ROBERTO SOUPER

ROBERTO SOUPER
1818-1881
Ingles por nacimiento, chileno por el amor
Murió como héroe al defender el honor de Chile

Colonel Robert Souper Howard (September 9, 1818 - January 13, 1881) was an English soldier who served in the Chilean Army during most of the War of the Pacific.

Born in Harwich, England, son of Colonel William Souper and Emily Howard. His father, concerned about the education of his sons and looking for a better future for the family, decided to leave England and seek better fortune in France. They established themselves in Calais.

During the War of the Pacific, he joined the Chilean Army a few days before the official declaration of war, on April 3, 1879 as a Captain. He was then selected by Minister Rafael Sotomayor, and was present in the Naval Battle of Angamos.

He became a member of the Army General Staff, and participated in the Battle of Pisagua (November 2, 1879) and the Battle of Dolores (November 19, 1879); helping capture the Peruvian province of Tarapaca, which was effectively separated from the rest of the country.

During the Chilean offensive against Tarapaca, he served under General Manuel Baquedano as his Aide de Camp. Under his command, he fought on the Battle of Los Angeles, the Battle of Alto de la Alianza and the assault of Arica

He was killed during the aftermath of the Battle of San Juan.

Battle of San Francisco

Battle of San Francisco
Part of War of the Pacific
Date November 19, 1879 Location South America Result Chilean victory
Belligerents
Chile	Peru Bolivia
Commanders
Col. Emilio Sotomayor	Gen. Juan Buendia
Strength
6,500 soldiers: 3 regiments 4 battalions 2 artillery batteries	7,400 soldiers: 17 battalions 1 artillery battery 2 cavalry squadrons
Casualties and losses
60 killed 148 wounded	220 killed 76 wounded 3,200 missing 18 smoothbore

The Battle of San Francisco, also known as Battle of Dolores, fought on November 19, 1879, was the third battle of the Tarapaca Campaign in the War of the Pacific, after Pisagua and Germania. A Chilean army commanded by Colonel Emilio Sotomayor successfully held off and dispersed the bulk of the Peruvian army led by General Juan Buendía at San Francisco hill, near the town of Dolores. The Allies lost a huge amount of war material such as cannons, ammunition and weapons. The catastrophe for the Allies was the result of poor logistics, inefficient leadership and the unexpected desertion of the Bolivian Army under the half-hearted command of President Hilarion Daza, known as the Camarones betrayal.


Prelude

The Chilean forces had disembarked at the port of Pisagua after launching an amphibious operation on November 2nd, separating and isolating the Allied strongholds of Arica and Iquique; encountering merely mild resistance. On the 6th, Chilean cavalry led by Lt. Col. Jose Francisco Vergara almost annihilated the Peruvian Husares de Junin Cavalry Regiment at Pampa Germania [1] . The Chilean Army had taken extreme care in securing water sources - very rare in the dry Atacama Desert - and in adopting high and easily defendable positions. Meanwhile, the Peruvian army under the command of the old yet incompetent General Juan Buendia marched in an attempt to intercept the Chilean forces. It was Buendia's hope that his Bolivian allies commanded by President Hilarion Daza would link up with his forces in order to numerically overwhelm the fortified Chileans on the San Francisco hill top. However, the route from the Bolivian highlands to San Francisco was long and perilous; furthermore, the Bolivians stubbornly marched in full daylight, thus having to endure the scorching heat of the desert sun. Naturally, when the Bolivians reached the creek of Camarones near San Francisco, they were in no condition to fight a battle. Buendia was forced to face the Chileans on his own.

Preliminary situation

Chilean preliminary situation

On November 7, the "Buin" 1st Line and the 4th Line regiments with the Atacama and Coquimbo battalions, plus an artillery battery marched from Hospicio to Dolores. The next day took the same route the 3rd Line Regiment, the Navales and Valparaíso battalions and another artillery battery. These two columns reunited at Dolores on November 10th. The Chilean forces, under the command of Colonel Emilio Sotomayor, had a strength of 6,500 men [1] .


