autumnal
Banned
Sailing after the Seven Years' War from 1766-1769, Admiral Bougainville's voyage was the first French voyage to circumnavigate the globe. If you look at a map of Bougainville's voyage, you see that he actually came very close to discovering Eastern Australia, but had to turn away because he ran into the Great Barrier Reef. If he went through the reef, his ship would have risked taking severe damage. This kind of happened to James Cook on his voyage a few years later. Cook's ship was severely damaged on the reef but the voyage limped over to what is today Cooktown, Queensland (named in his honour) where it was repaired, which is extremely close to where Bougainville was probably approaching before he turned back.
Granted, Cook was already going up the coast and knew Australia existed (he would claim the entire eastern coast as New South Wales upon reaching the Torres Strait in 1770), so it's probably not the same. But nevertheless, Bougainville's voyage was run pretty competently and had very low casualties for a voyage of discovery of the time. Would it have been possible for him to have his ship damaged on the reef but, in an amazing stroke of luck, get through and find Australia to repair his ships on before leaving? Would they have realised the significance of where they'd landed at all or tried claiming Tropical Australia for France? The locals were not so hostile, there wasn't much disease and the area is pretty lush, like a better Guyana. The plants and animals are new and of scientific interest. You can grow sugar cane (which was of importance to France at the time) there. Could it inspire more voyages?
Given the timing of Cook's first expedition (he sets out half a year before Bougainville returned to France), Cook might not even be aware that Bougainville had found Australia before him (if he was he'd definitely credit him, like he credited Vitus Bering when he found the Bering Strait). Could the UK and France discover Eastern Australia independently of one another without realising it? Would this change much about history at all, or would we just get another interesting footnote and maybe some places in North Queensland named after Bougainville like the suburb in Sydney named after Laperouse?
Granted, Cook was already going up the coast and knew Australia existed (he would claim the entire eastern coast as New South Wales upon reaching the Torres Strait in 1770), so it's probably not the same. But nevertheless, Bougainville's voyage was run pretty competently and had very low casualties for a voyage of discovery of the time. Would it have been possible for him to have his ship damaged on the reef but, in an amazing stroke of luck, get through and find Australia to repair his ships on before leaving? Would they have realised the significance of where they'd landed at all or tried claiming Tropical Australia for France? The locals were not so hostile, there wasn't much disease and the area is pretty lush, like a better Guyana. The plants and animals are new and of scientific interest. You can grow sugar cane (which was of importance to France at the time) there. Could it inspire more voyages?
Given the timing of Cook's first expedition (he sets out half a year before Bougainville returned to France), Cook might not even be aware that Bougainville had found Australia before him (if he was he'd definitely credit him, like he credited Vitus Bering when he found the Bering Strait). Could the UK and France discover Eastern Australia independently of one another without realising it? Would this change much about history at all, or would we just get another interesting footnote and maybe some places in North Queensland named after Bougainville like the suburb in Sydney named after Laperouse?
Last edited:
