What would a Polynesian Australia look like

[bernardz]

To be clear, I'm not suggesting that the Aborigines are going to form armies in the tens of thousands and push the Maori back into the sea. But they were capable of matching the 1300s-era Maori in organisation and (approximately) military technology. .

The Polynesian do appear to have better military technology.

http://www.mythichawaii.com/weapons.htm

The other issue that is puzzling is that the Maori people dropped the sling. Which is puzzling as the Polynesian did have and used slings in warfare. The POD did call for a Polynesian Australia so it is quite likely that these people had slings too.

However, without the sling, I would say that the Polynesian do have significant better military technology.

Centuries later, to be precise.

They weren't going to build up from there to generals and forts for quite a while.

The expedition to get there would have had a chief and I am sure that they would have put up forts almost immediately particularly if the locals are hostile.

Yes. Key point here is 1860s. The entire Maori population wasn't 4000 people in 1300. Or even in 1400, based on the most likely population growth rates.

Agreed it would be scattered settlements. Early settlements appear to be between 30 and 400 people.

Amusingly enough, based on what happened in OTL Australia, ATL Maori colonists would be facing the same problem that the British colonists faced during the Maori Wars combating guerrilla warfare :

The British did not face much guerrilla warfare in Australia, it is rare the Aborigines united, not being tied to the land, it was possible for the Aboriginal bands to move, the Aborigines knew they were outclassed with the "bang bang sticks" so the fighting was fairly minimal.

against an opponent who knew the land much better than they did .

This would be true only at the start after say 20 years both know the land equally good.

I'm not sure why. Based on the size of early Maori settlements, they would not have been large enough to field more than 100 warriors (probably less). The Aborigines were easily capable of matching that.

The Aborigines might be capable of matching that with an exceptional leader. If I was to bet on 100 Polynesian warriors vs 100 Aborigines, my money would be on the Polynesian.

 

[Dominic]

The British did not face much guerrilla warfare in Australia, it is rare the Aborigines united, not being tied to the land, it was possible for the Aboriginal bands to move, the Aborigines knew they were outclassed with the "bang bang sticks" so the fighting was fairly minimal.

I would strongly recommend rephrasing this. Other than being completely historically inaccurate, suggesting that the Aboriginal people of Australia simply submitted in the face of guns, and putting it into such diminutive language, is at the very best highly patronising. For what it's worth, Aboriginal people fought numerous wars with the British invaders with an extremely high level of skill, and were only beaten due to numbers and disease. They also have incredibly strong ties to the land to this day.

 

[bernardz]

I would strongly recommend rephrasing this. Other than being completely historically inaccurate, suggesting that the Aboriginal people of Australia simply submitted in the face of guns, and putting it into such diminutive language, is at the very best highly patronising. For what it's worth, Aboriginal people fought numerous wars with the British invaders with an extremely high level of skill, and were only beaten due to numbers and disease. They also have incredibly strong ties to the land to this day.

I do not think that this is inaccurate at all. There is nothing in Australia like the wars against the original populations that we see in other countries like New Zealand where troops had to be brought in from many other countries, the USA where armies were raised against the Indians or South Africa with British troops brought in from India.

In Australi what we often see a few locals and some police/troops (or troopers which are close to Militia) in comparison.

 

[Dominic]

I do not think that this is inaccurate at all. There is nothing in Australia like the wars against the original populations that we see in other countries like New Zealand where troops had to be brought in from many other countries, the USA where armies were raised against the Indians or South Africa with British troops brought in from India.

In Australi what we often see a few locals and some police/troops (or troopers which are close to Militia) in comparison.

This is incorrect. Look up some of the wars that occurred across the continent, be it in Tasmania or WA. There was serious conflict spanning decades.

 

[bernardz]

This is incorrect. Look up some of the wars that occurred across the continent, be it in Tasmania or WA. There was serious conflict spanning decades.

Define serious, it is only recently that some have called them wars, even the people at the time did not call them that. In total 2,000 to 2,500 settlers died over about 150 years. So what is that 15 settlers a year and as we are not sure of the reasons for these conflicts and there are many disputes that they were wars, many would be personal quarrels.

