Impact of an earlier European settlement in Australia?

[Mitchell Hundred]

European explorers had visited/landed on the continent of Australia by the early 1600s, however it was not until the late 18th century that there was any European attempts at actual settlement and colonization.

What if European settlement was done a century earlier in the mid to late 1600s by either the British or Dutch? You'd have had an Australian colonial history closer in timeline to the English settlement of the US.

 

[Jürgen]

European explorers had visited/landed on the continent of Australia by the early 1600s, however it was not until the late 18th century that there was any European attempts at actual settlement and colonization.

What if European settlement was done a century earlier in the mid to late 1600s by either the British or Dutch? You'd have had an Australian colonial history closer in timeline to the English settlement of the US.

Well likely bigger population, but also a significant different culture even if they’re English. Whether they’re English or Dutch they will be more religious. We would also a period of legal slavery.

 

[Dominic]

This is an extremely broad question, an incredibly wide range of possibilities exist. One of the more plausible ones though would be a larger Aboriginal population, as the settlement would not be the OTL blitzkrieg that gave them no chance to adapt as diseases and settlers so closely followed one another.

 

[Gloss]

This is an extremely broad question, an incredibly wide range of possibilities exist. One of the more plausible ones though would be a larger Aboriginal population, as the settlement would not be the OTL blitzkrieg that gave them no chance to adapt as diseases and settlers so closely followed one another.

Well OTL it's pretty small so even if it's a bit bigger it wouldn't be the bigger change, in any case I'm not sure if the logic would hold up, the colonization of North America was relatively slow and yet complete replacement still happened.

This seems to for some reason a common trope around Oceanic and American colonization, but it's not really empirically verified, if anything if colonization starts a century before there would be more time for the aboriginal population to assimilate in the European population, also it's not obvious that the aboriginal population would regrow at a rate faster than the European population would grow through migration and birth rates, give what we saw in North America or elsewhere I'd wager it would be smaller, especially in the oldest settlements, like OTL.

 

[Dominic]

Well OTL it's pretty small so even if it's a bit bigger it wouldn't be the bigger change, in any case I'm not sure if the logic would hold up, the colonization of North America was relatively slow and yet complete replacement still happened.

This seems to for some reason a common trope around Oceanic and American colonization, but it's not really empirically verified, if anything if colonization starts a century before there would be more time for the aboriginal population to assimilate in the European population, also it's not obvious that the aboriginal population would regrow at a rate faster than the European population would grow through migration and birth rates, give what we saw in North America or elsewhere I'd wager it would be smaller, especially in the oldest settlements, like OTL.

I think you’re overstating what I meant. I don’t mean that the Aboriginal population would be larger than the migrant one, nor even that it would be larger in relative terms to OTL, but simply in absolute terms. Basically with places like OTL Victoria and Tasmania resembling WA and Queensland.

 

[Wendell]

Earlier colonization of New Zealand and New Caledonia.

 

[Jürgen]

I think you’re overstating what I meant. I don’t mean that the Aboriginal population would be larger than the migrant one, nor even that it would be larger in relative terms to OTL, but simply in absolute terms. Basically with places like OTL Victoria and Tasmania resembling WA and Queensland.

I personally doubt it, right now we have somewhere around 200+ million Neanderthals around, hiding in the DNA of every non-African. But that doesn't mean there's more Neanderthals today than 70.000 years ago. In the same way while there may be a bigger population of mixed race people with aboriginal ancestry with a longer colonial period they're unlikely to identify as Aboriginals. We see the same in South Africa where far more Khoisan DNA lives on in Coloured and Xhosa populations than among people who identify as the surviving Khoisan groups.

 

[funnyhat]

This probably means that there is something preventing them from settling in the Americas, as Australia is much further away. Does Spain control all of the New World west of the Tordesillas line?

 

[Z00M3R]

What people tend to do with this idea is essentially copy and paste the history of South Africa onto the Australian continent. Dutch farmers settle, develop their own dialect, dress, food, and culture, the British conquer the small Dutch colony after it has been populated by settlers for a good while, and then the Dutch Australians migrate into the Outback where they live a rugged and individualist lifestyle. I, for one, thought that it was cool when I first heard of the scenario, but it get's annoying when every single scenario is just a story of Australian Boers. If this trope can be avoided, Australia might be pretty interesting.

