Swedish Australia

On November 1786, William Bolts was given a contract by King Gustav III of Sweden to discover an island off the coast of Western Australia, where a Swedish colony and trading post could be established. However, the plan was shelved after Sweden became embroiled in war with Russia the following year.

What if Gustav decided not to go to war with Russia, allowing the plan to go ahead? I doubt that Sweden will keep it's Australian colony through the Napoleonic Wars but it's still interesting to talk about it.
 
Last edited:
Gustav III initiated the war because the Russians were supporting the opposition to his autocratic rule. From what I understand, he was a very unpopular monarch, and he thought a short war against Russia would leave his domestic opposition with no resources to oppose him. Unless you drastically change Gustav III or for some reason make it so he isn't afraid of Russian interference in Swedish politics, avoiding the war with Russia will be difficult in its own right, even without setting up a backwater colony off the coast of Western Australia.

As you say, once the Napoleanic Wars begin (if they even go the same way; butterflies and all that) depending on Sweden's actions it's very likely the British will simply swallow up Sweden's fledgling colony like they did with so many others (Guiana, Cape Colony, Ceylon, and so on).
 
As you say, once the Napoleanic Wars begin (if they even go the same way; butterflies and all that) depending on Sweden's actions it's very likely the British will simply swallow up Sweden's fledgling colony like they did with so many others (Guiana, Cape Colony, Ceylon, and so on).

Yes but I also think it's a bit too presumptuous to assume that Britain taking the colony is the only possible outcome. It may be the most likely, true, but there are plenty of threads asking "What if the Cape Colony stayed Dutch" so I don't think it's unreasonable that we can give this idea the most optimistic scenario.
 
Why would UK take it? Australia was pretty much worthless until the Gold rush. So let's say that the the Swedes set up a colony in Western Australia, it's left alone until at least 1810, where Sweden are forced to declare war on UK, but the Swedish declaration of war was completely ignored by the Swedish government, which continued to trade with the British. The British didn't take the more strategic important Danish possession in the North Atlantic. So why not leave the Swedes alone in Australia? They're not a threat and the colony are by the standards of the time worthless. In fact I think it's more likely the Dutch get it or it's part of the trade of Norway for Rügen.
 
Yes but I also think it's a bit too presumptuous to assume that Britain taking the colony is the only possible outcome. It may be the most likely, true, but there are plenty of threads asking "What if the Cape Colony stayed Dutch" so I don't think it's unreasonable that we can give this idea the most optimistic scenario.

Well, sure. Getting the Swedes to avoid the war with Russia will be a challenge in and of itself, though, if that's the only pre-requisite for getting the colony.
 
Why would UK take it? Australia was pretty much worthless until the Gold rush.
The British did want bases in the south pacific. Australia provided the perfect place for that.
Well, sure. Getting the Swedes to avoid the war with Russia will be a challenge in and of itself, though, if that's the only pre-requisite for getting the colony.
Maybe butterfly away Gustav altogether, have the Russophilia Caps party rule the Riksdag and also still interested in starting a colony?
 
Top