I will recommend you to follow the very interesting a very NON BIAS history of the war as “La historia como no te la contaron.” That history agrees the Facts of both sides. Another thing, is not true about the Navy of Peru, they have the modern armor war ships, very difficult to defeat by Chilean Navy, so is not that the poor Peruvian and they and Bolivia were the victim of a stronger country, was a war between two strong nations, Chile was better organized that is true, as any other war, the explanation of the win usually is the superiority of one over the other. Not counting that Bolivia only has a battle in Calama by themselves and in a later stage they abandon Peruvian army. And finally what war is not consequence of political issues or grievance? What is not true that the conflict was initiated by Chile, the secret pact among Bolivia and Peru was the spark that initiated the war
very bad data bro, you probably had most peruvian and american sources. Chilean sources are more precise and exact information and also the british sources.
Great summary of he war of the Pacific. The only detail missing was that the confederation between Peru and Bolivia was secret and Chile only learned about it via Brazil. This pushed the countries to war faster.
@@redhausser7492 Chile fought against Peru and Bolivia during the independence (they were royalists), the Peruvian-Bolivian confederation and also in the Pacific War. as well as never against Argentina
Wrong. It was not secret. It was sign 5 years before the war and it was defensive in nature. Moreover, at the time the treaty was discuss in three different countries' Congress: Perú, Bolivia and Argentine [it decline].....so it was imposible for Chilean diplomats or other delegations not to know about it. One should wonder why these three countries, even 5 years before the war, were worried about Chile? The big question: Who and how the war was finance? A lot of details are wrong and it is understandable, the subject is complex....... however something important is missing, the elephant in the room was not even mentioned: 🇬🇧
@@Celeste2024-h4k for the how it was financed, via concessions and debt, mostly to private capitals. Peru, mostly US, Chile, mostly UK. However, one mustn't confused capitals of a certain country to the government of said country. In that regard, Peru received much more direct support from the US than Chile from the UK (who remarkably refused to sell weapons, Chile used German, French and Belgium armament), while the US openly vouched for Peru in the peace talks and provisional government until the president was assassinated.
@@HypervoxelRBXyou should learn it as an important part in the history of the continent like we learn about the US civil war even though everyone abolished slavery decades ago
@@HypervoxelRBXto be fair because of this war Chile, having better ships than the US, deterred US from taking over Panamá expelling the US Army from Panamá City in 1885 and stopped US plans in the South for 20 years. Yes, you should learn history. Citing the US parliament of the time, the chilean cruisers could "hunt and sink every US warship in the pacific one by one". How times have changed!
I have seen many of your videos, which I enjoy very much, but this time I must say that there are some confusions and mistakes. At the beginning of the war the Chilean army had just over 2.000 men, but had experienced officers who fought in wars against the Mapuches (that war lasted 300 years!). Chile had 2 powerful ships but Perú had one which was faster, the Huascar, and the Iquique naval combat (May 21st 1879) Chile lost one old ship, and Peru lost one of its best ships, the Independencia. Chile didn’t have dominion of the seas until the naval battle of Angamos (October 8th 1879), where Chile defeated Peru and captured Peru´s best ship, the Huascar, which was repaired and incorporated into the Chilean navy. The jump off the cliff of Colonel Alfonso Ugarte is just a myth but has no historical importance. It is important to mention that in all battles the number of soldiers fighting on each side was similar, so that no victory can be attributed to a higher number of soldiers; on the contrary, in almost all the battles the Chileans attacked, and the Peruvians / Bolivians fought in their defensive positions. The victory of Chile was due to several reasons: the organization of the war efforts, careful study and preparation of supplies, discipline and motivation of the troops (mostly volunteers), political stability (there was even a presidential election during the war).
You provide extra information. Thanks for that. What is not accurate? I read Ugarte threw himself of the cliff. What did happen to him if he didn't jump?
@@HistoryHustle About the myth of Alfonso Ugarte jumping off the cliff on his horse. First, it is very rare that a horse was in the defense area of the Morro, and it is impossible that a horse jumps into the void of a cliff: it simply won’t jump. Second, the battle report of the Peruvian artillery commander Manuel Espinoza, describes the moment when it was useless any resistance, and so Bolognesi ordered a cease-fire, but because that order couldn’t be heard, Colonel Ugarte went himself to give the cease-fire order, and the report says that Ugarte was killed while in that mission. Another battle report prepared by the second in command of the Peruvian defense, Manuel Camilo de la Torre, states that Ugarte and others “fell in the fight”. Ugarte’s body was later identified and it was taken to Lima, where it was buried at the Presbitero Maestro Cemetery.
@@HistoryHustle What is not accurate is Chile didn’t have full control of the Pacific after the Naval Combat of Iquique (May 21 1879), but much later and only after the Naval Battle of Angamos (October 8 1879). There are some very interesting figures on the Chilean side: War Minister Rafael Sotomayor, he was the main organizer and strategist of the war, but died just before the battle of Tacna; General Manuel Baquedano, he commanded the Chilean Army and never lost a battle; Patricio Lynch, a former Chilean navy officer who fought in the British Royal Navy at the Opium War in China, and other wars, when he was moving from Pisco to Chilca by land to join the rest of the army, in many places he found Chinese workers living in slave conditions, so he freed them and as he spoke Mandarin, he was considered as their savior so they called him the “Red Prince”, and many Chinese joined the Chilean army in service duties, like carrying ammunition, helping the wounded, etc. Lynch fought at the Chorrillos Battle (which lasted over 9 hours) and Miraflores Battle were his performance was outstanding. He was appointed as Governor of Occupied Perú.
For some reason there is a Chilean myth that Peru had better naval forces, and they even cite the names of WOODEN river ships as "battleships" they had to defeat. Huascar was trash for the time, only benefit was metal hull but negative cannon effectiveness and it was not a modern ironclad.
@@HistoryHustle For some reason there is a Chilean myth that Peru had better naval forces, and they even cite the names of WOODEN river ships as "battleships" they had to defeat. Huascar was trash for the time, only benefit was metal hull but negative cannon effectiveness and it was not a modern ironclad.
some notes, because is clearly that you read mostly the peruvian side of the history: the 2 most important sea battles was iquique and Angamos, iquique by the sunk of Independencia and angamos, the most important, by the capture o ironclad Huascar. no, Ugarte didnt jump with his horse, his corpse was found siting in the wall of one shelter, he die in the first minutes of the final assault. you cant make a horse jump from a cliff (horse arent stupid). the peruvian flag can be see in photografts after the battle in his pole. is a myth created by peruvian press later. (Ugarte was a great heroe for real reason, dont need myths) Chile win every single sea and land battles of the war. bolivia fight only 11 month and then withdrawn let peru alone. the war last 5 year mostly because US representatives scams until the asesination of the us president Gardfield. the new presidente Chester arthur see what happen and declare tha US cant risk a war again a naval power like Chile. without the fantasy of Us support, peruvian surrender. technically peruvians never fight to the last bullet, but can take that true in the Bolognessi (they surrender when the amunition was depleted, but die when one cannon xplode and everyone shot again. in chorrillos and miraflores they run when the defenses fall (mostly civilians, the peruvian real army was destroyed before in tacna) What? you mistake lootering with war adquisition, something normal in the 19 century and even today. Lima was lootering by peruvian deserters, and was the european resident the ones who try to keep order, and their ask the chilean army to enter the city and stop the lootering!! the attack to chinese people (mostly almost slaves) was in that time, before the chilean army enter, by the peruvian low class and peruvian deserters. Chile take trophies and materials (like books and trains), that was exactly was any winner nation do in that time (and now too), is part of the war (see british and US museums) in fact, you can read in many place how the chilean occupation was one of the best moment in Lima, the chilean gobernor Patricio Lynch is considered "the last Viceroy in peru", and he make Lima clearly a better city (when chileans left, limas fall in civil war) Lima/Callao/ tacna, etc was 70% of Peru and his population, the rest never was important to Chile, and nobody wan to keep a entire country. Peru must surrender in 1880, they believe that the US will enter the war (because that was minister Blaine always say to make their own business), so they denied let go the provinces that Chile already conquer and claimes as logical pey for the war. peru had 3 diferent "presidents" at the same time, and 6 in the entire war, any of this by democratical elections, all self aclaim. prado take the money and run to europe, nicolas de pierola take the power, make a disaster and also run away. garcia calderon no duro nada, iglesias and caceres fight each other, and Montero was sold by the people of arequipa to the chileans. in the war, chile have 2 democratly elected president with complete normality. no, Caceres never win a single battle, in 3 years only reunite less than 5.000 warriors (Chile mobilized 100.000 mens in the entire war), mostly natives without guns. caceres run and hide for 3 years, and when finally confront a small equivalent chilean division was completly obliterated and almost anyone died. Caceres is a controvertial figure, half of what he say or why he look like a heroe is a lie. Peru was in bankruptcy BEFORE the war! that is why peru enter the war. the same with the political system, full of coups and betrayals. when the chilean left after the surrunder, Peru fall inmidiatly in civil war... again! (that is why many people in lima in that time feel secure whith the chileans) you cant take modern numbers in a old war, specially one like this. the woundeds in the defeated side was almost always "repasados" (killed in situ), but the wounded in the winner side mostly survive (and chile win every battle). you must calculated in KIA killed in action (or inmediatly after): Bolivia: aprox 5.000 peru: aprox 19.000 Chile: aprox 2500 (including 500 in tarapaca, and 150 in the sunk of esmeralda) the kill ratio was 10 to 1 (is studied like that in war academies) the war of the pacific (or saltpetter war) have at least 4 or more diferent Histories: the chilean, the peruvian, the bolivian and the international, depends of where and who is the historic researcher, and even depend too of what is their political side (left or right for example). so we must go to the facts and numbers, not stories. good video, but try to read the chilean side too.
Yes that's something I felt too, the tone of the video seems more like the Peruvian version of the 1879 war. Still great content for an important war that is not well known outside of the three countries involved. Funny fact too, this war looks exactly like todays Ukrainian war with shady "defensive" alliances, Sevastopol looking like Antofagasta then, manned with Chileans yet controlled by foreigners till the Chileans took it back, the Peruvians supported by the United States till the funding dried out.
Mostly correct, but Chile didn't win all battles of the war. Iquique was lost (Punta Gruesa was won though, in Chile they're considered two separate battles), plus we also lost at Tarapacá and La Concepción. Plus the Huascar ran circles around our fleet for months, and after it fell, other Peruvian ships also wandered up and down our coast and up to Panama with varied success.
There's a bolivian movie about this war "Amargo Mar" (1984) which is full of historical inaccuracies trying to wash the image of the bolivian president Hilarion Daza🧐
there is also a french (I believe) movie made in Chile about it, it's called ''Caliche Sangriento'', and tell the experience of some random chilean platoon sended ill equiped to the desert. It focus in the human aspect of those soldiers and their disdain for the war that was in part to defend foreign interests (english companies) EDIT: it's on youtube, here; ruclips.net/video/0VclVEEqkdI/видео.html
@@Atomo24 I should make a video about it, recently a peruvian film about the Pacific War has been made "Gloria del Pacífico" (2014), but the director refuses to make a DVD release, so is almost imposible to watch it, only in selected screenings
There's a Chilean movie that premiered in 2023 called 'El Príncipe Rojo', which is inspired by the real encounters between Chilean general Patricio Lynch, his soldiers, and Chinese workers in Peruvian haciendas.
I am a Peruvian American doctor in Texas who likes this story of the Pacific War. I agree that Peru lacked cohesion as a nation to face this war. Despite this great historical wound, politicians and leaders have not acted as they should. Thanks for a good summary of this war.
@@mateamargo1339 in my area of work, who makes the comment is not relevant, the objective and analytical is important, this philosophy helps to find good solutions to problems. Let's say that the attempt of Arumentum ad Hominem, in your comment, only distracts from the fact that although the Peruvian economic infrastructure does not last a week in case of conflict with Chile, but we would have nothing to gain.
_Peru were so noble even during war. In the Iquique battle, the Peru Navy's Comander in Chief, Miguel Grau was rescueing chilean soldiers for not drowing in the ocean. His act gave him the title "Caballero de Los Mares" ( Gentleman of The Seas ) . He sent the belonging of the chilean captain Arturo Prat who died in this sea battle to his wife. Adding a very famous letter. Miguel Grau is the most remarkable hero in the Peruvian Navy, while Arturo Prat in Chile. Nowadays in the chilean school is tought what Miguel Grau did , in those difficult times. Grau died for his country and he won the eternal respect and honour on both sides of the border. References -> Carta de Miguel Grau a Carmela Carbajal , viuda de Prat_
Fueron tan nobles que el único modo de reconocer a algún soldado chileno en Concepción fue el uniforme de los oficiales. Por eso y, porque los cuerpos estaban desmembrados y tan desfigurados, que trajeron de vuelta a Chile los corazones de los oficiales, que fueron enterrados en la catedral de Santiago. Miguel Grau conoció a Arturo Prat en la guerra contra España, eran amigos.
es lo MINIMO que puedes hacer por unos hombres tan guerreros con tal espiritu de lucha como la tripulacion de la esmeralda, que JAMAS se rindieron, TUVIERON que ser hundidos, a diferencia de la tripulacion del huascar.... o de la independencia..
@@Khorne__Es lo mínimo que debes hacer cuando tienes ética. Chile no hacía eso. Es más, tenían la repudiable costumbre de hacer el repaso, es decir, remataban a los que estaban heridos. Por eso es que los mismo chilenos se asombran de lo que hizo Grau.
