VOC colonizes Western Australia

[Adora Basil Winterpock]

Van Riebeeck stayed in the Cape for a few weeks in I believe 1647 in OTL which made him an advocate of building a resupply station there. What if he was shipwrecked in King George Sound in Western Australia instead? (modern day Albany). It's close to the Brouwer route and could've served as a decent resupply station in place of the Cape no?

So in 1652 the VOC establishes a small station there, quickly discovers sandalwood a little bit further inland and the colony grows like the cape colony did. Will the British care about it? Will they still colonize eastern australia? Maybe the British take Dutch WA in 1814 which upsets the inhabitants who decide to trek east across the nullabor and colonize the murray-darling basin, establishing independent republics along the way. After the discovery of gold and other resources the British conquer the republics and in 1910 they unite and form the "Union of New Holland" which later declares itself a republic in 1961. Thoughts?

 

[JD180]

From the moment the British stepped foot in Botany Bay, they'd probably begin plotting to capture it (Dutch territory in the west)

Issue is that the distance between other Dutch settlements (the Cape) and any west Australian settlement would still be too far to realistically gain any synergies - which in part Colonisation was about.

 

[chornedsnorkack]

Van Riebeeck stayed in the Cape for a few weeks in I believe 1647 in OTL which made him an advocate of building a resupply station there. What if he was shipwrecked in King George Sound in Western Australia instead? (modern day Albany). It's close to the Brouwer route and could've served as a decent resupply station in place of the Cape no?

A ship stopping at Albany would have to return agains west winds. A ship stopping around the west coast, like Swan River, would not have to do so, because they can go straight north to Batavia.
There would be one realistic synergy: both Cape and Swan River are in Mediterranean climate, so plants introduced to one can be carried to the other.

 

[AltoRegnant]

I guess part of Australia speaks a weirder English than the rest of that forsaken continent?

 

[Adora Basil Winterpock]

A ship stopping at Albany would have to return agains west winds. A ship stopping around the west coast, like Swan River, would not have to do so, because they can go straight north to Batavia.
There would be one realistic synergy: both Cape and Swan River are in Mediterranean climate, so plants introduced to one can be carried to the other.

Hmm that might be a problem, although the roaring forties are further south as far as I know. Ships on the brouwer route could head north and hit KGS directly instead of having to continue along the coast to the Swan River.
King George Sound is a very good natural harbour unlike the Swan River area, it was WA's only deep water port until 1897. The Swan River area was also poor in terms of farming and the colony there almost failed until convicts were brought in.

 

[Adora Basil Winterpock]

From the moment the British stepped foot in Botany Bay, they'd probably begin plotting to capture it (Dutch territory in the west)

Issue is that the distance between other Dutch settlements (the Cape) and any west Australian settlement would still be too far to realistically gain any synergies - which in part Colonisation was about.

I'm thinking the Dutch don't colonize the Cape of GH at all

 

[Thisisnotausername]

Van Riebeeck stayed in the Cape for a few weeks in I believe 1647 in OTL which made him an advocate of building a resupply station there. What if he was shipwrecked in King George Sound in Western Australia instead? (modern day Albany). It's close to the Brouwer route and could've served as a decent resupply station in place of the Cape no?

Not really. Southwest Australia is really far along the Brouwer route, while Cape Town is positioned at something more like a halfway point between Amsterdam and Batavia. You could maybe see a colony there as a supplement to the Cape, but I can't see it being a replacement.

Maybe the British take Dutch WA in 1814 which upsets the inhabitants who decide to trek east across the nullabor and colonize the murray-darling basin, establishing independent republics along the way.

I am very skeptical of the viability of a Great Trek-equivalent out of southwest Australia. The distances from that region to anywhere that isn't a barren desert are much, much greater than they were for Boers leaving the Cape, and even the inland places that are habitable are less attractive than the equivalent parts of South Africa--there is a reason that the population of Australia is so overwhelmingly concentrated on the coasts IOTL. It's also worth noting that IOTL, British annexation of the Cape Colony was motivated by the fact that all British shipping to and from India had to pass by the Cape, meaning that it was strategically important for the UK to secure it in order to prevent it from falling under the sway of a hostile power such as France, whereas British ships destined for India have no reason to go anywhere near Australia.