I found this reference that might explain it overall better.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_frontier_wars

These conflicts were all resolved by a few local British troops, police and settlers and few on both sides even fought in an organised way.

In comparison, the New Zealand Wars as I have stated required an army and 18,000 British troops.

 

[Intransigent Southerner]

@bernardz

While the Aborigines were much less of a military threat than the Maori, saying that they were “not tied to the land” and that “it was possible for the Aboriginal bands to move” is really not true. Almost all Aborigines had very close ties to the land, and they didn’t just move away from the colonists, they were outright exterminated.

The real reason Maori resistance was more formidable has to do with the political structure of the Aborigines vs. the Maori, not ties to the land or lack thereof.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

We could have the Polynesians invade from New Caledonia.

New Caledonia is melanesian, not Polynesian

 

[Dominic]

Define serious, it is only recently that some have called them wars, even the people at the time did not call them that. In total 2,000 to 2,500 settlers died over about 150 years. So what is that 15 settlers a year and as we are not sure of the reasons for these conflicts and there are many disputes that they were wars, many would be personal quarrels.

I found this reference that might explain it overall better.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_frontier_wars

These conflicts were all resolved by a few local British troops, police and settlers and few on both sides even fought in an organised way.

In comparison, the New Zealand Wars as I have stated required an army and 18,000 British troops.

Never heard of the Black War? The Euromella Wars? Plenty of the conflicts were called wars by their participants, and were treated as such. You are infantilising the Aboriginal people. Driving invaders off your land is not a "personal quarrel".

 

[bernardz]

.

Never heard of the Black War? The Euromella Wars?

Yep check my reference.

Plenty of the conflicts were called wars by their participants, and were treated as such.

Please name a few named by the participants?

You are infantilising the Aboriginal people. Driving invaders off your land is not a "personal quarrel".

No, I am not you are trying to make them something that they are not. They were not united, they had no ownership of land as you mean it and many of the conflicts were personal disputes that is partly why we read often its the police are involved.

@bernardz

While the Aborigines were much less of a military threat than the Maori, saying that they were “not tied to the land” and that “it was possible for the Aboriginal bands to move” is really not true. Almost all Aborigines had very close ties to the land,

Well, they did a lot of moving.

@bernardz

and they didn’t just move away from the colonists, they were outright exterminated.

We are debating the reasons for their disappearance, Western diseases in particular smallpox took a big toll out of them too.

@bernardz
The real reason Maori resistance was more formidable has to do with the political structure of the Aborigines vs. the Maori, not ties to the land or lack thereof.

Agreed but Maori had a much greater attachment it is one thing for a hunter-gather to more, an agriculturist to move

 

[Dominic]

.

Yep check my reference.

I'm not taking wikipedia as a reference. You need to do wider research than that if you're going to claim a knowledge of these events.

 

[bernardz]

I'm not taking wikipedia as a reference. You need to do wider research than that if you're going to claim a knowledge of these events.

Yeah, you always look at the sources quoted for the Wikipedia article first.

 

[Whiteshore]

Anyways, can we agree to disagree here and discuss what the social structure of this Polynesian Australia (what would they call the place) look like?

 

[bernardz]

Anyways, can we agree to disagree here and discuss what the social structure of this Polynesian Australia (what would they call the place) look like?

In the initial stages, they would be very vulnerable to an Aboriginal assault. They could probably handle it, but what we do know of the Aboriginals, the main danger would not be a direct assault but a continuous low-intensity fighting. I will not call it war but more like crimes. Aboriginal would go out kill a few people, steal something like women and run away. The Polynesians are *big* cannibals which would not help to get on with the locals. Given a chance they would attack the locals to eat them. This would mean with hostile natives the Polynesians would need forts and a well-organised militia. I would imagine they would have a series of small villages in some confederacy. Because of their low population, one would have to accept that Polynesian Australia would only be in a small part of Australia.

The other issue is that the local vegetation and animals are not well suited for civilisation. I am not sure what our Polynesians could bring. This would be a major problem. The type of agriculture plants and animals they need is far away outside of the area that the Polynesians inhabit.

