In OTL several nations in South America's Pacific Coast showed some interest in the Pacific. Ecuador took the Galapagos and Chile colonized Easter Island, the only time a South American nation took over a land already with natives and colonized it. Had the nations there been able to develop, could they take more islands and land there? If so, how far would they reach? Most Great Powers had no much interest in the area, so I don't think they would do anything.
South America colonizes the Pacific?
- Thread starter Red_Galiray
- Start date
TFSmith121
Banned
The British and French had (vague) interests in Polynesia
The British and French had (vague) interests in Polynesia from the late 1700s and began making them concrete claims in the 1830s and 1840s, including the British in New Zealand and the French in Tahiti.
The Peruvians and the Chileans, even with their maritime tradition, were still pretty much either fighting the Spanish in the 1820s or in the period of national consolidation in the 1830s, and by the 1840s, the rivalry between Peru (or Peru-Bolivia) and Chile was focused on the Continent.
There's (perhaps) a small window in the 1830s, but it pretty much depends on European forbearance.
After that, its the 1840s war; after that, Peru and Chile were still rebuilding in the 1850s, and then had to deal with the Spanish in the 1860s and then each other again in the 1870s, at which point the door was firmly closed, since not only the British and French had staked out claims, the Americans and Germans were prowling around as well (Samoa Crisis).
Best,
The British and French had (vague) interests in Polynesia from the late 1700s and began making them concrete claims in the 1830s and 1840s, including the British in New Zealand and the French in Tahiti.
The Peruvians and the Chileans, even with their maritime tradition, were still pretty much either fighting the Spanish in the 1820s or in the period of national consolidation in the 1830s, and by the 1840s, the rivalry between Peru (or Peru-Bolivia) and Chile was focused on the Continent.
There's (perhaps) a small window in the 1830s, but it pretty much depends on European forbearance.
After that, its the 1840s war; after that, Peru and Chile were still rebuilding in the 1850s, and then had to deal with the Spanish in the 1860s and then each other again in the 1870s, at which point the door was firmly closed, since not only the British and French had staked out claims, the Americans and Germans were prowling around as well (Samoa Crisis).
Best,
Yes, but as you say they only had vague interest, and unless some country does something to piss them off, I think they would allow them to have some islands with low strategic value and few resources. Feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken. Also, yes, I know it was impossible because both countries were busy with wars, economic problems and other internal struggles. My question was wheter they would be able to colonize if those problems are butterflied away. I don't know how, but something happens and (let's say) Chile is able to develop and doesn't have any wars between 1820 and 1850. Would they be able to colonize the Pacific then?
It also depends on which islands you want colonized. Very few have good harbors and the ones that do are likely to be claimed by Europeans first.
I don't have anything specific, I just wanted to ask wheter or not they would have been able to colonize out of simple curiosity. I guess... Could Chile have colonized either Polynesia or Samoa?
TFSmith121
Banned
As stated above by MD, really depends when and where
As stated above by MD, really depends when and where. Even the US didn't start making claims in the Pacific until the 1880s (Samoa) and 1890s (Hawaii, Guam, etc.), so seems questionable whether a South American equivalent, no matter how fortunate in terms of relations with its neighbors, would be developed enough to do so against (presumably) the British and French much before that...
Best,
As stated above by MD, really depends when and where. Even the US didn't start making claims in the Pacific until the 1880s (Samoa) and 1890s (Hawaii, Guam, etc.), so seems questionable whether a South American equivalent, no matter how fortunate in terms of relations with its neighbors, would be developed enough to do so against (presumably) the British and French much before that...
Best,
You're right. Perhaps I should have made this an AHC... Let's say La Plata (Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, Bolivia and Chile) survives. Argentina did pretty well in OTL, and were first world and had a great economy for much of the XIX century, and had they industrialized they would be very powerful. Anyway, would such a state be able to colonize Samoa and Polynesia around the 1880's?
Polynesia (I think meaning current french Polynesia and the other territories around it) is definitely a possibility for La Plata, the only good harbor is Tahiti and it's so far away from other bidders that if La Plata wants it, and puts effort into enforcing their claim, then other nations would let it have it.
Basically the same thing as America and Hawaii.
Samoa, though, is tougher. It's much farther out (making it difficult for a claim from the new world to be enforced), and Pago Pago harbor is a much desirable location. So it's possible for a strong La Plata to claim the area, but it will be difficult for them to enforce it as others will be eyeing it as well.
Thank you Dew. That's just what I was wondering. I have other questions, but they involve my TL so I should just PM you about it, if you don't mind of course.
TFSmith121
Banned
That's quite a leap, but yes, you're talking a nation state
That's quite a leap, but yes, you're talking a nation state (Mercosuria?
) with a similar strategic situation to the US or Canada, and a reasonable level of demographic and economic resources. Polynesia is a possibility (although the French interests were pretty entrenched by the 1880s) and the Samoas open all sorts of potential complications with the British, French, Germans, and Americans...
It opens up another issue, however: the rivalry with Brazil would be intense, and the South Atlantic and west coast of Africa would be another arena of competition.
Also, Peru and the remaining "Spanish" nations in South America would be eagerly sought after as potential allies by the Big Two.
Best,
That's quite a leap, but yes, you're talking a nation state (Mercosuria?
) with a similar strategic situation to the US or Canada, and a reasonable level of demographic and economic resources. Polynesia is a possibility (although the French interests were pretty entrenched by the 1880s) and the Samoas open all sorts of potential complications with the British, French, Germans, and Americans...It opens up another issue, however: the rivalry with Brazil would be intense, and the South Atlantic and west coast of Africa would be another arena of competition.
Also, Peru and the remaining "Spanish" nations in South America would be eagerly sought after as potential allies by the Big Two.
Best,
That's quite a leap, but yes, you're talking a nation state (Mercosuria?
It opens up another issue, however: the rivalry with Brazil would be intense, and the South Atlantic and west coast of Africa would be another arena of competition.
Also, Peru and the remaining "Spanish" nations in South America would be eagerly sought after as potential allies by the Big Two.
Best,
More like Conosurlandia
Alright, thank you. Yeah, such a state would have an intense rivalty with Brazil, if it manages to develop similary. The Brazilian Empire was doing quite well, but it was screwed when the Republic and the tipical latinoamerican antics started (hello, Caudillo of the week!). Peru, Ecuador, Colombia and Venezuela would be trapped in the power play. Hmm... This is an interesting concept. Perhaps once I finish my timeline (that you should totally read *) I will make a timeline about that. AH.com doesn't get much of Latin America, and since I'm Latin American... who's better for the job? (besides someone with a history degree, of course). *Pardon that shameless self promotion.
unprincipled peter
Donor
IF my roman is correct, XIX is 19, and in the 1800's Argentina was not considered first world. Post Paraguayan war (1870's and beyond) they stabilized enough that Britain saw fit to massively invest. But they were basically a de facto colony. Politics stabilized enough for good stuff to happen, but not first world. In that time frame absolutely devoid of mineral resources (that's all in northern Argentina and in the middle part of the country -which at the time was remote frontier), so there is no industrialization going to happen. eventually, oil will be found down south, but that's not a commodity this early (not to mention undiscovered). More importantly, south america is pathetically devoid of coal, which was a very important commodity in the 1800's. adding the nitrate, nickel, silver regions of peru/bolivia (chile didn't steal the nitrates til later) does add to the mineral resource situation, but OTL argentina had nothing much.
The viceroyality of rio de la plata wasn't really a unified region. too much geographical separation. however, handwavium making it so would indeed create an interesting situation. keeping it together might give the Brazilians cause for rethinking ditching the mother country. OTL, Argentina was a very, very fractured bunch of caudillos, and not much to worry about (they actually helped Portuguese Brazil take Uruguay as part of their fractured ways). reinvent that situation, Brazil is going to be different.
It's technically not part of South America, but New Spain offers the best opportunity for colonization of the pacific. they administered the Philippines and had a naval tradition of their own, unlike the SA spanish colonies. owing to coastal conditions, they also had some very modest industry of their own. they have everything necessary to be a first world country in the timeframe. the problem is that they're treated and run as a colony, and then destroyed themselves gaining independence. We're dreaming here, but a New Spain under the Aranda plan and magically getting a worthwhile royal son as ruler would be something to see. Although, under the Aranda plan, the viceroyalty of de la plata gets a royal son as ruler, too, so maybe that's your path. If I'm the son, though, my first choice is New Spain, but admittedly, I'm stretching your territory beyond south america.
The viceroyality of rio de la plata wasn't really a unified region. too much geographical separation. however, handwavium making it so would indeed create an interesting situation. keeping it together might give the Brazilians cause for rethinking ditching the mother country. OTL, Argentina was a very, very fractured bunch of caudillos, and not much to worry about (they actually helped Portuguese Brazil take Uruguay as part of their fractured ways). reinvent that situation, Brazil is going to be different.
It's technically not part of South America, but New Spain offers the best opportunity for colonization of the pacific. they administered the Philippines and had a naval tradition of their own, unlike the SA spanish colonies. owing to coastal conditions, they also had some very modest industry of their own. they have everything necessary to be a first world country in the timeframe. the problem is that they're treated and run as a colony, and then destroyed themselves gaining independence. We're dreaming here, but a New Spain under the Aranda plan and magically getting a worthwhile royal son as ruler would be something to see. Although, under the Aranda plan, the viceroyalty of de la plata gets a royal son as ruler, too, so maybe that's your path. If I'm the son, though, my first choice is New Spain, but admittedly, I'm stretching your territory beyond south america.
Perhaps I misused the term, but with "first world" I meant that they had good living standars and were relativily rich. Had the terms "first world" "second world" and "thir world" existed back then with the meaning they have today, it's probable most countries would consider them "second world". Anyway, you're right in that Argentina isn't in a good position to industrialize, but weirder things have happened. As for the lack of coal in South America, you're right too, although Colombia has some of it (the second biggest reserves in the entire Americas, more than Canada or Mexico and almost as much as Germany, but still pathetically low when compared with the US' reserves).
Yeah, I know that La Plata was never unified, and even when holding Uruguay and maybe Bolivia is easy, holding Paraguay and especially Chile would be near impossible. If I ever make a timeline I will try not to use handwavium, which, I admit, sounds very tempting. Brazil's reaction will be very interesting indeed.
The problem with New Spain is the USA and, once again, the common Latin American problems of dictadorships and coups "por doquier". Unless New Spain becomes powerful enough to resist the USA in its own, it will eventually declare war and take half the country, quite likely throwing the nation into political inestability. With a lesser population, much less industry, destroyed by the Independence War and continous attacks from Spain, I doubt they could resist a war with the US. Butterflying all that would need several PODs. They also have to be a stable democracy that gets a lot of inmigrants, but most (except Italians and Spaniards) would rather go to the US. As for industry, they don't have that much coal either and the terrain is not as good as the American. The Aranda plan sounds interesting, but I want you to know that I won't start another timeline until a finish the one I'm currently working on, but I'll keep the idea in mind.
unprincipled peter
Donor
not meaning to be argumentative.
I think Mexico proper has a very big source of coal. and IF (a big if) they keep louisiana, they have a lot more.
a Mexico/New Spain that advances in late 1700's/early 1800's, which is when the Aranda plan was supposed to happen, would be more than enough to be a deterrent to US aggression. OTL, the US was being aggressive because of having weaker neighbors. ATL, they have to stop and think.
But, this is hijacking your thread, and you're looking at south america.
What you need for SA is a strong country with a pacific coast and a reason for maritime expansion. That's tough. a unified de la plata covering most of the cone is a start. Sounds like you're looking to start a little later than I'd look at, which makes it even tougher. by the wars of independence, the dies are already cast.
I think Mexico proper has a very big source of coal. and IF (a big if) they keep louisiana, they have a lot more.
a Mexico/New Spain that advances in late 1700's/early 1800's, which is when the Aranda plan was supposed to happen, would be more than enough to be a deterrent to US aggression. OTL, the US was being aggressive because of having weaker neighbors. ATL, they have to stop and think.
But, this is hijacking your thread, and you're looking at south america.
What you need for SA is a strong country with a pacific coast and a reason for maritime expansion. That's tough. a unified de la plata covering most of the cone is a start. Sounds like you're looking to start a little later than I'd look at, which makes it even tougher. by the wars of independence, the dies are already cast.
TFSmith121
Banned
Sure - I'll take a look...
Sure - I'll take a look.
Best,
More like Conosurlandia
*Pardon that shameless self promotion.
Sure - I'll take a look.
Best,
In fact, the territorial integration of the 'Plata' region depends ultimately that can be achieved political stability and a political-economic regime that would be attractive to the peripheral regions and strong enough to ensure their permanence in this Nation-State in construction and yet has sufficient strength to support the Brazilian secessionist and revolutionary movements...
Preventing the consolidation of the Brazilian state with similar policies to those practiced by the Brazilian Empire in OTL.
About the immigrants cuestion, a solid State may be that organize, a more effective, than OTL, 'advertising' campaigns in Europe and its probably would have good results summoning immigrants from the various countries.
Finally regarding a hypothetical colonization in the Pacific see much more likely to try to keep the African territories in the Gulf of Guinea, between Niger and Ogooué rivers, which were under the jurisdiction of the naval station of the old Viceroyalty of the Plata...