After the discovery of gold and other resources the British conquer the republics and in 1910 they unite and form the "Union of New Holland" which later declares itself a republic in 1961.

Setting aside the implausibility of this level of parallelism, this scenario immediately runs into the problem that if eastern Australia is settled by British first, the much higher carrying capacity of the east coast relative to the rest of the continent will mean that Australia as a whole will end up overwhelmingly British, even if we're generous to the *Voortrekkers and assume they can make Dutch-speakers a majority everywhere west of the Great Dividing Range. This means that if support for a republic breaks down as it did in OTL South Africa, with Dutch/Afrikaans speakers being for it and English speakers being against it, the result of any equivalent to the republic referendum will be a massive monarchist victory. Tbh, I'm not sure you'd even see a united Australia form in the first place in such a scenario, especially in the likely event the Nieuw Hollanders fail to seed any successful colonies on the other side of the outback and remain stuck in Western Australia, separated from the rest of the continent by a natural divide as well as cultural and linguistic ones.

 

[Adora Basil Winterpock]

Not really. Southwest Australia is really far along the Brouwer route, while Cape Town is positioned at something more like a halfway point between Amsterdam and Batavia. You could maybe see a colony there as a supplement to the Cape, but I can't see it being a replacement.

The cape was not colonized by anyone for hundreds of years, I think I've read somewhere that europeans thought that because no trees grew there farming was impossible or something but I'm not sure. The reason the Dutch decided to settle it was because van Riebeeck had stayed there for a few weeks and was pleasantly surprised. The POD is that he somehow ends up in the KGS instead (and is pleasantly surprised by it). I am aware that the KGS is a sandy, shrubby, windy place not as nice as the cape

I am very skeptical of the viability of a Great Trek-equivalent out of southwest Australia. The distances from that region to anywhere that isn't a barren desert are much, much greater than they were for Boers leaving the Cape, and even the inland places that are habitable are less attractive than the equivalent parts of South Africa--there is a reason that the population of Australia is so overwhelmingly concentrated on the coasts IOTL. It's also worth noting that IOTL, British annexation of the Cape Colony was motivated by the fact that all British shipping to and from India had to pass by the Cape, meaning that it was strategically important for the UK to secure it in order to prevent it from falling under the sway of a hostile power such as France, whereas British ships destined for India have no reason to go anywhere near Australia.

Maybe camels are brought to the colony earlier and used to cross the desert? Far-fetched I know but they were brought to Australia in 1840 after all, around the time of the great trek. The land is less attractive but there is much, much more of it and it's inhabited by a people much less capable of defending themselves than the zulus.

Setting aside the implausibility of this level of parallelism, this scenario immediately runs into the problem that if eastern Australia is settled by British first, the much higher carrying capacity of the east coast relative to the rest of the continent will mean that Australia as a whole will end up overwhelmingly British, even if we're generous to the *Voortrekkers and assume they can make Dutch-speakers a majority everywhere west of the Great Dividing Range. This means that if support for a republic breaks down as it did in OTL South Africa, with Dutch/Afrikaans speakers being for it and English speakers being against it, the result of any equivalent to the republic referendum will be a massive monarchist victory. Tbh, I'm not sure you'd even see a united Australia form in the first place in such a scenario, especially in the likely event the Nieuw Hollanders fail to seed any successful colonies on the other side of the outback and remain stuck in Western Australia, separated from the rest of the continent by a natural divide as well as cultural and linguistic ones.

Most of Australias food comes from the Murray-Darling basin so surely that area has the highest carrying capacity? The reason the population is so concentrated not just along the coast but in a few capital cities is because the British well.. built their colonies there. In this scenario Australia is settled by land not from sea, the Boers spread out widely as they did in SA and establish huge farms and small towns inland which will explode in population as resources are discovered.

