WI: French Tasmania

Little known fact is that the french actually explored the area, not so much for colonisation, but out of scientific research.

What happens if the French actually decided to colonise the island instead? What would modern day Tasmania be like, what would it actually be called. Population and all that etc.

All from a modern context of course.
 

Archibald

Banned
Le diable de Tasmanie ! From Paris with love.

01855a6a7c8beeaff5b8e74cee7b33a5--cartoon-art-cartoon-characters.jpg
 

Archibald

Banned
More seriously: French oversea territories scattered across the globe all suffer from chronic issues when compared to La Métropole. Massive youth unemployment is really plaguing them. Lack of industry is a major issue.
 
More seriously: French oversea territories scattered across the globe all suffer from chronic issues when compared to La Métropole. Massive youth unemployment is really plaguing them. Lack of industry is a major issue.

so maybe a better standard of living than the islands, but probably due to the lack of infrastructure and real industry (which otl tasmania also suffers from), probably not as well off as NZ or Australia.

I mean it would make sense to be honest.

At what rate do you think the french would have inhabited the island if they did colonise it? It seems like a good european climate that would be more agreeable and would probably get a fair bit of migration, even if it is at the bottom end of the world.
 
This has been covered to relatively good degree by Jim Davidson's chapter on a francophone Tasmania in Sean Scalmer & Stuart Macintyre's 'What If? - Australian History as it Might Have Been'. A quote from a review briefly plots the ATL as LaPerouse grabs Tasmania for France before the British, with all going well "imagine sipping wine in its open air cafes before catching the opera" until it doesn't and their (Anglo) "Australian neighbours restore order in 2007, with peacekeeping troops directed by Prime Minister John Howard". "http://www.abc.net.au/radionational...ative-australian-histories/3399454#transcript
The collection of essays in the book are all well worth a read if you can get it at the library or cheaply 2nd hand.
 
I wonder if it would still be apart of France today, as French Guiana and New Caledonia are, or if it would have become independent at some point? I'd lean more towards it still being part of France itself, unless it manages to attract enough immigrants and they decide to go their own way - but would they? Either way, it's likely to end up being a majority ethnically French, I would think, due to the low population of Aboriginals on the island (somewhere between 3000 and 15000 people before the arrival of Europeans); which probably means it will stay with France as most of its other smaller overseas departments have.

I imagine its economy would be based mostly around tourism, but I have little knowledge of the natural resources available on or around Tasmania. Either way, it is likely to be a popular vacation spot for French citizens and foreigners alike.
 
The problems of the economies of the islands of overseas France are generally the problems of islands more generally, unemployment and underemployment included.

A French Tasmania that becomes a French settler colony will almost certainly stay part of France, especially since--unlike in New Caledonia--the indigenous population is not likely to survive.
 
The problems of the economies of the islands of overseas France are generally the problems of islands more generally, unemployment and underemployment included.

A French Tasmania that becomes a French settler colony will almost certainly stay part of France, especially since--unlike in New Caledonia--the indigenous population is not likely to survive.

Or it becomes a reluctant state/province as part of an Australian federation (much like Quebec ) due to the pervasive economic links between Tasmania and the mainland that outweigh the cultural ties to France. Or, as in the 'What If?' scenario, gradually decline into a failed state that ends in an intervention and integration into Australia.

On the indigenous population, the Tasmanian aboriginals might fare better under French rule than British if there is no organised 'pacification' (or extermination) campaign in the 1820s-1830s, although the Tasmanian's vulnerability to introduced diseases would remain.
 
Or it becomes a reluctant state/province as part of an Australian federation (much like Quebec ) due to the pervasive economic links between Tasmania and the mainland that outweigh the cultural ties to France.

This is not likely. Québec is part of Canada--more accurately, Canada was built around Québec--because it was conquered. Without that conquest, there's no particular reason to think Québec would have broken from the French empire to join the British.

Or, as in the 'What If?' scenario, gradually decline into a failed state that ends in an intervention and integration into Australia.

What "What If?" scenario?

It's difficult to imagine a situation where a French Tasmania would risk falling into failed state status, given the relative wealth and stability of the French state. Maybe if this changes--nuclear war in the Northern Hemisphere?