Peruvian preliminary situation

On November 5th, the Allies marched to Pozo Almonte, increasing its numbers with stray soldiers. On the 13th, Buendia left Pozo Almonte and moved towards Agua Santa, reaching his destination four days later. During the march, the soldiers were haunted by the lack of food and water. The troops marched to Negritos, and thence to Dolores. On the night of the 18th, Gen. Buendia decide to advance to Dolores and engage the Chilean troops posted there [2]

Armies layout

Chilean battle plan and disposition

When a scout group of the Cazadores a Caballo Cavalry Regiment encountered the marching Allied forces, Colonel Sotomayor - after a bitter discussion with Lt. Col. José Fco. Vergara - decided to fortify the position on the top of the San Francisco hill, where the larger number of the Allies represented no advantage whatsoever. Also, the artillery was divided in groups guarded with infantry [3]

The Chilean forces were divided into three groups and deployed as it follows:

On the northern elevation or Dolores hill, were the "Buin" 1st Line Regiment and the Valparaíso and Navales battalions; a six cannon battery directed by Cptn. Roberto Wood and another six mountain cannons led by Cptn. Eulogio Villareal [4] .

On the southern edge of the San Francisco hill was set the 4th Line Regiment with the Atacama and Coquimbo battalions; an eight cannon battery commanded by Sgt. Major Jose Maria de la Cruz Salvo, another six piece battery and 2 Gatling machine guns of Sgt. Major Benjamin Montoya, this last one set on the south-eastern part of this hill [4] .

On the hills San Bartolo and Tres Clavos was deployed the 3rd Line Regiment, along with a detachment of 50 soldiers from different units, besides some riders of the Cazadores a Caballo Cavalry Regiment; and two batteries of four cannons each [4] .


Peruvian battle plan and disposition

General Buendia divided his 7,400 troops in three columns. In this plan, Buendia counted on Hilarion Daza's Bolivian troops, but the latter decided to return to Arica after a long and extenuating march.

The three columns were placed under the command of Belisario Suarez, Andres Caceres and Buendia himself. The Suarez' column was formed by the Villamil, Bolognesi and Velarde divisions. This units were composed by the Cazadores de Cuzco Nº5, Cazadores de la Guardia Nº7, Ayacucho, Guardia de Arequipa, Aroma, Vengadores, Victoria and Colquechaca battalions.

Buendia had under his command the Villegas, Bustamante and Davila divisions, formed by the Ayacucho Nº3, Provisional de Lima Nº3, Cerro de Pasco, Puno Nº6, Lima Nº8, Illimani, Olañeta, Paucarpata, Dalance battalions, besides two cavalry squadrons and a six cannon battery.

Finally, the third column of Caceres was placed on the rear as reserve [5] .



The battle

A few Bolivian soldiers went to the San Francisco dwell looking for water, accidentally firing a gunshot, situation answered with one cannon shot by the Chilean artillery, thinking an imminent attack. These actions began the battle. Despite the Allied officers efforts to contain their men, the Peruvian and Bolivian forces attacked the Chilean positions in disorder.

Bolivian Gen. Carlos Villegas, with two companies of Puno and Ayacucho battalions, alongside with another two companies of the Illimani and Olañeta battalions started to fire at the Chilean positions causing no damage at all because of the long distance separating them and their enemies. Col. Lavadenz himself with the first company of the Dalance Battalion shortened the distance between them and the Chilean batteries of Amunategui's group, getting close to forty paces away from its objective. Gen Villegas then ordered another Dalance Battalion company to enter into the battle, along with the Lima Nº 8 and Puno battalions [5] .

Whilst these actions occurred on the Chilean left flank, Gen. Buendia's column headed to Dolores hill, describing a semicircle trying to take the Chilean position at Tres Clavos. Meanwhile this manoeuvre was being executed, the Chilean batteries of Frias and Carvallo caught Buendia in a heavy cross fire, breaking the Allies formation for a moment. Nevertheless, the Peruvian troops reorganized and continued advancing towards its objective, despite the severe loss of men. When the Allied troops got closer, the Chilean infantry posted here - six companies of the 3rd Line Regiment - stopped the attacking forces and obliged them to retreat out of Chilean batteries range [5] .

Villegas, having a part of his troops engaged in battle with Amunategui, advanced with the rest of his soldiers reinforcing Lavadenz and Espinar, and charged against Salvo's battery, defended only by its 56 cannon servants. Salvo spread his troops defending their positions with their rifles, as his soldiers spiked their cannons in an attempt to keep them from falling into Allied hands, waiting for reinforcements.