 

[Dominic]

In the initial stages, they would be very vulnerable to an Aboriginal assault. They could probably handle it, but what we do know of the Aboriginals, the main danger would not be a direct assault but a continuous low-intensity fighting. I will not call it war but more like crimes. Aboriginal would go out kill a few people, steal something like women and run away. The Polynesians are *big* cannibals who would not help to get on with the locals. Given a chance they would attack the locals to eat them. This would mean with hostile natives the Polynesians would need forts and a well-organised militia. I would imagine they would have a series of small villages in some confederacy. Because of their low population, one would have to accept that Polynesian Australia would only be in a small part of Australia.

The other issue is that the local vegetation and animals are not well suited for civilisation. I am not sure what our Polynesians could bring. This would be a major problem. The type of agriculture plants and animals they need is far away outside of the area that the Polynesians inhabit.

I was going to avoid this thread but jeez this is some borderline offensive stuff. "Crimes"?? Far out mate, this is just rubbish. Aboriginal people defending their country from invaders is not analogous with petty criminal activity. "Steal something like women"? Women are not objects, nor did Aboriginal people engage in human trafficking. Stop with the denigrating language.

 

[Whiteshore]

I was going to avoid this thread but jeez this is some borderline offensive stuff. "Crimes"?? Far out mate, this is just rubbish. Aboriginal people defending their country from invaders is not analogous with petty criminal activity. "Steal something like women"? Women are not objects, nor did Aboriginal people engage in human trafficking. Stop with the denigrating language.

Well, what @bernardz is trying to say is that inter-tribal warfare often features stuff like "stealing women" and "committing acts of murder", but I see your point.

 

[Dominic]

Well, what @bernardz is trying to say is that inter-tribal warfare often features stuff like "stealing women" and "committing acts of murder", but I see your point.

He is trying to say that it does not merit the term "warfare" because apparently Aboriginal people are incapable of organising themselves to defend against invasion. The specific tactics are one thing, and will vary widely based on geography, technology, and population density, but the basic fact - one or more nations defending their lands against invaders - does not change. Or perhaps we should start describing, say, the French Resistance, as mere criminals with no overarching political motivations.

 

[Revachah]

New Caledonia is melanesian, not Polynesian

Melanesia is just an artificial term to denote dark skin. Fiji is considered by many Polynesian institutions to be Polynesian despite the fact that historically it was called melanesian.

We know however that the Lapita landed there and they have a history of interaction with other Lapita derived islands.

In the case of New Caledonia it is the southernmost island of dark skin people at the northern most bit of the Zelandia who's language and culture aligns more with the broader Oceanian speaking populations of the Lapita than Papua.

 

[Arkenfolm]

The other issue is that the local vegetation and animals are not well suited for civilisation. I am not sure what our Polynesians could bring. This would be a major problem. The type of agriculture plants and animals they need is far away outside of the area that the Polynesians inhabit.

Not really. Kumara can probably grow wherever you can give it enough water, even in Tasmania although it would be small and stunted like most New Zealand kumara was. Other plants can be borrowed from the Aboriginals who already did apply systems of management to these plants. Applying more intensive cultivation might lead to actual domestication of those plants. They certainly used bracken fern well in New Zealand.

 

[bernardz]

I was going to avoid this thread but jeez this is some borderline offensive stuff. "Crimes"?? Far out mate, this is just rubbish. Aboriginal people defending their country from invaders is not analogous with petty criminal activity. "Steal something like women"? Women are not objects, nor did Aboriginal people engage in human trafficking. Stop with the denigrating language.

We have reports of convicts that ran away and lived among Aboriginals, they reported that it was a very violent society with continuous fighting. Murders were common.

Not really. Kumara can probably grow wherever you can give it enough water, even in Tasmania although it would be small and stunted like most New Zealand kumara was. Other plants can be borrowed from the Aboriginals who already did apply systems of management to these plants. Applying more intensive cultivation might lead to actual domestication of those plants. They certainly used bracken fern well in New Zealand.

There are some.

 

[Dominic]

We have reports of convicts that ran away and lived among Aboriginals, they reported that it was a very violent society with continuous fighting. Murders were common.

So what? What bearing does that have at all on the topic of Aboriginal resistance to invasion?