This week’s readings were as insightful as last week’s. I had no previous knowledge of the Caudillos and how they influenced politics in the Latin America. I found it compelling how they caused a lot of terror and were incredibly violent but the people were still interested in following them, and they continuously went back to the Caudillos looking for guidance.

What I found the most interesting about the Caudillos was their ability to attract the people despite being corrupt. They were able to present themselves in a way that made them out to be “brotherly or fatherly” to the people. They were also incredibly charismatic. It’s clear to see why the people would be more willing to follow someone who they believed could voice their opinions, and not only that but someone who could also give them the respect they deserved. In return for their loyalty, the Caudillos did just that.

But it’s also obvious that the people from the rural villages would be more willing to follow the Caudillos. They were more action oriented, they showed their faces to the peasantry, and served as this middle ground between the peasants and the more powerful elites. These countries were also politically unstable, which helped the Caudillos gain popularity. The peasants weren’t educated, the state hadn’t served them and seemed to be following their own personal agenda, and when the Caudillos came, they promised them the opposite, speaking to them in a manner they could understand, of course, they’d favor the Caudillos.

The one thing that I’m unsure about is why they kept coming back to the Caudillos after they’d caused them so much turmoil. For example, Juan Manuel de Rosas was a brutal leader. He led by a dictatorship, accompanied by his own secret police. How did they continue to gain power? Maybe it was because they were more appealing that being led by the state, who would disregard the peasantry, I’m not sure.

Whether or not the Caudillos were completely bad or good it’s hard to say, but their presence was instrumental in Latin America’s political development.