Figures in History 01- How important was the leadership of Simon Bolivar in the Venezuelan War of Independence?

This is a short fragment of a larger text I wrote analysing the importance of Simon Bolivar in comparison to other factors in the Venezuelan War of Independence, it is not perfect and I apologise in advance for any spelling or grammar mistakes I have made. Also please forgive me for any other mistakes I have made since this is by no means perfect and although all factual information should be correct, it has not been written with the intention of creating an advanced academic article. anyway, here it is, please enjoy.

Simón Bolívar or ‘Simón José de la Santísima Trinidad Bolívar y Palacios’, although little recognised outside of South America, is famous in Latin America for his role in the liberation of Venezuela and five other South American nations from the yoke of Spanish colonialism. Bolivar was a wealthy Creole, part of the colonial elite in Venezuelan society; who helped to lead the independence movement in Venezuela from its start in 1810 until his death in 1830. He was one of the first serious political activists that were part of the liberal movement starting to take root in the newer generations of South Americans and indeed the New World. Throughout his life, at various points, he was in contact with foreign liberal philosophers such as Bentham and Mill. As well as lesser known political theorists in South America such as his Rodriguez, his childhood tutor. He is considered one of the most influential figures in history as recognised by Michael Hart in his book The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History (Bolivar was ranked 48th). During his lifetime, his leadership arguably saw to the liberation of his native country Venezuela and even had a country named after him, Bolivia. Born in 1783 and dying in 1830, in Bolivar’s lifetime Venezuela had gone from being a poor colonial nation to being a flourishing independent and sovereign nation within the year of his death. Although over the centuries historians have refined their view of Bolivar overall, not many have taken a closer look at the role he played specifically in his home country of Venezuela.

The Venezuelan War of Independence was a series of conflicts between 1810 and 1823 between Spain and Venezuela and to some extent also other countries such as Britain, Haiti and at some stages New Granada (modern-day Ecuador, Colombia, Panama and Guyana). The war began when seven of the ten provinces in Venezuela declared themselves independent from Spain which gave birth to the ‘First Republic’, which lasted until 1812 when it was overwhelmed by royalist forces led by Captain Monteverde at the Battle of San Mateo. After gaining the approval of the New Granadian Congress and serving in the New Granadian Army skillfully Bolivar launched his famous ‘admirable campaign’ and retook the Venezuelan capital of Caracas in 1813 and established the ‘Second Republic’. However, 1815 saw resistance from Boves who led a royalist movement made of pardos to force Bolivar back into New Granada. From 1815 to the following year a Spanish expeditionary force retook the rich urban North of New Granada which left Bolivar in the rural South. Until 1819 Bolivar and royalist forces were stuck in a stalemate which ended after Republican forces retook New Granada at the Battle of Boyaca. From New Granada yet again the Republicans launched another campaign to take back Venezuela and succeeded at last when they won the Battle of Carabobo and the later defeat of royalist forces once and for all in the siege of Puerto Cabello in 1823, which was the final Royalist stronghold to be captured.

The Venezuelan War of Independence was a deeply complex series of events as agreed by all historians. However contemporary specialists in Latin American History such as John Lynch and other historians such as Marie Arana; agree that radical change in South America had been long coming. Lynch said specifically that “political change was overdue, and not an accident of 1808”. When referring to 1808 he is referring to the forced abdication of the Bourbon Monarchs King Ferdinand III and King Charles IIV, which is one of the main factors which I will include due to its vast implications in Venezuela. Another historian, Kinsbruner, lays his focus on the activities of Creoles and other members of the upper classes of Venezuelan society. As he puts it, “my emphasis continues to be on active citizenry (the oligarchy)”. He recognises Bolivar as a “tragic figure”, explaining that he sees Bolivar this way due to his failure to reform Venezuela's social and economic deficiencies inherited from the Spanish colonial system despite his efforts to free Venezuela. He also suggests that Bolivar is of greater importance than he first acknowledged, as can be found in the preface to the second edition of his book Spanish America Civil Wars, Revolutions and Underdevelopment. Every historian I looked at, identified Bolivar’s leadership as one of the key factors in the Venezuelan War of Independence regardless of how they saw Bolivar as an individual.

