Andean Tragedy: Fighting the War of the Pacific, 1879-1884

by William F. Sater

The year 1879 marked the beginning of one of the longest, bloodiest conflicts of nineteenth-century Latin America. The War of the Pacific pitted Peru and Bolivia against Chile in a struggle initiated over a festering border dispute. The conflict saw Chile’s and Peru’s armored warships vying for control of sea lanes and included one of the first examples of the use of naval torpedoes. On land, large armies using the most modern weapons—breech-loading rifles, Gatling guns, and steel-barreled artillery—clashed in battles that left thousands of men dead on the battlefields. Eventually, the warring parties revamped their respective military establishments, creating much needed, civilian-supported supply, transportation, and medical units. Chile ultimately prevailed. Bolivia lost its seacoast along with valuable nitrate and copper deposits to Chile, and Peru was forced to cede mineral rich Tarapaca and the province of Arica to the victor.

 

Employing the primary and secondary sources of the countries involved, William F. Sater offers the definitive analysis of the conflict's naval and military campaigns. Andean Tragedy not only places the war in a crucial international context, but also explains why this devastating conflict resulted in a Chilean victory.

Genres: History, Bolivia, Military History

448 pages, Hardcover

First published July 1, 2007

About the author

William F. Sater is an emeritus professor of history at California State University-Long Beach.

Reviews

[Jim · Rating 5 out of 5]

For most North Americans, the wars of South America are comic-opera affairs which serve only to show up the political and military immaturity of the combatants. The War of the Pacific, which involved Chile, Peru, and Bolivia between 1879 and 1884 does reward study; and William F. Sater's Andean Tragedy: Fighting the War of the Pacific, 1879-1884 is probably the best place for a gringo historian to start.

The War of the Pacific was fought over -- of all things -- fertilizer. The desolate islands off the coast of Peru and Bolivia (yes, Bolivia had a seacoast before the war) and the Atacama Desert which was shared among the three countries, were the principal source of nitrate fertilizer. And during that period, it was the main source of wealth for those nations. Chile was in charge of mining the nitrates of Bolivia; and when Bolivia raised the taxes on their mines, the Chileans went to war. Unfortunately, Peru has a mutual non-aggression pact with Bolivia, and joined the war.

There were four phases to the war:

1. Naval battles, which Chile won after the Peruvian Admiral Miguel Grau was killed in battle.
2. Pitched land battles, which the Chileans mostly won, and which essentially dropped Bolivia out of the war.
3. The invasion of Lima, which Chile won.
4. Asymmetrical warfare between Peruvian guerrilla leaders like Gen. Andres Caceres and Admiral Patricio Lynch, who controlled the Chilean forces occupying Peru.

It was this last phase which was most interesting to me. The guerrilla fighting in the highlands of Peru caused high casualties on both sides, and in the end was too costly for Chile to bear. Fighting the Quechua-speaking Indians on their own turf was altogether too costly:

Their most lethal weapon was the galga, a boulder or large rock, which the guerrillas rolled down on unsuspecting Chilean soldiers, either crushing them or hurtling them into the abyss below. The Indians also used slings and spears to kill or wound Chilean soldiers, whom they then decapitated or whose bodies they mutilated.

Although Lynch, nicknamed the "Red Prince" for his flaming hair, was a competent leader, he just could not win the war outright:

The reason for this failure is quite simple: the Chileans lacked manpower not only to capture but also to hold the enemy's territory. Theoretically, or at least according to the official table of organization, Lynch commanded an army of approximately 21,700 men. In fact ... his forces numbered only 15,499.

When you factored in the sick from typhus, syphilis, yellow fever, and malaria, the numbers were reduced even further.

Sater does a very creditable job on a difficult subject and manages to make a complex war easier to understand and to relate to our own times.

[Christopher · Rating 4 out of 5]

An excellent account of an often overlooked war in South American history.

[Al Berry · Rating 3 out of 5]

Merely an okay book, a professor does not make an author and that’s the case here, it suffers from too academic type writing, there is a paucity of maps (not even a before the war and after the war political map) an interesting and lively topic that could have been an excellent book but isn’t.

Really interesting how impactful President Garfield’s death was on this conflict as Secretary of State Blaine wanted to intervene, however President Arthur and his new SOS chose a different tact.

[Victor I. · Rating 2 out of 5]

An ok book. Some interesting facts. Poorly written. Too many speculations about the psychology of some protagonists. It reads more like end of class paper than a history book by an emeritus professor. Fortunately I read an online free version and did not waste money.

[William Vogel · Rating 3 out of 5]

A thorough and workmanlike, if rather uninspired work. It is clear that this will be the standard work in English on the War of the Pacific for the foreseeable future, and serves as an excellent source to be consulted for details. However, the author is clearly more of a diplomatic than a military historian, and while this book is a fine, solid work of narrative history, written by a clear expert on the subject, it is certainly not the best work of narrative history to have been written.
I'll refrain from making any snide comments about the author's inexplicable continued use of the term "knots per hour," as simply mentioning this fact alone should be derogatory enough.

[Jan · Rating 1 out of 5]

Unbelievably badly written but comprehensively researched account of a little known conflict