@@juanantonio2755 chile mataba a los cobardes que arrancaban y huian, a esos de hecho se les perseguia con corvo para degollarlos, pero a los soldados del morro de arica que sobrevivieron al ataque chileno no los mataron, de hecho los puedes ver en las fotos de la toma del morro de arica, otro ejemplo serian las tripulaciones de los barcos que chile capturo en la guerra, todos sobrevivieron, obviamente menos los que murieron en combate
@@juanantonio2755 el repaso fue una vez que ocurrio la batalla de la concepcion, desde ahi chile tomo la iniciativa de jamas volver a tomar prisioneros, literal todos los que sean sorprendidos en combate con arma o lo que sean (niños, hombres, mujeres, ancianos, o sacerdotes), serian exterminados
Great video! Just a few details perhaps. the secretive nature of the Peru-Bolivian treaty seriously irked the Chilean leadership. Added to this the wide knowledge inside Chilean circles that this alliance would seek to pact with Argentina in the partition of claimed Chilean territories. The fear of yet another South American Tripartite Alliance after the one seen in Paraguay 1866 prompted Chile to arm the navy and army in the early 1870s and call the Peruvian bluff in April 1879. Bolivia did attempt to take control of the CFSA company that was manned by Chileans, as 95% of Antofagasta was anyways. The seizure attempt was in violation of the 1874 treaty and it was expected that Peruvian interests would present the highest bid in the subsequent selling of the CFSA. Peru was highly indebted after the 1860s Guano frenzy and Chincha islands war with Spain. The disembarkment in Pisagua was one of the first successful amphibious landing of the modern era, widely observed by Europeans and replicated in the first world war, for example in Gallipolli. Peruvian general Bolognesi was the one fighting to the last bullet along with his staff, among them captain More, the defeated commander of Independencia during the Iquique naval combat who had seek to recover his fighting honor. Ugarte falling off the cliff is a debatable myth. Chilean generals were requested by the Limean elite to restore order when chaos ensued after the defeat in Miraflores and Chorillos (those places were indeed looted by Chilean soldiers) with native lower classes and Chinese coolie workers revolted against their overlords. The National Library and other monuments were indeed sacked but by Chilean authorities as war booty and reparations mostly.
ese fue elllllll pretexto para iniciar una guerra planificada por años, los chilenos con una geografía miserable en recursos en esa época añoraban apropiarse de los ricos yacimientos bolivianos y peruanos, además de ampliar su territorio, sabían que tanto Perú ni Bolivia contaban con un ejército preparado , aunado a los intereses de los ingleses por esos recursos , declararon una guerra conveniente para ellos, lo del territorio de la patagonia fue algo con lo que no contaron, pesó más la ambición inglesa por los yacimientos salitreros que por el territorio aparentemente inproductivo del sur, ahora se lamentan de haber perdido tan grande extención que le hubiera significado poder tener presencia en dos oceanos y tener una geografía vulnerable, cercada por una cordillera y de espaldas al mar, con una endeble franja costera fraccionable en muchos segmentos, el karma de la historia los persigue con la paranoia de ser atacados por sus vecinos, seguirán armándose a costa de su desarrollo para tratar de poder dormir tranquilos 🙄
@@dariotoledo6725 los mitos abundan es tu versión. Demuestra por favor que Chile fue apoyado por los Ingleses ? Esa versión todos la conocemos pese a que los intereses ingleses habían apostado en 1879 que Peru y Bolivia por su mayor extensión y demografía derrotaria a Chile rápidamente. Tampoco indicas la situación financiera del Peru en los 1870 que necesitaba la apropiación del salitre tarapaqueño y del litoral boliviano, en disponiendo de las empresas chilenas como la CFSA. Tampoco existen pruebas que Chile estaba preparando el conflicto aparte quizás por el intento de las autoridades de Santiago de arreglar los temas fronterizos con el vecino boliviano. Vecino cuya inestabilidad política y posible intento revanchista después de la derrota de la confederación peru-boliviana exigía precaución de parte de las autoridades chilenas. Además del intento revelado rápidamente de alianza con el Perú y mismo con Argentina. Osea delante tanta soberbia de parte de los vecinos, no habrá sido la decisión correcta de parte de Chile de ordenar los buques acorazados? Sin mencionar la pacificación de la Araucanía y la guerra contra España que dio las lecciones hacia la estándardizacion del ejército y de la armada de Chile. De todas formas, a pesar de todo lo mencionado, aún no existen pruebas de la intencionalidad chilena hacia un conflicto mayor. El ejército chileno estaba muy discapacitado al inicio del conflicto.
I would like to make some precisions: - The direct cause of the war was that the chilean companies in Antofagasta were subject to a definite and permanent tax by Bolivia, which was actually sealed in a treaty between Chile and Bolivia. Bolivia's government violated this, trying to impose a bigger tax. This caused the disembarkment of chilean troops in Antofagasta and the declaration of war to Bolivia. When Chile learned about the secreat alliance treaty between Perú and Bolivia, it was force to declare war on Perú also. -The naval combat of Iquique in May 21 between Esmeralda corvette (Chile) and ironclad Huascar (Perú) was a defeat by Chile, with the sinking of the Esmeralda, although the heroic death of captain Arturo Prat produced an enormous raise in the will to fight by the chilean population. - The parallel combat of Punta Gruesa (south of Iquique) meant a victory for Chile, where the light vessel Covadonga (Chile) produced the stranding of the powerful ironclad Independencia (Perú); this was a heavy loss for Perú, leaving the Huascar as the only ship capable of confronting the chilean ironclads. - The later combat of Angamos on 8th October confronted the Huascar with the two chilean ironclads Blanco Encalada and Cochrane and was a final defeat for the peruvian Navy and the death of his commander, Admiral Miguel Grau. This combat gave Chile the dominance of the sea and the freedom to produce the following disembarkment of chilean troops which led to Chile's victory in the war.
usually chilean historiography focus on the war before the occupation of lima. since it was the war fought between regular armies and navies. the war after lima occupation is usually brushed over both by contemporary and later historians, besides the battles of concepcion and huamachuco. but its impressive to know how the chilean occupation disintegrated the thin fabric of peruvian society and basically plunged peru into chaos until the chilean army retreated.
*LET ME CORRECT YOU !!! CHILEANS HISTORIANS, CONCENTRATE OR FOCUS BEFORE THE OCCUPATION OF THE CAPITAL LIMA (BY THE WAY, THIS WAS THE THIRD TIME THAT CHILEANS HAD OCCUPIED LIMA: 1- LIBERATION OF PERU BY THE CHILEAN GOVERNMENT. 2- WAR: CHILE AGAINST THE CONFEDERATION PERU-BOLIVIA. 3- WAR OF THE PACIFIC.) -- CHILEANS HISTORIANS CONCENTRATE ON THE COURAGE OF THE CHILEAN ARMY AND THEIR GENERALS... LIKE THE 77 CHILEAN SOLDIERS KILLED DEFENDING THEIR FLAG AND THEY REFUSED TO SURRENDER BY SAYING: "NO CHILEANS SURRENDER TO THE ENEMY" / "BATTLE OF CONSTITUTION" (PERU)... AMONG OTHER HEROIC EVENTS.* *WHEN THE CHILEANS HAD OCCUPIED LIMA FOR THE THIRD TIME; BUSINESS MEN, ITALIANS, BRITISH, FRENCH, AND OTHER IMMIGRANTS, WELCOMED THE CHILEAN TROOPS IN LIMA, TO "RESTABLISH ORDER"; BECAUSE THE PERUVIANS BEFORE ESCAPING, HAD STOLEN AS MUCH AS THEY COULD FROM BUSINESSES AND GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS EVERYWHERE. --- SOME PERUVIAN HISTORIANS TELL THAT IT WAS THE CHILEANS THAT DID THIS, BUT RECENTLY, IT WAS FOUND OUT THROUGH OLD LETTERS THAT THE STORY OF CHILEANS RANSAKING LIMA IS NOT TRUE. --- CHILEAN TROOPS OCCUPIED LIMA FOR 3 YEARS, AND WHEN THEY WERE LEAVING, THE MAYOR OF LIMA BEGGED THEM TO STAY AND OTHER CITY PEOPLE DID THE SAME, AFRAID OF WHAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN WHEN ORDER AND PROTECTION WERE NOT THERE ANY LONGER.* *THE HISTORY OF PERUVIANS CHANGED DRASTICALLY BY THEIR OWN HISTORIANS AND NEWS PAPER-WRITERS, TRYING TO CHANGE THE NAME OF THEIR COWARD COUNTRY MEN, INTO "HEROES"... THEY WON'T TELL YOU AS PER EXAMPLE THAT WHEN CHILEANS HAD OCCUPIED LIMA, THEY CHASED THE ENEMY (PERUVIANS) UP THE HILLS AND IN ONE OCCATION, ONE PERUVIAN GENERAL SHOUTED: "RUN PERUVIANS, THAT THE BRAVE CHILEANS ARE COMING !!!" ---- OR THEY WON'T MENTION THAT WHEN THE WAR STARTED, THE POPULATION OF PERUVIANS IN LIMA "CHASED CHILEAN WOMEN", RAPED THEM ON THE STREES AND KILLED THEM AFTER... MANY OF THEM WERE "BEHEADED"... MEN, HAD THE MEMBERS OF THEIR BODIES REMOVED / CUT OFF AND EXPOSED IN THE OPEN, JUST LIKE THE BODIES OF WOMEN... THEY WON'T EVEN TELL YOU THAT CHINESE SLAVES WERE FREED BY CHILEANS AND IN GRATITUDE, THEY FOUGHT ALONGSIDE WITH THE CHILEANS, EVENTHOUGH THEY ASKED THEM NOT TO, AND THAT THEY WERE FREE !!!... CHILEANS ALSO FREED SLAVES FROM EASTERN ISLAND AND THIS IS WHEN THEY TOOK POSSESSION OF THE ISLAND IN ORDER TO PROTECT IT FROM PERUVIANS (EASTERN ISLANDERS HATE PERUVIANS, IF YOU DIDN'T KNOW).* *IN SCHOOLS, MANY TEACHERS TELL LIES TO THEIR STUDENTS ABOUT THE WAR OF THE PACIFIC AND HOW STRONGER CHILE WAS... WHEN IN REALITY, CHILEANS HAD FEW NEW WEAPONS, AND MANY OF THEIR RIFLES (AS PER EXAMPLE) WERE FROM THE INDEPENDENCE OF THEIR COUNTRY (DECADES OLD); THE 2 MAIN IRON-CLAD SHIPS WERE IN ENGLAND FOR SALE, WHILE THE PERUVIANS HAD EVERY AT HOME.* *NOW YOU KNOW REAL HISTORY.* *CHEERS*
Chile did with Peru basically the same thing that years later the United States would do with Germany and Japan, Iraq, Libya, etc. What's the surprise?. Furthermore, at that time, the Peruvians were outraged that in Chile the issue was not even discussed in the newspapers, where the most important news was national, leaving the invaded Peru as something foreign to Chilean reality. Hopefully there was a little news about what was happening, if anything.
Actually in the Batalla Naval de Iquique, Chile "lost" generating a Martyr who would boost the morale of its armies, but it also managed to sink the second most important Peruvian ship (La Independencia), and some years after would capture the most important one who also fought in the battle (El Huáscar). Greetings from Iquique
Chile perdio? perdio el peor barco que tenia (La Esmeralda) y dejo fuera de servicio quisas el mas importante del peru (la independencia) creo que estas equibocado ,creo que el que perdio fue el Peru
To add some useful information: The chilean army only had 2 calibers for her rifles and a somewhat homogeneous ethnicity. The peruvian army had at least 8 different calibers for her rifles, in addition with the many ethnic groups within the army and some of them didn't even speak spanish. Imagine the logistical nightmare. This is a forgotten factor of why Peru was defeated.
Another very important factor, all with the exception of one were all professional Army officers, while the Peruvians were civilians with military ranks.
Has a chilean, was interesting to inow the other side of the conflict, here in chile the focus is on the war itself and politics before it. Peru and Bolivia made a secret protection pact to eventually start a war with Chile for resources and sea access, when Chile found out it started the fighting.
My great great grandfather was Juan Jose Perez, Bolivia’s top General who heroically died in the last battle in the desert. RIP. He has monuments and streets named after him in Bolivia.
The defeat of Perú by Chile is something the Peruvians still cannot come to terms with. Because in their heads Perú is supposed to be the big brother. The land of the Inca Empire. The craddle of the colonial power represented by the Vice Royalty of Perú. They have constructed in their minds the notion that Perú is a rich power in the region. It is just having a bad time. Much more than the dry and skinny poor little uncivilized Chile. They still believe that are culturally much more than Chile, and so their country destined to rule over Chile "one day". They think that they are on the verge of becoming a powerful nation economically a military. So the defeat to Chile in their own territory is yet not accepted. Because it is a humilliation to loose to an "inferior" country. They have invented many excuses including that "they lost to England, not to Chile". "They did not have sufficient modern weapons" "The lidership failed" and so on. They have a superiority complex crushed down to nothing. So emotionally cannot recover from it. They suffer the lost of the war of the Pacific every day when they wake up. They dream with recovering only the territory lost to Chile, even when they have lost much more territories to other countries.
Great vídeo, Thanks for sharing! This war is very overlooked in Brazil education, because it simply did not affect much the regional geopolitical power when compared to the Triple Aliance war (paraguay war). Very little to nothing is taught in brasil schools about this conflict, I had no idea that chilean forces ocupied Lima.
I disagree, it completely changed the geopolitics of South America until today where Chile still controls the largest deposits of copper worldwide, Bolivia cut from the sea and Peru reduced to a minor power after being the center of affairs in post-colonial Hispanoamerica. Also sparked the South American arms race between Brazil, Chile and Argentina in the 1890s where those three nations would benefit from the saltpeter and agricultural economic boom and european capital flowing to the region.
@@lape2002 Yeah u have a good point, nowadays the Lithium deposits of Chile are very estrategical, but this is only a modern discussion and that is the reason for the brazilian historiography not giving much attention tô the conflict
Thanks Thiago, today I meet another subscriber. Tomorrow I have the bus to Paraty. Tonight I will be in Vila Madalena but this is very short notice haha. Feel free to sent me a message via instagram or email. See video description.
Iquique Battle was a pyrrhic victory for Perú, they break the Iquique blocade and sank a corvette, but they also lose an armored frigate and with the days, awake a patriotic sentiment that made the people from the centre and south of the country to recruit voluntarily in the army.
Amazing content! Im Chilean, and I think respect should be above all else. Every soldier was more brave than most, or well, any of us. They deserve respect. Whether they're Chilean, Bolivian or Peruvian. Again, I love your channel. Thank you!
You need info about the Peruvian army at the time, Chile was the the country with no army. Fyi after the war, the usa was worried about Chile, because of the Army we got, just because we seased the Peruvian ships. Meaning Chile was a naval power, acording to the USA
The battle of Iquique in May 1879 was lost, not won, by the Chileans. As a result, and for at least a time, that gave control of the seas to the Peruvian navy, not the other way around.
It was a tactical and strategic victory for Chile, we both lost a warship, they lost and old wooden corvette, we lost our best armored frigate. Then we gain strategic initiative with Grau and the BAP Huascar for five months until the heroic defeat at the Battle of Angamos. Afterwards the Chilean Navy was able to land almost at will in the Peruvian Coast, save for Arica and Callao
I've heard it said that more battles are lost than won... You spend time scratching your head thinking "how does that work?" Then you start reading about them, and very many were lost because someone made a gamblers move that did not pay off, many more someone made a big oopsie, some times, lets just say breeding and arrogance too often put the wrong man in charge.
