A Dutch Australia
- Thread starter Syphon
- Start date
Michael B said:
Michael B
I think your identified the big problem with this scenario. It needs a major change in attitude in the Netherlands resulting in a big boost in emigration and a reason why they would go the extra distance to Australia rather than just the Cape. Possibly some internal conflict or increased threat from France prompts people to leave. [I know historically there were clashes between royalist and republican elements]. Then say the Dutch EIC have sold this 'worthless land' to another Dutch company set up for settlement but continue to oppose settlement at the Cape. They still make a profit seeing supplies to settlers passing the Cape but a steady stream making use of the, relatively, empty land. Then two big spurts, when the Cape is lost to Britain, possibly meaning the Boers already there move east. Also the discovery of gold in Australia helps encourage more emigrants. The continent has been accepted as a Dutch territory so although others settle as a minority the majority are Dutch?
Steve
The VoC would have no problem selling something they considered worthless to another comapny then charging extortionate prices to supply ships with vegetables.stevep said:
Dutch colonisation of anywhere comes up with a manpower problem in that in 1700 the Netherlands had a population of only 1.8 million. In contrast Britian had a population of 9 million amd France 19 million. Given that most people don't want to leave without a good reason, a Dutch colony in Australia is not going to be very big.
Nor is it going to be able to stop colonists from other countries muscling if there is anything worth having, eg gold. The problem the Boer republic on OTL 150 years later had was number of Uitlanders working in them. If large numbers of British citzens poured into Australia, London may decide to follow up in order "to protect them."
One answer to this problem is to draw in non-European colonists instead. This was what I did in my Dutch colonisation of Southern Africa in order to create a signficant non-Bantu population. There is no reason why the Dutch could not transport Indians or Chinese indentured workers to work the mines and farms. They are more likely to do that than try to enslave aborigines and would help create an econnomically viable colony.
http://www.wodarczak.net/althist/australia.html
At first the Dutch East India company regarded the vast deserts of Nieuw Holland as an inconvenient extension of its territory in Batavia, but when the British took control of Batavia in 1811, the Dutch colonists moved their headquarters to the town of Jansz on the south-western coast of the continent (now the national capital) and began to see the potential for flooding. Back in control of Batavia in 1816, they shipped thousands of spice islanders to the mainland to work as slave labour on the vast inland sea project, which was nearly 100 years in the making.
By the 20th century, Nieuw Holland was a major exporter of coffee and flowers grown around the transplanted Zuider Zee.
But the spice islanders were bitter and they formed a nationalist movement to claim freedom for what they began to call Indonesia. When the Indonesians declared their independence in 1945, the white settlers moved en masse to Nieuw Holland, which did not gain its own independence from the Netherlands until 1962.
Nieuw Holland now has a population of 20 million, mostly staunch, hardworking Protestants with a commitment to the environment through solar-energy collectors in the desert and sleek windmills strung along the 5000 km network of canals.
Still, a very interesting idea. To see the differences in Aboriginal culture possibly? And of course the world stage. I like the ideas though.
At first the Dutch East India company regarded the vast deserts of Nieuw Holland as an inconvenient extension of its territory in Batavia, but when the British took control of Batavia in 1811, the Dutch colonists moved their headquarters to the town of Jansz on the south-western coast of the continent (now the national capital) and began to see the potential for flooding. Back in control of Batavia in 1816, they shipped thousands of spice islanders to the mainland to work as slave labour on the vast inland sea project, which was nearly 100 years in the making.
By the 20th century, Nieuw Holland was a major exporter of coffee and flowers grown around the transplanted Zuider Zee.
But the spice islanders were bitter and they formed a nationalist movement to claim freedom for what they began to call Indonesia. When the Indonesians declared their independence in 1945, the white settlers moved en masse to Nieuw Holland, which did not gain its own independence from the Netherlands until 1962.
Nieuw Holland now has a population of 20 million, mostly staunch, hardworking Protestants with a commitment to the environment through solar-energy collectors in the desert and sleek windmills strung along the 5000 km network of canals.
Still, a very interesting idea. To see the differences in Aboriginal culture possibly? And of course the world stage. I like the ideas though.
Max Sinister
Banned
Hmm, except for Prussia and Austria Germany was still very split at that time. If the dutch have the idea to recruit Germans to settle in their colonies... the language is similar, and the Germans don't have a big brother (yet) who'd take Australia from the Dutch.
Max Sinister
Banned
The typical Germans coming to the USA were just poor and hoped for a better life (with the exception of the Amish and such), but we're talking about a different place, different time here. And why Catholics? Don't you mean Protestant?
Max Sinister said:
I just seen to rememember reading somewhere that in Northern Germany there was quite a bit of anticatholic feeling by the protestants.
I might be wrong in the perception I formed but it was just something I read a few years ago and it popped into my head.
Yes dirt poor Germans looking for a better life offered land and transit on the proviso that the don't return.
Oh and weren't the upcoming wars of the mid 1600 partly based on Catholics (France and Spain) against the protestants (Dutch, Danes, Northern Germans and whoever else you want to add to the mix).
Syphon said:
Depends on which series of wars your referring to. The 30 years war, 1616-48 basically saw a Hapsburg bloc, centred around their Spanish and Austrian territories seeking to stamp out the Reformation, crush the Dutch revolt and centralise their control of Germany. However catholic France basically sided with the Protestants, initially with money, later men to prevent the Hapsburgs getting too powerful. Think I had read a reference that the Papacy didn't want they getting too powerful either.
Later, from about 1660, France under Louis XIV, was the big problem threatening the security of Europe. His regime also revoked the edict of Nantes and persecuted the French Protestants brutally. Their threat to the balance of power in turn meant an alliance centred around Britain, the Netherlands and the Austrian Hapsburg's to resist French expansion. Again this led to strange bedfellows because I remember seeing when Louis supported James II's invasion of Ireland as a step to regaining the British throne the Papacy supported the Protestant William.
Either conflict, resulting in warfare and pressure on the Dutch homelands might have spurred emigration. Although it was probably still the richest region of Europe for most of the period, which tends to deter outflows of population. Possibly something nasty happening so that more Dutch are desperate to escape. Not necessarily a total fall of the Netherlands but possibly an invasion causing much destruction and making people feel less secure?
Steve
The Sandman said:
Probably worse, remember it was the Africaans of dutch decent that started apartheid.
then again the numbers of aborigines per square km is very small compared to the population density of say africa and the DEI's.
So its possible that there would be no real diference and the indigious population would be just as marginalised as under the british.