Australia today is the third least densely populated country in the world with a population of just under 25 million despite its massive size and the fact that it has the 6th most Arable land in the world. This is in large part because of its status as not only a recent settler colonial state, but also its lesser focus as a destination for settlers with the US being a much better option. If Australia saw greater focus as a colony, or if it was instead dominated by a native-grown civilization, what could you see the population reaching to? How could this population be achieved?
Potential Australian Population
- Thread starter JSilvy
- Start date
Have you heard of this? It's one of the crowning achievements of the AH.com community.
I've actually read quite a bit of the timeline. I was recommended it after I started my most recent TL, which is about a similar concept but with the Americas. I haven't reached modernity yet. Do they give population numbers?
I think there might be some rough estimates you can find if you look hard enough, or maybe in the wiki for the TL. I haven't read that much either, but having a sedentary population for thousands of years is bound to increase demographics.
I found this
As of the first date of European contact, the agricultural population of Aururia (including *Tasmania) was ~9.5-10 million. (I've never set a figure for the non-agricultural population). Half of that population lived in the Five Rivers and Durigal (5 million); roughly evenly divided between them. A further 0.85 million or so lived in the economic orbit of those regions (0.4 million Mutjing, 0.05 million Nangu, 0.4 million *Tasmanians). 1.75 million lived in the south-west corner (Atjuntja & friends), leaving ~1.9-2.4 million for all of the rest: the east coast lowlands from the Durigal border to the northerly limits of the Kiyungu, the various highland peoples (Nguril-Kaoma, *New England highlands, small bits in between), and the more scattered agricultural populations of the interior north of the Five Rivers (Yalatji-Butjupa of the Neeburra, and the Panjimundra peoples).
The plagues and other consequences of European contact (wars, social disruption) have reduced the population of Aururia by around 60-70% on average, depending on the region. So these "peripheral" regions now have a population of around 0.6-1.0 million total (not counting some hunter-gatherer migration into those areas). The Dominion now covers much of that population, though not all (the Nguril-Kaoma and the south coast are still free, as are some of the northern Kiyungu and the Nuttana whose population descends from some of that). The Dominion also now includes Yigutji, whose pre-European contact population was around 0.65 million and now with disease and invasion is more like 0.325 million.
For modern figures it is only insofar as OTL migration and fertility rates in the last centuries weren't enough, places like South-East Asia had very few people into the start of the 2nd millennium CE and yet their population exploded in the last 5 centuries.
Outside Java Indonesia was always not that densely populated:
These percentages probably represent a continually growing exploitation in terms of number of people, for throughout the nineteenth century the population of Java maintained the steady increase that had begun in the eighteenth century. There are serious and probably insoluble problems surrounding population figures, but at the end of the eighteenth century the population was probably somewhere between 3 and 5 million and by 1830 it was around 7 million. By 1850 it had reached 9.5 million, by 1870 it was 16.2 million, and by 1890 it had reached 23.6 million. There was thus a fivefold to eightfold increase over a century.
The fact that there would presumably be native crops if we're talking about a native civilization raises the odds by itself that this Australia will have a population higher than OTL Australia, not to mention the myriad other factors that would be changed in such a scenario. What happened on Java and the Indonesian archipelago was quite different from what we would see in a potential ATL.
I haven't specified the modern population of *Australia in Lands of Red and Gold, but it's safe to assume it would be higher than the OTL figure.
I know, my point is that is unwise to assume very large populations without factoring in what happens in the recent period, if birth rates are low as is immigration then this alt-Australia could end up like OTL Australia.
In fact if Australia is anything like Indonesia it would have very few people until like 1500.
I'm not sure I agree with this assumption that Australia would necessarily follow the same path as Indonesia. They're pretty distinct from one another. Sure, there is some tropical land in northern Australia, but the reality is one is a solid landmass with a relatively dry climate in many parts and the other is mostly tropical forests.
Hi can I just say that I love your work?
For Australia to host a native population higher than OTL's modern Australian population probably requires quite an ancient agricultural PoD - as per the seminal LoRaG - though perhaps some more 'recent' changes i.e. last couple of thousand years could see Australia absorbed in the South East Asian cultural sphere, with resultant connections to the wider Afro-Eurasian networks. I cannot see how in the last thousand years or so Aboriginal Australia could transform itself quickly enough to reach such an increase (some 25-fold), though would be very happy to be shown how.