The only serious possibility that could organize a couple expedition trying 'to free the Philippine Islands from Spanish domain'... as there were plans and projects more or less utopian to free Cuba.
Preventing the consolidation of the Brazilian state with similar policies to those practiced by the Brazilian Empire in OTL.
About the immigrants cuestion, a solid State may be that organize, a more effective, than OTL, 'advertising' campaigns in Europe and its probably would have good results summoning immigrants from the various countries.
Finally regarding a hypothetical colonization in the Pacific see much more likely to try to keep the African territories in the Gulf of Guinea, between Niger and Ogooué rivers, which were under the jurisdiction of the naval station of the old Viceroyalty of the Plata...
The only serious possibility that could organize a couple expedition trying 'to free the Philippine Islands from Spanish domain'... as there were plans and projects more or less utopian to free Cuba.
Don't worry, I like to argue. We only have to stay civil and everything will be fine.
My sources say Mexico (modern day Mexico) has little coal. As for the territories the US took, looking at a map it seems that most of the American coal is in territory that never was Mexican. Then again, my source is Wikipedia and some other dubtious links so we can't be sure. The idea of Mexico holding Louisiana is actually quite good.
Hmmm... you're right, if we follow the Aranda plan the US won't be able to start a war, especially if a Commonwealth is created since any war with New Spain would bring all the other Viceroys against them. I actually meant to write "Latin America" but somehow forgot the term...
I'm already doing a timeline with such a South American country (*more shameless self promotion). A reason, eh? Hmm... Proyecting influence and helping the navy is a reason. Having a South American nation that focus in the navy is easy since the terrain is very bad for naval wars. In OTL Chile had a pretty good navy for most of their history. Also plenty of nations seemed to take land and islands for no more reason than showing that they have a big dick. Since this proposed future timeline is only a thought that I may or not do in the future, it can start anywhere. I think that the Aranada plan is the better point since the Independence Wars were very, very destructive.
Having more organized and unified forces would help greatly. In OTL the patriots had continuos struggles for power and civil wars that make the war even longer, brought more casualties and destruction and set the path for the dictadorships of the future. If they take their chance when Spain is invaded, organize and train properly, they could win earlier and even take important towns intact instead of fighting for them.
Yay, shameless self promotion works again! Now, seriously, I was joking but thank you very much anyway. Be sure to leave a comment, either with a critique so I can improve or any doubt you have.
That's the hard part: integration. In an age where nationalism was recent, there was not notion of what a "Platinean" "Peruvian" or "Mexican" are. Most of the people was not aware of what was happening, they only did they job and nothing more. Heck, most didn't even speak Spanish. Wheter a territory stayed part of a country depended in the interest of the ruling classes there. They wanted authonomy, be able to do what they wanted, but still have defense and beneficies from a Central Government. That's the reason a lot of unification projects failed. It's true that such an state would try to stop the consolidation of the Brazilian Empire. A short lived state, Rio Grande do Sul, secceded, and ITTL it would be able to remain independent with Platinean support.
La Plata would have a great advantage since they have a good climate and lots of land, so getting inmigrants should be easy. By any means, Spaniards and Italians, perhaps even the Irish, would prefer it over the US because it's catholic and closer to their culture.
Keeping that territory would only be possible if something like the Aranda plan happens, because without it La Plata has no means of reaching and taking it.
"Liberating the Caribbean" eh? Well, Bolivar wanted to invade Cuba and Puerto Rico with his Gran Colombia, but the project was stopped when the country was dissolved. New Spain or New Granada seem more likely to try such a project, since both the Caribbean and the Philipines are very far from La Plata.
Yes, but one of the serious issues is the lack of a trained officer cadre. Most independentist armies were lead by officers that learned "on the go" so to speak and were against properly trained European officers.
Since the Napoleonic Wars are still ranging in the early 1810s, there won't be European mercenaries able to be hired, so to change this, we need deserters from the Spanish army like Jose de San Martin to, well, desert earlier.
I wouldn't necessarily bet on the lack of nationalism. When the Brazilians from Rio Grande do Sul rebelled, the governor of Buenos Aires offered the rebels to send Argentine troops to help them. They answered they would turn back, rejoin Brazil and attack the Argentines the moment they crossed into Brazil/Rio Grande do Sul.
And many people did go well beyond the call of duty. I'd say the national identities were being born as the war progressed. That doesn't mean the Altoperuvians felt themselves part of the Peruvian or Argentine nation, of course.