I am imagining that the best time for an early British settlement would be between 1606 and 1630. If you settle Australia too late, you will just get a more populous version of OTL's Australia. If you want an interesting and distinct culture to emerge there, aim in the ballpark of 1606-1630. Where do you want the colony to start? It could be on the Eastern coast of Australia or maybe in the Perth area. Since the American colonies were much more appealing at the time and Australia isn't exactly the most hospitable place, your best bet is to turn it into a penal colony but to increase the amount of prisoners sent there. Maybe, have Parliament pass a law stating that anyone who commits a serious offense or gets a prison sentence of more than a year or two will be sent to Australia. You could set up large facilities there where there are vineyards, orchards, dairies, pastures, and ranches just outside of a sizable prison, utilizing unpaid (basically slave) labor from the convicts to produce enough food to feed the growing convict population and to make some money in exports.

Down the line, you could pass a law allowing the relatives of convicts come to Australia permanently or temporarily to visit their loved ones. You would see shops, services, stores, roads, and towns set up next to the prisons for the wives, parents, children, siblings, or other loved ones of the inmates to live in, and if you do something like giving the inmates every weekend off to visit their families we could see some natural increase in the population. These British Australians most likely wouldn't use received pronunciation, nor would they speak with the Australian accent that we know today. Since the inmates would be coming from across England, the different accents and dialects would likely converge and change to form a new accent or dialect that would fit the convicts that speak it.

 

[Arkenfolm]

The earlier it is, then the more likely you end up with a divided Australia. Somewhere near the Western Australian border (maybe a different longitude) makes the most sense, but I could also see a three way division (separate Tasmania) or even four way division (Tasmania and have most of the northern part of Australia go to Portugal or another East Indies power). This doesn't preclude one European country from gaining the upper hand through conquest or purchase of course, but that's far from likely.

Dutch settlement is the most likely, which means you'll have a small number of people based in the Cape come over to Western Australia to start a supply station to the Indies which will gradually expand with the help of Malay and African labour. The main economy will switch to sandalwood cutting after a few decades which may give an additional boost to settlement. Settlement outside of Western Australia wouldn't happen for at least a few decades since it's just not a place the Dutch would be interested in. That would give time for it to be snapped up by the British or French.

I think you’re overstating what I meant. I don’t mean that the Aboriginal population would be larger than the migrant one, nor even that it would be larger in relative terms to OTL, but simply in absolute terms. Basically with places like OTL Victoria and Tasmania resembling WA and Queensland.

Victoria and Tasmania also had far less Aboriginals than Queensland or WA. Since both areas are great land for Europeans (and most of Queensland and WA is not), then it's hard to get a different result since they're going to wind up colonised and suffer huge losses from warfare and disease.

 

[Dominic]

I personally doubt it, right now we have somewhere around 200+ million Neanderthals around, hiding in the DNA of every non-African. But that doesn't mean there's more Neanderthals today than 70.000 years ago. In the same way while there may be a bigger population of mixed race people with aboriginal ancestry with a longer colonial period they're unlikely to identify as Aboriginals. We see the same in South Africa where far more Khoisan DNA lives on in Coloured and Xhosa populations than among people who identify as the surviving Khoisan groups.

Perhaps, but unlikely IMO. Unless the colonisation takes a radically different approach to OTL, the Europeans were extremely good at ensuring surviving indigenous identities through being monstrous and genocidal. Native Americans and Canadians had very similar experiences to Aboriginal Australians despite the earlier colonisation. Certainly, a different group of colonisers would lead to a different outcome, but this is the same group just with more time balanced against more handicaps.

Victoria and Tasmania also had far less Aboriginals than Queensland or WA. Since both areas are great land for Europeans (and most of Queensland and WA is not), then it's hard to get a different result since they're going to wind up colonised and suffer huge losses from warfare and disease.

Had or have? Tasmania had a modest population, but Victoria's was the densest on the continent, in particular if we count both sides of the Murray. A slower colonisation will still see Vic and Tas overrun faster than the WA or QSL, but IMO still would leave a much larger population intact, in particular in Victoria. To be sure, this could also mean that WA and QSL have a much larger population of Aboriginal people than OTL, with a similar gap between them and Vic/Tas, but with both sets having much larger populations overall.

 

[raharris1973]

Older English Australia on its own is very interesting idea.

Would Victoria and New South Wales be suitable for slave plantations? Would it have to be a penal colony? Could somebodies like William Penn or Lords Carteret or Berkley get Australian land grants and popularize settlement there?

What is the continent looking like by say, 1800?