In terms of 'modern Australia', the last 230 years, it's relatively simple to achieve a larger population. Avoid the world wars and the population is probably over 30 million. Modest increases in population during the gold rush could translate to several more million people today, and the increases don't have to remain modest. An early WA gold rush is a very easy PoD, and anything that lessens the impact of the 1890's depression will have a pretty positive impact on population growth. Early federation might help over time. Avoiding the very strict version of the WAP would help - if Italians and Slavs were let in from 1900 Australia could have easily gained half a million more migrants by WW1. There's lots of possibilities. 'Carrying capacity' is not a strict term, but Australia could probably sustain 50 odd millions without substantial alterations to the current set up. Beyond that and practices might need to shift in some areas.
In terms of 'modern Australia', the last 230 years, it's relatively simple to achieve a larger population. Avoid the world wars and the population is probably over 30 million. Modest increases in population during the gold rush could translate to several more million people today, and the increases don't have to remain modest. An early WA gold rush is a very easy PoD, and anything that lessens the impact of the 1890's depression will have a pretty positive impact on population growth. Early federation might help over time. Avoiding the very strict version of the WAP would help - if Italians and Slavs were let in from 1900 Australia could have easily gained half a million more migrants by WW1. There's lots of possibilities. 'Carrying capacity' is not a strict term, but Australia could probably sustain 50 odd millions without substantial alterations to the current set up. Beyond that and practices might need to shift in some areas.
Gracias. There will be more coming of Lands and Red and Gold in a while, I'm just finishing up some writing projects for publication first (one of which is Book 2 of the published version).
Paradoxically Australia despite being third least densely populated country is also one of the most urban countries in the world with over half the population living in the three largest cities Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane. In a stricter more controlled Australia the population could go to USA levels, with arable land reserved for maximum value food production, high density urban housing buildings near industrial sites and full water recycling.
A theory I've held for a while is potentially piping water from new guinea had it remained part of the country. No idea how viable it would be, but I figure they get a fair bit of excess water up there.
It may be a bit ASB given the racism of the time, but without white Australia politics the country could have been home to several million more Asians.
I seem to recall a timeline where the British take steps to steer migrants to their colonies instead of USA, it ends up a imperial federation timeline.
With a mid 1800s POD it ended up with a modern population in Australia of 52 million in the 2000s. However there was some asb elements and was too empire wanky so I've no idea how accurate the population estimates were.
With a mid 1800s POD it ended up with a modern population in Australia of 52 million in the 2000s. However there was some asb elements and was too empire wanky so I've no idea how accurate the population estimates were.
Is it really that ASB, though?
I mean, pretty much every country at the time was extremely racist but the degree of restrictions placed on immigration varied greatly, with Australia being a particularly extreme case.
If, with a POD in the 19th century, you have the various colonies crush trade unions as much as possible and introduce considerable property restrictions on voting (none of which are particularly difficult things to do in that time period), thereby increasing the influence of those people who want non-white immigrants in Australia because they're cheap labourers, wouldn't that make for a decent chance to avoid the WAP?
Riain
Banned
I think a possibility would be for the well watered coastal area between Warrnambool Vic and Kingston SE SA to have several big regional cities of 100k+ instead of only Warrnambool and Mt Gambier at around 30-35k. Portland is a big, deep-water port but the city only has 11,000 people and the other smaller fishing ports in this stretch of coast have dwindled into insignificance rather than being a decentralised population zone akin to Geelong-Ballarat-Bendigo or the Gold and Sunshines coasts in Qld.
The PoDs for this could be Abel Tasman sailing further north in 1642 and charting this part of the SE continental coast instead of the very bottom of Tasmania, although this doesn't produce definite results. A firmer PoD would be the HMS Calcutta establishing the 1803 407 person/307 convict settlement in this area rather than sandy, waterless Sorrento.
Port Phillip Bay is too good a spot in the age of sail to be ignored as a place for a city but the SW would be established first and exert considerable pressure as an alternative population centre.
Riain
Banned
Here's a clarifying question. How much environmental damage does pre-industrial-age engineering do? For example the Murray was crossed by Europeans in 1824 and there were paddle steamers on it 30 years later and there were railways in Australia before Melbourne was settled.
If Australia was settled from the very late 1600s as a result of different Dutch discoveries I assume things like making rivers navigable, improving ports, improving irrigation, creating roads etc would be done on a more piecemeal basis over centuries by hand rather than on a huge, steamshovel and crane industrial scale over decades. Would this limit subsequent environmental damage from industrial scale projects, because some work was already done and subsequent work would be incremental rather than massive greenfield projects?
If Australia was settled from the very late 1600s as a result of different Dutch discoveries I assume things like making rivers navigable, improving ports, improving irrigation, creating roads etc would be done on a more piecemeal basis over centuries by hand rather than on a huge, steamshovel and crane industrial scale over decades. Would this limit subsequent environmental damage from industrial scale projects, because some work was already done and subsequent work would be incremental rather than massive greenfield projects?