Australia if Britain wins the American Revolution

IOTL the first major colonization effort in Australia began with the founding of a penal colony in 1788. The purpose of this colony was to replace former British colonies in North America as a dumping ground for convicts, since the newly formed United States was not interested in accepting them.

So what if there was no American Revolution, or a British victory, and thus the American colonies remain a viable option to send criminals to? How would Australia develop without the First Fleet and mass deportations? Would Britain still take control of the whole continent, or might other European powers get a piece? Would Australia still end up developing as an essentially whites only settler colony, or might the lack of deportees result in colonial powers looking for workers elsewhere and dramatically changing the ethnic makeup of the continent?

Thoughts?
 
Well, in many ways, the convicts were simply a convenient excuse and a workforce. The main purpose of colonising Australia was to get a base from which they could threaten the Dutch and Spanish colonies, a supply base for India - and to get ahead of the French of course!
The fact that Pitt himself as heavily involved in the planning, and the speed with which it got off the ground, dpearting within 3 years of the war finishing, to me indicates that the strategic concerns were the main ones.
What butterflies come out from no convicts, not so sure.
 
Dutch will end up with a good portion of Australia if not all.

No, the Dutch did not care about Australia, or else they would have done anything with it (especialt western Australia would have been usefull as it was directly on the sailing route towards Indonesia). If you consider that in the late 18th century and especialy the 19th century the Netherlands was a mere shadow of the power it once was and if you consider the small population of the Netherlands, I would say that the Netherlands would leave Australia alone.
 
Actually this might be of the topic slightly but was it possible for one of Britain's contempory Rivals to attack/liberate/takeover the colony or was it just too far out of the way and insignificant?
 
What is your source for this? Because last time I checked Sydney Cove is in no position to supply India.

It was argued in a book I read years ago; unfortunately, I cannot remember the name or author.:(
He makes the point that a lot of the food for the British troops and sailors had had to come out from Britain - salt pork etc. Certainly by 1810, at the latest, NSW was supplying British forces in India with grain and meat.
 
No, the Dutch did not care about Australia, or else they would have done anything with it (especialt western Australia would have been usefull as it was directly on the sailing route towards Indonesia). If you consider that in the late 18th century and especialy the 19th century the Netherlands was a mere shadow of the power it once was and if you consider the small population of the Netherlands, I would say that the Netherlands would leave Australia alone.

You could say, that during the period the Dutch were in the position to claim and settle it, they weren't interested.

Perhaps Western Australia could have an option after the loss of the Cape Colony, but (as you wrote) by then the Netherlands was only a mere shadow of its' former glory.
Also the first Dutch, English and French all were quite anonymously in their judgement, that the region wasn't that impressive. One major obstacle was the sand bar at the mouth of the Swan river.

Population issues can partly be remedied by also welcoming some foreigners, though the largest group should probably come from the country, to which the colony belongs.

If Australia remains unsettled long enough, then France or an ATL Germany might end up quite interested.
 
Australia seems like a good place to exile those pesky Patriots.

I think this is an interesting point.

If you think about the impact on Canada with the fleeing Loyalists could one not think of an inverse with fleeing or exiled perhaps Patriots?

Perhaps the British would want to get them as far away as possible.
 

jahenders

Banned
Britain would still settle it, but it would be slower. The Netherlands might establish a small colony in the NW and might be able to maintain it until they lost their other colonies. Spain might also establish a colony there, but they'd either sell it to Britain or Britain would probably take it somewhere along the way.

Overall, it probably comes out pretty similar to IOTL, but development and population growth delayed by a couple decades. So, they (and NZ) probably play less of a role in WWI. By WWII they might largely have caught up to IOTL.
 
I think this is an interesting point.

If you think about the impact on Canada with the fleeing Loyalists could one not think of an inverse with fleeing or exiled perhaps Patriots?

Perhaps the British would want to get them as far away as possible.

I thought The Kiat meant, Patriots as in the faction, which opposed the Orangists in the Dutch Republic.
Though it could also apply to the supporters of American independence.

I guess both could have worked in this case.
 
Wouldn't it be possible for the French to take Australia? I remember someone somewhere having posted about French voyages on the western coast
 
I think at some point Westminster would have gone "Um, crap, we better claim all this!" but the question is whether anyone else would have managed to activate a viable claim by that time.

IMHO the problem is we are discussing this whilst the butterflies sleep. For all we know, a victory in the ARW could lead to a British Revolution in the 1800s and the splintering of empire

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
I think that even if Britain won the ARW they would still have to address the causes of the war and provide some representative government to the 13 colonies. Once that occurs Britain will no longer be able to dump convicts (some 52,000 1700-1772) in these colonies and will need an alternate place to dump the 165,000 convicts that were sent to Australia from 1788.

In addition the French were exploring Australia with LaPerouse in 1788 where he met the first fleet and Baudin in 1801.

With these factors in mind I still think Britain will colonise the East coast of Australia and still use convicts to do it, but perhaps a couple of decades later than OTL.
 
It Would go the Same and Convicts would still get Dumped into Australia

Even for any Rebellions in 13 Colonies would shipped off to Australia
 
Top