Could the Dutch have bought parts of Australia from the British?

Could the Dutch have purchased parts of Australia around 1836-1850? Even just the really uninhabited parts.
 
Could the Dutch have purchased parts of Australia around 1836-1850? Even just the really uninhabited parts.
no.

Well, I think if the Dutch made a claime on the northern parts they might have gotten awya with it, I guess. But still no.

The most important reason for it wouldn't be the British. The most important reason would be that the Dutch wouldn't want to. They knew of Australia for two centuries and they never made a move, simply because there isn't much that would be useful for the Dutch. If the Dutch would want to expand their colonial power, they would likely focus on either Borneo or the Gold Coast or maybe the rest of New Guinea. Australia? No. Oh and another important reason? The Netherlands was a pretty poor country that couldn't affort the luxury of a worthless colony, like Australia.
 
no.

Well, I think if the Dutch made a claime on the northern parts they might have gotten awya with it, I guess. But still no.

The most important reason for it wouldn't be the British. The most important reason would be that the Dutch wouldn't want to. They knew of Australia for two centuries and they never made a move, simply because there isn't much that would be useful for the Dutch. If the Dutch would want to expand their colonial power, they would likely focus on either Borneo or the Gold Coast or maybe the rest of New Guinea. Australia? No. Oh and another important reason? The Netherlands was a pretty poor country that couldn't affort the luxury of a worthless colony, like Australia.

Danke! I now know!
 
The Dutch shouldn't have to pay the British to lay claim to Tasmania and New Zealand. And certainly, Australia is a lot more pleasant than Devil's Island, worthlessness aside.
 
Look at these two maps.
The first shows the area discovered by the Dutch by 1644.

tasman-abel-janszoon-1603-1659-dutch-seafarer-explorer-discovered-BA7W43.jpg


The second shows the original claim by the British for their part of the continent:

Australian_states_history_01.gif



I would guess that the UK probably wanted to see if the Dutch would present a claim for the western part of the continent, which would be highly justified according to the rules of the time.
 
Also, while Country X buys territory Z from Country Y is a big meme on this board, possibly because there are so many Americans here, it really isn't a normal thing in real history.

'purchases' tend to fall into a few categories.
1) Country X has conquered the area, and it's a face saving measure for Country Y. Think US and Mexico. Or US and Spain.
2) Territory Z is a minor colonial area, of little interest to country Y, and hard to support. Think Caribbean colonies (later) and African Gold Coast outposts (earlier) of minor European powers.
3) Territory Z is totally indefensible, and you might as well sell it to a semi-friendly nation before an unfriendly nation takes it over. Think Louisiana purchase. Also, Alaska purchase.


I can't think of a single instance in which Britain, say, 'sold' territory.
 
I can't think of a single instance in which Britain, say, 'sold' territory.

We sold Dunkirk to France in 1662. England also sold Berwick and Jersey to Scotland and France respectively during the wars of the roses, and earlier they also sold Berwick and Edinburgh back to Scotland in 1194 and also offered to sell Northumberland to them as long as we kept garrisoned castles there.

And I think we sold Boulougne-sur-mer to France twice.

In fact taking coastal French cities and then offering to give them back in return for money was a bit of a pastime. Elizabeth tried it with le havre, I believe.

Oh and we sold Heligoland to Germany in 1890 though in that case we weren't getting money in return but territory elsewhere.

The trading of territory for money or other territory happens a lot. We bought Mumbai from the Portuguese for instance, alongside Tangier.
 
Trading territories, certainly.

But Dunkirk proves my point. It was indefensible at that point.
But, yes, it does show my memory was at fault.

Also, Bombay wasn't BOUGHT from the Portuguese, it was part of the Queen's dowry.
 
Also, while Country X buys territory Z from Country Y is a big meme on this board, possibly because there are so many Americans here, it really isn't a normal thing in real history.

'purchases' tend to fall into a few categories.
1) Country X has conquered the area, and it's a face saving measure for Country Y. Think US and Mexico. Or US and Spain.
2) Territory Z is a minor colonial area, of little interest to country Y, and hard to support. Think Caribbean colonies (later) and African Gold Coast outposts (earlier) of minor European powers.
3) Territory Z is totally indefensible, and you might as well sell it to a semi-friendly nation before an unfriendly nation takes it over. Think Louisiana purchase. Also, Alaska purchase.


I can't think of a single instance in which Britain, say, 'sold' territory.

The various Anglo-Dutch treaties were territorial swaps at least. Maybe if somehow the Dutch establish a presence in the western portions of Australia, that could fall under one of those treaties.
 
Also, Bombay wasn't BOUGHT from the Portuguese, it was part of the Queen's dowry.

I did know that. Same way Scotland got Shetland and Orkney. And a british match was particuarly important for the portugese because they needed a military alliance which was why the dowry was so rich.

But my point was territory trading without war is a relatively common. Not all of it is I'll give you 300 pounds for texas but the dutch and british sitting down and the dutch getting land in australia in return for something else the brits want from the dutch? I can see that.

But only if australia is something the dutch want which it doesn't ever seem to be.
 
Top