While it's often overlooked in the West, the Paraguayan War (also known as the War of the Triple Alliance) was one of the most bloody and devastating wars in Latin American history.

How might the absence of this conflict have changed history?
 
well brazil would likely have been worse off-- the war was a big boon for modernization, abolitionism, and it extended their influence deep into paraguay. of course, paraguay wouldn't have been massacred as they were as well. slavery in brazil may well have lasted even longer, perhaps even into the republic
 
While it's often overlooked in the West, the Paraguayan War (also known as the War of the Triple Alliance) was one of the most bloody and devastating wars in Latin American history.

How might the absence of this conflict have changed history?
This should be moved to before 1900. Depends on how it's avoided, is Solano Lopez still in power in this scenario? I mean Paraguayan history would be so radically different it's hard to estimate. The end of the Monarchy in Brazil could be delayed without the increase in military power, and slavery would likely be extended a few more years but both would still most likely happen but under different (significant) circumstances.
 
well brazil would likely have been worse off-- the war was a big boon for modernization, abolitionism, and it extended their influence deep into paraguay. of course, paraguay wouldn't have been massacred as they were as well. slavery in brazil may well have lasted even longer, perhaps even into the republic

I'd argue for the opposite; the Paraguayan War was what started the end the Brazilian Empire(even though it took 25 years to really end it), and the chaotic early years of the Republic set a lot of things back. As for the end of slavery, it would probably happen around the same time; the Abolitionist Movement started growing around the 1870's, and even without the Army's support, it would lead to the same result.
 
The war helped cement the Argentine army and its cadre of influential officers, including Julio Roca. Without it, chances Roca is a different person who may not become president and, if he does, would rule differently. Also, without an experienced army, Carlos Tejedor revolt may succeed. As a result, small rebellions and mini-civil wars may plague Argentina for a longer time
 
I'd argue for the opposite; the Paraguayan War was what started the end the Brazilian Empire(even though it took 25 years to really end it), and the chaotic early years of the Republic set a lot of things back. As for the end of slavery, it would probably happen around the same time; the Abolitionist Movement started growing around the 1870's, and even without the Army's support, it would lead to the same result.
i'd argue the empire would end anyways, Pedro didn't want his daughter on the throne and the republic isn't really guaranteed to do any better without the war
 
i'd argue the empire would end anyways, Pedro didn't want his daughter on the throne and the republic isn't really guaranteed to do any better without the war

Remember that one the reasons the ousting of Pedro II happened when it did was because they feared Isabel would succeed soon: "We must act before the Second Empire gives way to the Third one, and a Fourth one after that...". I'm paraphrasing here, but the Republicans certainly believed the Empire would continue if they didn't act to change things. Pedro II didn't believe his daughter would be a good successor, yet she did act as his regent in all three occasions he traveled to other countries.

Furthermore, no Paraguayan War removes the political power of the only faction that would be able to remove the Emperor: the Army, due in large part to their widespread presence in Brazil. If the Republicans aren't able to spread their influence throughout the country, to take over the government(and in OTL, they didn't), more likely it becomes that a republican coup in Rio is contested somewhere else.
 
Top