Another nations colonized Australia

Actualy I doubt that. Australia is rather far away from anything and not that useful or worthwhile any trouble.

A whole continent? The prestige, even if nothing else…

basicly, if another country like France, the Netherlands or Portugal (the three most likely candidates) would colonize Australia, it is more likely that the British leave them alone or (in the case of the Napolenoic wars) return their colonies (don't forget Britain returned most of the Dutch and French colonies after the wars). Besides that, if the British want part of it, it is more likely that they just colonise another part of Australia. For example, if the Dutch founded a colony in western Australia (which was on their route to Indonesia, so it could have been useful), the British would simply colonize eastern Australia and let the Dutch be on the west.

I don't forget that. Nonetheless, I think you overestimate how moral the 19th-century UK was about such things. Even in peacetime without any legitimate excuse, even to a country that had been its ally for centuries, it was happy to threaten it with war and just take its colonies away, not because the UK lacked colonies (that certainly wasn't true) or even for the sake of any actual resources but simply for a prestige project. Even the will of a great power at least in equal in strength to the UK, namely the Kaiserreich, was treated with utter contempt by the UK in colonial affairs; the UK was happy to invade its allies (internationally recognised states) and, when it had the audacity to ask the UK to respect its economic interests there (it didn't ask the UK to not invade its allies, merely that), the UK threatened it with war and destruction until it backed down; the UK treated even France, a colonial power similar in might to the UK itself, in the same way (see Fashoda). The point is that the 19th-century UK would simply take what it wanted from virtually anyone in Europe (I say "in Europe" because the UK's treatment of the United States was rather different).
 
I am certain willing to admit that 19th century Britain could be, simply put, a dick, but I am still not convinced. The thing is that when Britain was willing to return the Dutch East Indies after the Napoleonic wars, which was one of the richest, most valuable colonies in the world, they most certainly are willing to return any Australian colonies, which would be basicly a bunch of worthless desert filled with foreigners. Australia wasn't wealthy or strategicaly located. It was not worth it. Also it is big enough to make a colony somewhere else, even somewhere else on Australia, if the British wanted it so much or else possibly New Zealand, which was close enough and had much of the same advantages Australia had.
 
You mean Prussia, Portugaul and Holland almost certianly could, France would be a bit of a strech.

I don't think France is that big of a stretch. It colonized New Caledonia, right nearby, in OTL (along with some other Pacific territories).
 
Does the colonisation of Australia have to be carried out by a European colonial power? Because a non-European power might be a big more fun- for instance, in an aTL with the right POD, the Sultanates of Mataram or Maguindanao, the Bali Raj or the Merina Kingdom might have a good chance of getting involved in establishing colonial settlements on Australia, and any of them would have an easier time of it adapting to the conditions in Australia than the British did IOTL.
I think you're right on: Europe is quite far from Australia, to say the least. ;)

Personally, I think it's actually a historical misfortune for the Indigenous Australians that the Makassan trepangers didn't colonize them, since by that time it would take an ASB to keep paleolithic Aboriginal Australia independent. The fact that the Makassans were too restrained with their with their trading partners to establish dominance of Australia is thus unfortunate, given the fact that they were so decent and respectful to the Yolŋu Peoples: Compared to the genocidal manner in which the British would soon begin to behave towards the Yolŋu, and all the other nations and peoples currently inhabiting the continent, I would argue the Makassans would be doing an entire continent a huge favor by colonizing it.

Also, has anyone looked into the Baijini? That also seems pretty promising.
 
I don't think France is that big of a stretch. It colonized New Caledonia, right nearby, in OTL (along with some other Pacific territories).
Yes, But the Dutch and Portugese where in the area long before either England or France for that matter. Realistically, you would have to find away to keep all three powers for the French to have a chance, Personally I give the Dutch and Portugese a fifty-fifty chance and the French a one in four chance, because distance away from major trade ports would be brutal for them for the other two, not so much.
 
Top