What If British Win 1807 Invasion Of Buenos Aires?

[Matt84]

Furthermore, in the 17th and especially 18th and early 19th centuries, tthe British established trading posts in India, Malaya, and parts of West Africa that eventually evolved into much larger British colonies. So, too, at least 1-2 British trading posts in South America could have led to small(ish) British colonies amidst all the newly-independent countries.

Yes as you say during the 17th and 18th century: when the British (and Dutch, etc) tried to take the remains of the "newly discovered" world because the scramble for the Americas was well over and Spain had already won in the 16th century.
By the early 19th century the entire World was quiet clearly divided, (the Scramble for Africa would later solve the glitches) and there was no room for the British to establish new evolving outposts anywhere in the Americas. Reinforcing the already claimed Falkland Islands is as much as that outpost could evolve since from an oceanic point of view, in the 1800s, you didn't need to spend money developing a very sorry colony in Tierra del Fuego to actually control traffic through Magellan or Cape Horn if you had more easily protected islands already in your control next to it.
Patagonia wasn't an option since it was formally and incontestably already claimed by Spain, simply not settled.

Instead of an effort to create a Crown Colony in the promising fertile Southern Cone, the British continued discovering and settling Australia, a task I suppose daunting enough, and a clear insular antipode for Britain (no messy land borders)
Also instead of such an effort, it was preferred to liberate all of the old enemy's empire in the Americas for immigration, intermarriage with supposed elites, and TRADE. Notice eventually the Hispanic American Republics all included some freedom of religion and speech, which coupled with the ability to trade and invest in those countries, is all the British Empire needed to operate at maximum profit.
A french approach would have been to flood the continent with bureaucrats which is in fact what the Spanish did, and the reason they lost their Empire so easily.

 

[yd_mtl]

Yes as you say during the 17th and 18th century: when the British (and Dutch, etc) tried to take the remains of the "newly discovered" world because the scramble for the Americas was well over and Spain had already won in the 16th century.
By the early 19th century the entire World was quiet clearly divided, (the Scramble for Africa would later solve the glitches) and there was no room for the British to establish new evolving outposts anywhere in the Americas. Reinforcing the already claimed Falkland Islands is as much as that outpost could evolve since from an oceanic point of view, in the 1800s, you didn't need to spend money developing a very sorry colony in Tierra del Fuego to actually control traffic through Magellan or Cape Horn if you had more easily protected islands already in your control next to it.
Patagonia wasn't an option since it was formally and incontestably already claimed by Spain, simply not settled.

Instead of an effort to create a Crown Colony in the promising fertile Southern Cone, the British continued discovering and settling Australia, a task I suppose daunting enough, and a clear insular antipode for Britain (no messy land borders)
Also instead of such an effort, it was preferred to liberate all of the old enemy's empire in the Americas for immigration, intermarriage with supposed elites, and TRADE. Notice eventually the Hispanic American Republics all included some freedom of religion and speech, which coupled with the ability to trade and invest in those countries, is all the British Empire needed to operate at maximum profit.
A french approach would have been to flood the continent with bureaucrats which is in fact what the Spanish did, and the reason they lost their Empire so easily.

I assure you that if the British (and other European powers) hadn't taken formal control over large tracts of Africa and Asia and had left the independent states of those continents alone, the British would have been very happy - and with much less hassle than otherwise - to keep to their trading posts on the coasts of these continents, and I'm sure they would have been insanely successful that way. The local African and Asian kingdoms/countries would have also been happy that way. I mean, as it was, those countries in Africa, for example, that kept formal independence (I'm talking about Liberia and Ethiopia) do not differ in levels of development from other African countries. If what you're saying was like that in Latin America, I'm sure it would have been equally true in Africa and Asia.

In terms of the Falklands and Patagonia, you're right that under real-life conditions starting in the 1810s/1820s the British didn't *need* to annex new territory in South America other than the Falklands, no more than the British needed to take over big portions of Africa and Asia. But if the British had *already* managed to not only capture but to keep a piece of South America (as they were close to doing in 1807), then it could be an incentive to claim unsettled areas like Patagonia. In other words, what I'm saying is that if the British had kept as well as captured Montevideo (and, by extension, Uruguay in general) in 1807, the Argentines would have waged a war against the British 10-20 years later over Uruguay in the name of reclaiming the old Viceroyalty of La Plata, and the all-powerful British Navy (and Army) would have responded not merely by fighting back the Argentines but perhaps also outflanking the Argentines by setting up garrisons in the northern edge of Patagonia, in places like Bahia Blanca. That would have kickstarted a process whereby the British take over and settle Patagonia, and establish settlements around the Strait of Magellan (quite critical for British ships to go to/from the west coast of the Americas before the opening of the Panama Canal) as well as the Falklands.

 

[Matt84]

I assure you that if the British (and other European powers) hadn't taken formal control over large tracts of Africa and Asia and had left the independent states of those continents alone,

In terms of the Falklands and Patagonia, you're right that under real-life conditions starting in the 1810s/1820s the British didn't *need* to annex new territory in South America other than the Falklands
That would have kickstarted a process whereby the British take over and settle Patagonia, and establish settlements around the Strait of Magellan (quite critical for British ships to go to/from the west coast of the Americas before the opening of the Panama Canal) as well as the Falklands.

1) Ethiopia, Thailand and Japan are very curious examples of the alternative.
In the Americas that could only have happened with truly autonomous polities such as if the Aztecs had resisted Spanish Invasion successfully. Mexico would in that way, not resemble, but be a kind of Japan of the Americas (or Ethiopia of the Americas).
Another example (though NOT in the American continent) would be if the Kingdom of Hawaii had remained independent.
In Asia-Africa-Pacific, European latecomers were contesting the remains of the newly mapped World, to the point of how realistic it was to colonize (Africa) or just force to accept terms (China)
America had already undergone that process, with 80% of it divided between the two Iberian countries that had projected the Mediterranean Medieval World (Genoa) into the Age of Discovery, and the beginning of "Globalization"..
The process would expand to all Western Christian countries with easy access to the Atlantic, gradually to the North, and Inland (Germany would acquire some volcano-islands and reef from Spain and "conquer" an African desert coast)

2) The Strait of Magellan, or its alternative for more seaworthy ships, was already under sufficient British control even though the Spaniards maintained a fortress (Bulnes) close to Sandy Point.
Except for a couple months lapse in 1982, the British have always been in control of that connection between the Atlantic and Pacific, not so much because of the Islands but because of the Clippers.
There was a reason why the Eastern coast of Patagonia was not settled (there were not enough criminal convicts in the World to send to die there) by either Spain or Britain or the United Provinces. The more conducive to human-life West coast of Patagonia was already settled by Spanish and then Chileans all the way South until it becomes ice flowing through rock into deep water. check how early Valdivia was founded, and the interesting history surrounding Chiloe.
It's a lovely thought but too difficult and unnecessary when the existence and British possession of Australia is considered.
Establishing a British settlement in the Eastern unsettled, loosely populated, bare coast of Patagonia would have been pointless without potential expansion into fertile land, and that would have entered into conflict with the entire Spanish Empire.
The conflict occurred none the less but as you say at the beginning of the post I'm replying to, the British figured a more cost effective way.

Just to entertain the thought:
do you believe the British would have instinctively settled the coastal southernmost areas and create a Crown Colony, or have an inland plantation colony in the Pampas and Chaco? Or a combination like Rhodesia was to South Africa?

 

[TWB103]

I think the british simply had too much on their plate so to speak to get heavily involved militarily in SA. Much easier to send a few freemasons over to finish off the spanish in SA clearing the way for british trade and investment opportunities.

 

[Dada]

I was roaming through the churches of San Telmo today and in the big white one by the aduana they keep whatever is left from the flags from those battles. All I could think of was - thanks God they won. I love Argentina just as it is, with all it's quirks. With all due respect to UK and US, had the British won that time, I wouldn't be here now. But maybe money would, who knows

 

[Matt84]

I was roaming through the churches of San Telmo today and in the big white one by the aduana they keep whatever is left from the flags from those battles. All I could think of was - thanks God they won. I love Argentina just as it is, with all it's quirks. With all due respect to UK and US, had the British won that time, I wouldn't be here now. But maybe money would, who knows

That church was financed by the jewels of a wealthy pious colonial lady.
The captured flags are in a church as a reminder of the victory of the True Holy Faith over the virgin slayers.

 

[Dada]

Matt, I wish you had a little bit elaborated on that, for the information of poor creatures like me. You might be very much right. I might be lost in my patchy knowledge of history, that is true. Yet I don't have a feeling those rags are about many mysterious battles. They all seem to be collected during the 1915-1920. And, of course, no bloodshed ever is a justified case. The one time BA was really attacked. Yet. Whatever really happened in that time, neither you or I can judge. We're way too young for that.

The point is, the history decided, for once and ever. Stop speculating, please. This is where we are. These are our strengths, these are our troubles. This country is now called Argentina and has a very strong Peronist base, for a reason. It also has a lot of opponents, which I hope no longer need to enter a blood conflict. And all the rest. All the people who only care about Boca x River.

 

[Dada]

Please ignore last post, I was very, very drunk

 

[Matt84]

Please ignore last post, I was very, very drunk

in vino veritas, though what the fudge do you mean by ours or us?

 

[Dada]

Interesting question. I think alcohol has different effect on different people. Some get to shout or fight, others feel they mysteriously merge (become one) with whatever and turn into preachers, in an attempt to spread peace and save the world with their wisdom.