Happy May Day. When last I reread Poul Anderson's works two days ago, King Hadding and some of his men had been cut off from a safe retreat by his enemy's unprecedented scorched earth policy and Manse Everard was pursuing a time criminal into the mountains in South America in 1826. Today I have read more of both narratives and find it easier to pick up the thread with Everard who tells his antagonist:
"'You were going to change events... We barely forestalled you. At that, our corps has a lot of tricky restoration work ahead.'" (p. 279)
This means that:
we read a history in which Simon Bolivar never had any evil advisor and never implemented any uncharacteristically unhumanitarian policies;
the Patrol has learned that, because of the Exaltationists' extratemporal intervention, Bolivar did briefly have an evil advisor who did start him in an unhumanitarian direction;
the Patrol must work to ensure that Bolivar's biographers and historians do not learn about the bad advice and its unfortunate consequences.
It's tough being a Time Patrol agent! How much history is not what it seems but what the Patrol have worked hard to make it seem? There are examples from elsewhere in the series.
By rescuing his younger self, might Varagan have made:
"'...himself never have existed...'" (p. 281)?
Maybe not but we could examine the possible consequences of his "'...causal loop...'" (ibid.)
15 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
It was probably almost inevitable for Spain's Empire in the Americas to break up in the early 19th century, but I have my doubts Simon Bolivar's role in that process was of much BENEFIT. It does not seem to have much interested you, but if I recall correctly, Everard sketched out a possible alternate history he thought might have been much better for South America than, frankly, the chaotic mess made by Bolivar. I mean the compromise some rebels in what is now Argentina were seriously thinking of making with Spain, in which a brother of Ferdinand VII would become king there. And that might have attracted other parts of a disintegrating Spanish Empire, such as Paraguay, Chile, Peru, Ecuador, etc., into uniting with Argentina.
Ad astra! Sean
I read an essay "Inevitable Empire" in which the main thesis was that once the US had the Mississippi & its tributaries it had what was needed to be, if not the dominant power on earth, inevitably one of the top 2 or 3. The cheap water transport over a vast area of excellent farm land being a *major* help in being economically dominant.
The essay also pointed out that the rivers draining into the Rio de la Plata provide similar cheap water transport over a not quite as large region of excellent farm land. So if one country could have taken all that drainage basin it would have the potential to be a major world power. Not quite as an advantageous position as the US but close.
Sean,
I was assessing the Patrol intervention, not Bolivar's effectiveness.
Paul.
Kaor, Jim and Paul!
Jim: I basically agree with the thrust of the article you read: given the right combination of factors, circumstances, ideas (like a vigorous free enterprise system and the rule of law), a not too terribly incompetent gov't, etc., it was not surprising the US rose to become a great power by the end of the 1800's.
And what I recall of the alternative scenario outlined by Everard fits in what you said about South America. Argentina and its neighbors should have become a major power in its own right if circumstances had worked out far better than it had.
Paul: But the story itself quoted how a dying Bolivar exclaimed in despair how all his efforts had only been like "plowing the sea." Bluntly, he was a failure.
Ad astra! Sean
Though in 19th and 20th century terms, the area drained by the Rio de la Plata has little coal or petroleum and not a lot of mineral ores. Well into the 20th century, most of the railroad and steamer coal used there was imported from Britain.
An interesting alternative is the British invasion of the area in 1807 succeeding rather than failing, and Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay being a British dominion in the 19th century. It's an attractive area, was very thinly populated then and got a lot of European immigrants in that period -- the populations of Argentina and Uruguay are overwhelmingly descended from 19th-century European immigrants, mostly Italian and Spanish.
If it had left to the British as spoils after 1815, it would have gotten a lot of Brits from about 1816 on, probably accompanied by Germans and Scandinavians: it has a good disease environment, and a great deal of very good farmland accessible to water transport, or with good terrain for building low-cost railways. It would be more attractive than Canada! And it would quickly had become a source of food and raw materials for Britain.
Sort of a South American Canada/Australia/New Zealand.
The breakup of the Spanish Empire was precipitated by the Napoleonic invasion of Spain, and particularly by his putting his brother Joseph on the Spanish throne.
That destroyed the legitimacy of Spanish rule in the Americas, which was heavily dynastic.
That in turn alienated a lot of Criollos (Latin Americans of Spanish descent, everywhere dominant in the early 1800's) and made the long bloody civil wars inevitable.