The various contrasting views on the Venezuelan War of Independence have created scope for a fascinating and exciting investigation about the various factors of the Venezuelan War of Independence and the true role Bolivar had to play. With the fairly recent waves of interest paid by academics and journalists alike, there is a considerable argument both from the traditional view that he was the most important factor and the more contemporary view that it was either a mix of factors or a different factor entirely that had the largest influence. In this essay, I will tentatively explore whether Bolivar was the most important factor as traditional interpretations suggest; or if long-term socioeconomic factors were more influential as contemporary interpretations propose.

Bolivar’s effect on Latin America does not end with his death, his legacy still lives on in Venezuela where it has had a profound effect long after his death, which makes evaluating his role even more difficult. Regardless of the connotations his name now has with socialism as a result of Chavez’s ‘Bolivarian Revolution’, in Venezuela Bolivar is still mainly known and respected for his contribution to the history of Venezuela and the broader role he played in Latin America. This is reflected in his role in Latin American literature and folklore, where he is discussed just as much as he is in historical circles. In the words of Christopher Minister, “Politicians and leaders are still fighting over his legacy”.

However, despite the fascinating nature of his legacy, it is more important still to cut straight to the truth and to try to identify the real effect Bolivar had on Venezuela. Some sources describing Bolivar base the majority of their research upon Spanish literature and poor historiography. This has lead to the existence of a so-called ‘cult of Bolivar’ which has exaggerated the role he played. However, thankfully there has also been a recent wave of interest in Bolivar from academics all across the globe in the 1990’s and early 2000’s which has meant the release of a whole new perspective on Bolivar which is far more focused on his role in comparison to the underlying factors in his era as well as the roles of other leaders.

It is my belief that, all in all, Simon Bolivar played an important part as the leader of the rebellion against the rule of the Spanish Viceroyalty in Venezuela and indeed ending Spanish colonialism in Latin America, however, it is also my belief that his leadership was not the most important factor. I came to the final conclusion that overall the importance of Bolivar’s leadership as a factor in the Venezuelan War of Independence was only equal to the importance of other key factors. Other key factors which at least match the historical importance of Bolivar’s leadership include social and economic changes within Venezuela and events such as the Spanish ‘Peninsular War’. Over the decades and especially since recent events such as Chavez’s ‘Bolivarian Revolution’, Bolivar’s role in Venezuela’s war of independence has become blurred and ambiguous, to say the least. In this essay, I will humbly attempt to demonstrate through reason and argument that Bolivar’s role is less significant than commonly suggested. The impact of Bolivar’s leadership can easily be gauged from analysing and comparing all of the key events that occurred before and during his lifetime and their causes. I will cover specifically the effects and significance of Bolivar’s leadership as a military and political leader, the leadership of others, the ‘Bourbon Reforms’, Spain’s Peninsular War from 1808-14 and the impact of other factors such as political theories which were prevalent at the time.

In the late 18th century, Venezuela’s economy was growing at an exceptional speed, growing over a third in size between the years of 1785-1810 alone. Its economy had been for a long time, Spain's colonial public finance and this was neither systematic or reliable. It leeched off the credit provided by high taxes, forced loans, confiscation of property and donations. This, in turn, meant less economic stability which resulted in the beginnings of conflicts and divisions between Spanish authorities and Venezuelans. Spain had focussed their priorities through the ‘Bourbon Reforms’. Spanish monopoly on trade had been established and maintained between 1728 and 1785 in Venezuela as part of a revival of Spanish imperialism which was known as the ‘Bourbon Reforms’. The Bourbon Reforms under Charles III came following the Seven Years War with Britain and the temporary loss of Havana. Charles was eager to restore full control over Latin America and thus he began rethinking Spanish policy in all of its colonies. Through the use of instruments such as the Spanish ‘Caracas Company’ and increased taxes, Spain was able to dictate a complete economic policy in Venezuela. In turn, this meant fewer profits were reinvested in Venezuela and the beginnings of the conflicts and divisions between Creoles and Spaniards, which will be later, discussed were formed.

Economically, the Spanish empire was at heart weak and unable to keep up with the economies of other European powers such as Britain. The growth of its colonies was impressive but nowhere near as high as it should have been. The main source of Latin America’s wealth was its natural resources which were held almost completely by a minority of rich white merchants from the upper echelons of Venezuela’s race-based colonial society. This elite group maintained and grew their wealth through the export of various goods from their estates and mines, worked by black slaves and mulattos. For example, the agricultural industry, which relied heavily on slave labour, made up an average of 60% of Venezuela’s total exports. Reliance on slave labour only grew in the years leading up to the War of Independence. In the 1780’s Spain once again permitted imports to its colonies. This meant slaves became even more vital to the economy as Creole merchants tried to increase export to keep up with foreign competition. All trade was under strict control by the Spanish in favour of their own merchants to ensure that Spain could continue to expand its empire and exploit its people. Kinsbruner has highlighted the fact that a very limited amount of the profits earned were placed back into South America which left it with little infrastructure or much else in terms of public services.

Along with the economy, the administration in Venezuela was also altered significantly. For example in 1777, following its separation from New Granada in 1776, Venezuela was given a captain-general which essentially centralised political and military control in the hands of a man loyal to the Spanish. He also took away power and positions that were long held by members of the Creole elite and instead gave it to Spanish bureaucrats. He did so through, as Lynch suggests, the development of new institutions which were exclusively worked by Spanish bureaucrats. Key examples include the ‘audiencia’ (high court) in 1786 and the ’consulado’ (merchant guild) in 1793, both of which excluded creoles. Essentially Venezuela had been given a new set of officials who through corresponding directly with the Spanish government in Madrid made sure Venezuela was securely in their hands and easier to exploit than ever. They did so through ensuring Spanish interests were prioritised over local interests, which, it is important to note, had been given greater consideration in the past. As pointed out by Lynch the main result of this was the anger and frustration of creoles with the colonial authorities. Creoles undeniably felt they had been insulted by the colonial authorities and Spain. They saw that they were being denied positions past generations of creoles had traditionally held. It can also be argued that, by distancing further the interests of Venezuelans from Spain, Charles had unintentionally undermined the positive long term relationship Spain had previously shared with Venezuela and the local elites there.

Although the Spanish had intended to ensure Venezuela’s loyalty, by tightening their grip they instead did the exact opposite. Venezuelan creoles had enjoyed the privileges of high-ranking positions in society such as in the church, the bureaucracy and the military since the 17th century. Now, many of these roles were increasingly denied from them and instead filled by Spaniards. It was as a result of this fundamental change between Spain and creoles that Venezuela’s future was altered forever. It is Kinsbruners belief that the elites in Venezuela along with the rest of the Spanish colonies in South America were not grateful for Spain’s decision to take away a great number of their privileges. Their relationship with the colonial authorities was forever changed for the worse. Creoles blamed the King’s ministers for the radical changes imposed on them. However, they still had faith in their king and were far from abandoning their loyalty to him. For this reason, by no means was Venezuela’s independence inevitable at this point, nor was it even present in the minds of most Venezuelans. Venezuelans were still far too attached to the Spanish monarchy and some of the Spanish traditions that they had adopted. But as suggested by historian John Leddy Phelan in Lynch’s ‘Old and New World Origins’, it is possible that the so-called ‘Bourbon Reforms’ had a lasting impact on Venezuelan thinking.

One of the other main consequences of the Bourbon reforms was that the church suffered financially. The church was deeply embedded in Venezuela and the whole of Latin America, with vast stretches of land owned and with the support of the lower classes. The church was also wealthy. Highly influential it impacted greatly on Latin American culture and society- with the lower classes in particular. Upon the outbreak of Civil War the church naturally sided with Spain and was used by the Spanish relentlessly. The reason it sided with Spain was that the majority, if not all, of the high-ranking members of the Church, were indeed themselves Spanish. Pastors were instructed to incite rebellions in areas highly populated by slaves. However, in the fifty years leading up to the Wars of Independence, the power and wealth of the church were reduced by the Spanish themselves in order to fund the crown’s wars and its colonial economy.

Kinsbruner observes that the church in the entirety of Latin America was restricted from expanding its wealth and in fact had a great number of prosperous sources of income confiscated from them. Kinsbruner specifically says that it was the expropriation of “all land and capital belonging to the pious works and charities” in 1804 that put stress on the church and “antagonised laymen and clergymen alike”. Had the church not experienced such harsh cuts in Latin America it is viable to suspect that pastors would have had a greater influence in their local areas and been able to prevent and deter South Americans from fighting against the King and royalist forces. These reforms came as part of the Bourbon reforms and were essential to provide the Spanish crown with financial gains but also to encourage the spread of enlightenment and its’ progressive thinking. Both were equally important to the Spanish crown who had observed the extensive losses of its neighbour's territories in North America due to their lack of will to reform, Britain losing sixteen of its territories and France nearly all of its colonies in North America.

Like all of Spain’s colonies in South America, Venezuela had a class system based off of its unique ethnic composition, the balance of which, was critical for the maintenance of social and economic stability. The disruption of this delicate social order was possibly one of the most important factors in the Venezuelan War of Independence. Venezuela’s class system was incredibly hierarchical, with Peninsular Spaniards and elite Creoles at the top, making up only 0.49% of the total population. The rest of the population was significantly poorer, which only got worse in the years leading up to 1810. Pardos, Indians and Blacks had little rights and had been heavily oppressed in order to maintain the social order. In war time both sides, especially the royalists, used promises of equality to manipulate slaves and pardos to their advantage, for whoever held control over the pardo population held control over the majority of the fighting population. Of Venezuela’s total estimated population of 800 000, half were pardos. Consequently, racial tensions between creoles and Spaniards and between the upper and the lower classes can be considered one of the root causes of revolution in South America; and one of the fundamental factors controlling the outcome of the War of Independence. Had the creoles been treated with greater respect perhaps there wouldn’t have been a mandate for revolutionaries such as Bolivar to fight for independence. Also, it is plausible to consider that if the racial tensions experienced in the lower classes had been treated they would not have been stirred up so easily in the Venezuelan War of Independence and perhaps there would have been a different result entirely.

During the 50 year period leading up to the revolution Spain also experienced radical change and as previously noted was significantly weakened by expensive battles in the Seven Years War. Although even prior to its involvement in the Seven Years War, Spain was already becoming a backwards undeveloped colonial power by European standards, this only worsened following the end of Charles III’s reign. The new monarch, his son, Charles VII was his opposite, a weak and amiable man whose wife Maria Luisa held great influence over him and who was known to hold far greater actual power than he did. The government in Spain was also notably weak, its Prime Minister (appointed by the Queen) Manuel Godoy was an unwise choice. He was incompetent, greedy and self-serving. Only concerned with bettering his position and certainly not with bettering the position of Spain. He was hated by the gentry and common people alike and it did not help that it was rumoured he was sleeping with the Queen. Similar to the result of Rasputin’s influence on the Romanovs in Russia, Godoy made the internal situation in Spain weak and divided which affected its ability to make decisions and maintain stability throughout its empire.

It wasn’t long before their French neighbour Napoleon recognised their weakness and by 1808 Napoleon had forced the Bourbon monarchs, both Charles IV and Ferdinand III to abdicate which put Spain in a civil war of its own from 1808-1814. This war weakened Spanish rule in its colonies as a direct result and was one of the main reasons independence was possible in Venezuela in 1810. As previously mentioned the creoles although disdainful of Spanish colonial authority, still respected the authority of their monarch. With the fall of Ferdinand III, it was now inevitable that Venezuela would separate from Spain, the final thread joining them together had been broken. Although a minority stayed loyal to Ferdinand for several months and in some regions in Venezuela even several years, the overall majority of Creoles recognised the benefits they would gain from independence and like Bolivar they were willing to take a chance to achieve it. It ultimately meant Spain had lost Venezuela as a colony forever and that the abdication of Ferdinand was, therefore, one of the most important factors in the Venezuelan War of Independence. For as the Venezuelan aristocracy witnessed the disputes and divisions occurring within Spain and the forced abdication of both King Charles IV and Ferdinand III, they too became divided.

The Spanish internal insecurity was, suggests Arana, one of the key factors that led to a large scale War of Independence. Lynch reasons that one of the main reasons the Creoles had indeed been satisfied with a colonial government in Venezuela was because they believed it was all that stood between social order and the chaos which could be caused by pardo and black rebellions at any moment. What Bolivar famously described as the “volcano at our feet”. Without the protection of a strong and capable governing force, creoles no doubt feared the disturbance of this order. As Lynch also recognises, Venezuela faced a crisis of political legitimacy. They could not be ruled by the Bourbons, they did not want to be ruled by the French and did not trust the liberals. The power vacuum left behind in Venezuela was one that had to be filled. Although together with all the factors listed above it is likely that it was these conditions that caused the Venezuelan War of Independence, it clearly was not why it succeeded.

During this time, ideas about Enlightenment had spread through Latin America just as they had in Europe and as Kinsbruner points out, had been integrated into colonial thinking by the end of the eighteenth century. Even if they weren't conscious of it, the willingness to reform in areas such as the economy and scientific exploration meant that proved that many Creoles were heavily influenced by Enlightenment ideas. The elite Creoles, including Bolivar, explored liberal ideas as a new way of thinking as to match the intellectual capacity of their European peers. The result of studying liberal philosophers such as Bentham, Mill and Rousseau undoubtedly inspired revolutionary thinking and at least led creoles to have greater support for Venezuelan autonomy. Prior to such liberal thinking, the Venezuelan elites had for decades subscribed to a more absolutist form of philosophy lead by classical Spanish philosophers such as Francisco Suarez and Domingo Baez who called for absolute obedience to their government regardless of all else. Bolivar like much of his generation was taught enlightenment ideas as a young teen. In Bolivar’s own words (speaking of Rodriguez, his tutor and mentor) “you have moulded my heart for liberty and justice”. Such words sum up the cultural values that were implanted in the minds of this new generation of Venezuelans which differed greatly from those which were valued in the past.

Bolivar himself was a perfect example, he was known to carry hundreds of books with him on military campaigns and as observed by one of his servants, he read political books on any opportunity he was given. He was certainly not alone in his interest in European philosophy. Many of Bolivar’s revolutionary peers such as Miranda and Santander also studied enlightenment philosophy and were all too keen to put ideas such as liberty, freedom and democracy into practice in Venezuela. It is important to mention that enlightenment philosophies never gave any judgements on colonies specifically. It was instead through Rousseau’s idea that countries are allowed to overthrow their ruler if their ruler is unjust, that revolutionary Venezuelans were able to justify their independence. Bolivar himself is an example of how Venezuelans were deeply affected by Enlightenment ideas such as the one above. When he writes his Jamaica letter in 1815 and his Bolivarian constitution in 1828, it is clear that since he tries to appeal to Venezuelans through liberal values, that they were held in high esteem in Venezuelan society. He did not use liberal doctrines just to appeal to his audience however, he also used them to construct the base values of Venezuelan society after the consolidation of independence.

Having discussed the various other influences of the Venezuelan War of Independence, it is now important to consider and contrast Bolivar’s effect on the outcome of the Venezuelan War of Independence. Bolivar was a highly intelligent political and military leader who sacrificed all he had; his fortune, his lands and his more than comfortable living conditions as an elite Creole for the cause of Independence. A cause to which he dedicated his whole life to. His efforts demonstrated that he was one of the key leaders of the revolution from the end of the first Republic in 1812 until his death in 1830. In the two centuries following the Venezuelan War of Independence the leadership of Bolivar has been the focus of historians when it came to addressing why it succeeded. It is difficult not to be charmed by Bolivar’s superhuman persistence and great willingness to dedicate himself to the cause of independence. However by no means did he lead the revolution to victory single handedly.

Bolivar’s strength in leadership was also due to his observation and comprehension of how Spanish forces were considerably stronger through their willingness to use blacks and pardos to fight for them. The new republican constitution of 1811 maintained the rule of elite Creole families which left non-whites with little change in terms of legal or other changes in social status and royalists the opportunity to provoke outrage from slaves. Slaves, of course, rose to the bait and quickly rekindled their devotion to the monarchy. An example of this loyalty to the monarchy can be found in 1813 as enraged coloured slaves massacred whites by the hundreds in the name of the Captain General at the time, Monteverde. Bolivar also witnessed the success of Boves’ ‘force of coloured people’. Boves, a native chieftain and a man of military talent and charisma, who fought in the name of the king, is described by Kinsbruner as “a social democrat who elevated people of colour to positions in the army and civil government that was unprecedented in Spanish America”. His army, the ‘Legions of Hell’, Arana describes as “cutting through the country like a knife” against the Republicans. Boves taught Bolivar that as a leader no war in Venezuela could be won without confronting the question of race.

Another influence on Bolivar’s changing attitude towards people of colour came about whilst he was on his exile to Haiti following the failure of the Second Republic in 1814 and his opportunity to meet President Petion. Petion himself was described by Kinsbruner as “a steadfast Republican and generous soul”. He offered Bolivar total support in his campaign as long as he could “see that those who tremble under slavery’s yoke are free”. Agreeing to this principle, Kinsbruner believes was a decision made purely “for military purposes, not humanitarian principle”. This can be evidenced through a remark Bolivar made several years later in 1820 “is it not proper that slaves should acquire the right on the battlefield and that their dangerous numbers should be lessened”. In other words, to begin with, he only initially freed slaves, specifically male slaves with the express purposes of using them to fight for him against the royalists and to lessen their number and thus their threat to whites. Policies such as these prove that Bolivar was a highly intelligent political and military leader because he remained on the whole flexible in his beliefs and was able to find solutions for most of the problems he faced in order to achieve victory as soon as possible. His ability to read situations on a deep analytical level and find a clear route to achieving his goals was perhaps one of his most valuable attributes. Bolivar proved this ability again and again from the start of his political career right up until its unexpected end.

