A non-British settled Australia?

The first thing to realise is that the Dutch probably wouldn't be big enough to be able to colonize all of Australia exclusively. That is why I like the idea of a Dutch Western Australia. The settable area is just small enough for one good Dutch colony, without completely overstretching itself, which would certainly happen if all of Australia would be Dutch. Another thing about Western Australia is that it is close to the Dutch traderoute, which also would make it a relatively useful place for a colony. Eastern Australia is really out of the way of everything.

A Dutch Australian colony would probably need to be a settlement colony. I don't think that it could be turned into a sugar colony or something like that. So certainly at first it would mainly be a "white" colony, but after it started to develop more I could see more imigrants from Asia. Actualy I could even see Northern Australia become part of Indonesia itself.


Seems like the Dutch have the best early claim, and as you said the best motivation due to trade routes. I also agree that it would be Dutch, Huguenot, German, etc. similar to South Africa or even Pennsylvania.

However, the part of Western Australia that is fit for a settler colony (the extreme southwest near Perth) isn't very beneficial to Dutch trade routes. The area that would serve as a stop from from Java and the Spice islands to getting back around the Cape, is much further north and unfortunately is a desert or even further north a tropical landscape of swamps and forest. Not a great place for settlers. It seems like any settlement of Australia from the West for trade route purposes would be very light. Unless maybe a trade route stop is established in NW Australia and eventually someone figures out the area down south is more fit for living.

EDIT: This map shows that Dutch explorers had been to the more habitable SW of Australia by early 17th century. So, who knows, maybe they would set up a colony purely for settling purposes. Seems unlikely though based on other Dutch colonies (South Africa has a very similar climate but is in a more strategic location)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Australia_discoveries_by_Europeans_before_1813_en.png
Australia_discoveries_by_Europeans_before_1813_en.png
 
So looking at your comparison to African colonization, what we probably would have today is an Australia made of several nation states is that right? I'd guess though that eventually all of them would have come together under one united government.

I once read a book on Australia's early history (how it was established as a prison colony and all) and it's remarkable how;

1. it took less than 100 years from the time the first British ships arrived until basically the whole continent, plus Tasmania, was settled.

2. how quickly the prison colony aspect was discarded and in many ways tried to be forgotten even as early as the 100 year anniversary in the 1880's when they were still many former convicts around.
 
So looking at your comparison to African colonization, what we probably would have today is an Australia made of several nation states is that right? I'd guess though that eventually all of them would have come together under one united government.

Why? Lets say the Dutch colonise northern Australia and use it as an extension of the Dutch East Indies. The English, Like OTL colonise easern Australia, while the French colonise western Australia. Around the time of independence we have an Indonesian north Australia, a French speaking independent west Australia and a much like OTl eastern Australia. Why would they unite?
 
I do not see why it would be an Indonesian colony since I expect more white Dutch and Germans to go there and as such maintain a white-dominant society. The Dutch would like to import Indonesians but only those absolutely loyal, like Malukku people.
 
Northern Australia had enough of a value to ensure that any passing colonizer in Indonesia would pick it up. The rest can be largely unsettled.

I'm not sure that it did. Northern Australia is pretty desolate and devoid of immediately visible resources. It's basically harsher terrain than most of the Eastt Indies and so isn't really going to be too attractive- why go for Northern Australia when you can try and make inroads in Java or the Moluccas instead?
 
I'm not sure that it did. Northern Australia is pretty desolate and devoid of immediately visible resources. It's basically harsher terrain than most of the Eastt Indies and so isn't really going to be too attractive- why go for Northern Australia when you can try and make inroads in Java or the Moluccas instead?
Exactly. Southwest Australia (e.g. Perth) and most of the East Coast, they're worth settling (maybe growing wheat for your Indonesia colonies, say), but Northern Australia?
 
Northern Australia could be a potential naval base for any colonial power or Indonesia. Especially the Gulf of Carpentaria. Also, it was through the Dutch that Peter the Great became familiar with Australia, and he could have sent a Russian explorer to chart the territory.
 
I'm not sure that it did. Northern Australia is pretty desolate and devoid of immediately visible resources. It's basically harsher terrain than most of the Eastt Indies and so isn't really going to be too attractive- why go for Northern Australia when you can try and make inroads in Java or the Moluccas instead?
Why? Because its there. It's land and you want to stake your claim so another country does not.
 
I'm not sure that it did. Northern Australia is pretty desolate and devoid of immediately visible resources. It's basically harsher terrain than most of the Eastt Indies and so isn't really going to be too attractive- why go for Northern Australia when you can try and make inroads in Java or the Moluccas instead?

Its also pretty unsuitable for any of the Indonesian agricultural packages in terms of soils and weather, there wasn't anything valuable and no way to maintain a population there, so the Indonesian polities not being idiots, ignored it.

Why? Because its there. It's land and you want to stake your claim so another country does not.

That kind of stupid thinking rose in the 19th century.
 
If only every nation was led by non-idiots.

Anyway, I like the idea of a multinational Australia. I also like the idea of a foreign country colonizing Australia, but keeping the colonies minimal, and in the 20th century making large amounts of autonomy to the locals and making large sections of the country into nature preserves. Because the Dutch weren't big into settling places, they're the ones who have my vote. I suppose the Dutch might just call kangaroos kangaroos, though. It doesn't have quite the flare of quingarou.
 
Its also pretty unsuitable for any of the Indonesian agricultural packages in terms of soils and weather, there wasn't anything valuable and no way to maintain a population there, so the Indonesian polities not being idiots, ignored it.

Interestingly the Deccan crop package being suite to arid summers and monsoon winters might well have been more suited to Northern Australia than the tropical monsoon Indonesian crop package. Take a bit of a stretch for the Deccan powers to reach that far though. Perhaps a Chola or Chera empire which has expanded to at least partially control the Deccan but even thats a bit of a long shot.
 
Interestingly the Deccan crop package being suite to arid summers and monsoon winters might well have been more suited to Northern Australia than the tropical monsoon Indonesian crop package. Take a bit of a stretch for the Deccan powers to reach that far though. Perhaps a Chola or Chera empire which has expanded to at least partially control the Deccan but even thats a bit of a long shot.

Nah australian soils are just straight out terrible with acidity, salinity and low organic and high clay content. The most suitable breeds of cereals for the soil conditions are from central asia and north china, but they don't like the weather.

The Australian settlers made do in the south with Mediterranean varieties which still needed a lot of care, but even today northern Australia is pretty devoid of crop production.
 
The Dutch did have a bad experience with a shipwreck and mutiny in Houtman Abrolhos.

How about a Dutch colony on Swan River/Cockburn Sound?

A few hundred Dutch settlers in vicinity. Vegetable gardens like Capetown flats. A small fort.

A Dutch ship can cross the Southern Indian Ocean on westerly winds and make a landfall at Swan River. Take fresh water, fresh vegetables, repair the ship. And then sail north for Batavia.

Plus a chain of small farms along coast - a small farm trading with neighbouring Aboriginals and raising some plants and animals for their own.

The next time an East Indiaman wrecks on the shore, the hundreds of survivors are not thousands of kilometres from help - they have a detailed map of West Australian coastal features and outlying hazards several degrees north and south of Swan River, the nearest farmer/factor has several horses to send messenger to the Fort, and the Fort has food and several small ships to send out for assistance.

How would West Australian Boers spread?
 
How would West Australian Boers spread?

Probably into the grassland areas around the SW of Australia. Maybe along the coasts. The craziest bastards might head into the desert interior.

But in South Africa, the Boers really got moving when the British arrived so unless a different colonial power takes over they probably wouldn't go that far. Especially since the Outback is more inhospitable than the Karoo.

More likely that the colony would spread to the most settler-friendly areas of Australia in NSW, Victoria, and maybe Tasmania, but it could take some time as there is no practical reason to be there.
 
Top