Keep in mind that the wars of Independence in Latin America were overwhelmingly fought between Criollo factions, not against Spanish troops.
The criollos had previously been royalist because they feared the Indians, mestizos and blacks would take a revolution as license to go after them and their privileges and vast landholdings -- which in fact happened.
If the criollos had remained united and anti-independence, pro-independence among them would have remained a marginal thing for a few dreamers for a long time.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Fascinating comments! I had not known there was a failed British invasion of the Rio de la Plata region. But I think can how differently history might have become if it had succeeded and Britain decided to keep it as part of the post-Napoleonic settlement. I did know what became Argentina got many immigrants from various parts of Europe, such as Italy.
I also recall reading of how Argentina SHOULD have become a powerful and prosperous nation, after all. It did have advantages and resources and potentialities, some of which you listed.
I also knew much of the fighting in the wars of independence was fought between Loyalist and rebel criollos. The Napoleonic invasion of Spain prevented troops from being sent from the home country for fighting against the rebels for a long time.
Simon Bolivar began as one of those sentimental dreamers. Absent any strong support from other criollos the Spanish Empire might have survived.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: survived for a while, at least. Spain was really not in very good shape in that period -- some parts of its empire were richer and more advanced.
Have you read Alexander von Humboldt's accounts of his visits to Mexico in 1803-4? That was just before the disturbances began, and they're very illuminating -- he was a brilliant man and a keen observer.
One thing that comes across (if you've read accounts of Mexico a generation or two later) is how thoroughly the independence wars wrecked the place -- it probably didn't recover to the 1804 level until the 1880's.
In the world of the late "ancien regieme", Mexico wasn't particularly backward -- no more so than most of Spain. The ensuing period was a catastrophe.
Without the Napoleonic interval, eventual effective independence might have happened without breaking with the Spanish monarchy, or by the creation of branches of the Bourbon house in the Americas.
"Well into the 20th century, most of the railroad and steamer coal used there was imported from Britain."
That is a bit surprising to me. I know that South Africa has lots of coal & I would expect the shorter sea voyage to make that a cheaper source of coal for the Rio de la Plata region.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I agree Spain was not really all in that great a shape in the early 1800's. And that the Napoleonic disruption alienated many parts of her Empire, due to them refusing to accept Joseph Bonaparte as king.
I've heard of von Humboldt, but never read any of his works. It was interesting to know Mexico was far more prosperous in 1804 than it was after the wars of independence. That resulting enfeeblement of Mexico helps to explain why it did so badly in the war with the US in 1846-48.
Mexico did not recover to its 1804 level til the 1880's? That would have been during the rule of Porfirio Diaz. Yes, he was a dictator, but not so terribly bad a despot as dictators go. And he did succeed in bringing some peace and real gains in prosperity. His biggest failure was being unable to set up some kind of political structure accepted as legitimate and being able to govern Mexico after Diaz.
The revolution which overthrew Diaz in 1911 reversed all the gains Mexico had made during his rule and wrecked the country in the resulting civil wars. And what happened in Mexico after independence was paralleled almost everywhere else in the former Empire. Wars, civil wars, coups, dictatorships, a general impoverishment.
Ad astra! Sean
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I should have added I was interested by the suggestion that the Spanish Empire might have evolved into something like the British Commonwealth: independent nations retaining a personal union with the Spanish Crown.
Or, alternately, branches of the Spanish Bourbons could have been transplanted to Latin America, as was being contemplated for a time in Argentina, accepting Ferdinand VII's brother as king might have led to something better both there and in other parts of Latin America.
Ad astra! Sean
(It's another illustration of the force of the parable of King Log and King Stork, btw.)
Sean: yup. Mexico didn't recover to the 1911 level until roughly the 1940's, in most respects, though others improved in the interim. Education and literacy started going up in the late 20's; but that was simply a continuation of patterns during the Porfiriato, when mass education first got started. About 10% of the Mexican population died in 1911-22 one way or another as the Revolutionary warlords ripped the place up, another 10% ended up as refugees in the US, and about twice that were internally displaced.
The comment immediately above this one was from SM Stirling but I have had to republish it.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling and Paul!
Mr. Stirling: I FAR prefer King Log to King, President, or Comrade Commissar Stork!
Truly appalling, that FORTY percent of the 1911 population of Mexico were killed, or driven into external or internal exile in the chaos which followed the overthrow of Porfirio Diaz!
Paul: And thanks, again, for restoring comments that somehow mysteriously disappear.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment