Yesterday marked the 207th anniversary of the Battle of Maipú . This is undoubtedly a defining milestone in the Latin American independence movement, which began in 1810 .

It was a confrontation between the Patriot Army, commanded by José de San Martín and Bernardo O'Higgins, and the royalist forces, led by the Spanish commander Mariano Osorio .

The struggle for independence in Chile was, also, as in other parts of America, An ideological and political confrontation between two national projects, based not only on a military confrontation but also—precisely—on an ideological and political clash between these two models. On the one hand, the patriotic forces seeking independence from Spain, and on the other, the royalists loyal to the Spanish Crown. Through an analysis of the outcome of the battle and its subsequent implications, it becomes clear why this confrontation not only marked Chile's independence but was also decisive in shaping other independence movements across the continent.

It is necessary to remember that, on March 19 of that same year, the Patriot Army suffered a setback in the Battle of Cancha Rayada , where the royalist forces surprised the patriot army at dusk, causing a disaster in the army's ranks, with thousands of casualties. It is estimated that the liberation army lost approximately 3,000 men, leaving only a scant 4,000 fit for combat . Only Colonel Juan Gregorio de las Heras managed to save an entire division, which served as a base for the reorganization of the forces , establishing his headquarters on the outskirts of Santiago.

Knowing that the upcoming battle would decide the fate of the city and possibly the Chilean Revolution , San Martín ordered his troops on April 4 to march south to seek the approach of the Spanish army, intending to avoid further partial combat and achieve victory in an effective and definitive battle. Such was his determination that can be seen in the order of battle he dictated that same day :

“Recommend to the leaders unity and firmness to ensure the success of the victory.”

“The corps leaders should not wait for orders from above; they will act on their own, assisting each other…”

"When they rise up, where the headquarters is located, marking the spot with a tricolor flag, three flags at the same time: the tricolor of Chile, that of the United Provinces, the troops will express a 'Long live the homeland!' and immediately each corps will attack the enemy and pursue it."

After the victory on the battlefield, the royalist troops were weakened and scattered. Although Spanish strongholds remained in southern Chile, the defeat was so crushing that it dealt a mortal blow to Spanish colonial aspirations in Chile , triggering a series of events.

 The victory consolidated O'Higgins's position as the undisputed leader of the patriotic cause. He would later assume the position of Supreme Director of Chile , laying the groundwork for the construction of a new independent state. It also cleared the way for patriotic troops, led again by San Martín, to march north to liberate Peru from royalist colonial control . (In July 1821, in Lima, San Martín would proclaim Peru's independence in a public ceremony.)

At the same time, it strengthened relations between the independence leaders, not only for the military implications but also for the political cooperation that led to the victory at Maipú. San Martín and Bolívar, despite ideological differences, ultimately united in the fight against colonial power on the continent, beyond the borders of Chile and Peru.

Therefore, the battle of Maipú should be analyzed not as a local victory, but as a a continental victory for freedom.

The struggle for American independence continued for several years, until the royalists were finally defeated by Bolivarian troops, along with part of San Martin's armies, in Ayacucho in 1824.

207 years later, the victory at Maipú should be remembered, in the current political times our country is experiencing, as an act of unity and national effort.

San Martín knew how to leave his public image at the right time, and with a gesture he made a reality of that principle that should guide all men who lead the destiny of a country: "Leaders should abandon command of their armies or their people when their historical personality has reached its end, or when the administrative faculty of the people, which is what gives glory to heroes, has reached its maximum tension."