 

[Thisisnotausername]

The reason the Dutch decided to settle it was because van Riebeeck had stayed there for a few weeks and was pleasantly surprised. The POD is that he somehow ends up in the KGS instead (and is pleasantly surprised by it).

No, the reason the Dutch decided to colonize it is because they realized that they could live there and that it would be useful to have. SW Australia's inferior location makes it more doubtful that the latter condition could be satisfied, IMO.

Maybe camels are brought to the colony earlier and used to cross the desert? Far-fetched I know but they were brought to Australia in 1840 after all, around the time of the great trek. The land is less attractive but there is much, much more of it and it's inhabited by a people much less capable of defending themselves than the zulus.

It's very far-fetched--the British are much closer and have far less forbidding terrain to deal with. It's also not clear to me how the OTL rationale for the Great Trek, a desire to escape British control, can be recounciled with the fact that the only halfway livable parts of the continent to be inland are very close to what would (assuming British colonization proceeds based on a similar timeline to OTL) be the British frontier. Why march across a thousand miles of desert to avoid Britain if the only place you can go to is somewhere they're breathing down your neck?

Most of Australias food comes from the Murray-Darling basin so surely that area has the highest carrying capacity? The reason the population is so concentrated not just along the coast but in a few capital cities is because the British well.. built their colonies there. In this scenario Australia is settled by land not from sea, the Boers spread out widely as they did in SA and establish huge farms and small towns inland which will explode in population as resources are discovered.

The idea that Australia's extremely coastal population distribution is entirely the result of British settlement starting on the coast is nonsense. Australia is like that because the Australian interior is incredibly dry and inhospitable, as indicated by the fact that your *Boers would need to travel across a thousand miles of desert to get to a place they could actually farm. Compare this to the US or Canada, places where European settlement was likewise initially coastal but in which, unlike in Australia, European colonists expanded inland in vast numbers because, unlike in Australia, those countries had extensive inland regions well-suited to agriculture. You might be able to make Australia's population not quite as overwhelmingly coastal, but fundamentally, there is no way in hell you're going to increase the population of the Darling-Murray basin several times over by settling it out of Perth(!) instead of Sydney and Melbourne.

 

[pompejus]

From the moment the British stepped foot in Botany Bay, they'd probably begin plotting to capture it (Dutch territory in the west)

I sincerely doubt it. why would the British care about a Dutch colony way over on the other side of the continent? Especialy one that had been Dutch for centuries and effectively had no value to the British. The British would have the East Coast of Australia (which is much more valuable at least in suitable land). The British are able to share a continent with other colonial powers. When the British captured colonies it was for a reason. Dutch South Africa was needed as a halfway station to India. Dutch West Australia would not be useful that way. It isn't even a threat to British Australia, it is simply too far away.

 

[JD180]

I sincerely doubt it. why would the British care about a Dutch colony way over on the other side of the continent? Especialy one that had been Dutch for centuries and effectively had no value to the British. The British would have the East Coast of Australia (which is much more valuable at least in suitable land). The British are able to share a continent with other colonial powers. When the British captured colonies it was for a reason. Dutch South Africa was needed as a halfway station to India. Dutch West Australia would not be useful that way. It isn't even a threat to British Australia, it is simply too far away.

Point taken. I remain pessimistic about their ability to share though, which generally leads to most conflicts.

 

[JD180]

A ship stopping at Albany would have to return agains west winds. A ship stopping around the west coast, like Swan River, would not have to do so, because they can go straight north to Batavia.
There would be one realistic synergy: both Cape and Swan River are in Mediterranean climate, so plants introduced to one can be carried to the other.

Is this why the Swan river took over Albany as the preeminent Western settlement?

