Australia’s population if settled a century earlier?

Australia was settled by Europeans fairly late compared to most other successful European colonies.

If Britain began settling Australia a century or two earlier with similar methods as the OTL, what is Australia’s likely population today?
 
Natural growth was huge amongst early settlers. You get the bonus of a longer transition. I don’t know enough about how suitable Australia is to early agriculture , so I can’t really hazard a guess. You would assume over 50 million, but I am not sure about carrying capacity
 

Marc

Donor
Australia was settled by Europeans fairly late compared to most other successful European colonies.

If Britain began settling Australia a century or two earlier with similar methods as the OTL, what is Australia’s likely population today?[/QUOTE

1606 is the first agreed on year of European discovery of Australia. Earlier is pure conjecture. Regardless, the 17th and 18th century are very unlikely periods for a mass migration. Distances and disinterest would be too great. North America is going to take the vast bulk of any colonials (In fact, you could argue that the American Revolution may have made Australia appealing as a convict dump).
If there somehow were a very early attempt, it would most likely be Dutch not English, and I doubt that their modest numbers would make any difference in terms of long term demographics.
 
Last edited:
Western Australia naturally complements the Cape and Indies, and could carry on a nice trade with that part of the world. Unfortunately, the OTL Dutch weren't into settler colonialism. But if they were a bit more interested, and found more gold at the Cape and in W. Australia found gold and sandalwood, then you could get a sizable population there which eventually might lead to the Dutch grabbing the rest of Australia. The population of the Netherlands doesn't matter too much, since IIRC it was higher than Portugal (and look what they did with their empire!) and we don't need a ton of emigration to the Cape and Australia to get things rolling. In time, I think Australia would surpass the Cape and South Africa since shipping tech will improve and there's much more open land since the Aboriginal population will collapse like OTL. Even with a Mfecane like event and some rinderpest and slave trade, much of South Africa will still have more people with better organization than Southeast Australia.

That said, I doubt the population would be much more than OTL even here. A lot depends on their immigration policy which might resemble OTL South Africa. A lot of Malays, Chinese, and even Africans will be present from the start, which will affect their attitudes toward non-white immigration, while a trend toward conservative Calvinism like the Boers will likewise affect their stance.
 
Western Australia naturally complements the Cape and Indies, and could carry on a nice trade with that part of the world. Unfortunately, the OTL Dutch weren't into settler colonialism. But if they were a bit more interested, and found more gold at the Cape and in W. Australia found gold and sandalwood, then you could get a sizable population there which eventually might lead to the Dutch grabbing the rest of Australia. ...

If a Dutch colony then perhaps a portion of Deutche immigration might be redirected to Australia, vs North and South America?
 
Australian agriculture isn't great, even in the most fertile areas it's hardly comparable to most of the Americas and it can only focus on cultures that are easily produced in Europe or in the Americas.

You have to add it's very far off from trade routes and even in a event of a gold rush, there simply isn't enough gold to sustain growth for more than a couple of years.

That said, I can see an expansionist industrialized China settling Australia to extract its mineral resources.
 
I imagine the only way the VOC would settle Australia is if they saw something of value, the Dutch colonies were run by chartered companies seeking profit above all else. Colonial settlement was something that neither the VOC or WIC promoted to great effect. As a result, the Dutch colonies tended to be sparsely settled and when they had large numbers of non-Dutch settlers. If the Cape is anything to go by, a Dutch settlement in Australia might get a total of 2,000 European settlers during a two century period, meaning that by 1800 at most there would be 60,000 Europeans in the colony.
 
Australian agriculture isn't great, even in the most fertile areas it's hardly comparable to most of the Americas and it can only focus on cultures that are easily produced in Europe or in the Americas.

You have to add it's very far off from trade routes and even in a event of a gold rush, there simply isn't enough gold to sustain growth for more than a couple of years.

That said, I can see an expansionist industrialized China settling Australia to extract its mineral resources.

It actually isn't far from the trade routes. See the Brouwer Route, which led the Dutch to discover Australia in the first place. So it could make a good station between the Indies and the Cape.

I imagine the only way the VOC would settle Australia is if they saw something of value, the Dutch colonies were run by chartered companies seeking profit above all else. Colonial settlement was something that neither the VOC or WIC promoted to great effect. As a result, the Dutch colonies tended to be sparsely settled and when they had large numbers of non-Dutch settlers. If the Cape is anything to go by, a Dutch settlement in Australia might get a total of 2,000 European settlers during a two century period, meaning that by 1800 at most there would be 60,000 Europeans in the colony.

You're correct, but 60K Europeans is more than Australia had until 1830 or so. And that isn't counting Malays, Chinese, or Africans who would also be in the colony.
 
It actually isn't far from the trade routes. See the Brouwer Route, which led the Dutch to discover Australia in the first place. So it could make a good station between the Indies and the Cape.

I was thinking about the Southeastern Australian core, not Western Australia, which can sustain an even lower population.
 
It could vary by orders of magnitude. Australia’s carrying capacity is sufficient for 100+ million, easily, but the main variables are the social-historical factors which could vary tremendously.
 
The carrying capacity would be a lot less early on. If Australia is heavily settled by Europeans early on, there may in fact be emigration from it to other colonies (like the Empire Loyalists)
 

Marc

Donor
I would put Australia's carrying capacity at between 125-150 millions, dependent on how aggressively all out the arable land is settled/exploited (and assuming no food imports). On the other hand, Australia with that population wouldn't exist as we know it. Just one simple example: Sydney with a metropolitan population of over 20 million, densely covering the Blue Mountains, stretching past Penraith to the west, Beorwra to the north. At best like New York City, at worse, Mexico City.
 
Last edited:
Top