Mijnheer, de battle was half lost on the Chilean side, and half won on the Chilean side as well, as the Iquique battle was indeed 2 battles: the Iquique one and the Punta Gruesa one. We lost an old, wooden and almost decrepit corvette, commanded by our legendary Captain Prat, who became a galvanising figure for the Chileans. Meanwhile, Condell swept a most unlikely victory for us Chileans over Moore's Independencia, leaving Peruvians with only one, albeit it masterfully managed by Grau, outnumbered monitor. The final blow to the Peruvians came after the Battle of Angamos, where Perú lost its only effective vessel and its most capable admiral. Groetjes
it depends if you count iquique and punta gruesa as the same battle. in the same day both peru lost one of their two best ships (independencia at punta gruesa) and chile won a charismatic martyr ( Prat at iquique)
Dude, IDK who taught you this but it has several misaccuracies: first, bolivians wiped their assses with 1866 treaty, formed a secret alliance with peru to fuck Chile, but this backfired them. Second Chile was very poor, poorer than bolivia and peru, our navy was lesser, while peru had steel ships we had old wood ships. Third death of Arturo Prat generated such rage and fervor among Chileans and ordinary ppl started to enroll to go to defend chile. We just fought with our own citizens, they were not trained, just sheer passion XD
I found one mistake, in the battle of Iquique Chile and Perú ended even because the peruvian sink La Esmeralda, an old ship, and the Chilean only sunk La Independencia, but the bulk of both navies continued to fight until Naval Battle of Angamos when finally the chilean navy took El Huascar, the peruvian flagship, and it's admiral was killed (Miguel Grau).
This was told centered entirely from Peru's point of view. If you watch the maps of the advancement and the territory occupied by Chile you realize that Chile could have taken the whole country if they wanted. Instead they preferred a political solution. On the other side, Bolivia acted like a pussy, initially thought they could push their way around and decided to initiate a war knowing it would be a 2 vs 1 because of their secret alliance with Peru, but when they were defeated with no opposition, they decided to act as if this wasn't their problem anymore, when needed would ask for Peru's help, but when the opposite happened they would ignore Peru and send no troops. Bolivia to this day act like a big pussy, making huge claims while feeling protected, trying to play the victim to the international community, and painting Chile as an abusive neighbor that negates them their "divine right" to the ocean. When in reality, Chile has offered Bolivia for more than 100 years their instalations and an almost unrestricted commercial path of maritime transit through chilean territory in which Chile doesn't even try to control what they ship, but knowing Bolivia, probably it's mostly drugs.
one of the destabilizer factor on the ground battle was the red prince, he gave us the forces of the chinese slaves peruvians had. The enemy of your enemy is your friend, right?
I really wanted a more nuanced take on this, as a chilean that's mostly gotten the chilean version of this story haha! We were always taught that we were in serious disadvantage, that peruvian armada was far more modern and powerful than ours, and it was washed in epic and heroic light.
@@HistoryHustle No problems. I spent quite a while in my younger days wondering why all the fuss over rotted bird poop, then found out, no guano, no bang-o. Quite the strategic resource.
Errr... Chilean troops didnt sack the city, PERUVIAN DESERTERS sacked the city after they ran from battle to the point British, French and US marines had to be landed to restore order, and THEN Rufino Torrico the Mayor of Lima REQUESTED that the Chilean army enter the city to prevent further mischief.
@@oscarberolla9910 Estimado, en internet puedes encontrar la carta del alcalde de Lima pidiéndole a Baquedano que ocupe la ciudad que estaba siendo saqueada por el ejército peruano. Que en tu escuelita te hayan mentido y culpado a los chilenus malus es tu problema.
LA carta del alcalde Torrico puede ser encontrada con facilidad en intenert, igual que los detalles de fuente peruana sobre los saqueos en Lima por parte de los desertores peruanos. Así de fácil.
@@HistoryHustle No, the Chilean army entered the city a full three days after the battle of Miraflores, in march formation, bands playing ahead of its regiments. They didnt sack the city, they didnt plunder like the Peruvian deserters that sacked businesses, mainly Chinese-owned, and murdered their occupants until the deserters were killed or driven off by the foreign marines. Of course, during the three year occupation, there were instances of Chilean soldiers stealing and robbing the locals, happens in every occupation, but that is a very far cry from taking, sacking and plundering a city hot after a battle. You have to be careful with Peruvian sources, they are full of fairy tales.
Dato muy importante. Muchos de ellos se enrolaron en el ejército de Chile. Formando el batallón Vulcano. Termina la guerra, a los sobrevivientes Chinos , el gobierno de Chile, les dio la nacionalidad Chilena en gracias.. Saludos..
Regarding the Library of Lima, it suffered a large fire in 1851. 75% of it collection was lost in that fire. It was still rebuilding its inventories when the war happened. Before the arrival of the Chilean forces there were three days of peace. During those day many valuable items were removed by the library workers and hiden in monasteries and private houses. So the first Chileans who arrived to it found it with half of it rooms empty. The Chilean Army took some books to Chile. Not as loot, but as part of war reparation as it was the accepted way in the 19th century. Those books ended up mainly in the Chilean national Library in Santiago. And about 10 years ago were sent back to Perú in good condition.
There were another 2 factors that gave chile such overwhelming victory. 1st the troops that engaged in the war not only were highly trained but had war experience since chile had an ongoing war in the Araucanía region with the mapuches. 2nd all the weapons used by the Chilean army were adapted to use the same ammunition wich gave them the edge not only in experience but in versatility. Greetings from Chile
Que falta de rigurocidad historica, falta de investigacion, usted solo relata lo que algun peruano con baja educacion le conto. Que pena su trabajo, sea mas serio. Saludos
You must be chilean. No feel offended by history... the Pacific's war was like all wars, an excuse to steal... Francisco Vergara the minister of war of Chile was very critical of chilean army behavior. Baquedano, who was a beast and a simple opportunistic, was the main opposition to Vergara... "los cazadores del desierto" a big stain in the chilean army. They were rapes, amoral, thieves... as this video shows the war was almost gained after the Iquique Combat, but chilean soldier were by the Sierra assaulting poor village, asking for rescues money. Raping and killing... if you do not know what soldiers do in war times, please look for a DW video about "mujeres como botìn de guerra"... or look what happens in Africa: Nigeria, Sudan, Congo with women and civils... every war is the end of any humanity... you can read in chilean records about. It is all in our history.
@@AR-fw9rj Offended? I was only pointing out that it seems like the video creator relied purely on Peruvian sources. There's no mention or consideration of the Bolivian perspective on political and sociocultural matters. Which let's face it, Bolivia was the one who instigated everything by violating a treaty that prohibited them from increasing taxes on Chilean companies. I wasn't even discussing the brutal actions Chile took during the war (which, let's be honest, were typical of conflicts during that era, 145 years ago). and if the tables were turned, Peru and Bolivia would likely have resorted to similar tactics. Stop trying to pick a fight out of thin air.
@@HistoryHustle Good morning mate. Was just joking btw but I really forgot about the other war of the pacific till like months aggo XD. And mid sentence i reallized(I know I writted that the wrong way) I could Say something funny
What you say about coronel Ugarte riding his horse off the Morro of Arica is wrong. No doubt Ugarte was a brave soldier but it is a myth; have you ever tried to make a horse run with sth like a hood in its head? It's impossible to make it move!! I'm chilean, and I strongly believe that men who fought this war were all brave, but for those disgusting politicians on both sides who only persuited their own interest... as usual!!
The story of the war of the Guano is usually told differently depending on what side you are on. Peruvians want to focus on the guerilla wars after the occupation while Chileans talk about the naval war. The main thing is to remember that no country that loses a war will ever admit defeat, just listen to the Mexicans talk about the USA. It's a fact that Chile got into this war without thinking about the long-term strategy, even when America invaded Agfanistan and Iraq, they didn't really have a long-term plan. The initial battle can be won, but occupation is another matter. Throughout history, no occupation has lasted forever, and Lima was not an exception. Another fact is that, unlike in Perú, in Chile, they do not teach children to hate Peruvians.
Why they would taught that?? They took territory from Peru and never returned Arica as previously agreed. That's why there is an animosity againts Chile. Pretty expected I think.
@@tribalcrema287 you are trying to say the animosity is because of Arica? Olobia zbrazil, Ecuador, Uruguay have no animosity against Chile, because they never fought. Argentina lost the Falklands war and most videos they create on RUclips they make them look like they actually won; and by the way, they have animosity against England, could it be that they lost the war too?
I don't know where you get the "in Perú they teach children to hate chileans" because that doesnt happen at all lol. When I was teached the story of the war of the guano (almost more than 20 years ago) they teached me about all the 3 sides of the story and never put any enphasis into hating chileans, lmao. People here dont really hate chileans but a lot of times we make contact with them we have bad experiences that lead to people hating chileans
@@GatoPatataGameplays first of all the word is taught and not teached. Busca un video de MaacUru 13 llamado así hablan los peruanos de los chilenos, especialmente los dos primeros video de J Bayly y otro hombre académico. Ambos dicen lo contrario de lo que dices.
@@pachino11839 Solo porque unos peruanos hayan sido enseñados así no constituye que todos los peruanos de manera general y definitivan tengan esa enseñanza. Yo no puedo decir que por los 30 chilenos que me han puteado por ser peruano y tratado como basura humana por ser peruanos, todos los chilenos son así y por eso no lo hago, siempre va a haber situaciones que son claramente erroneas y aun asi no da razón ni excusa para generalizar. El perú es un país muy grande con una gran cantidad de escuelas y población, no obstante te puedo asegurar que aquello que afirmas o se afirman en esos videos son cosas que probablemente sean anticuas o no esten a la par con lo que en las ultimas decadas se enseña
It is a good summary of a complex piece of our History. Just one remark: The Battle of Iquique (21st. May 1879) resulted in a peruvian victory, not chilean (minute 2:45). Despite after a few hours Perú eventually lost its most modern battleship, the "Independencia". Some months later, the only last remaining effective and very powerful peruvian monitor, the "Huáscar", was defeated and captured by the chilean navy, determining the end of the naval war, giving to Chile the total control over the sea.
Hola gringo, está bueno el resumen de la guerra, pero tomaste solo fuentes peruanas, se nota porque solo hablas desde el punto de vista de Peru. Debes hacer el mismo ejercicio desde el punto de vista de Chile y Bolivia, obtendrás interesantes conclusiones. Pero si te gusta el estilo peruano…. No hay problema, revisa la información del canal peruano especialista del tema “el profe sobre ruedas” muy imparcial, versado y apoyado en fuentes históricas reales. Saludos desde Chile amigo gringo…. Buen trabajo
It was Peru that quit while Bolivia continued to be at war until the 20th century, although with no fighting due to the desert forming a barrier between the armies
Bolivia started the war with Chile, and pushed Peru into it because of previous alliances ... A really unnecesary war that cost Bolivia their sea. Peru had no real business with this war, but ended up losing its capital (Lima was later returned to them). Chile also lost The Patagonia to Argentina (Argentina threat with war during this era. Chile, bussy with their war with Peru/Bolivia and knowing that it couldn't hold another war front, gave away that territory to Argentina, and The Patagonia is still theirs), losing more territory than it gained ... To make it short, Argentina was the only real winner ... Everyone else lost a lot
It is not a very good video, mostly because relays on popular peruvian knowledge and not mainstream historical references, and of course it does not considered Chile's point of view. Please be serious.
Que hubiera pasado , si no fuera porqué, se nos acabaron las municiones , estábamos cansados , nos traicionaron , y un montón de excusas, deberías decir perdimos porque Chile, fue mejor y punto , fácil y corto . Lo que hicieron después no nos interesa , los que hicieron los tuyos, no nos interesa . La guerra terminó y ganó Chile, inapelablente , eso fue lo que pasó al final . Nosotros podríamos decir un montón de cosas , pero ya fue, se acabó , punto.
Hello. I am Peruvian and I have nothing against Chile. Peru became involved in the war due to a secret alliance signed by a Belgian representing Peru. In the Spanish-South American War, Chile discovered Peru's lack of experience in naval strength. Beyond the war of Great Peruvian Colombia, Peru occupied the entire Pacific of this country made up of future 4 nations, until occupying the sea of Panama. Peru was not equipped for this war as it should, in the middle of the war Peru began to acquire new armored ships that would never arrive from Europe. The war was going to be Soviet style against the Nazis, that is, a counterattack, which did not occur because Miguel Iglesias, after the victory of the Battle of San Pablo, would negotiate with Chile to end the war with territorial transfer because he was a landowner. and he preferred to lose Tarapacá than his lands to continue as a landowning and dominated class in the country's mountains. The latter occurs with the Grito de Montán. In the battle of Huamachuco Iglesias supported Chile. Peru began to win the battle, but when the ammunition ran out this did not happen. Iglesias fought against the Peruvians as regenerating president, assuming office after convening the Assembly of Cajamarca. Would a What If be cool? What would happen if Chile had lost? It might even have disappeared. Because Chile did not have territories in its current south. Argentina would have access to the sea through the Pacific. Chile would only be Santiago if they did not disappear. Argentina was going to participate, but Brazil told him that if he got involved, he would too because if Argentina had access to the Pacific it would become a threat to them. Outside of the Pacific War, Peru had at that time another territory in southern Chile, Chiloé. Because when Peru became independent, said territory was born with it, under the uti possidetis iuris. The curious thing is that Bolivia and Chile initially participated in the war, and Peru, to fulfill its alliance pact, knowing its poor military situation, supported Bolivia and this country abandoned it to its fate, it did not even have a navy. Bolivia was the most affected because the territory that Antofagasta took from it had ports and in the future copper mines would be discovered, some of the deepest in the world, and of course lithium. While Tarapacá has no relevance. In the war Bolivia had the sea and not the navy, now it has the navy and not the sea.
Chiloe was Spanish kingdom possession until 1826, no uti possidetis iuris involved at all unlike the Bolivian Littoral which was technically Peruvian by this same logic. Chilotes never regarded themselves as Peruvians, not by a single stretch of imagination. Chile and Argentina both claimed the Patagonia in the late 19th century, the treaty of 1881 sealed the deal with Argentina taking the pampa up to Tierra del Fuego and any possibility of conflict was avoided right there. In any case Argentina was already busy conquering these lands through a bloody campaign (read genocidal) in the 1880s before it could do any move there. Hopefully Stefan will make a video of General Roca's Campana del Desierto one day. Besides Brazil and the Chilean navy kept Argentine ambitions in check till the 1890s. Bolivia had the Cerro Rico in Potosi which was the Dubai of the 18th century, eventually production collapsed but still had several mines that were poorly exploited as it is still the case today. For example, Bolivia in 2024 has the largest reserves of Lithium in the planet yet is not even at the top 10 exporters. It is a beggar sitting over a gold mine.