There were many traits to Bolivars character that led to his proclamation as’ Liberator’ of Venezuela. A soldier amongst his men, Bolivar would ride relentless hours alongside them across demanding terrains. Accompanying this incredible physical stamina, was his uncompromising ability to remain focused and faithful to his cause. A great orator, he could stir his men through his many famous speeches and war cries and engage the population in the Republican cause. Bolivar engaged in the theatre of exaggeration to demonstrate his power as well as instil fear in his enemies. Parades and balls would mark the ‘Liberators’ conquests. Engaging with his people, Bolivar would ride through villages and seek the people's responses, gauge their needs and address their suffering under royalist control. Bolivar was also an incredible opportunist who would use people for as long as he needed for his campaign as well as observe and utilise successful strategies employed by others including his enemies.His vision remained focussed throughout the tormenting experience of losing to the royalists several times before victory as well as being betrayed by countless traitors. The skills Bolivar developed and refined throughout his campaigns were essential to the direction of the revolution and to a great degree the outcome of the War of Independence.

On many occasions had Bolivar observed the ruthlessness of the many Spanish or Royalist despots, who, governed through terror over the Americans since the Republicans first campaign. Under the rule of Monteverde, fear and savagery reigned against the Creoles and Republicans. In 1813 creole lands were confiscated and possessions divided amongst the Royalists. The climate of fear and hatred for the Spanish was further heightened by the marauding forces of Boves ‘army’ that swept across the land and who in the second republic announced that anyone who had been on the side of the Republicans would be killed by machete or lance. This climate of fear and hatred of the Spanish heightened and set the path of revolution and with Bolivar, the message of a ruthless resolve was now clear.

As a commander, Bolivar was indeed ruthless and did not hesitate to make decisions, unlike some of his peers. For example, after the failure of the First Republic, he handed Miranda over to the Spanish for his cowardliness without regret and saw to the deaths of numerous other traitors such as Pando, Piar and Marino. The execution of Piar was especially, he had been a man who was once a loyal ally and perhaps even Bolivar’s friend who had turned into an enemy, seeking power for himself. Bolivar himself explained the logic and reasoning behind such an execution; “The death of General Piar was a political necessity that saved this country…Never was there a death more useful, more politic and at the same time, more deserved”. It was in this aspect that he stood out in comparison to other leaders such as Francisco de Miranda, who were although also good leaders, were too weak to lead effectively.

Bolivar demonstrated that he was not only ruthless but also a talented military thinker in his 1813 ‘Decree of War to the Death’.The decree reads as follows, “our hatred knows no bounds and this is war to the death...Spanish and Canary Islanders count on death, even if you have been indifferent. Americans, count on life even if you have been guilty”. Bolivar had incited a race war but at the same time he claimed to be “the leader of the coloured people” and “champion their cause”. This combination was one of pure genius and doubtless one of the driving forces behind his military success in coming years. This ruthless approach amounted to psychological warfare which proved just as effective as actual military warfare. It demonstrated his ability to read situations and people and put what he learned from them into action. It was not a one off either, a year later in 1814 Bolivar directly called for the massacre of 800 Spanish prisoners in response to Monteverde refusing a deal to exchange prisoners. Up until 1820 where both sides agreed to end the so-called ‘Guerra a Muerte’, Bolivar saw to the deaths of hundreds of Spanish and Canarians on a scale similar to that he had witnessed of Robespierre's reign of terror. Bolivar too used terror relentlessly. He used it to encourage the support of Venezuelans to his cause, going further than Royalist forces, although many interpret this as one of Bolivar’s weaknesses I would say that the opposite was true, his willingness to go the whole way separated him from his enemies as well as his fellow revolutionaries.These factors demonstrate that Bolivar played an important role as liberator and that contemporary influences had impacted greatly on his leadership. Therefore it appears that he was not the single most important factor in the Venezuelan War of Independence.

