Showing posts with label argentina. Show all posts
Showing posts with label argentina. Show all posts

Friday, April 17, 2015

War of the Triple Alliance 1864-70

Time for another Obscure War!

I had mentioned this earlier in passing during my blog on the Chaco War (1932-35) between Bolivia and Paraguay.   It’s addressed not only in Stupid Wars: A Citizen’s Guide to Botched Putsches, Failed Coups, Inane Invasions, and Ridiculous Revolutions, by Ed Strosser and Michael Prince, but also a more recent Osprey Men-At-Arms publication, Armies of the War of the Triple Alliance: Paraguay, Brazil, Uruguay & Argentina, by Gabriele Esposito, illustrated by Giuseppe Rava. 

Lasting from 1864 to 1870, this was South America’s biggest and bloodiest war.  It destroyed Paraguay for generations, convinced the other powers to modernize their armies, and indirectly led to Brazil becoming a republic and Argentina finally coalescing into a stable country.

Paraguay.  Landlocked (like Bolivia), this little country wanted more.  Its dictator, Francisco Solano Lopez (upper left), not only had ambition on his own, but was stoked by his Irish mistress-whore, Eliza Lynch, to conquer South America. 

Brazil.  Led by Emperor Dom Pedro II, and with a very good general, Luis Alves de Lima e Silva, better known as the Duke of Caxias (upper right).  The Brazilians were caught off guard initially, but quickly rallied. 

Argentina.  At this time Argentina was fairly unstable, but a leader emerged.  I’d seen his name in Rio de Janeiro, Ave. Bartolomeu Mitre (Leblon & Gavea) and sure enough BM (lower left) did most of the leading of Argentina through this endeavor. 

Uruguay.  This country was divided between “Colorados” (modern, pro-democracy) and “Blancos” (more indigenous and reactionary) factions.  Paraguay supported the incumbent Blancos, while Brazil supported the rebel Colorados, led by Venancio Flores Barrio (lower right).  When the two factions had a meltdown in late 1864, Brazil invaded to support its favorites.  This led Lopez to attack Brazil and Argentina.

Start.  As noted, events in Uruguay encouraged Lopez to attack.  He invaded Mato Grosso in Brazil, which was sparsely populated and poorly defended, thus he was able to take “huge…tracts of land” plus cattle, ammunition, and weapons.  Having done so, most of the Paraguayans went home, leaving garrison forces to be wiped away (when the Brazilians got around to it…) by a Brazilian campaign in 1868. 

Lopez also invaded the Corrientes province of Argentina, that male-member shaped part of Argentina which separates Paraguay from Brazil’s most southern state, Rio Grande do Sul.  The Argentine army was not particularly well organized, and not anywhere near Corrientes, so Paraguay was able to quickly occupy this area and capture 2 of Argentina’s three warships. (D’oh!)

Lopez got an early jump, but he succeeded in pissing off the Brazilians, Argentines, and Uruguayans so much that they put aside their own differences – a big rivalry between Brazil and Argentina which persists to this day, although now playing out on the soccer field – and join together to take down Lopez. 

It was personal.

Remarkably, despite a Brazilian civil war several decades earlier in which Rio Grande do Sul tried to secede from Brazil, the gauchos of that district remained loyal to Dom Pedro II – and volunteered in good numbers.  

Navy.  Despite being landlocked, naval operations played a big role in this war.  With little or no railroads, roads, or infrastructure in much of this territory, river traffic became the easiest and quickest means of transportation.  The rivers in question, the Paraguay and Parana, were quite deep and wide here, which allowed full ocean-going vessels to navigate them.  On June 11, 1865, at the Battle of Riachuelo, the Brazilians decisively defeated the Paraguayan fleet.  From then on, the Brazilian fleet was able to navigate the Paraguay River.  The Paraguayans had fortified the banks with several strong forts, though, so it became a matter of successively dispatching each fort in turn. 

