I'm With You that before The 19 Century it could be done but OP ask for a POD in the 19 century after The independence of Argentina and to be more specific one POD after one of The Brazil- Argentina warsI could see Brazil controlling the area of the OP in several POD's
1 - starting in the 1500's with an early interest in holding the coast to La Plata,
2 - Sebastian I decides on a less intrusive campaign in Morocco, thus surviving to sponsor expansion in southern Brazil,
3 - a Spanish monarch during the Phillipine Dynasty redraws the borders of provinces, giving the territory to Portugal, unlikely,
4 - in 1724 with a stronger response to the Spanish seizure of Montevideo,
5 - Brazilian expansion during the expulsion of the Jesuits in 1759, the Jesuits were driven west into Corrientes,
6 - the Portuguese royal exiles bring a much larger force in 1808, and enforces the claim to the south.
After this, the Spanish Argentines, Uruguayans and Paraguayans developed national identities during the long French wars, British incursions, and independence period civil wars of the 1808-30 period.
Well 1870 is not 1820(plus you kinda moved the goalpost there, you said before they didn't meddle in the area after 1830. By 1870 the situation was different, Uruguay's population was 3 times as large and after 40 years Brazil accept the existence of Uruguay as it was.I am confused as to why you think I am joking.
Except for administering Paraguay for several years after the War of Triple Alliance, and meddling in the internecine Uruguayan politics for another decade,
The Brazilian poured 20-30k men in Uruguay and Buenos Aires during the Cisplatine war and a similar number in the Platine and Uruguayan wars, in the first war they blockaded Argentina, causing crippling damage to the economy, they had the ability to project power, they just failed militarily.Brazil stepped back from the area after 1870. Brazil had far less ability to project power than you assume during the period.
Quite open definition of fighting.Well, we are, not with weapons yet, but Definitively Chile, Peru and Bolivia are fighting here:
This issue arose only recently, at its earliest only in the 80s.
Even this is quite recent, considering Bolivia formally did accept Chile sovereignity of the region in the early 20th century, this whole thing amounts to what I said before, a one sided grudge.
Well I don't think that the opinions of what seems a tabloid should be taken as a representation of a whole country and even if that were the case it would still be close to one-sided grudge than actual fighting like you said in the beginning.Some photo of Peruvian Press about the Chile-Peru "cordial" relation(in spanish)
![]()
![]()
![]()
Well I don't think that the opinions of what seems a tabloid should be taken as a representation of a whole country and even if that were the case it would still be close to one-sided grudge than actual fighting like you said in the beginning.
I'm not wishing anything away, I am merelyUruguay: the mere fact that it was so tough to conquer in 1816-1820 and that Brazil couldn't hold it a few short years later means something. You can't simply wish that away.
?????? Who said anything about a Brazilian Buenos Aires? The point of the TL was to imagine a Brazilian Entre Rios and Uruguay, not a Brazilian South America or something of the likes.Buenos Aires: the mere fact that Britain, while not much of a land power in comparison to European countries, it is a major power in comparison to a backwater colonial city, and couldn't take or hold BA, is absolutely relevant to the ability of another backwater colonial power to take and hold BA.
At which point was there an actual danger of the country collapsing? Tell me the year when that was the case, the 2 bigger rebellion had a chance of succeeding but the various rebellion weren't really that close to winning(I agree that this could change IATL but I address a way to avoid the anarchy period as well)Brazil: The country was wracked with internal strife in the 1830's, and was in danger of fracturing apart. There's a reason Pedro II was rushed to his majority at age 14.
Both Brazil and Argentina got their butt handed to them in the first phase of the war, plus your supposition is unfounded to begin with, like I said Brazil poured many more men compared to Argentina and if for some weird reason Argentina doesn't join Brazil would still have a massive force in the region, plus on a smaller front(I imagine the war wouldn't extend to Corrientes otherwise that would obviously draw in Argentina)Paraguay: Without Argentina's assistance in the opening phase of the war, it's quite possible, if not likely, that Brazil gets its butt handed to it early, which changes the entire complexion of the war.
Wow, the massive counterweight of a 610k country versus a 4.7 million one. The reason why Uruguay exists is because the United Provinces won on the ground, not because some inherent impossibility of a Brazilian victory caused by the existence of Argentina, which wasn't particularly united itself anyway.IF Argentina were to sink into the sea, you are absolutely right that Brazil would have the ability to conquer Uruguay and Entre Rios. The problem is that Argentina exists, and acts as a counterweight to Brazil's designs. Argentina is the reason Uruguay is a separate country and not a brazilian province.
Well just make them win, which would secure the area at least until the period of anarchy, if that still happens IATL.If you have a POD which turns Brazil into a regional powerhouse in this time frame capable of taking and holding the area in question
Well, but it is true, nothing could be done in this forum if everyone kept shouting "but they failed IOTL" at every WI thread."things can change" is another way of saying 'hand wavium, presto magic'.
The fact that Argentina needed to dig a giant trench to keep out the Mapuche and repeatedly lost to Paraguay durring the wars of independence is also absolutely relevant to their ability push Brazil out of Uruguay.Buenos Aires: the mere fact that Britain, while not much of a land power in comparison to European countries, it is a major power in comparison to a backwater colonial city, and couldn't take or hold BA, is absolutely relevant to the ability of another backwater colonial power to take and hold BA.
What and when are these changes that turn Brazil into such a regional powerhouse?[/QUOTE]I'm not wishing anything away, I am merely
?????? Who said anything about a Brazilian Buenos Aires? The point of the TL was to imagine a Brazilian Entre Rios and Uruguay, not a Brazilian South America or something of the likes.
At which point was there an actual danger of the country collapsing? Tell me the year when that was the case, the 2 bigger rebellion had a chance of succeeding but the various rebellion weren't really that close to winning(I agree that this could change IATL but I address a way to avoid the anarchy period as well)
Both Brazil and Argentina got their butt handed to them in the first phase of the war, plus your supposition is unfounded to begin with, like I said Brazil poured many more men compared to Argentina and if for some weird reason Argentina doesn't join Brazil would still have a massive force in the region, plus on a smaller front(I imagine the war wouldn't extend to Corrientes otherwise that would obviously draw in Argentina)
Wow, the massive counterweight of a 610k country versus a 4.7 million one. The reason why Uruguay exists is because the United Provinces won on the ground, not because some inherent impossibility of a Brazilian victory caused by the existence of Argentina, which wasn't particularly united itself anyway.
Well just make them win, which would secure the area at least until the period of anarchy, if that still happens IATL.
Well, but it is true, nothing could be done in this forum if everyone kept shouting "but they failed IOTL" at every WI thread.