 

[Adora Basil Winterpock]

The idea that Australia's extremely coastal population distribution is entirely the result of British settlement starting on the coast is nonsense. Australia is like that because the Australian interior is incredibly dry and inhospitable, as indicated by the fact that your *Boers would need to travel across a thousand miles of desert to get to a place they could actually farm. Compare this to the US or Canada, places where European settlement was likewise initially coastal but in which, unlike in Australia, European colonists expanded inland in vast numbers because, unlike in Australia, those countries had extensive inland regions well-suited to agriculture. You might be able to make Australia's population not quite as overwhelmingly coastal, but fundamentally, there is no way in hell you're going to increase the population of the Darling-Murray basin several times over by settling it out of Perth(!) instead of Sydney and Melbourne.

The Australian wheatbelt both in the west and east is very sparsly populated and can support a much denser population. I imagine that the initial trek would be from Esperance to South Australia (with the help of camels?) and then into the Murray-Darling basin. The British penal colonies are on the other side of the dividing range and can't bother the boers.

 

[JD180]

No, the reason the Dutch decided to colonize it is because they realized that they could live there and that it would be useful to have. SW Australia's inferior location makes it more doubtful that the latter condition could be satisfied, IMO.
It's very far-fetched--the British are much closer and have far less forbidding terrain to deal with. It's also not clear to me how the OTL rationale for the Great Trek, a desire to escape British control, can be recounciled with the fact that the only halfway livable parts of the continent to be inland are very close to what would (assuming British colonization proceeds based on a similar timeline to OTL) be the British frontier. Why march across a thousand miles of desert to avoid Britain if the only place you can go to is somewhere they're breathing down your neck?
The idea that Australia's extremely coastal population distribution is entirely the result of British settlement starting on the coast is nonsense. Australia is like that because the Australian interior is incredibly dry and inhospitable, as indicated by the fact that your *Boers would need to travel across a thousand miles of desert to get to a place they could actually farm. Compare this to the US or Canada, places where European settlement was likewise initially coastal but in which, unlike in Australia, European colonists expanded inland in vast numbers because, unlike in Australia, those countries had extensive inland regions well-suited to agriculture. You might be able to make Australia's population not quite as overwhelmingly coastal, but fundamentally, there is no way in hell you're going to increase the population of the Darling-Murray basin several times over by settling it out of Perth(!) instead of Sydney and Melbourne.

If you take a settlement such as Albany, and take a radius of arable land, by the same logic applied to Sydney and Melbourne you could at least get to half of their population

 

[Thisisnotausername]

I imagine that the initial trek would be from Esperance to South Australia (with the help of camels?) and then into the Murray-Darling basin. The British penal colonies are on the other side of the dividing range and can't bother the boers.

A Great Trek that takes place c. 1840, as you suggested earlier, would be happening right around the time that the British were first beginning to move across the range and settle the basin themselves: Adelaide was founded in 1836, Albury in 1839. Your Boers aren't going to remain unbothered for very long at all, especially if the British government takes notice of their presence and intensifies colonization efforts compared to OTL in order to beat the competition--or hell, if they don't have South Africa to worry about, maybe all the settlers and investment that would've gone there goes to Australia instead and British colonization is already on an accelerated timetable compared to OTL. We might even speculate that Dutch colonization in the 17th century would spur the colonization of other parts of the continent much earlier than IOTL, and by the time Britain takes control of Nieuw Holland in the 1810s there are British colonists farming the same plots of land along the Murray that their grandfathers did a hundred years ago. Or maybe the Dutch already expanded all the way into the basin (despite the VOC's best efforts) prior to British acquisition of Dutch Australia and British majority areas will necessarily be confined to what's east of the GDR. It's hard to take OTL events and timings for granted when more than 150 years have passed since the initial POD.

 

[pompejus]

Point taken. I remain pessimistic about their ability to share though, which generally leads to most conflicts.

There is quiete a lot of barely habitable Australia between Eastern Australia and western Australia. If Britain would colonise Eastern Australia and the Netherlands western Australia, the colonist would never run into each other. The would only meet when they decide to deep explore the Australian desert. It is not the same situation like with the New Netherlands colony in the Americas where English colonist were already starting to settle in areas that were claimed by the Netherlands.