Remember the Maine, the US ship which blew up in Cuba in 1898?  That ship was built in response to a Brazilian dreadnaught, the Riachuelo, which scared the hell out of us.  Now you know how that ship was named.

Tuyuti.  This was a big battle in May 1866, down at the corner of Paraguay where the Parana and Paraguay rivers split off, in which the Paraguayans attacked a large force of Brazilians, Argentines and Uruguayans.  Despite their aggressiveness – and excellent cavalry – the Paraguayans were defeated at huge cost, and permanently on the defensive from that point on. 

Unfortunately for the Allies, they followed this up with a doomed attack on the Paraguayans up the Paraguay River at Curupayti in September 1866.  While knocked onto the defensive, the Paraguayans proved effective and skillful at defending themselves against a poorly planned Allied attack.  This loss set the Allies back enough to delay further offensives for a full year.

During this time, Duke de Caxias consolidated and reformed the Brazilian forces, while Lopez built up his huge fortress at Humaita, the “Paraguayan Sevastapol” (also on the Paraguay River), which protected the Paraguyan capital, Asuncion, from attack.  Taking a page from Grant’s successful campaign at Vicksburg (summer 1863), Caxias did an end run around the fortress and outflanked it.  Combined with Brazilian naval bombardment, the fort was overcome by July 1868, freeing the Brazilians to continue onward up the Paraguay River to Asuncion, which fell to the Brazilians on January 1, 1869. 

By this time, with the war pushed onto Paraguayan soil, the Uruguayans and Argentines dropped out of the war, leaving the Brazilians to press on – out of personal animosity of Dom Pedro II for Lopez.  Once Asuncion had fallen, Lopez ran off with the remnants of his army – by now mostly boys and old men - into Cerro Cora, in northeast Paraguay.  In March 1870 the Brazilians overran his camp.  Lopez was killed (“I die with my country” were his last words), and the Brazilians made Eliza Lynch – who had, remarkably, accompanied Lopez into internal exile – dig his grave.    

Uniforms.  At this point in history, the dark blue sack coat seems to be a popular choice of uniform.  Variations: the French uniform (up to 1914), the US Civil War sack coat, and the Prussian coat, which changed to field grey shortly before World War I.  This style also prevailed among the belligerents of this war, though with several variations:
Paraguay:  red sack coats, white pants, and a tricolor (red/white/blue) shako, with officers frequently wearing a blue kepi.  The Paraguayan cavalry was top notch and acted as elite shock troops.  They tended to have higher morale than the infantry and kept the Allies off-guard with counterattacks.  Lopez stood by his “the best defense is a good offense” and was consistently aggressive, though it didn’t always work (Tuyuti). 
Brazil.  This country actually took Portugal as a default and veered off from there.  They started with dark green, changed to dark blue, and by 1868 had switched to “duck”, a cream color, with a straw hat.  The cavalry, particularly units raised locally (Mato Grosso and Rio Grande do Sul) had a strong “gaucho” (South American cowboy) look to them which was distinctive but also practical.  The picture on the upper right, labelled “Exercito Brasileiro” (Brazilian Army) shows a very Union flavor to the contemporary Brazilian army.
            Moreover, a substantial part of Brazil’s military forces were volunteers from various states.  Like the US and CSA units, they frequently had specific and unique uniforms.  Because of Garibaldi’s involvement in the prior civil war in Rio Grande do Sul, many were “Garibaldi” type units and uniforms, particularly of Italian immigrants, with red shirts, red kepis, and green pants. 
Argentina.  More with the dark uniforms and kepis, closest to the US Civil War uniform, although copied mostly from the French dark blue uniforms of the time. 
Uruguay.  Mostly blue, then white, taking the French contemporary uniforms as a basis.  Two units, the Florida Battalion (Uruguay’s elite troops) and the Volunteers of Liberty, had distinctive uniforms.     
Zoauves.  Remember those US Civil War units inspired by French North African troops?  Well, the Brazilians (Zouaves de Bahia) and Argentines (Legion Militar) had them too.  In fact, slavery was still legal in Brazil at this time, and many slaves fought in the Brazilian militias in an effort to gain their freedom. 

Weapons.  The Brazilians managed to get hold of some Sharps repeaters for their cavalry, which helped the Brazilian gauchos fight back against their Paraguayan counterparts.  The British Pattern 1853 Enfield, a muzzle-loading rifle which got its start in the Crimean War and was featured in the US Civil War, was Brazil’s main infantry rifle.  The Argentines and Uruguayans also used this rifle, so it could be considered the standard Allied rifle as well.  The Paraguayans typically used older muskets and the blockades prevented them from importing any more modern weapons. 

Aftermath.  As noted above, the high casualties and major problems all belligerents suffered made the various countries reconsider their militaries after the war and import European advisors.  As with the Civil War, this was another bloody conflict in which most soldiers died of disease than actual combat wounds.

            Paraguay lost almost half its territory to Brazil and Argentina, though Brazil rejected Argentina’s suggestion to divide the entire country between them.  It also lost over half its population, and the majority of its male population, leading to a 4-1 ratio of women to men.  The war was expensive for Brazil and helped encourage them to abolish slavery, which they did in 1888.  Thanks to Lopez, the Argentines finally got their act together and stabilized their politics by 1880, resulting in a much stronger, prosperous country.  The war also solidified the Colorados’ control of Uruguay for the next 80 years.  So in other words, the war which Paraguay started and the Triple Alliance ended was good for everyone except Paraguay.  

Friday, July 16, 2010

The World Cup



[Update 11/22/22:  This time around it's in Qatar (eastern coast of Arabian peninsula, on the Persian Gulf, south of Bahrain and north of UAE/Dubai.  As the temperature during the summer is unpleasant, the games are taking place in late November.  The US & Brazil are back - let's see how they do this time around.  Neymar seems to be the star of the current Seleção.]

I addressed this issue in 2006 years ago when Brazil lost to France in the eliminations back in the 2006 World Cup (“O Que Aconteceu???” = “What happened?”).  This time I’ll tackle it from a larger perspective, rather than just focusing on Brazil’s problems, although any World Cup discussion necessarily concerns Brazil.

 Every 4 years, since 1950, the world (except the US, do we qualify?) has been possessed by this international soccer competition.  Each part of the world has playoff slots to qualify, e.g. South America has 5 slots, the fifth of which requires a playoff vs. Oceania; Europe alone has several different divisions.  Brazil has never failed to qualify.

 This time around, 2010, the finals were held in South Africa.  After the first round, then the subsequent playoffs, a winner emerged on Sunday: Spain defeated Holland, each country trying for its first World Cup; Holland had made it to the finals in 1974 and 1978 but lost both times.  Each of them had defeated another team (Spain beat Germany, Holland beat Uruguay) and those teams played on Saturday; Germany is #3!

 For the first round, 32 teams compete in 8 groups of 4.  Each team plays its 3 competitors once, receiving 3 points for a victory, one point for a tie, and no points for a loss.  The top two teams from each group move on to the next round of playoffs.  These are “win or go home”, no home/away aggregates or best of 7 playoffs.

 Prior winners (and runners up in the final):
[2018     France (Croatia)
2014     Germany (Argentina)
2010     Spain (Holland)]
2006     Italy (France)
2002     Brazil (Germany)
1998     France (Brazil)
1994     Brazil (Italy)
1990     West Germany (Argentina)
1986     Argentina (West Germany)
1982     Italy (West Germany)
1978     Argentina (Holland)
1974     West Germany (Holland)
1970     Brazil (Italy)
1966     England (West Germany)
1962     Brazil (Czechoslovakia)
1958     Brazil (Sweden)
1954     West Germany (Hungary)
1950     Uruguay (Brazil)

 As you can see, Brazil has 5 World Cups, Germany 4, Argentina 2, France and Italy 2, and England and Uruguay 1 each.  Brazil was in the final in 1998 and 1950, so it could have had 7 World Cup victories.  In 1930, 1934, and 1938 there were World Cups, the winners being Uruguay (1930) and Italy (1934 and 1938).  The World Cups which would have occurred in 1942 and 1946 were disrupted by WWII. 

 US.  The US has never won.  However, it tends to dominate the North/Central America group for slots and get in with Mexico fairly consistently.  US players are beginning to get the crucial jobs playing for top flight European teams – better teams and starting positions.  Our best player, Landon Donovan, plays for the L.A. Galaxy and Everton (a Premier League team).  Clint Dempsey, arguably the second best, is being seriously considered by AC Milan. [Both are now commentators.]
            Unfortunately, we are still fair game for countries like Ghana (who?) which have equally strong teams but are politically inconsequential.  If it’s any consolation, Japan is in a similar position, and neither China nor Russia has ever been a major contender.  Neither of those countries, nor India, even qualified this time around.  All the World Cups since 1930 were won by teams in either Europe or South America, as were all the runners up, which leaves Africa, North America and Asia completely left out.  The US’ best finish was a de facto third place back in 1930.  For us to win the World Cup would be a Miracle on Grass, but if the French could do it (1998 & 2018) and the Spanish (this time – plus they had never even been to the final before, nor, for that matter, had the French) then who knows?

 Brazil.  By far the powerhouse and the ones to beat each time.  Brazil’s group this time, G, was called the “Group of Death” (possibly for the ill-fated North Korean team).  Sure enough, Brazil came out on top of that group and easily advanced to the second round.  I still don’t know how the Dutch defeated them, or the French in 2006.  My theory for 1998 (lost to France, in Paris, in the final) is that they were hungover on the field after prematurely celebrating their victory (?) against the underdog French.  Their 58/70 star was Pele, who is still a major figure in Brazil.  In the early 80s it was Zico (most often associated with Flamengo, and coach of Japan’s team in 2006).  By the late 90s and early 00’s it was Ronaldo – not to be confused with Cristiano Ronaldo of Portugal, or Ronaldinho – who scored both goal against Germany in 2002.  By now he’s back in Brazil playing for Corinthians.  These days the stars are Kaka (AC Milan, now Real Madrid), Robinho (Real Madrid, Manchester City, now back at Santos), and Maicon.  Ronaldo (past his peak) and Ronaldinho (still strong, debatable about his peak) were left off the team, and Rivaldo and Romario (notice they love those one-word names starting with R) were considered too old.  
            For their part, the French didn’t even make it out of the first round in 2002 or 2010, but beat the Brazilians in 2006, only to lose to Italy in the final.  That was the game with Zidane’s infamous headbutt. 

 Dunga.  Brazil’s coach is nicknamed “Dunga”, which is Portuguese for “Dopey”, the dumbest of the Seven Dwarfs.  To me he looks like Mike Delfino, the plumber on “Desperate Housewives”.  But can you imagine if the US coach had that name?  “Let’s go live to Bob, who’s interviewing Dopey now” [with “DOPEY” in all caps under the live video interview of the coach].  Hilarious.
            Of course, since Dunga didn’t deliver a World Cup Final victory for Brazil, he got booted.  But even if he had won, chances are he would have resigned after the victory parade.  The job is non-stop stress for the 4 years or so (depending on when he got it), especially in Brazil, where anything short of complete victory = failure, and it seems that everyone claims to do a better job than the coach (“180 million coaches”).  The press are merciless, so I can understand why Dunga blew up during a press conference.  At least in the US, we don’t have 5 World Cup victories under our belt, so anything less than complete dominance is not considered a screwup.  Even so, we’re still competitive and like to believe we have a shot. 

 Germany.  They have [4] World Cup victories and came close this time, losing to Spain – who I was expecting them to beat.  They have been in the final 4 times; had they beat Brazil in 2002 both countries would have been tied at 4 World Cups.  The Germans are consistently competitive but can be extremely arrogant.

 Argentina.  Bitter rivals to the Brazilians.  Their star of 1978 and 1986, Diego Maradona, came back to coach them this time around.  As we know by now, he has a big mouth, but the Germans shut it for him quite dramatically. 

 Offense vs. Defense.  Baseball has the most rigid structure: the teams stick where they are until the at-bat team gets 3 outs.  In the NFL, this is less rigorous: it takes only a fumble or interception to change possession in a heartbeat, but these occur modestly relative to the amount of turnover-free series of possessions.  In soccer, as with basketball, a steal can rapidly switch possession from one team to another; in terms of the dynamics of possession, soccer most closely resembles basketball.  But a basketball court is much smaller, and it’s MUCH easier to make a basket than it is to make a goal.  One area where soccer definitely dulls me out, is when the winning team simply plays “keep away” with the ball, continually passing the ball back and forth between players, even as far back as their own goalie.  Because a 1-0 score is victory no matter how you slice it, this means a soccer game can slow down after only one goal. 

 Ties.  In most other sports, a tie or draw is rare.  In the NFL there would be overtime, and usually one team can score at least a field goal.  But 0-0 ties in soccer are fairly common.  For all but the eliminations, they are acceptable.  In the NFL, if one team runs up the score, that’s a dull game.  But in soccer, two evenly matched teams can hold each other goal-less, which to me is actually NOT an exciting game; in fact, if a team runs up the score it is more exciting (at least to me) than a 0-0 slugfest.  To me, the issue is goals vs. no goals; a 3-3 tie is still exciting, we get to see 6 goals scored.  

 Injury Time.  You know with any soccer game it will probably last only a little over 90 minutes, plus the 10 minute halftime.  Overtime, if necessary, is two 15 minute periods followed by a penalty shootout if the exta 30 minutes were still not enough for a goal.  There are no timeouts; the clock runs continuously; in Maracana Stadium, there isn’t even a clock for the fans or players to watch. 
            At the end of the 45 minute half, they add on 2-3 minutes of “injury time”.  This is the amount of time which had been wasted by various players pretending to be seriously injured by incidental contact with opposing players, in the hopes of earning a penalty kick because they’ve been unable to score a goal any other way.  In some cases the player cringes and cries, clutching an entirely different part of his body than was actually struck by the other player or the ball.  My solution?  If your “Injury” merited a penalty kick, you go off the field on the stretcher and are OUT of the remainder of the game.  Because too many of these crybabies are running around 5 minutes after the “injury” with no apparent problem.  If an NFL player is “injured”, chances are they really are.

 Fans vs. Players.  This doesn’t help soccer’s image of a sport played by effeminate Eurotrash boytoys like (gay icon) Beckham and Cristiano Ronaldo.  For every lower class Paul Gascoigne there seem to be dozens of jet-setting, metrosexual, overpaid playboys.  The two “Goal!” movies reinforce this even further (Newcastle and Real Madrid).  I don’t think they’re all like that, but certainly that’s the image they tend to advance.
            Contrast this with the image of European soccer FANS, especially in the UK.  In “Fever Pitch”, Colin Firth’s character is wary that his fellow teacher (the woman he likes) will write him off as a “yob” (lower class Neanderthal) because he supports Arsenal, i.e. that he follows soccer at all.  Certainly the press loves to hype the hooligan issue.    Groundskeeper Willie (The Simpsons): “You call this a soccer riot??”

Jerseys.  What I find amusing is that many countries have jersey colors which don't appear in their national flag.  Australia - yellow & green?  Germany - white?  Italy - blue??

 Crazy stuff.  This time around it was the annoying vuvuzelas (plastic trumpets) which produce the buzzing noise together.  Then there was the German octopus, Paul, who correctly picked the winners of every German game and the Final.  And Joachim Loew (German coach) had that lucky blue sweater; its luck ran out against Spain.  Then there was that Paraguayan model.  Schwing!

Let me add this (2022).  Let the players put a patch on their jersey indicating the professional team they play for.   That would help us recognize them a little better.