Two companies of the Atacama Battalion came in Salvo's aid, forcing the enemy to retreat. The Allies were rebuilt at hill bottom by another company of the Dalance Bn. and charged again. But this time, another Chilean company of the Coquimbo Battalion reached this position and with the remaining troops counterattacked this second effort on the hill slope. One last attack took place, but it was rejected once again with a bayonet charge [3] . This time the Allies withdrew definitively.

The Chilean troops didn't chase the Allies in their retreat, staying in their positions at the top of the hill, thinking the Allies would regroup and attack again the next day.


Aftermath

The Chileans lost 208 men between dead and wounded. The Allies had 296 casualties, plus over 3.000 missing troops. This defeat was a very rough blow for the Peruvian Army Southern Command. The remaining troops marched to Tarapacá.


6. Notes

1. Mellafe, Rafael; Pelayo, Mauricio (2004). La Guerra del Pacífico en imágenes, relatos, testimonios. Centro de Estudios Bicentenario.
2. Basadre, Jorge. "La verdadera epopeya". http://www.unjbg.edu.pe. Retrieved on 2008.
3. Ojeda Frex, Jorge. "Batalla de Dolores". http://www.geocities.com/blautz_9000/articulos/Dolores.htm. Retrieved on 2008.
4. Reyno Gutiérrez, Manuel; Gómez Ehrmann, Sergio; Guerrero Yoacham, Cristián (1985). Historia del Ejército de Chile, tomo V. Estado Mayor General del Ejército de Chile.
5. Machuca, Francisco (1926). Las cuatro campañas de la Guerra del Pacífico, Vol. I. Imprenta Victoria, Valparaíso.



7. References

* Machuca, Francisco (1926). Las cuatro campañas de la Guerra del Pacífico. Imprenta Victoria, Valparaíso.

* Reyno Gutiérrez, M

Andrés Avelino Caceres

CACERES, Andrés Avelino, Peruvian soldier, born in Huanta, 12 April, 1831. He was a law student at the University of Lima in 1852, when Castilla headed a revolt to abolish slavery in Perú, and joined the revolutionary troops as a second lieutenant. He distinguished himself in the attack upon Arequipa, a place very well fortified, and defended by Vivanco, and General Castilla promoted him to the rank of captain and appointed him military attaché to the Peruvian legation at Paris, where he remained from 1857 till 1860.

On his return to Perú in the latter year he defended the government of Perú in several revolutions, and accompanied Prado at Callao during the attack against that place by the Spanish fleet in 1866. Then Cáceres won the rank of colonel, and was given command of the Zepita regiment, at the head of which he fought against Pierola from 1876 till 1878. During the war with Chile he was prominent, especially at the battle of Dolores, 2 November, 1879, when he successfully resisted the Chilean troops and captured some of their guns.

At the battle of Tacna, won by the Chileans, 26 May, 1880, he commanded a brigade and fought well, after which he offered his services to the dictator Pierola, who gave him command of a division camped near Lima, which was attacked and defeated by the Chileans, 14 January, 1881.

When the Chilean army occupied Lima, Cáceres and Pierola retreated with the rest of their forces to Arequipa, the former being appointed brigadier-general, and authorized by congress to continue the hostilities against the Chileans as well as against the Peruvian General Iglesias, who had established a government of his own at Cajamarca.

He made several unsuccessful attacks upon the Chilean troops, and, after much suffering in a three months' march through the Sierras, could not carry out the orders of congress to destroy Iglesias' government, for he was defeated by a Chilean division under Gorostiaga near Huamacucho, 14 November, 1881. Cáceres then went to the interior, raised a revolution against Iglesias, put himself at the head of a considerable force, and was again defeated near Lima.

But he persistently worked to depose Iglesias, collected more troops, routed those of the government, and finally entered the capital in March, 1885, and at once directed the election of a special board to govern until a new congress and president were chosen. He was elected president on 3 December, 1885, and his inauguration took place on 28 July, 1886.