Para variar que pasaría O que hubiera ocurrido O podríamos haber hecho Noooo eso es vivir el mundo de fantasía No crees que es mejor tener honor y los pantalones bien puestos y aprender del error de tus antepasados en silencio Como tratan de quitar importancia a la victoria aplastante Los saqueos los robos y bla bla bla Déjame explicarte Acabas de perder una guerra A partir de ese momento ya nada es tuyo para que justificarse que hay pocas municiones que esto que lo otro NOOO hay que morir con la boca cerrada La justificación agrava la falta y punto no hay que darle mas vuelta al asunto Saludos
@antoniocalderon3190 there was no "king of Peru", only the King of Spain. When Chile got its independence, it became independent from Spain not from Peru or even the viceroy of Peru. Chiloe kept royalist forces from Spain even after Peruvian independence. Therefore it belonged to Spanish kingdom until 1826.
@@HistoryHustle not enough room for all the arguments and explanations in order. Perhaps you could try and investigate more than one surce. That's what historians do.
A few corrections and extra context: 1. In the Border Treaty of 1874 between Bolivia and Chile, Chile renounces it´s claims in the Antofagasta region under the conditon that the Chilean companies already there were safe from new taxes and tax increase for 20 years, in late 1878 President Daza ignored the treaty and stablished a new tax, Chile complained and when the companies refused to pay they were seized. Chile consider the treaty broken and null and send a military expedition to reclaim Antofagasta. 2 the naval combat of Iquique was a Peruvian vitory, with the Chilean corvette Esmeralda (the oldest Chilean warship) sunken in the bay by the Peruvian monitor Huascar, and the Peruvian armoured frigate Independencia (the strongest Peruvian warship) struck a reef while persuing the Chilean schooner Covadonga near Punta Gruesa, 20km south of Iquique bay. all of this happend in May 21st 1879 but are considered different battles. The last naval battle was Angamos in October 8th 1879, when the Chilean navy manage to capture the Huascar (who constantly raided Chilean supply lines and captured a Chilean steamer transporting a cavalry saquadron) and with that pretty much neutralized the Peruvian navy, limiting them to just carry supplies in Peruvian territories. 3 originaly Chile only occupied the Peruvian province of Tarapaca to help the national economy and bankrupt Peru but soon the political interests changed and Tarapaca was seen as a war goal to keep. Also Tacna and Arica were part of a plan to end the Peru Bolivian alliance, with Chile ceding both cities to Bolivia to compensate for their lost coast, Chile didn't succed, but Bolivia abandonded the war after the Chilean vitory at Tacna. 4 the violence from the Peruvians towards the Chinese was because several hundreds of Chinese coolies (workers who lived in semi slavery) joined to Chilean forces and asisted them as guides and in the camps. 5 The looting of Lima was, for the most part, organized. The Chilean goverment argued that it was their right to take "war contributions" from Peru to help maintain the army and the war. This included, but wasnt limited to, the library of Lima, the Zoo, steam engines, locomotives, etc. The massive looting, killings (even agains their own officers and other soldiers) and rapes commited by the Chilean troops was in the town of Chorrillos, south of Lima, right After that battle, days before the battle of Miraflores. 6 The goverment of Garcia Calderon, stablished in the demilitarized zone of La Magdalena, near Lima, refussed to cede Tarapaca as a condition for peace, in part because US Secretary of State James Blaine had been negotiating peace since before the Lima Campaing and favored a Chilean victory but without territorial changes, because it would affect American investments (there were also English and French investments) in the saltpeter and guano mines in the region. with the assassination of President Garfield Blaine was removed as Secretary of State and the US recognized Chile's right to annex Tarapaca. 7 Miguel Iglesias kept fighting the Chilean army under Andres Caceres until July 1882 when he defeted a Chilean column in the battle of San Pablo, but realized that they could never form an army strong enough to seriously oppose the Chilean army, that had a force of 20000 men in central Peru and a similar number in south Peru and Chile (for the Lima campaign, Chile had around 42000 men, with an Army of Operations ready for battle of 27000 men and the rest as garrison in Tacna, Arica, Iquique, Antofagasta and back in Chile. After the fall of Lima the Army of Operations was reduced to 10000 men and the rest were sent back to Chile and demovilized, but with the Peruvian resistance in the Andes several veteran regiments, and some new ones, were sent back to Peru) and that the continuation of the war would only hurt Peru. In August 1882 he made public his opinion that they had to accept defeat, even at the cost of losing Tarapaca. This motivated the last few campaings in 1883 to neutralize his political oponents, inluding Andres Caceres in the Battle of Huamachuco, and Lizardo Montero in the Arequica expedition.
Great video! There is an incredible book that narrates this war. It's called "veteran from three wars". Its first part narrates the war from the perspective of an officer from the Chilean army. One note, i don't recall Chilean troops taking animals from the zoo. Maybe you are refaring to 2 lion statutes that are commonlly knowned as los leones. They are displayed now at Avenida los Leones and are made of 2,5 tons of bronze. ¡Once again great video!
Buen resumen de la guerra del pacifico trucha (la verdadera entre USA y Japon), la superioridad naval en esos tiempos era indispensable, peru y bolivia no tenian oportunidad de llegar a Santiago.
The history about Ugarte jumping from the clift to his dead to save the Peruvian flag is a children´s tale. As at the base of the Arica´s promontory there is no sea. There is an emplanade about 100 meters wide. So such and act was useless if the alleged intention was in fact to save the flag. And as someone already pointed out horses do not kill themselves. So myth busted.
Juan Fanning died leading an infantry charge with a Marine Batallion “Guardia Marina” and was able to pierce the Chilean line, unfortunately without support or reinforcements the 400 died valiantly and heroically, a Peruvian Thermopylae!
Fun fact: The landlocked nation of Bolivia maintains a rather large navy in defiance of history's wrong turn. What does a navy in a landlocked country do with itself? It patrols the rivers and Lake Titicaca with small boats. It assists the army with naval infantry. It marches in parades, especially on 'Dia Del Mar'. And it sends out a crew on a rotational basis to a ship they have in Buenos Aires so that they can maintain their blue water experience. Most of all, they remain ready to retake possession of their corridor to the sea (from Chile) and, with it, their lost ports.
Yep, every night at the closure of the TV stations, they air first the national anthem then the Marcha al Litoral, a song calling the cities they lost and how they are going to retake them. As Chilean living in Bolivia and happily married there, I find it bonkers but anyways, we are free to dream. Hopefully one day, they will access the Pacific, but in a peaceful manner of course as we truly are brother nations.
At least they have access to the South Atlantic via the Paraguay and Parana rivers. Only problem is during really bad droughts and depending on the load, the river become hard to imposible to navigate.
@@ab9840 they also have access to Ilo Peru as the Lima government gave Bolivia access to the coast there. But alas Bolivia never invested there, preferring to use the dock infrastructure of Iquique and Arica instead. Even during the Bolivian Littoral days, the whole area was woefully underdeveloped with the Chilean founded and populated Antofagasta doing most of the economic activity there as well as the Peruvian ports of Arica serving whatever was Bolivia's sea interests then.
"Rather large navy" is a very generous description. We're talking about a handful of patrol boats, and a few dozen fiberglass recreational boats. The firepower available to them might be enough to patrol their waterways such as Lake Titicaca against smugglers and the like, but to claim it would be capable of the forcible retaking of anything from its neighbor is a fever dream. To begin with, they would be unable to deploy anywhere relevant to a conflict with Chile. But even if by some miracle they could make it to the Pacific, the difference in tonnage, firepower, and versatility between the two wouldn't compare. The armament of a single Type 22 multi-purpose frigate would be more than enough to annihilate the outclassed Bolivians with less effort than that of a fairly standard combat drill. With numbers so catastrophically unfavorable, Bolivia is best sticking to diplomatic means to achieve its goals.
If you believe that the war of the pacific was forgotten, let me tell you about the "War of the Confederation 1837-1839". The war of the Pacific was the 2nd time Chile fought against Perú-Bolivia.
@@HistoryHustle The conflict started becouse Bolivia don't respect the treaty about the taxes that Chilean entrepeneur paid for working the huano, and secretely signed with Peru a treated to expulse Chile for the territory, in that moment the mayority of population in Antofagasta was Chilean workers, and also you miss the fact that Chilean army was a minimun capacity after the Combate Naval de Iquique when Chilean people saw the death of Arturo Prat and wanted to fight for Chile. In the Combate de la Concepción 77 Chilean fighter with women and children was slothered for the Peru's army.
ruclips.net/video/DXeCQAsoCFg/видео.htmlsi=a4zbdphfl71hl7x4 This is a documentary that a Chilean journalist made a few years ago, he went to Perú and Bolivia to enterview all the sides, it would be helpful to saw more than one vision.
Did you know that the initials of the names of the ships that participated in the Pacific War formed the name of Chile; Covadonga, Huáscar, Independencia, Lamar and Esmeralda?
This war should have never happened, Peru should have never helped Bolivia against Chile. (As a matter of fact Bolivia had been created by Bolivar from what it used to be Alto Peru).The Chilean army was better trained and supported by British interest in the region. Furthermore Chile capitalized on the political division and corruption in Peru at the time with one president fleeing the country and the other cutting supplies and logistic to the forces left defending the south. Prado and Pierola are amongst the worst presidents Peru could ever had.
Thank you for the interest in this conflict. Your video relies heavily on the Peruvian historiography. You didn’t even mention a single Chilean hero of the war (and there are many!). A whole new video could be made with the Chilean version of the story.
Learn about the history of South America:
ruclips.net/p/PL_bcNuRxKtpGub1GmdnC0Uv9BunAFk5am&si=-EAqTa-KuZjH6bu1
✅ 👍
is this channel monitized?
@@warrun8681 yes.
I will recommend you to follow the very interesting a very NON BIAS history of the war as “La historia como no te la contaron.” That history agrees the Facts of both sides. Another thing, is not true about the Navy of Peru, they have the modern armor war ships, very difficult to defeat by Chilean Navy, so is not that the poor Peruvian and they and Bolivia were the victim of a stronger country, was a war between two strong nations, Chile was better organized that is true, as any other war, the explanation of the win usually is the superiority of one over the other. Not counting that Bolivia only has a battle in Calama by themselves and in a later stage they abandon Peruvian army. And finally what war is not consequence of political issues or grievance? What is not true that the conflict was initiated by Chile, the secret pact among Bolivia and Peru was the spark that initiated the war
very bad data bro, you probably had most peruvian and american sources. Chilean sources are more precise and exact information and also the british sources.
Chile goated.
🇨🇱
@@HistoryHustle
Haha it's a joke, right?
@@lasimadelsuelo CL
@@lasimadelsuelohow is that a joke ?
Great summary of he war of the Pacific. The only detail missing was that the confederation between Peru and Bolivia was secret and Chile only learned about it via Brazil. This pushed the countries to war faster.
It was treaty, the Confederación Perú-Boliviana was the country of |836 dissolved in 1839, also at war with Chile back then.
@@redhausser7492 Chile fought against Peru and Bolivia during the independence (they were royalists), the Peruvian-Bolivian confederation and also in the Pacific War. as well as never against Argentina
non, in the war of pacific they probably noticed when the trety was ratified by congress and tried to add argentina there.
Wrong. It was not secret. It was sign 5 years before the war and it was defensive in nature. Moreover, at the time the treaty was discuss in three different countries' Congress: Perú, Bolivia and Argentine [it decline].....so it was imposible for Chilean diplomats or other delegations not to know about it.
One should wonder why these three countries, even 5 years before the war, were worried about Chile?
The big question: Who and how the war was finance?
A lot of details are wrong and it is understandable, the subject is complex....... however something important is missing, the elephant in the room was not even mentioned: 🇬🇧
@@Celeste2024-h4k for the how it was financed, via concessions and debt, mostly to private capitals. Peru, mostly US, Chile, mostly UK. However, one mustn't confused capitals of a certain country to the government of said country. In that regard, Peru received much more direct support from the US than Chile from the UK (who remarkably refused to sell weapons, Chile used German, French and Belgium armament), while the US openly vouched for Peru in the peace talks and provisional government until the president was assassinated.
It is a shame that we in U.S. no longer teach or speak of this conflict. Thank you Sir for hitting all the bullet points. Kudos and God bless you!
Thanks Fred!
Lol it was never taught anywhere in the US outside of college history classes, I dont even believe you are American
To be fair there is no reason to learn it unless you’re specifically teaching South American history
@@HypervoxelRBXyou should learn it as an important part in the history of the continent like we learn about the US civil war even though everyone abolished slavery decades ago
@@HypervoxelRBXto be fair because of this war Chile, having better ships than the US, deterred US from taking over Panamá expelling the US Army from Panamá City in 1885 and stopped US plans in the South for 20 years. Yes, you should learn history. Citing the US parliament of the time, the chilean cruisers could "hunt and sink every US warship in the pacific one by one".
How times have changed!
I have seen many of your videos, which I enjoy very much, but this time I must say that there are some confusions and mistakes.
At the beginning of the war the Chilean army had just over 2.000 men, but had experienced officers who fought in wars against the Mapuches (that war lasted 300 years!).
Chile had 2 powerful ships but Perú had one which was faster, the Huascar, and the Iquique naval combat (May 21st 1879) Chile lost one old ship, and Peru lost one of its best ships, the Independencia. Chile didn’t have dominion of the seas until the naval battle of Angamos (October 8th 1879), where Chile defeated Peru and captured Peru´s best ship, the Huascar, which was repaired and incorporated into the Chilean navy.
The jump off the cliff of Colonel Alfonso Ugarte is just a myth but has no historical importance.
It is important to mention that in all battles the number of soldiers fighting on each side was similar, so that no victory can be attributed to a higher number of soldiers; on the contrary, in almost all the battles the Chileans attacked, and the Peruvians / Bolivians fought in their defensive positions.
The victory of Chile was due to several reasons: the organization of the war efforts, careful study and preparation of supplies, discipline and motivation of the troops (mostly volunteers), political stability (there was even a presidential election during the war).
You provide extra information. Thanks for that. What is not accurate? I read Ugarte threw himself of the cliff. What did happen to him if he didn't jump?
@@HistoryHustle About the myth of Alfonso Ugarte jumping off the cliff on his horse. First, it is very rare that a horse was in the defense area of the Morro, and it is impossible that a horse jumps into the void of a cliff: it simply won’t jump. Second, the battle report of the Peruvian artillery commander Manuel Espinoza, describes the moment when it was useless any resistance, and so Bolognesi ordered a cease-fire, but because that order couldn’t be heard, Colonel Ugarte went himself to give the cease-fire order, and the report says that Ugarte was killed while in that mission. Another battle report prepared by the second in command of the Peruvian defense, Manuel Camilo de la Torre, states that Ugarte and others “fell in the fight”. Ugarte’s body was later identified and it was taken to Lima, where it was buried at the Presbitero Maestro Cemetery.
@@HistoryHustle What is not accurate is Chile didn’t have full control of the Pacific after the Naval Combat of Iquique (May 21 1879), but much later and only after the Naval Battle of Angamos (October 8 1879).
There are some very interesting figures on the Chilean side: War Minister Rafael Sotomayor, he was the main organizer and strategist of the war, but died just before the battle of Tacna; General Manuel Baquedano, he commanded the Chilean Army and never lost a battle; Patricio Lynch, a former Chilean navy officer who fought in the British Royal Navy at the Opium War in China, and other wars, when he was moving from Pisco to Chilca by land to join the rest of the army, in many places he found Chinese workers living in slave conditions, so he freed them and as he spoke Mandarin, he was considered as their savior so they called him the “Red Prince”, and many Chinese joined the Chilean army in service duties, like carrying ammunition, helping the wounded, etc. Lynch fought at the Chorrillos Battle (which lasted over 9 hours) and Miraflores Battle were his performance was outstanding. He was appointed as Governor of Occupied Perú.
For some reason there is a Chilean myth that Peru had better naval forces, and they even cite the names of WOODEN river ships as "battleships" they had to defeat. Huascar was trash for the time, only benefit was metal hull but negative cannon effectiveness and it was not a modern ironclad.
@@HistoryHustle For some reason there is a Chilean myth that Peru had better naval forces, and they even cite the names of WOODEN river ships as "battleships" they had to defeat. Huascar was trash for the time, only benefit was metal hull but negative cannon effectiveness and it was not a modern ironclad.
some notes, because is clearly that you read mostly the peruvian side of the history:
the 2 most important sea battles was iquique and Angamos, iquique by the sunk of Independencia and angamos, the most important, by the capture o ironclad Huascar.
no, Ugarte didnt jump with his horse, his corpse was found siting in the wall of one shelter, he die in the first minutes of the final assault. you cant make a horse jump from a cliff (horse arent stupid). the peruvian flag can be see in photografts after the battle in his pole. is a myth created by peruvian press later. (Ugarte was a great heroe for real reason, dont need myths)
Chile win every single sea and land battles of the war.
bolivia fight only 11 month and then withdrawn let peru alone.
the war last 5 year mostly because US representatives scams until the asesination of the us president Gardfield. the new presidente Chester arthur see what happen and declare tha US cant risk a war again a naval power like Chile. without the fantasy of Us support, peruvian surrender.
technically peruvians never fight to the last bullet, but can take that true in the Bolognessi (they surrender when the amunition was depleted, but die when one cannon xplode and everyone shot again.
in chorrillos and miraflores they run when the defenses fall (mostly civilians, the peruvian real army was destroyed before in tacna)
What? you mistake lootering with war adquisition, something normal in the 19 century and even today.
Lima was lootering by peruvian deserters, and was the european resident the ones who try to keep order, and their ask the chilean army to enter the city and stop the lootering!!
the attack to chinese people (mostly almost slaves) was in that time, before the chilean army enter, by the peruvian low class and peruvian deserters.
Chile take trophies and materials (like books and trains), that was exactly was any winner nation do in that time (and now too), is part of the war (see british and US museums)
in fact, you can read in many place how the chilean occupation was one of the best moment in Lima, the chilean gobernor Patricio Lynch is considered "the last Viceroy in peru", and he make Lima clearly a better city (when chileans left, limas fall in civil war)
Lima/Callao/ tacna, etc was 70% of Peru and his population, the rest never was important to Chile, and nobody wan to keep a entire country. Peru must surrender in 1880, they believe that the US will enter the war (because that was minister Blaine always say to make their own business), so they denied let go the provinces that Chile already conquer and claimes as logical pey for the war.
peru had 3 diferent "presidents" at the same time, and 6 in the entire war, any of this by democratical elections, all self aclaim. prado take the money and run to europe, nicolas de pierola take the power, make a disaster and also run away. garcia calderon no duro nada, iglesias and caceres fight each other, and Montero was sold by the people of arequipa to the chileans.
in the war, chile have 2 democratly elected president with complete normality.
no, Caceres never win a single battle, in 3 years only reunite less than 5.000 warriors (Chile mobilized 100.000 mens in the entire war), mostly natives without guns. caceres run and hide for 3 years, and when finally confront a small equivalent chilean division was completly obliterated and almost anyone died. Caceres is a controvertial figure, half of what he say or why he look like a heroe is a lie.
Peru was in bankruptcy BEFORE the war! that is why peru enter the war. the same with the political system, full of coups and betrayals. when the chilean left after the surrunder, Peru fall inmidiatly in civil war... again! (that is why many people in lima in that time feel secure whith the chileans)
you cant take modern numbers in a old war, specially one like this. the woundeds in the defeated side was almost always "repasados" (killed in situ), but the wounded in the winner side mostly survive (and chile win every battle).
you must calculated in KIA killed in action (or inmediatly after):
Bolivia: aprox 5.000
peru: aprox 19.000
Chile: aprox 2500 (including 500 in tarapaca, and 150 in the sunk of esmeralda)
the kill ratio was 10 to 1 (is studied like that in war academies)
the war of the pacific (or saltpetter war) have at least 4 or more diferent Histories: the chilean, the peruvian, the bolivian and the international, depends of where and who is the historic researcher, and even depend too of what is their political side (left or right for example).
so we must go to the facts and numbers, not stories.
good video, but try to read the chilean side too.
Yes that's something I felt too, the tone of the video seems more like the Peruvian version of the 1879 war. Still great content for an important war that is not well known outside of the three countries involved. Funny fact too, this war looks exactly like todays Ukrainian war with shady "defensive" alliances, Sevastopol looking like Antofagasta then, manned with Chileans yet controlled by foreigners till the Chileans took it back, the Peruvians supported by the United States till the funding dried out.
Escriban en español sus falsedades chilenos.
@@oscarberolla9910 el video esta en inglés para audiencia anglofona...
@@oscarberolla9910 cry me a river about it. Most things he said are true
Mostly correct, but Chile didn't win all battles of the war. Iquique was lost (Punta Gruesa was won though, in Chile they're considered two separate battles), plus we also lost at Tarapacá and La Concepción. Plus the Huascar ran circles around our fleet for months, and after it fell, other Peruvian ships also wandered up and down our coast and up to Panama with varied success.
Chile mentioned 🇨🇱
🇨🇱👍
There's a bolivian movie about this war "Amargo Mar" (1984) which is full of historical inaccuracies trying to wash the image of the bolivian president Hilarion Daza🧐
En serio?? O: nunca supe de su existencia
there is also a french (I believe) movie made in Chile about it, it's called ''Caliche Sangriento'', and tell the experience of some random chilean platoon sended ill equiped to the desert. It focus in the human aspect of those soldiers and their disdain for the war that was in part to defend foreign interests (english companies)
EDIT: it's on youtube, here; ruclips.net/video/0VclVEEqkdI/видео.html
@@Atomo24 I should make a video about it, recently a peruvian film about the Pacific War has been made "Gloria del Pacífico" (2014), but the director refuses to make a DVD release, so is almost imposible to watch it, only in selected screenings
There's a Chilean movie that premiered in 2023 called 'El Príncipe Rojo', which is inspired by the real encounters between Chilean general Patricio Lynch, his soldiers, and Chinese workers in Peruvian haciendas.
I am a Peruvian American doctor in Texas who likes this story of the Pacific War. I agree that Peru lacked cohesion as a nation to face this war. Despite this great historical wound, politicians and leaders have not acted as they should. Thanks for a good summary of this war.
Thanks for your reply.
How should they act? War again?
@@mateamargo1339 with the peaceful solutions clause of the OAS, to think of another war is for intellectually limited people.
@@manuelsuazo1125 ok. You are not naive, You are clever and your wisdom is not for the ruled ones but for the rulers. Good luck with it.
@@mateamargo1339 in my area of work, who makes the comment is not relevant, the objective and analytical is important, this philosophy helps to find good solutions to problems.
Let's say that the attempt of Arumentum ad Hominem, in your comment, only distracts from the fact that although the Peruvian economic infrastructure does not last a week in case of conflict with Chile, but we would have nothing to gain.
_Peru were so noble even during war. In the Iquique battle, the Peru Navy's Comander in Chief, Miguel Grau was rescueing chilean soldiers for not drowing in the ocean. His act gave him the title "Caballero de Los Mares" ( Gentleman of The Seas ) . He sent the belonging of the chilean captain Arturo Prat who died in this sea battle to his wife. Adding a very famous letter. Miguel Grau is the most remarkable hero in the Peruvian Navy, while Arturo Prat in Chile. Nowadays in the chilean school is tought what Miguel Grau did , in those difficult times. Grau died for his country and he won the eternal respect and honour on both sides of the border. References -> Carta de Miguel Grau a Carmela Carbajal , viuda de Prat_
Fueron tan nobles que el único modo de reconocer a algún soldado chileno en Concepción fue el uniforme de los oficiales. Por eso y, porque los cuerpos estaban desmembrados y tan desfigurados, que trajeron de vuelta a Chile los corazones de los oficiales, que fueron enterrados en la catedral de Santiago.
Miguel Grau conoció a Arturo Prat en la guerra contra España, eran amigos.
es lo MINIMO que puedes hacer por unos hombres tan guerreros con tal espiritu de lucha como la tripulacion de la esmeralda, que JAMAS se rindieron, TUVIERON que ser hundidos, a diferencia de la tripulacion del huascar.... o de la independencia..
@@Khorne__Es lo mínimo que debes hacer cuando tienes ética. Chile no hacía eso. Es más, tenían la repudiable costumbre de hacer el repaso, es decir, remataban a los que estaban heridos. Por eso es que los mismo chilenos se asombran de lo que hizo Grau.
@@juanantonio2755 chile mataba a los cobardes que arrancaban y huian, a esos de hecho se les perseguia con corvo para degollarlos, pero a los soldados del morro de arica que sobrevivieron al ataque chileno no los mataron, de hecho los puedes ver en las fotos de la toma del morro de arica, otro ejemplo serian las tripulaciones de los barcos que chile capturo en la guerra, todos sobrevivieron, obviamente menos los que murieron en combate
@@juanantonio2755 el repaso fue una vez que ocurrio la batalla de la concepcion, desde ahi chile tomo la iniciativa de jamas volver a tomar prisioneros, literal todos los que sean sorprendidos en combate con arma o lo que sean (niños, hombres, mujeres, ancianos, o sacerdotes), serian exterminados
Great video! Just a few details perhaps. the secretive nature of the Peru-Bolivian treaty seriously irked the Chilean leadership. Added to this the wide knowledge inside Chilean circles that this alliance would seek to pact with Argentina in the partition of claimed Chilean territories. The fear of yet another South American Tripartite Alliance after the one seen in Paraguay 1866 prompted Chile to arm the navy and army in the early 1870s and call the Peruvian bluff in April 1879.
Bolivia did attempt to take control of the CFSA company that was manned by Chileans, as 95% of Antofagasta was anyways. The seizure attempt was in violation of the 1874 treaty and it was expected that Peruvian interests would present the highest bid in the subsequent selling of the CFSA. Peru was highly indebted after the 1860s Guano frenzy and Chincha islands war with Spain.
The disembarkment in Pisagua was one of the first successful amphibious landing of the modern era, widely observed by Europeans and replicated in the first world war, for example in Gallipolli.
Peruvian general Bolognesi was the one fighting to the last bullet along with his staff, among them captain More, the defeated commander of Independencia during the Iquique naval combat who had seek to recover his fighting honor.
Ugarte falling off the cliff is a debatable myth.
Chilean generals were requested by the Limean elite to restore order when chaos ensued after the defeat in Miraflores and Chorillos (those places were indeed looted by Chilean soldiers) with native lower classes and Chinese coolie workers revolted against their overlords. The National Library and other monuments were indeed sacked but by Chilean authorities as war booty and reparations mostly.
Thanks for sharing this.
ese fue elllllll pretexto para iniciar una guerra planificada por años, los chilenos con una geografía miserable en recursos en esa época añoraban apropiarse de los ricos yacimientos bolivianos y peruanos, además de ampliar su territorio, sabían que tanto Perú ni Bolivia contaban con un ejército preparado , aunado a los intereses de los ingleses por esos recursos , declararon una guerra conveniente para ellos, lo del territorio de la patagonia fue algo con lo que no contaron, pesó más la ambición inglesa por los yacimientos salitreros que por el territorio aparentemente inproductivo del sur, ahora se lamentan de haber perdido tan grande extención que le hubiera significado poder tener presencia en dos oceanos y tener una geografía vulnerable, cercada por una cordillera y de espaldas al mar, con una endeble franja costera fraccionable en muchos segmentos, el karma de la historia los persigue con la paranoia de ser atacados por sus vecinos, seguirán armándose a costa de su desarrollo para tratar de poder dormir tranquilos 🙄
Que parte de tratado DEFENSIVO no entienden aun los chilenos ¿?
@@oscarberolla9910 "defensivo" así como la alianza que aniquilo Paraguay cierto ??
@@dariotoledo6725 los mitos abundan es tu versión. Demuestra por favor que Chile fue apoyado por los Ingleses ? Esa versión todos la conocemos pese a que los intereses ingleses habían apostado en 1879 que Peru y Bolivia por su mayor extensión y demografía derrotaria a Chile rápidamente.
Tampoco indicas la situación financiera del Peru en los 1870 que necesitaba la apropiación del salitre tarapaqueño y del litoral boliviano, en disponiendo de las empresas chilenas como la CFSA.
Tampoco existen pruebas que Chile estaba preparando el conflicto aparte quizás por el intento de las autoridades de Santiago de arreglar los temas fronterizos con el vecino boliviano. Vecino cuya inestabilidad política y posible intento revanchista después de la derrota de la confederación peru-boliviana exigía precaución de parte de las autoridades chilenas. Además del intento revelado rápidamente de alianza con el Perú y mismo con Argentina. Osea delante tanta soberbia de parte de los vecinos, no habrá sido la decisión correcta de parte de Chile de ordenar los buques acorazados? Sin mencionar la pacificación de la Araucanía y la guerra contra España que dio las lecciones hacia la estándardizacion del ejército y de la armada de Chile.
De todas formas, a pesar de todo lo mencionado, aún no existen pruebas de la intencionalidad chilena hacia un conflicto mayor. El ejército chileno estaba muy discapacitado al inicio del conflicto.
I would like to make some precisions:
- The direct cause of the war was that the chilean companies in Antofagasta were subject to a definite and permanent tax by Bolivia, which was actually sealed in a treaty between Chile and Bolivia. Bolivia's government violated this, trying to impose a bigger tax. This caused the disembarkment of chilean troops in Antofagasta and the declaration of war to Bolivia. When Chile learned about the secreat alliance treaty between Perú and Bolivia, it was force to declare war on Perú also.
-The naval combat of Iquique in May 21 between Esmeralda corvette (Chile) and ironclad Huascar (Perú) was a defeat by Chile, with the sinking of the Esmeralda, although the heroic death of captain Arturo Prat produced an enormous raise in the will to fight by the chilean population.
- The parallel combat of Punta Gruesa (south of Iquique) meant a victory for Chile, where the light vessel Covadonga (Chile) produced the stranding of the powerful ironclad Independencia (Perú); this was a heavy loss for Perú, leaving the Huascar as the only ship capable of confronting the chilean ironclads.
- The later combat of Angamos on 8th October confronted the Huascar with the two chilean ironclads Blanco Encalada and Cochrane and was a final defeat for the peruvian Navy and the death of his commander, Admiral Miguel Grau. This combat gave Chile the dominance of the sea and the freedom to produce the following disembarkment of chilean troops which led to Chile's victory in the war.
Thanks for sharing these insights. Appreciate it 👍
usually chilean historiography focus on the war before the occupation of lima. since it was the war fought between regular armies and navies. the war after lima occupation is usually brushed over both by contemporary and later historians, besides the battles of concepcion and huamachuco. but its impressive to know how the chilean occupation disintegrated the thin fabric of peruvian society and basically plunged peru into chaos until the chilean army retreated.
*LET ME CORRECT YOU !!! CHILEANS HISTORIANS, CONCENTRATE OR FOCUS BEFORE THE OCCUPATION OF THE CAPITAL LIMA (BY THE WAY, THIS WAS THE THIRD TIME THAT CHILEANS HAD OCCUPIED LIMA: 1- LIBERATION OF PERU BY THE CHILEAN GOVERNMENT. 2- WAR: CHILE AGAINST THE CONFEDERATION PERU-BOLIVIA. 3- WAR OF THE PACIFIC.) -- CHILEANS HISTORIANS CONCENTRATE ON THE COURAGE OF THE CHILEAN ARMY AND THEIR GENERALS... LIKE THE 77 CHILEAN SOLDIERS KILLED DEFENDING THEIR FLAG AND THEY REFUSED TO SURRENDER BY SAYING: "NO CHILEANS SURRENDER TO THE ENEMY" / "BATTLE OF CONSTITUTION" (PERU)... AMONG OTHER HEROIC EVENTS.*
*WHEN THE CHILEANS HAD OCCUPIED LIMA FOR THE THIRD TIME; BUSINESS MEN, ITALIANS, BRITISH, FRENCH, AND OTHER IMMIGRANTS, WELCOMED THE CHILEAN TROOPS IN LIMA, TO "RESTABLISH ORDER"; BECAUSE THE PERUVIANS BEFORE ESCAPING, HAD STOLEN AS MUCH AS THEY COULD FROM BUSINESSES AND GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS EVERYWHERE. --- SOME PERUVIAN HISTORIANS TELL THAT IT WAS THE CHILEANS THAT DID THIS, BUT RECENTLY, IT WAS FOUND OUT THROUGH OLD LETTERS THAT THE STORY OF CHILEANS RANSAKING LIMA IS NOT TRUE. --- CHILEAN TROOPS OCCUPIED LIMA FOR 3 YEARS, AND WHEN THEY WERE LEAVING, THE MAYOR OF LIMA BEGGED THEM TO STAY AND OTHER CITY PEOPLE DID THE SAME, AFRAID OF WHAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN WHEN ORDER AND PROTECTION WERE NOT THERE ANY LONGER.*
*THE HISTORY OF PERUVIANS CHANGED DRASTICALLY BY THEIR OWN HISTORIANS AND NEWS PAPER-WRITERS, TRYING TO CHANGE THE NAME OF THEIR COWARD COUNTRY MEN, INTO "HEROES"... THEY WON'T TELL YOU AS PER EXAMPLE THAT WHEN CHILEANS HAD OCCUPIED LIMA, THEY CHASED THE ENEMY (PERUVIANS) UP THE HILLS AND IN ONE OCCATION, ONE PERUVIAN GENERAL SHOUTED: "RUN PERUVIANS, THAT THE BRAVE CHILEANS ARE COMING !!!" ---- OR THEY WON'T MENTION THAT WHEN THE WAR STARTED, THE POPULATION OF PERUVIANS IN LIMA "CHASED CHILEAN WOMEN", RAPED THEM ON THE STREES AND KILLED THEM AFTER... MANY OF THEM WERE "BEHEADED"... MEN, HAD THE MEMBERS OF THEIR BODIES REMOVED / CUT OFF AND EXPOSED IN THE OPEN, JUST LIKE THE BODIES OF WOMEN... THEY WON'T EVEN TELL YOU THAT CHINESE SLAVES WERE FREED BY CHILEANS AND IN GRATITUDE, THEY FOUGHT ALONGSIDE WITH THE CHILEANS, EVENTHOUGH THEY ASKED THEM NOT TO, AND THAT THEY WERE FREE !!!... CHILEANS ALSO FREED SLAVES FROM EASTERN ISLAND AND THIS IS WHEN THEY TOOK POSSESSION OF THE ISLAND IN ORDER TO PROTECT IT FROM PERUVIANS (EASTERN ISLANDERS HATE PERUVIANS, IF YOU DIDN'T KNOW).*
*IN SCHOOLS, MANY TEACHERS TELL LIES TO THEIR STUDENTS ABOUT THE WAR OF THE PACIFIC AND HOW STRONGER CHILE WAS... WHEN IN REALITY, CHILEANS HAD FEW NEW WEAPONS, AND MANY OF THEIR RIFLES (AS PER EXAMPLE) WERE FROM THE INDEPENDENCE OF THEIR COUNTRY (DECADES OLD); THE 2 MAIN IRON-CLAD SHIPS WERE IN ENGLAND FOR SALE, WHILE THE PERUVIANS HAD EVERY AT HOME.*
*NOW YOU KNOW REAL HISTORY.*
*CHEERS*
the chaos in peru is before and after the Chilean occupation, we have nothing to do with what they call the cultural melting pot.
Chile did with Peru basically the same thing that years later the United States would do with Germany and Japan, Iraq, Libya, etc. What's the surprise?.
Furthermore, at that time, the Peruvians were outraged that in Chile the issue was not even discussed in the newspapers, where the most important news was national, leaving the invaded Peru as something foreign to Chilean reality. Hopefully there was a little news about what was happening, if anything.
@@alexos8741 you need information about the Chileanization of Arica.
greetings from Viña del Mar
@@manuelsuazo1125 Sore looser.
Actually in the Batalla Naval de Iquique, Chile "lost" generating a Martyr who would boost the morale of its armies, but it also managed to sink the second most important Peruvian ship (La Independencia), and some years after would capture the most important one who also fought in the battle (El Huáscar).
Greetings from Iquique
I stand corrected. Thanks for your reply.
Chile perdio? perdio el peor barco que tenia (La Esmeralda) y dejo fuera de servicio quisas el mas importante del peru (la independencia) creo que estas equibocado ,creo que el que perdio fue el Peru
Perdió esa batalla, pero no la guerra.
@@marcoangulo2971el independencia cayo en la batalla de Punta Gruesa, Chile perdió la batalla naval de Iquique.
@@marcoangulo2971La Esmeralda peleó contra el Huascar. Fue la Covadonga la que peleó con la Independencia.
To add some useful information: The chilean army only had 2 calibers for her rifles and a somewhat homogeneous ethnicity. The peruvian army had at least 8 different calibers for her rifles, in addition with the many ethnic groups within the army and some of them didn't even speak spanish. Imagine the logistical nightmare. This is a forgotten factor of why Peru was defeated.
Thanks for sharing this!
The Peruvian Army is in the same situation now.
Another very important factor, all with the exception of one were all professional Army officers, while the Peruvians were civilians with military ranks.
La victimizacion me irrita. ....
Just love the way you say "Chilains" ;0) ..Good Chanel as well well done on the unusual stuff.
¿what, is there any other way to say it ....such as "FUCKING INSIPIDOS"?
Has a chilean, was interesting to inow the other side of the conflict, here in chile the focus is on the war itself and politics before it. Peru and Bolivia made a secret protection pact to eventually start a war with Chile for resources and sea access, when Chile found out it started the fighting.
Would be great to also have a video about the previous war: The war against the Peruvian-Bolivian Confederation. Great video as always!
surprisingly it's almost never mentioned, not even in the education system for history classes
My great great grandfather was Juan Jose Perez, Bolivia’s top General who heroically died in the last battle in the desert. RIP. He has monuments and streets named after him in Bolivia.
The defeat of Perú by Chile is something the Peruvians still cannot come to terms with.
Because in their heads Perú is supposed to be the big brother.
The land of the Inca Empire.
The craddle of the colonial power represented by the Vice Royalty of Perú.
They have constructed in their minds the notion that Perú is a rich power in the region. It is just having a bad time.
Much more than the dry and skinny poor little uncivilized Chile.
They still believe that are culturally much more than Chile, and so their country destined to rule over Chile "one day".
They think that they are on the verge of becoming a powerful nation economically a military.
So the defeat to Chile in their own territory is yet not accepted. Because it is a humilliation to loose to an "inferior" country.
They have invented many excuses including that "they lost to England, not to Chile". "They did not have sufficient modern weapons" "The lidership failed" and so on.
They have a superiority complex crushed down to nothing. So emotionally cannot recover from it.
They suffer the lost of the war of the Pacific every day when they wake up. They dream with recovering only the territory lost to Chile, even when they have lost much more territories to other countries.
Great vídeo, Thanks for sharing!
This war is very overlooked in Brazil education, because it simply did not affect much the regional geopolitical power when compared to the Triple Aliance war (paraguay war). Very little to nothing is taught in brasil schools about this conflict, I had no idea that chilean forces ocupied Lima.
Thanks Thiago! I am now in Sao Paulo actually!
I disagree, it completely changed the geopolitics of South America until today where Chile still controls the largest deposits of copper worldwide, Bolivia cut from the sea and Peru reduced to a minor power after being the center of affairs in post-colonial Hispanoamerica. Also sparked the South American arms race between Brazil, Chile and Argentina in the 1890s where those three nations would benefit from the saltpeter and agricultural economic boom and european capital flowing to the region.
@@HistoryHustle wow Im excited, wish we could meet somewhere in the city, if u want any tip of a location tô record a vídeo I can help you !
@@lape2002
Yeah u have a good point, nowadays the Lithium deposits of Chile are very estrategical, but this is only a modern discussion and that is the reason for the brazilian historiography not giving much attention tô the conflict
Thanks Thiago, today I meet another subscriber. Tomorrow I have the bus to Paraty. Tonight I will be in Vila Madalena but this is very short notice haha. Feel free to sent me a message via instagram or email. See video description.
South America had few conflicts, but are very interesting, and their results had consequences that mark the region to this day. Greetings from🇨🇴👌🏼
Thanks for watching. There were a lot in the 19th century. But these were relatively small in scale.
Almost every country went to war with a neighbor, also a lot of civil wars and war with indigenous people.
How interesting. I love that you do pronounce quite properly the Spanish words. Great video.
Do my best. Thanks for your reply!
Iquique Battle was a pyrrhic victory for Perú, they break the Iquique blocade and sank a corvette, but they also lose an armored frigate and with the days, awake a patriotic sentiment that made the people from the centre and south of the country to recruit voluntarily in the army.
I stand corrected, not sure how this mistake came in.
Guakamello sapee
strategecly it was a Peruvian victory but in losgitical terms it was a major defeat since they lost their best ship and only sunk a old frigate
Amazing content! Im Chilean, and I think respect should be above all else. Every soldier was more brave than most, or well, any of us. They deserve respect. Whether they're Chilean, Bolivian or Peruvian.
Again, I love your channel. Thank you!
Many thanks for your reply!
You need info about the Peruvian army at the time, Chile was the the country with no army. Fyi after the war, the usa was worried about Chile, because of the Army we got, just because we seased the Peruvian ships. Meaning Chile was a naval power, acording to the USA
i remember this i studied this on college nice bro👍👍
Great! Thank You for watching.
The battle of Iquique in May 1879 was lost, not won, by the Chileans. As a result, and for at least a time, that gave control of the seas to the Peruvian navy, not the other way around.
It was a tactical and strategic victory for Chile, we both lost a warship, they lost and old wooden corvette, we lost our best armored frigate.
Then we gain strategic initiative with Grau and the BAP Huascar for five months until the heroic defeat at the Battle of Angamos. Afterwards the Chilean Navy was able to land almost at will in the Peruvian Coast, save for Arica and Callao
I've heard it said that more battles are lost than won... You spend time scratching your head thinking "how does that work?" Then you start reading about them, and very many were lost because someone made a gamblers move that did not pay off, many more someone made a big oopsie, some times, lets just say breeding and arrogance too often put the wrong man in charge.
Mijnheer, de battle was half lost on the Chilean side, and half won on the Chilean side as well, as the Iquique battle was indeed 2 battles: the Iquique one and the Punta Gruesa one. We lost an old, wooden and almost decrepit corvette, commanded by our legendary Captain Prat, who became a galvanising figure for the Chileans. Meanwhile, Condell swept a most unlikely victory for us Chileans over Moore's Independencia, leaving Peruvians with only one, albeit it masterfully managed by Grau, outnumbered monitor. The final blow to the Peruvians came after the Battle of Angamos, where Perú lost its only effective vessel and its most capable admiral. Groetjes
Only the naval battle was lost
it depends if you count iquique and punta gruesa as the same battle. in the same day both peru lost one of their two best ships (independencia at punta gruesa) and chile won a charismatic martyr ( Prat at iquique)
this video is pretty much the Peru-sided part of the story, there are clear inaccuracies pointed out by comments here so I won't point them out
Ok.
Thank you that was interesting.
🇵🇪👍
Dude, IDK who taught you this but it has several misaccuracies: first, bolivians wiped their assses with 1866 treaty, formed a secret alliance with peru to fuck Chile, but this backfired them. Second Chile was very poor, poorer than bolivia and peru, our navy was lesser, while peru had steel ships we had old wood ships. Third death of Arturo Prat generated such rage and fervor among Chileans and ordinary ppl started to enroll to go to defend chile. We just fought with our own citizens, they were not trained, just sheer passion XD
I see. My sources are below the video.
I found one mistake, in the battle of Iquique Chile and Perú ended even because the peruvian sink La Esmeralda, an old ship, and the Chilean only sunk La Independencia, but the bulk of both navies continued to fight until Naval Battle of Angamos when finally the chilean navy took El Huascar, the peruvian flagship, and it's admiral was killed (Miguel Grau).
I stand corrected.
This was told centered entirely from Peru's point of view.
If you watch the maps of the advancement and the territory occupied by Chile you realize that Chile could have taken the whole country if they wanted. Instead they preferred a political solution.
On the other side, Bolivia acted like a pussy, initially thought they could push their way around and decided to initiate a war knowing it would be a 2 vs 1 because of their secret alliance with Peru, but when they were defeated with no opposition, they decided to act as if this wasn't their problem anymore, when needed would ask for Peru's help, but when the opposite happened they would ignore Peru and send no troops.
Bolivia to this day act like a big pussy, making huge claims while feeling protected, trying to play the victim to the international community, and painting Chile as an abusive neighbor that negates them their "divine right" to the ocean.
When in reality, Chile has offered Bolivia for more than 100 years their instalations and an almost unrestricted commercial path of maritime transit through chilean territory in which Chile doesn't even try to control what they ship, but knowing Bolivia, probably it's mostly drugs.
Again a very interesting and informative vid ! Thanks, have a great time over there 👍
Greets from Grun' 🇳🇱, TW.
Dank!
one of the destabilizer factor on the ground battle was the red prince, he gave us the forces of the chinese slaves peruvians had. The enemy of your enemy is your friend, right?
Interesting to read.
“The conflict began in 1879 when Chilean forces, led by President Hilario Lagos,” Hilario Lagos???? 🤔🤔
no laughing matter :P
Hilario, Hillary, Hilarious, same Latin etymology for joyful, "Hilaris". The Romans used the name Hilarium, too
The Bolivian President was Hilarion Daza
@@dieglhix Lagos?
I really wanted a more nuanced take on this, as a chilean that's mostly gotten the chilean version of this story haha! We were always taught that we were in serious disadvantage, that peruvian armada was far more modern and powerful than ours, and it was washed in epic and heroic light.
Thanks for watching.
Saltpetre and Nitrates, important fertiliser, vital component of gunpowder (the gunpowder formula is 60-80% Saltpetre).
Thanks for sharing 👍
@@HistoryHustle No problems. I spent quite a while in my younger days wondering why all the fuss over rotted bird poop, then found out, no guano, no bang-o. Quite the strategic resource.
Perhaps you could make a video about the war of the 100 hours between El Salvador vs Honduras from 1969 known also as the “football war”
Won't travel there anytime soon.
@@HistoryHustle at least read about it perhaps u find interested.
Errr... Chilean troops didnt sack the city, PERUVIAN DESERTERS sacked the city after they ran from battle to the point British, French and US marines had to be landed to restore order, and THEN Rufino Torrico the Mayor of Lima REQUESTED that the Chilean army enter the city to prevent further mischief.
Falso, no fue así.
@@oscarberolla9910 Estimado, en internet puedes encontrar la carta del alcalde de Lima pidiéndole a Baquedano que ocupe la ciudad que estaba siendo saqueada por el ejército peruano.
Que en tu escuelita te hayan mentido y culpado a los chilenus malus es tu problema.
LA carta del alcalde Torrico puede ser encontrada con facilidad en intenert, igual que los detalles de fuente peruana sobre los saqueos en Lima por parte de los desertores peruanos.
Así de fácil.
Like I said: both plundered.
@@HistoryHustle No, the Chilean army entered the city a full three days after the battle of Miraflores, in march formation, bands playing ahead of its regiments.
They didnt sack the city, they didnt plunder like the Peruvian deserters that sacked businesses, mainly Chinese-owned, and murdered their occupants until the deserters were killed or driven off by the foreign marines.
Of course, during the three year occupation, there were instances of Chilean soldiers stealing and robbing the locals, happens in every occupation, but that is a very far cry from taking, sacking and plundering a city hot after a battle.
You have to be careful with Peruvian sources, they are full of fairy tales.
Do not forget that in this war, Chile freed Asian slaves that Peru had, for the extraction of guano in the coastal area. Good documentary.
Thanks for watching.
Dato muy importante. Muchos de ellos se enrolaron en el ejército de Chile. Formando el batallón Vulcano.
Termina la guerra, a los sobrevivientes Chinos , el gobierno de Chile, les dio la nacionalidad Chilena en gracias..
Saludos..
Very interesting again. Didn’t know about this. 👌
Many thanks James!
Regarding the Library of Lima, it suffered a large fire in 1851. 75% of it collection was lost in that fire. It was still rebuilding its inventories when the war happened.
Before the arrival of the Chilean forces there were three days of peace. During those day many valuable items were removed by the library workers and hiden in monasteries and private houses.
So the first Chileans who arrived to it found it with half of it rooms empty.
The Chilean Army took some books to Chile. Not as loot, but as part of war reparation as it was the accepted way in the 19th century.
Those books ended up mainly in the Chilean national Library in Santiago. And about 10 years ago were sent back to Perú in good condition.
Thanks for sharing.
Looks like you missed one thing in your summary. Argentina.
Please explain.
There were another 2 factors that gave chile such overwhelming victory. 1st the troops that engaged in the war not only were highly trained but had war experience since chile had an ongoing war in the Araucanía region with the mapuches. 2nd all the weapons used by the Chilean army were adapted to use the same ammunition wich gave them the edge not only in experience but in versatility.
Greetings from Chile
Great!!!! Saludos desde el Peru. You are always welcome in Peru!
🇵🇪👍
Que falta de rigurocidad historica, falta de investigacion, usted solo relata lo que algun peruano con baja educacion le conto.
Que pena su trabajo, sea mas serio.
Saludos
such a peruvian sided video
Please explain.
You must be chilean. No feel offended by history... the Pacific's war was like all wars, an excuse to steal... Francisco Vergara the minister of war of Chile was very critical of chilean army behavior. Baquedano, who was a beast and a simple opportunistic, was the main opposition to Vergara... "los cazadores del desierto" a big stain in the chilean army. They were rapes, amoral, thieves... as this video shows the war was almost gained after the Iquique Combat, but chilean soldier were by the Sierra assaulting poor village, asking for rescues money. Raping and killing... if you do not know what soldiers do in war times, please look for a DW video about "mujeres como botìn de guerra"... or look what happens in Africa: Nigeria, Sudan, Congo with women and civils... every war is the end of any humanity... you can read in chilean records about. It is all in our history.
@@AR-fw9rj Offended? I was only pointing out that it seems like the video creator relied purely on Peruvian sources. There's no mention or consideration of the Bolivian perspective on political and sociocultural matters. Which let's face it, Bolivia was the one who instigated everything by violating a treaty that prohibited them from increasing taxes on Chilean companies.
I wasn't even discussing the brutal actions Chile took during the war (which, let's be honest, were typical of conflicts during that era, 145 years ago). and if the tables were turned, Peru and Bolivia would likely have resorted to similar tactics.
Stop trying to pick a fight out of thin air.
Lo peor es que yo no cachaba la otra guerra del Pacífico hasta hace muy poco, solo cachaba la GUERRA QUE GANAMOS RAHHH 🇨🇱🇨🇱🇨🇱🇨🇱🇨🇱🇨🇱🇨🇱🇨🇱🇨🇱🇨🇱
Ok.
@@HistoryHustle Good morning mate. Was just joking btw but I really forgot about the other war of the pacific till like months aggo XD. And mid sentence i reallized(I know I writted that the wrong way) I could Say something funny
What you say about coronel Ugarte riding his horse off the Morro of Arica is wrong. No doubt Ugarte was a brave soldier but it is a myth; have you ever tried to make a horse run with sth like a hood in its head? It's impossible to make it move!! I'm chilean, and I strongly believe that men who fought this war were all brave, but for those disgusting politicians on both sides who only persuited their own interest... as usual!!
I stand corrected.
I really enjoyed your video, though. Thanks for bringing this up to english public.
What an awesome video!
Glad you appreciate it.
Undefeated 💪🇨🇱🇨🇱🇨🇱🇨🇱🇨🇱
Undefeteade😂😂😂 and 300 years under the inca empire we even give you yoir capital city Santiago shitle
@@juanjoseh9153 quien tiene el Huascar?
Ok.
The story of the war of the Guano is usually told differently depending on what side you are on. Peruvians want to focus on the guerilla wars after the occupation while Chileans talk about the naval war. The main thing is to remember that no country that loses a war will ever admit defeat, just listen to the Mexicans talk about the USA.
It's a fact that Chile got into this war without thinking about the long-term strategy, even when America invaded Agfanistan and Iraq, they didn't really have a long-term plan.
The initial battle can be won, but occupation is another matter. Throughout history, no occupation has lasted forever, and Lima was not an exception.
Another fact is that, unlike in Perú, in Chile, they do not teach children to hate Peruvians.
Why they would taught that?? They took territory from Peru and never returned Arica as previously agreed. That's why there is an animosity againts Chile. Pretty expected I think.
@@tribalcrema287 you are trying to say the animosity is because of Arica? Olobia zbrazil, Ecuador, Uruguay have no animosity against Chile, because they never fought. Argentina lost the Falklands war and most videos they create on RUclips they make them look like they actually won; and by the way, they have animosity against England, could it be that they lost the war too?
I don't know where you get the "in Perú they teach children to hate chileans" because that doesnt happen at all lol.
When I was teached the story of the war of the guano (almost more than 20 years ago) they teached me about all the 3 sides of the story and never put any enphasis into hating chileans, lmao.
People here dont really hate chileans but a lot of times we make contact with them we have bad experiences that lead to people hating chileans
@@GatoPatataGameplays first of all the word is taught and not teached. Busca un video de MaacUru 13 llamado así hablan los peruanos de los chilenos, especialmente los dos primeros video de J Bayly y otro hombre académico. Ambos dicen lo contrario de lo que dices.
@@pachino11839 Solo porque unos peruanos hayan sido enseñados así no constituye que todos los peruanos de manera general y definitivan tengan esa enseñanza.
Yo no puedo decir que por los 30 chilenos que me han puteado por ser peruano y tratado como basura humana por ser peruanos, todos los chilenos son así y por eso no lo hago, siempre va a haber situaciones que son claramente erroneas y aun asi no da razón ni excusa para generalizar.
El perú es un país muy grande con una gran cantidad de escuelas y población, no obstante te puedo asegurar que aquello que afirmas o se afirman en esos videos son cosas que probablemente sean anticuas o no esten a la par con lo que en las ultimas decadas se enseña
Chile contra 2 paises. Interesante
Yes.
Una guerra de dos contra uno, y los cobardes y montoneros perdieron, recibiendo su justo castigo, la derrota
Chile best country of Chile.
🇨🇱👍
It is a good summary of a complex piece of our History. Just one remark: The Battle of Iquique (21st. May 1879) resulted in a peruvian victory, not chilean (minute 2:45). Despite after a few hours Perú eventually lost its most modern battleship, the "Independencia". Some months later, the only last remaining effective and very powerful peruvian monitor, the "Huáscar", was defeated and captured by the chilean navy, determining the end of the naval war, giving to Chile the total control over the sea.
Thanks for your reply.
Hola gringo, está bueno el resumen de la guerra, pero tomaste solo fuentes peruanas, se nota porque solo hablas desde el punto de vista de Peru. Debes hacer el mismo ejercicio desde el punto de vista de Chile y Bolivia, obtendrás interesantes conclusiones. Pero si te gusta el estilo peruano…. No hay problema, revisa la información del canal peruano especialista del tema “el profe sobre ruedas” muy imparcial, versado y apoyado en fuentes históricas reales. Saludos desde Chile amigo gringo…. Buen trabajo
Guerra del salitre.
Si.
Es uno de sus nombres
"(and Bolivia)" LMAO
🇧🇴👍
Bolivia started the fire… but ran away quickly, unable to withstand any defense nor attack against chilean army!
Great research thank you
Thanks for watching.
Bolivia, worst ally ever.
Not the best...
It was Peru that quit while Bolivia continued to be at war until the 20th century, although with no fighting due to the desert forming a barrier between the armies
Thanks Stefan for the entertaining and interesting video as usual from you
Thanks Aidan!
Peru and Bolivia 😂When everything you plan goes wrong, all out of ambition they betrayed Chile
dude if you can't stand war, don't start one, we just defended ourselves
Ok.
Bolivia started the war with Chile, and pushed Peru into it because of previous alliances ... A really unnecesary war that cost Bolivia their sea. Peru had no real business with this war, but ended up losing its capital (Lima was later returned to them). Chile also lost The Patagonia to Argentina (Argentina threat with war during this era. Chile, bussy with their war with Peru/Bolivia and knowing that it couldn't hold another war front, gave away that territory to Argentina, and The Patagonia is still theirs), losing more territory than it gained ...
To make it short, Argentina was the only real winner ... Everyone else lost a lot
Very interesting to read. Thanks for sharing your insights.
It is not a very good video, mostly because relays on popular peruvian knowledge and not mainstream historical references, and of course it does not considered Chile's point of view. Please be serious.
Please explain.
Que hubiera pasado , si no fuera porqué, se nos acabaron las municiones , estábamos cansados , nos traicionaron , y un montón de excusas, deberías decir perdimos porque Chile, fue mejor y punto , fácil y corto . Lo que hicieron después no nos interesa , los que hicieron los tuyos, no nos interesa . La guerra terminó y ganó Chile, inapelablente , eso fue lo que pasó al final . Nosotros podríamos decir un montón de cosas , pero ya fue, se acabó , punto.
Hey Stefan another great history video. Love your channel! Is there anyway I can contact you privately?
I have a business proposal to offer you...
Feel free to email me. Adress found below each video description.
@@HistoryHustleHey Stefan! I emailed you. Hopefully we can work together. 😊
Forgotten by who? We chileans know this war very well.
I understand. Most of my audience is from the US and western Europe. That is why I said it.
Hello. I am Peruvian and I have nothing against Chile. Peru became involved in the war due to a secret alliance signed by a Belgian representing Peru. In the Spanish-South American War, Chile discovered Peru's lack of experience in naval strength. Beyond the war of Great Peruvian Colombia, Peru occupied the entire Pacific of this country made up of future 4 nations, until occupying the sea of Panama. Peru was not equipped for this war as it should, in the middle of the war Peru began to acquire new armored ships that would never arrive from Europe. The war was going to be Soviet style against the Nazis, that is, a counterattack, which did not occur because Miguel Iglesias, after the victory of the Battle of San Pablo, would negotiate with Chile to end the war with territorial transfer because he was a landowner. and he preferred to lose Tarapacá than his lands to continue as a landowning and dominated class in the country's mountains. The latter occurs with the Grito de Montán. In the battle of Huamachuco Iglesias supported Chile. Peru began to win the battle, but when the ammunition ran out this did not happen. Iglesias fought against the Peruvians as regenerating president, assuming office after convening the Assembly of Cajamarca. Would a What If be cool? What would happen if Chile had lost? It might even have disappeared. Because Chile did not have territories in its current south. Argentina would have access to the sea through the Pacific. Chile would only be Santiago if they did not disappear. Argentina was going to participate, but Brazil told him that if he got involved, he would too because if Argentina had access to the Pacific it would become a threat to them. Outside of the Pacific War, Peru had at that time another territory in southern Chile, Chiloé. Because when Peru became independent, said territory was born with it, under the uti possidetis iuris. The curious thing is that Bolivia and Chile initially participated in the war, and Peru, to fulfill its alliance pact, knowing its poor military situation, supported Bolivia and this country abandoned it to its fate, it did not even have a navy. Bolivia was the most affected because the territory that Antofagasta took from it had ports and in the future copper mines would be discovered, some of the deepest in the world, and of course lithium. While Tarapacá has no relevance. In the war Bolivia had the sea and not the navy, now it has the navy and not the sea.
I am chilean, and it's incredible how history is taught there in peru. Chiloe never was peruvian.
Chiloe was Spanish kingdom possession until 1826, no uti possidetis iuris involved at all unlike the Bolivian Littoral which was technically Peruvian by this same logic. Chilotes never regarded themselves as Peruvians, not by a single stretch of imagination.
Chile and Argentina both claimed the Patagonia in the late 19th century, the treaty of 1881 sealed the deal with Argentina taking the pampa up to Tierra del Fuego and any possibility of conflict was avoided right there. In any case Argentina was already busy conquering these lands through a bloody campaign (read genocidal) in the 1880s before it could do any move there. Hopefully Stefan will make a video of General Roca's Campana del Desierto one day. Besides Brazil and the Chilean navy kept Argentine ambitions in check till the 1890s.
Bolivia had the Cerro Rico in Potosi which was the Dubai of the 18th century, eventually production collapsed but still had several mines that were poorly exploited as it is still the case today. For example, Bolivia in 2024 has the largest reserves of Lithium in the planet yet is not even at the top 10 exporters. It is a beggar sitting over a gold mine.
Para variar que pasaría
O que hubiera ocurrido
O podríamos haber hecho
Noooo eso es vivir el mundo de fantasía
No crees que es mejor tener honor y los pantalones bien puestos y aprender del error de tus antepasados en silencio
Como tratan de quitar importancia a la victoria aplastante
Los saqueos los robos y bla bla bla
Déjame explicarte
Acabas de perder una guerra
A partir de ese momento ya nada es tuyo para que justificarse que hay pocas municiones que esto que lo otro NOOO hay que morir con la boca cerrada
La justificación agrava la falta y punto no hay que darle mas vuelta al asunto
Saludos
Without regard to how they saw themselves, chile was part of the kingdom of Peru and by extension subject and part
of the Spanish Empire.
“Plus Ultra”
@antoniocalderon3190 there was no "king of Peru", only the King of Spain. When Chile got its independence, it became independent from Spain not from Peru or even the viceroy of Peru. Chiloe kept royalist forces from Spain even after Peruvian independence. Therefore it belonged to Spanish kingdom until 1826.
Thank you HH for this video. Sometimes the facts get distorted by 'nationalism' in these 3 countries.
Thanks for your reply.
Nice display of misinformation full of inacuracies and biased interpretation
Nice comment with no arguments or explanations.
@@HistoryHustle not enough room for all the arguments and explanations in order. Perhaps you could try and investigate more than one surce. That's what historians do.
You forgot to mention that Chile is, in fact, the best country of Chile
👍
You raised the bar again. Thanks. BZ
Thanks. Was a hard job because this material was totally new for me.
I am a history teacher and I assure you that there is a lot of data that is not accurate.
Feel free to explain.
A few corrections and extra context:
1. In the Border Treaty of 1874 between Bolivia and Chile, Chile renounces it´s claims in the Antofagasta region under the conditon that the Chilean companies already there were safe from new taxes and tax increase for 20 years, in late 1878 President Daza ignored the treaty and stablished a new tax, Chile complained and when the companies refused to pay they were seized. Chile consider the treaty broken and null and send a military expedition to reclaim Antofagasta.
2 the naval combat of Iquique was a Peruvian vitory, with the Chilean corvette Esmeralda (the oldest Chilean warship) sunken in the bay by the Peruvian monitor Huascar, and the Peruvian armoured frigate Independencia (the strongest Peruvian warship) struck a reef while persuing the Chilean schooner Covadonga near Punta Gruesa, 20km south of Iquique bay. all of this happend in May 21st 1879 but are considered different battles. The last naval battle was Angamos in October 8th 1879, when the Chilean navy manage to capture the Huascar (who constantly raided Chilean supply lines and captured a Chilean steamer transporting a cavalry saquadron) and with that pretty much neutralized the Peruvian navy, limiting them to just carry supplies in Peruvian territories.
3 originaly Chile only occupied the Peruvian province of Tarapaca to help the national economy and bankrupt Peru but soon the political interests changed and Tarapaca was seen as a war goal to keep. Also Tacna and Arica were part of a plan to end the Peru Bolivian alliance, with Chile ceding both cities to Bolivia to compensate for their lost coast, Chile didn't succed, but Bolivia abandonded the war after the Chilean vitory at Tacna.
4 the violence from the Peruvians towards the Chinese was because several hundreds of Chinese coolies (workers who lived in semi slavery) joined to Chilean forces and asisted them as guides and in the camps.
5 The looting of Lima was, for the most part, organized. The Chilean goverment argued that it was their right to take "war contributions" from Peru to help maintain the army and the war. This included, but wasnt limited to, the library of Lima, the Zoo, steam engines, locomotives, etc. The massive looting, killings (even agains their own officers and other soldiers) and rapes commited by the Chilean troops was in the town of Chorrillos, south of Lima, right After that battle, days before the battle of Miraflores.
6 The goverment of Garcia Calderon, stablished in the demilitarized zone of La Magdalena, near Lima, refussed to cede Tarapaca as a condition for peace, in part because US Secretary of State James Blaine had been negotiating peace since before the Lima Campaing and favored a Chilean victory but without territorial changes, because it would affect American investments (there were also English and French investments) in the saltpeter and guano mines in the region. with the assassination of President Garfield Blaine was removed as Secretary of State and the US recognized Chile's right to annex Tarapaca.
7 Miguel Iglesias kept fighting the Chilean army under Andres Caceres until July 1882 when he defeted a Chilean column in the battle of San Pablo, but realized that they could never form an army strong enough to seriously oppose the Chilean army, that had a force of 20000 men in central Peru and a similar number in south Peru and Chile (for the Lima campaign, Chile had around 42000 men, with an Army of Operations ready for battle of 27000 men and the rest as garrison in Tacna, Arica, Iquique, Antofagasta and back in Chile. After the fall of Lima the Army of Operations was reduced to 10000 men and the rest were sent back to Chile and demovilized, but with the Peruvian resistance in the Andes several veteran regiments, and some new ones, were sent back to Peru) and that the continuation of the war would only hurt Peru. In August 1882 he made public his opinion that they had to accept defeat, even at the cost of losing Tarapaca. This motivated the last few campaings in 1883 to neutralize his political oponents, inluding Andres Caceres in the Battle of Huamachuco, and Lizardo Montero in the Arequica expedition.
Great video! There is an incredible book that narrates this war. It's called "veteran from three wars". Its first part narrates the war from the perspective of an officer from the Chilean army.
One note, i don't recall Chilean troops taking animals from the zoo. Maybe you are refaring to 2 lion statutes that are commonlly knowned as los leones. They are displayed now at Avenida los Leones and are made of 2,5 tons of bronze.
¡Once again great video!
Many thanks for your reply.
Great channel my man
Thanks 😎
Buen resumen de la guerra del pacifico trucha (la verdadera entre USA y Japon), la superioridad naval en esos tiempos era indispensable, peru y bolivia no tenian oportunidad de llegar a Santiago.
It's very sad how wrong this guy is historically speaking.. I just couldnt finish the video
Care to explain?
@@HistoryHustle He's just peruvian and mad they lost so bad
The history about Ugarte jumping from the clift to his dead to save the Peruvian flag is a children´s tale. As at the base of the Arica´s promontory there is no sea. There is an emplanade about 100 meters wide. So such and act was useless if the alleged intention was in fact to save the flag. And as someone already pointed out horses do not kill themselves. So myth busted.
Interesting to read.
I heard that the Peruvian president arrived in England, dressed as a bear in an anorak and was found at Paddington rail station....... ?
Lol
Wajajajajjajaajajajjaja
chilean glory
Ok.
excelente video!
👍
Juan Fanning died leading an infantry charge with a Marine Batallion “Guardia Marina” and was able to pierce the Chilean line, unfortunately without support or reinforcements the 400 died valiantly and heroically, a Peruvian Thermopylae!
Sounds more like a Peruvian Balaclava
Fun fact: The landlocked nation of Bolivia maintains a rather large navy in defiance of history's wrong turn. What does a navy in a landlocked country do with itself? It patrols the rivers and Lake Titicaca with small boats. It assists the army with naval infantry. It marches in parades, especially on 'Dia Del Mar'. And it sends out a crew on a rotational basis to a ship they have in Buenos Aires so that they can maintain their blue water experience. Most of all, they remain ready to retake possession of their corridor to the sea (from Chile) and, with it, their lost ports.
Yep, every night at the closure of the TV stations, they air first the national anthem then the Marcha al Litoral, a song calling the cities they lost and how they are going to retake them. As Chilean living in Bolivia and happily married there, I find it bonkers but anyways, we are free to dream. Hopefully one day, they will access the Pacific, but in a peaceful manner of course as we truly are brother nations.
At least they have access to the South Atlantic via the Paraguay and Parana rivers. Only problem is during really bad droughts and depending on the load, the river become hard to imposible to navigate.
@@ab9840 they also have access to Ilo Peru as the Lima government gave Bolivia access to the coast there. But alas Bolivia never invested there, preferring to use the dock infrastructure of Iquique and Arica instead. Even during the Bolivian Littoral days, the whole area was woefully underdeveloped with the Chilean founded and populated Antofagasta doing most of the economic activity there as well as the Peruvian ports of Arica serving whatever was Bolivia's sea interests then.
Soñar no cuesta nada, la realidad es otra.
"Rather large navy" is a very generous description. We're talking about a handful of patrol boats, and a few dozen fiberglass recreational boats. The firepower available to them might be enough to patrol their waterways such as Lake Titicaca against smugglers and the like, but to claim it would be capable of the forcible retaking of anything from its neighbor is a fever dream. To begin with, they would be unable to deploy anywhere relevant to a conflict with Chile. But even if by some miracle they could make it to the Pacific, the difference in tonnage, firepower, and versatility between the two wouldn't compare. The armament of a single Type 22 multi-purpose frigate would be more than enough to annihilate the outclassed Bolivians with less effort than that of a fairly standard combat drill.
With numbers so catastrophically unfavorable, Bolivia is best sticking to diplomatic means to achieve its goals.
If you believe that the war of the pacific was forgotten, let me tell you about the "War of the Confederation 1837-1839". The war of the Pacific was the 2nd time Chile fought against Perú-Bolivia.
I understand.
@@HistoryHustle Sorry if the tone was a bit harsh, I meant my comment to be more like a quip, since not even Chileans remember that war.
You only watch the Peru's side of the history and it is innacurate, and put one side as the victims and its not true.
Please explain.
@@HistoryHustle The conflict started becouse Bolivia don't respect the treaty about the taxes that Chilean entrepeneur paid for working the huano, and secretely signed with Peru a treated to expulse Chile for the territory, in that moment the mayority of population in Antofagasta was Chilean workers, and also you miss the fact that Chilean army was a minimun capacity after the Combate Naval de Iquique when Chilean people saw the death of Arturo Prat and wanted to fight for Chile. In the Combate de la Concepción 77 Chilean fighter with women and children was slothered for the Peru's army.
ruclips.net/video/DXeCQAsoCFg/видео.htmlsi=a4zbdphfl71hl7x4 This is a documentary that a Chilean journalist made a few years ago, he went to Perú and Bolivia to enterview all the sides, it would be helpful to saw more than one vision.
Great work Stefan, cheers 🍻
Cheers Jesse. Have a good weekend.
Did you know that the initials of the names of the ships that participated in the Pacific War formed the name of Chile; Covadonga, Huáscar, Independencia, Lamar and Esmeralda?
As a Chilean, I don't care about the past. I support Bolivia and peru 🇨🇱 ❤️ 🇧🇴 🇵🇪
👍
Somos el mejor país de Chile
🇨🇱👍
It's look like Perubian versión. You need the Chilean versión, then you will got the truth.
Explain please.
@@HistoryHustle reed Chilean History, the naval combat of may 21th, was a big history. This war was 2 countries against one.
Solo se menciona a Bolivia pero fueron irrelevantes en la guerra , empezandola y escapandose.
Perú y Bolivia serán por siempre los hijos de Chile 🤣🤣🤣🤣
I see.
This war should have never happened, Peru should have never helped Bolivia against Chile. (As a matter of fact Bolivia had been created by Bolivar from what it used to be Alto Peru).The Chilean army was better trained and supported by British interest in the region. Furthermore Chile capitalized on the political division and corruption in Peru at the time with one president fleeing the country and the other cutting supplies and logistic to the forces left defending the south. Prado and Pierola are amongst the worst presidents Peru could ever had.
Chile is by far, the Greatest chilean country.
🇨🇱👍
The battle for iquiquie bay was won by the Peruvians
I stand corrected.
Thank you for the interest in this conflict. Your video relies heavily on the Peruvian historiography. You didn’t even mention a single Chilean hero of the war (and there are many!). A whole new video could be made with the Chilean version of the story.