Literature and historiography surrounding Bolivar has largely warped and substantially overplayed Bolivar’s role in the War of Independence, as can be distinctly observed from several key factors. The first factor worthy of mention is the way in which South America had been weakened by the sudden reforms imposed by Spain. The Bourbon reforms rushed the colonial economy and society forwards by decades, leading to a shocked Venezuela which could only be controlled by a strong government. The reforms employed were not tailored to the needs of each country in the Spanish empire, which is ultimately what inspired Spanish colonies in Latin America, including Venezuela to seek independence. The economic and social pressures that were a result of these reforms alone, however, would not have been enough to persuade creoles to risk their wealth for a new independent Venezuela. As I hope I’ve already made clear previously, the weakening of Spain itself was the final straw which when combined with the Bourbon reforms was the cause of the Venezuelan War of Independence. The Peninsular War had further weakened the colonial administration in Venezuela and meant that undoubtedly it was far less capable of containing revolutionaries and the spread of ideas of independence. The leadership of Bolivar, in contrast, had little real influence and was clearly not essential for the success of the Venezuelan War of Independence. Bolivar was only important in the military aspect of the revolution but even then despite his resilience, other military leaders such as Miranda, Santander, Monteverde, Boves and Piar were equally as important and influential.

In the words of Arana, Bolivar was “a leader whom fate presented with one opportunity and a glut of insuperable hurdles”. In relation to the question I originally asked, Bolivar’s leadership although still a factor of paramount importance clearly is not as instrumental as other factors which have been ignored by historians in the past. Bolivar has largely held a monopoly of importance in the eyes of historians both within and out of South America for decades, with the new wave of knowledge being studied carefully by historians in the 1990’s and early 2000’s, it is now clear that he isn’t. Other prime factors many such historians have found to be true include the effect of the Bourbon reforms, the Venezuelan economy and caste system; and the Peninsular War following Napoleon’s invasion of Spain. I have found that each of these factors has had an equal impact along with that of Bolivar’s leadership. The opportunity he was given was provided by the weakness of the Spanish monarchy and the instability of the Creole class in Venezuela due to Bourbon reforms and Spanish monopoly on free trade and lack of investment in Venezuelan infrastructure. Bolivar as Arana put it, simply took the opportunity given to him, he was just in the right place at the right time. Or in other words, he was just a product of the various underlying socio-economic issues of Venezuela and the failure of the Spanish colonial administration. I have undoubtedly found that Bolivar’s leadership was key for directing the revolution against Spanish rule in the Venezuelan War of Independence. But that essentially Bolivar, as well as most other revolutionary leaders, was just the result on the surface of underlying socio-economic issues which were actually the most important factors in bringing about revolutionary change.

The renewed interest sparked in the 1990’s has meant a surge in new academic papers, however, it needn't end there. Now the gateway is open for future historians to launch further academic research into the exact factors involved with the Venezuelan War of Independence and the independence movement that was present in all sixteen of Spain’s colonial nations in Latin America. Spain had lost all its colonies in Latin America by the end of the century. Recent events have sparked even greater interest into Bolivar and made him more relevant than ever before: with the socialist political leader Hugo Chavez declaring his famous ‘Bolivarian Revolution’ in 1997. Under the name of which he imposed massive constitutional reformation and mimicked Bolivar’s policies through his emphasis on a friendly relationship between the military and civilian populations. Even more recently Venezuela has been unstable following Chavez’s death, mass inflation and food shortages have sparked wide civilian unrest. Could it be that instead of Chavez’s socialist beliefs like many believe, but instead his use of Bolivarian principles which have had such a catastrophic effect? Future generations of historians and other academics might be able to build upon questions such as these in order to discover more about the fascinating story of Simon Bolivar, the liberator.

All of the information and interpretations of other historians I have used should be credited to and can be found in the following sources, which are all good reads for anyone who is interested in finding out more:

Arana, Marie, Bolivar: American Liberator (Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2013)

Minister, Christopher, Biography of Simon Bolivar, (ThoughtCo., 2017)

Minister, Christopher, Ten Facts about Simon Bolivar, (ThoughtCo., 2016)

Hart, Michael, H. The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History (Kensington Publishing Corp, 1992)

Kinsbruner, Jay, Independence in Spanish America: Civil Wars, Independence and Underdevelopment (University of New Mexico Press, 1994; 2000)

Lynch, John, Latin American Revolutions 1808-26 Old and New World Origins (University of Oklahoma Press, 1994)

Lynch, John, Simon Bolivar A Life (Yale University Press, 2006)