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

Review
"A well-researched and serious study that both scholars and casual readers will learn from."-Thomas L. Whigham, Hispanic American Historical Review (Thomas L. Whigham Hispanic American Historical Review 20081001)

"A fine example of the new vision of battle history as the author discusses arms, strategies, and tactics, as well as descriptions of encounters and the conduct of soldiers. . . . This is a well-written, well-researched work on a crucial event in the history of the west coast of South America and highly recommended to those interested in this region as well as to military history buffs."-Jerry W. Cooney, The Americas (Jerry W. Cooney The Americas )

Product Description
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.

#

There is no question that Professor Sater is the foremost authority on the War of the Pacific in the English language and probably in any language. For many years now, he has meticulously and profoundly researched into archives, published works, memoirs, folkloric sources, songs and poetry without leaving a stone unturned. This is his third book and presumably the final work on the subject: the culmination of decades work and study of his favorite subject. His facts are unquestionable even though some of his description of the battles may, at times, conflict with eyewitness narratives or popular sources. His description of the shortcomings in logistics and sanitary services go deeper than any other description of the war. Neither does the author shy away from the horrors of war which many Chilean and Peruvian historians tend to minimize.

Having recognized his effort in the investigations and his fine ability to put the facts together in good and easily understood order, there are plenty of opportunities to disagree with some of his conclusions. Many Chilean historians will find fault with his harsh judgment of Admiral Williams and Captain Simpson, and it must be admitted that he carries them a bit too far. Taking sides with Chilean Historian Francisco Encina, the author treats General Baquedano with equal ferocity. He believes that the General caused unnecessary loss of life at Tacna and later at Chorillos. He accepts the fact that battles of the XIX Century were unusually bloody. Frontal attacks, even if done in echelons, were brutal such as Picket's charge at Gettysburg and Pancho Villa's Army at Zelaya. In reference to Gettysburg there is a striking similarity with movements at Tacna, of course in a much more limited scale, but Baquedano's wise use of his reserves, unlike Lee, gave the attackers the victory. The alternative plan at Chorrillos or San Juan was too complicated, it extended the lines of march, it deprived the army from naval fire support and it did not pursue the ultimate goal of an army: to destroy the opposing force.

In summary, an excellent book: well researched and well organized that constitutes the best one volume account of this tragic war.

Carlos U. Lopez

WARS OF THE PERUVIAN-BOLIVIAN CONFEDERATION AND OF THE PACIFIC

The Pacific littoral was the other site of protracted military struggle. Given their very close economic and administrative links during the colonial era, the early separation of Bolivia and Peru was in many ways a political fiction. In part because of their historic and economic connection and in part because of the rising strength of the Chilean state, the Bolivian president General Andre´s Santa Cruz sought to establish closer connections between two halves of the old Viceroyalty of Lima. In alliance with a number of Peruvian caudillos, he invaded Peru in 1835, and in October 1836 he proclaimed the existence of the Peruvian-Bolivian Confederation. This union did have some popular support, but the division of Peru into two provinces and the selection of Lima as the capital alienated elites in both countries. More important, the union threatened the geopolitical position of Chile and Argentina. Both countries viewed a strong Peru as a challenge to their predominance. The first declared war in December 1836, the latter in May 1837. Despite some early failures, the Chilean army, in alliance with Peruvian forces opposed to the union, were able to defeat Santa Cruz in the battle of Yungay in January 1839, leading to the dissolution of the confederation.

Chile’s victory over Peru and Bolivia in the 1830s established its reputation as the regional ‘‘Prussia’’ and further solidified the political institutionalization begun under Diego Portales (who was assassinated at the very beginning of the war). If any war ‘‘made’’ Chilean exceptionalism, it was this one, as it provided a rare legitimacy while also establishing a stable civil military relationship. For Peru and Bolivia, defeat appears to have accelerated the process of economic and political fragmentation begun with independence.

Beginning in 1840, various international companies began the exploration of the Bolivian coast in order to make use of the guano and nitrate deposits there. The exploitation of silver beginning in 1870 led to an economic boom. During this decade Chile and Bolivia appeared to resolve a series of quarrels by increasing the influence of the former in the disputed region. But disagreements over taxes and the nationalization of Chilean mines in the Peruvian desert in 1875 fueled the tension. Following diplomatic efforts to resolve a new set of crises, Chile declared war in April 1879. Given a Peruvian-Bolivian alliance, this involved Chile in a war with both northern neighbors. The war quickly became a contest for plunder.

None of the countries was prepared for war, although Chile had a significant advantage in naval forces. More important, the Chilean state retained its institutional solidity, whereas both Peru and Bolivia suffered from internal divisions. Chile occupied the Bolivian littoral, then Tarapaca in 1879, and Tacna and Arica and most of the northern coast in 1880. By this stage the Chilean army had increased significantly with an invasion force of twelve thousand men. International pressure from both the U.S. and European powers forced the two sides into negotiation, but the Chileans sought a complete victory. In 1881, with an army now numbering twenty-six thousand, the Chileans entered Lima. They did not leave until 1884, extracting the province of Tarapaca permanently and the provinces of Tacna and Arica, which they retained until 1929. Chile also took the entire Bolivian coast (Atacama).

The victory helped determine the future institutionalization of both the Chilean and Peruvian militaries, as well as partially defining the development options of the three countries. Chile enjoyed an economic boom as well as unprecedented patriotic euphoria, both of which helped dispel the gloom of the 1870s. Despite the relative shortness of the war, Peru suffered severe casualties and the destruction of much of its coastal infrastructure. The war may also be seen as the best example of a military impetus for a new national identity, as the Peruvian and Bolivian memory of their defeat continues to play a large role in their respective nationalisms. The Bolivian defeat deprived that country of a great part of its wealth and left it contained within the Altiplano, in which Chile had no interest. The war did help decrease the political influence of the military and helped consolidate the rule of a civilian oligarchy dominated by mining interests.

The War of the Pacific may best demonstrate the consequences of the external orientation of these states and the lack of domestic domination. It was ‘‘at heart a bald struggle over exports among jealous Chile, Bolivia, and Peru.’’ ‘‘All three countries were hard up, and run by oligarchies which disliked paying taxes and looked to revenue from these fertilizers [nitrate] as a substitute.’’ Each country was competing with the others for those resources that would allow it to maintain its ‘‘rentier’’ status and not challenge the domestic status quo. War came because the states were too weak to fight their respective elites. For example, because the elites of the Altiplano were too powerful to tax, the Bolivian state saw the littoral and the nascent nitrate industry as the best source of fiscal support. This brought it into conflict with Chile. But, precisely because it did not have adequate support from its home base, Bolivia could not hope to win.

Comparing the Navies

The famous Huascar

Evaluating the relative strengths of the belligerents’ fleets just prior to the outbreak of the War of the Pacific is a vexing task. Chilean and Peruvian historians, for example, traditionally pronounced their nations’ ships as barely seaworthy and belittled their crews’ professional skills, while exaggerating their opponents’ prowess. This rite of self-effacement had a clear purpose: by depreciating their prewar flotillas, and those who served in them, the writers could rationalize their nations’ defeats while elevating their victories to the level of the miraculous. Real problems did exist. But although budgetary problems forced the Chilean government to reduce naval expenditures, it was the questionable judgment and misguided priorities of Juan Williams Rebolledo, the Chilean navy’s commander, not material deficiencies, that limited his flotilla’s performance. Conversely, the skill and dedication of Adm. Miguel Grau, the commander of the Peruvian fleet, allowed his nation’s fleet to compensate for the loss of some its equipment and hold back the Chilean armada for the first six months of the war.

Learning the Lessons of Sea Power

Chile’s navy first took to the seas in 1818, when an embryonic fleet, under the command of the Scotsman Lord Thomas Cochrane, sailed north from Valparaíso to liberate Peru and Bolivia from Spanish rule. Some of the British naval officers who served in Cochrane’s armada remained in Chile’s fleet, thus explaining the presence of so many sailors with English surnames: John Williams, Santiago Bynon, Roberto Forster, Roberto Henson, Guillermo Wilkinson, Robert Simpson, Jorge O’Brien, Raimundo Morris (a few Americans, such as Charles Wooster, also served in Chile’s navy). Some, like Robert Simpson and Juan Williams Wilson, even sired a second generation of Chilean naval officers, including three who rose to the rank of admiral. Recognizing the vulnerability of the nation’s economy and its coastal population to a seaborne attack, Chile’s leaders early realized the need for a strong fleet. The government used this navy to vanquish the Peruvian- Bolivian Confederation in 1836. Domestically, the fleet helped suppress the abortive 1851 and 1859 revolutions. But after 1860, perhaps lulled by the lack of foreign and local enemies, Chile neglected its navy. The error of this policy became painfully apparent in the mid-1860s, when Chile and Spain went to war and a Spanish naval squadron subjected Valparaíso to a three-hour bombardment that inflicted fourteen million pesos in damage to the port. This Spanish incursion taught the Moneda that it needed a strong navy, especially since Peru’s fleet, reinforced by some recently purchased ironclads, now dwarfed that of Chile. In furtherance of this policy, Santiago bought two British-built corvettes, the Chacabuco and the O’Higgins, in 1866 and 1867. Two years after Peru responded by acquiring the Oneota and the Catawba, surplus U.S. riverine monitors, the Chilean government ordered two oceangoing ironclads from British shipyards. It also obtained two additional wooden corvettes, the Magallanes and the Abtao, as well as a transport. Anxious to achieve naval parity with Chile, the Peruvians wanted to buy more armored ships. Its legislature even allocated approximately four million soles for their purchase. The onset of a worldwide economic recession in the mid-1870s forced Lima to abandon its naval expansion program. Infected by the same economic malaise, Chilean officials became so desperate that they even considered selling the fleet’s ironclads for four million British pounds. Fortunately for the Chileans, their government could find no takers. Consequently, until onset of the War of the Pacific, the composition of the Peruvian and Chilean navies remained relatively stable.

CHILE’S ARMY

Chile’s military differed from its enemies in a variety of ways. On the most superficial level, Santiago’s troops dressed rather drably, at least when compared to Bolivia’s colorfully clad hosts. A few of Chile’s militia units did design some regalia that rivaled in hue those of La Paz, but the Ministry of War, doubtless anxious to ensure uniformity—always a cardinal military virtue—quickly stifled such originality. Instead, Santiago’s troops, aping the French army’s fashions as well as its tactics, marched into battle wearing blue or red kepis and jackets, red trousers, and sometimes brown puttees or leggings.

Another, and certainly a more significant distinction, was that Chile’s prewar army was composed of volunteers: those who served as private soldiers or noncommissioned officers had enlisted, generally in return for a bonus. The enlisted men did not constitute the elite of the Chilean nation. Indeed, one foreign writer described them as “the very lowest scum of society.” Thus, we should not be surprised if these sunshine soldiers often deserted, taking their bonus and their new uniforms with them.

Unlike the Allies, the Chileans had standardized the regular army’s weapons. The infantry carried Comblain II rifles, and artillerymen used Winchester carbines, while the cavalry’s Regimiento de Cazadores a Caballo dangled Spencer carbines from their saddles. Increasing the size of the army, however, forced some units to use less modern small arms. The newly created Atacama and Concepción battalions used Beaumont rifles, some of which exploded each time the troops used them for target practice; the Regimiento de Granaderos a Caballo employed both types of carbines plus some percussion rifles. Santiago began the war with four Gatling guns as well as forty-four field pieces and mountain guns, including sixteen six- and eight-centimeter cannons purchased from the House of Krupp. Unfortunately, Chilean gunners had little experience deploying these weapons: in two years they had fired their field pieces only once. It does not appear that the infantry had much more experience using their small arms.

While the active army had adequate weaponry, the same could not be said for the national guard. The seven-thousand-man militia—which tumbled from eighteen thousand in 1877—had to make do with 3,868 ancient minié guns and “old French flintlock rifle[s], converted into percussion weapons, which through use and long time in service, are now found in bad state.” Unsurprisingly, the guard’s artillery, or cavalry guard units, also had to make do with outdated equipment.

A few factors distinguished Pinto’s army from that of the Allies. Thanks to Diego Portales, who had purged the army officer corps, the nation had managed to avert some of the more grievous sequela of unbridled militarism. Chile, however, was not immune to internal unrest: in 1851 and 1859 the army had to subdue rebellions. The Moneda sometimes called upon the military—but more so the national guard—to guarantee the “correct,” not necessarily honest, outcome of an election. Officers who demonstrated a lack of enthusiasm for this task or who vocally espoused a different political ideology than the government’s favorites sometimes had to resign their commissions.

In short, although flawed, the Chilean system nonetheless differed from that of Bolivia, where the chain of command was supplanted by cronyism, where “the intimate friends of the commander take turns sharing the command with him.” These facts do not mean that some Chilean officers did not call upon their santos en la corte to influence promotions, to arrange a coveted assignment, or to obtain protection from official retribution. Indeed, precisely because some officers served as government bureaucrats or sat in the legislature as elected representatives their acquaintance with politicians gave them some clout. But Chilean army officers also realized that the congress not only authorized the military’s budget but also set limits on its size, that if the minister of war was a professional officer he served at the pleasure of a civilian president and legislature, and that a promotion law required that officers spend a certain number of years in grade in order to ascend in the army’s hierarchy. Compare this requirement to Daza, who in thirteen years rose from the rank of private to lieutenant colonel.

Additionally, Chile’s officer corps, unlike that of the Allies, was professionally educated. True, a few of the army’s most senior officers, such as Gens. Justo Arteaga and Manuel Baquedano, received their commissions directly, but they were in a minority. Most of Chile’s officers entered the army only after completing a course of study in the Escuela Militar. Founded by Chile’s first national leader, Bernardo O’Higgins, the school at times seemed more like a refuge for juvenile delinquents than an institute for aspiring officers. A cadet riot, for example, forced the authorities to close the school in 1876, but it reopened in late 1878 with the expectation that it would graduate its fi rst class in five years.

Even attending the Escuela Militar or unit-level postgraduate seminars did not prepare Chile’s officers for modern war. The lessons of the later years of the American Civil War and the Franco-Prussian conflict—that rapid-fire rifles and breech-loading artillery devastated massed troop formations—did not seem to influence Chile’s infantry, which continued to use the tactics outlined in a translated edition of a 1862 French military text. Unfortunately, as Jay Luvaas noted, “The infantry regulations of 1862, which had been described as a ‘faithful reproduction of the regulations of 1831’ [varied] little in spirit from the Ordinance of 1791.” Thus Chile would go to war in 1879 using the tactics of the Napoleonic era. As Emilio Sotomayor observed, “A soldier, especially the Chilean, because of his nature has to be watched and overseen constantly by his officers. Otherwise—as practical experience has shown us on many occasions—the soldier obeys the tendency to disperse and to fight alone.” This habit might have developed as a consequence of a situation unique to Chile: for decades the Araucanian Indians were Santiago’s major enemy. Whatever their deficiencies, Chile’s army acquired more military skills fighting the Indians than the Bolivian army did from “promoting or suffocating revolutions or mutinies.” Ironically, the foot soldiers seemed no more backward than Chile’s cavalry, which still followed some early-nineteenth-century Spanish regulations. The infantry employed tactics modeled on those of the Spanish for muzzle-loading weapons, not techniques adapted to the use of modern fi rearms. The artillery perforce demanded a higher level of education: in 1874 Gen. Luis Arteaga wrote a manual to teach the army’s gunners how to master their newly acquired Krupp artillery and Gatling guns.

Only two commanders, Ricardo Santa Cruz of the Zapadores and Domingo Toro Herrera of the Chacabuco, absorbed the lessons, which they later demonstrated during maneuvers. Their efforts, while not converting other commanders, convinced a few to adopt the maneuver of having their companies advance in skirmish lines; regrettably, the rest of the army, an American naval officer observed, did not embrace the new tactics, devoting its efforts to “mechanical precision and too little to skirmishing. Open-order fighting did not seem to form part of the system of tactics.”

In addition to the gaps in their education, Chile’s officers often lacked practical experience. The army’s more senior commanders did not know how to maneuver large units. Col. Marco Arriagada complained that most officers did not possess the knowledge to train the infantry and cavalry how to use their new rifles. Even when they acquired new Krupp field pieces, Chile’s gunners did not understand their value because they had fired them but once in past two years.

In sum, Chile’s army seemed ready to fight the war against Peru and Bolivia in 1879 using the same tactics it had employed when it had battled against the armies of the Peruvian-Bolivian Confederation in 1836. Happily for the Moneda, its enemies’ military proved equally rooted in the past: just as the Bolivians still resorted to Napoleonic squares to repel cavalry charges, the Peruvians continued to follow Spain’s only slightly more modern 1821 military regulations, which, many officers sadly acknowledged, seemed appropriate only for a “distant epoch.”