What if Australia was never colonized by the British?

French are the most likely result. In fact, they planned on making some colonies in Australia in the 1830s, but were beaten at the last minute by Britain.

A French Australia could be quite interesting. Are there any details known about the plans of the 1830s?

I dunno, Jared made a pretty good mini/one-post-timeline which had the Swedish colonize Australia. It was a small colony and it would later get sold to Britain, but it seems plausible.

It reminds me of the old Danish Australia timeline on Soc.History.What-If

fasquardon
 
A French Australia could be quite interesting. Are there any details known about the plans of the 1830s?

Rather than a formal plan, I believe (and I could be totally wrong here) that it was more British fears of possible French plans in the 1830s than an actual effort which would spur the British to claim the rest of the continent. Britain had good reason to fear, the French had routinely been very close to setting up in Australia.

In 1772 the French explorer Louis Aleno de Saint Alouarn claimed Western Australia for France standing on Dirk Harthog Island where earlier the Dutch had landed. OTL Saint Alouarn died before returning to France so no-one knew that France had a 'legal claim' to WA.

In 1788 just as the first colonisation fleet of the British was arriving in New South Wales, they were met with a French exploration party under Jean-François de Galaup, comte de La Pérouse. This naturally peturbed the British. Quick fun fact, as a teenager Napoleon had applied to join La Pérouse's on this voyage. Napoleon way rejected but later La Pérouse's expedition vanished in the Indian Ocean on the way back to France - Napoleon could have been lost at sea at 18 if he'd been accepted, How's that for a POD?

Then in 1800 Napoleon sent Nicolas Baudin to survey the Southern continent. Baudin surveyed much of the Western and Osuthern coasts of Australia and bumped into the British surveying expedition of Lieutenant Matthew Flinders. Baudin even declaimed the West part of the southern coast of Australia Terre Napoléon.

In 1803 Naturalist François Péron, who'd been on Baudin's voyage, wrote a plan entitled 'French Designs on Colonial New South Wales' to occupy the British colony at Sydney as an outlay of the French-British rivalry/Napoleonic Wars.

Many of these voyages were intended as purely scientific but they also had territorial ambitions driving them and it was only the lack of stability in France at the time (what with the whole Revolution and Napoleonic wars) which prevented renewed colonialisation. I think it is perfectly resonable to assume French success in an alternate timeline.

Otherwise there's a reasonable case for the Dutch to set up an outpost on the Western Coast of Australia. If for no other reason than the fact that Dutch ships kept crashing into the coast. Rather than risk foreign obstruction of Dutch trade between Indoneisa and the Cape of Good Hope the Dutch might resolve to control the coastline as a matter of course.
 
Many of these voyages were intended as purely scientific but they also had territorial ambitions driving them and it was only the lack of stability in France at the time (what with the whole Revolution and Napoleonic wars) which prevented renewed colonialisation. I think it is perfectly resonable to assume French success in an alternate timeline.

Hm. Makes me wonder if a French Australia is a likely outcome of the French Revolution not happening.

Of course, no French Revolution means Britain isn't distracted as well.

fasquardon
 
In 1772 the French explorer Louis Aleno de Saint Alouarn claimed Western Australia for France standing on Dirk Harthog Island where earlier the Dutch had landed. OTL Saint Alouarn died before returning to France so no-one knew that France had a 'legal claim' to WA.

In 1788 just as the first colonisation fleet of the British was arriving in New South Wales, they were met with a French exploration party under Jean-François de Galaup, comte de La Pérouse. This naturally peturbed the British. Quick fun fact, as a teenager Napoleon had applied to join La Pérouse's on this voyage. Napoleon way rejected but later La Pérouse's expedition vanished in the Indian Ocean on the way back to France - Napoleon could have been lost at sea at 18 if he'd been accepted, How's that for a POD?

....
Otherwise there's a reasonable case for the Dutch to set up an outpost on the Western Coast of Australia. If for no other reason than the fact that Dutch ships kept crashing into the coast. Rather than risk foreign obstruction of Dutch trade between Indoneisa and the Cape of Good Hope the Dutch might resolve to control the coastline as a matter of course.
Hmm...In my New Albion timeline I've got James Cook being killed by natives in Alaska, causing the first British adventurer there to be Jack Byron, who (incurious as our TL) sails too far south and doesn't discover Australia. Instead the west is claimed by France to protect their holdings in India (Clive being absent in the Pacific North-West) and the Dutch claim the east coast to protect Batavia. Have to see if I can retcon Cadet Napoleon some way-have him eventually ending up as Gouverneur of Australie?
 
Hmm...In my New Albion timeline I've got James Cook being killed by natives in Alaska, causing the first British adventurer there to be Jack Byron, who (incurious as our TL) sails too far south and doesn't discover Australia.
I hope you realise it wasn't captain Cook that discovered Australia, but a Dutch captain more than 150 years earlier (actualy it is likely the Portuguese knew of Australia before, but never mentioned it). Mind you it was Cook who exlored the south east of Australia first, so maybe you referenced that.
 
Y'know, another possible colonizer could be the Omani, who had a small colonial empire in Africa at the time, if Britain doesn't go for Australia, they might, especially if the Portuguese are involved, as they kinda had a rivalry going there for awhile.

(I don't see a dormant tag so I'm assuming it's okay to post here)
 
Y'know, another possible colonizer could be the Omani, who had a small colonial empire in Africa at the time, if Britain doesn't go for Australia, they might, especially if the Portuguese are involved, as they kinda had a rivalry going there for awhile.

(I don't see a dormant tag so I'm assuming it's okay to post here)
An Australia split between Portugal and Oman/Zanzibar would be a hell of a thing to see.
 
Y'know, another possible colonizer could be the Omani, who had a small colonial empire in Africa at the time, if Britain doesn't go for Australia, they might, especially if the Portuguese are involved, as they kinda had a rivalry going there for awhile.

(I don't see a dormant tag so I'm assuming it's okay to post here)
Did the Omani even know about Australia? Or have ships capable to go there?
 
An Australia split between Portugal and Oman/Zanzibar would be a hell of a thing to see.
Yes, yes it would, especially once Qaboos (yes that is his name) gets in (if his coup isn't butterflied away) Australia would end up heavily developed (heck the Oman might possibly be pre-disposed to Australia's landscape beforehand from living on the northeastern edges of the Rub' al Khali)

Did the Omani even know about Australia? Or have ships capable to go there?
Considering they managed to give the Portuguese a run for their money and straight up took land away from them, I'd say they'd have a fair chance, also considering the lessened distance (they only have to go around India to get a clear shot, wherearea's Britain, Portugal and other colonizers have to circumnavigate Africa in addition to India)
 
If Portugal and Oman/Zanzibar were competing to colonize Australia, I'm pretty sure it would just be divided along lines of 'whoever manages to grab that' and then formalized later - maybe a few border adjustments here and there, but mostly just a recognition of the de facto borders.

What I'm wondering is who would manage to grab what.
 
Maybe the Portuguese or the Spanish, although both are doubtful, especialy as late as the 18th century. Denmark and Sweden are too small and Australia won't be empty long enough for the Germans or Italians to colonise it. So yes, if not the English or Dutch, it is most likely the French, assuming a late 18th century POD.
Germany and Italy were not united till 1871. There were several kingdoms. You don't go colonizing when your own country is not united.
 
Hm. Makes me wonder if a French Australia is a likely outcome of the French Revolution not happening.

Of course, no French Revolution means Britain isn't distracted as well.

fasquardon

Problem with the French colonization process is it was very badly timed. The largest (15,000 settlers) fleet left in 1764 for Guyana, after the loss of Canada but before the expeditions in the South Sea. 12,000 of them died of yellow fever and dysentry. An equivalent fleet sent to Canada in 1750 could change even the course of the 7YW ; one sent to Australia in 1774 could make for a reasonable-sized colony. The PoD needed to ensure a French Australia is one when the settling push wanted by Choiseul is postponed to the late 1760, when the Ministry have more intel about the "Green Hell" of Guyana and send Bougainville on a double colonization/scientific mission instead of a purely scientific one. Even if, considering the distance, the colonization fleet is reduced to 8,000 settlers, that is 7 times the OTL first Fleet.
 
Top