This is a really interesting question and one that can’t easily be answered by looking in an introductory Latin America book. I think an answer (certainly not the only answer) lies in the realities of the independence period in Latin America that gave rise to these unique individuals.

First, the traveling leaders of the revolution grew up in an age of travel. Bolívar, Miranda, San Martín, and O’Higgins all came of age in Europe and undertook Grand Tours. They traveled to various metropolises including Rome, London, and Paris where they were exposed to Enlightenment and Romantic thought, military training and strategies, and “high culture”. Like their European counterparts, the Grand Tour provided opportunities to brush elbows with elite social circles. In many ways, their contact networks were even larger than their European brethren since they fostered relationships with European, North American, and Haitian elite. Many of these would be useful supporters during independence, some who were nearby and others who were farther away. Travel was, in a sense, a normal part of their lives, which I think makes them rather unique. I would also be curious to know if their travel experiences and consequent cultural exchanges made them more open to pan-Americanism.

More pragmatically, Bolívar, San Martín, and Miranda were also fighting for independence in the unique context of Spanish America; consequently, their traveling revolutions make sense in this context. Contrary to popular imagination, Spanish American society was extremely fragmented. The Spanish colonies were generally situated around cities that acted like small islands of imperial power separated by huge spaces and geographic obstacles. They were connected by travel and trade networks that only loosely strung together the periphery with the metropolis. Therefore, to gain independence, revolutionary leaders needed to dislodge royalists in these population centers as well as work to incorporate areas that declared independence from Napoleon’s brother but had no intention or desire to be a part of someone else’s independence vision. As a result, gaining “their” independence required significant travel to attack and incorporate rival strongholds.

Likewise, revolutionary and royalist leaders both used the vast distances to escape to safe havens in the event of defeat. Bolívar made a number of escapes to friendly locales outside of his enemies’ reach where he could regroup, strategize, and make plans to exploit the changing political situation. Royalist forces moved deep into Upper Peru, which proved to be a loyal and virtually impenetrable redoubt for nearly fifteen years. Therefore, geography and the nature of Spanish society necessitated a traveling revolutionary who could mobilize troops to strike against (and then incorporate) distant and diverse targets.

Finally, I would argue that traveling leaders like Bolívar and San Martín were actually exceptions. Most people who participated in the revolutions had no intention of creating huge new pan-American empires or grand confederations. Spanish America was absolutely huge. Today, Argentina alone is the size of the eastern United States. When Napoleon invaded Spain, most cities established their own juntas that were loyal to the king but sought to be independent from other cities’ juntas. Take for example Asunción, which declared independence from Buenos Aires because they did not recognize porteño hegemony over the former Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata. Paraguayans felt themselves distinct from and had different interests than the porteño elite.

For the most part during the revolutionary period, people found themselves having to choose between different politicians and strongmen vying for local rather than national or international power. Most leaders and soldiers, like José Artigas or Manuel Belgrano for example, fought for their own self-interests and personal motivations that varied widely depending on the local situation. And unlike later revolutions, their goals did not start out nor ever were intended to create some sort of nation-state, since this concept really did not exist. The nations that ended up being formed were results of lengthy and chaotic processes rather than the intended destination of independence movements. Thus, the large unions that the traveling revolutionaries created almost universally collapsed shortly after their creation because people were more interested in el pueblo rather than la patria. The traveling revolutionaries are the most well known actors during the revolutionary period, but on closer inspection, they were a part of a larger, longer story.