Australian Revolution

Maby the Aborigines weather the storm of colonization better, and are thus in a better position to revolt from there British masters, in a revolution along ethnic/nationalist lines.

Or you could have a similar thing that hapind with the U.S.A, taxation etc, or something like that.
 
Last edited:

katchen

Banned
Kelly Country

Funny a good Irishman like yourself should mention this possible TL. A. Bertram Chandler wrote an AH novel "Kelly Country (1985, available on Amazon $3.03 plus shipping) in which Ned Kelly the famous bushranger evades capture and goes on to lead an Irish-Australian revolt against the British which is successful and leads to a free Irish state in Australia, complete with harp of Ireland flag. It's a good read and I won't spoiler it with details.
 
Maby the Aborigines weather the storm of colonization better, and are thus in a better position to revolt from there British masters, in a revolution along ethnic/nationalist lines.

Or you could have a similar thing that hapind with the U.S.A, taxation etc, or something like that.
The second one is quite possible with Eureka as a catalyst. The idea's gotten a lot of criticism since the Eureka Rebellion wasn't about revolution and breaking away from the Empire, but then neither was the Boston Tea Party. A largish armed uprising by disgruntled miners IOTL already provided a national symbol for Australia. Making the Eureka Stockade last longer and involve more people, events, deaths, would do even more. A revolt of diggers angry at licensing fees can this way turn into martyrs or heroes against British oppression, and from there you have the underpinnings of a possible revolution.
 
Australia's history was probably too short to have a revolution before self government, NSW only had 55 years between the First Fleet and self government. This is a big difference compared to Jamestown in 1607 and the ARW in 1775.
 
You'd need some sort of severe ideological difference between Britain and the rebels for this to work, honestly. Maybe some sort of independent Irish republican state would do the trick, though given the demographics of Australia, that would probably mean a division of the country along religious lines rather than a united independence.

Because, at this time the British empire has a very hands-off approach towards its White Commonwealth, and some sort of war between the motherland and Anglo colonists just wouldn't realistically happen.

Australia's history was probably too short to have a revolution before self government, NSW only had 55 years between the First Fleet and self government. This is a big difference compared to Jamestown in 1607 and the ARW in 1775.

Good point, for free colonists, that means either they or their parents were directly from Britain. Except for the Irish ones, it wouldn't exactly be an environment where colonists would be running around going "Screw the British!"
 
You'd need some sort of severe ideological difference between Britain and the rebels for this to work, honestly. Maybe some sort of independent Irish republican state would do the trick, though given the demographics of Australia, that would probably mean a division of the country along religious lines rather than a united independence.

Because, at this time the British empire has a very hands-off approach towards its White Commonwealth, and some sort of war between the motherland and Anglo colonists just wouldn't realistically happen.



Good point, for free colonists, that means either they or their parents were directly from Britain. Except for the Irish ones, it wouldn't exactly be an environment where colonists would be running around going "Screw the British!"

There's not exactly that many Irish immigrants going to Australia anyway, especially compared to British immigrants.
 
The answer is to have an earlier colonisation of Australia, perhaps Abel Tasman goes to where François Thijssen left off and charts the south east of Australia in 1644.
 
Top