On the indigenous population, the Tasmanian aboriginals might fare better under French rule than British if there is no organised 'pacification' (or extermination) campaign in the 1820s-1830s, although the Tasmanian's vulnerability to introduced diseases would remain.

Maybe, although much depends on how and when the French come into possession of Tasmania. Frankly, I don't think the underlying dynamics of a settlement colony would be good for Tasmanian Aborigines regardless of who was in charge.
 
What "What If?" scenario?

See my earlier post - a chapter from this book: https://www.mup.com.au/books/9780522851748-what-if

Even today, Tasmania as a state in the Australian federation that receives massive transfers of money from the mainland states and despite the huge mineral wealth in Tasmania's north-west still lags behind the Australian mainland on education, incomes, life expectancy and other key measures.

Not difficult to imagine how a small colony very distant from France with failing mineral wealth and minimal agricultural exports (except to/from the Australian mainland) could fail and be absorbed into Australia.
 
See my earlier post - a chapter from this book: https://www.mup.com.au/books/9780522851748-what-if

Even today, Tasmania as a state in the Australian federation that receives massive transfers of money from the mainland states and despite the huge mineral wealth in Tasmania's north-west still lags behind the Australian mainland on education, incomes, life expectancy and other key measures.

Not difficult to imagine how a small colony very distant from France with failing mineral wealth and minimal agricultural exports (except to/from the Australian mainland) could fail and be absorbed into Australia.

It actually is difficult to imagine. Being relatively poorer is hardly the same thing as being a failed state. Is New Zealand a failed state, despite its poverty relative to Australia? For that matter, is New Caledonia?

The only analogy I can think of relates to the Canadian inclusion of Newfoundland in Confederation in 1949. There, Newfoundland was arguably approaching the point of poverty, with vast shares of its fisheries-dependent population being hard-pressed to clothe and feed themselves. Even there, being part of Canada barely won the day, and was arguably aided by the fact that both Canada and Newfoundland were part of a wider British Commonwealth. Newfoundland was arguably just trading a direct relationship with the Crown for a more indirect one, aided of course by an abundance of Canadian money.

In the case of a Tasmania that has presumably been a colony of France--not Britain--for generations, with a population of hundreds of thousands and a colonial history not just distinct from that of mainland but to some degree opposed to Australia, what will be the incentives to become politically Australian? Even if France is unable to support Tasmania for whatever reason, why would the Tasmanien(ne)s not simply opt for independence? The example of New Zealand, for instance, shows that Australia is perfectly capable of being an ally to neighbouring states.
 
If France sends people there instead of to French Guiana or New Caledonia, a lot more will survive (since it has a temperate climate and would lack the frequent tropical disease epidemics which decimated the population in those islands) and its likely Tasmania will have many more people than OTL, since France would offer people land and its nicer land than a jungle with many hostile natives. Like New Caledonia, it has the resources which would attract further investment.

But there's still many problems, and I think it would be economically very comparable to New Zealand. Relations would likely be very close between Australia, New Zealand, and Tasmanie. Although I wonder if it even would become independent or if it would instead become a department of France?

On the indigenous population, the Tasmanian aboriginals might fare better under French rule than British if there is no organised 'pacification' (or extermination) campaign in the 1820s-1830s, although the Tasmanian's vulnerability to introduced diseases would remain.

Probably, but only because it's hard to treat them worse than they were treated. The French colonists would inevitably end up angry at them for something. France might have them be blackbirded or and likely confine them to reservations out of sight of the rest of the population and in poor lands, and if they protested, they'd get shot. By the 21st century, I'd think there'd be at most maybe 100 full-blooded Tasmanian Aboriginals and another few thousand mixed-race descendents. Their languages would likely have maybe 10-20 fluent speakers between them and be moribund, and some would be extinct. However, they'd be much better documented, along with Tasmanian Aboriginal culture in general.
 
Doesn't johnboy live on Tasmania? I wonder what his thoughts are on this?

Yes, he is. Yes, the French were here first and a number of places in Tasmania still carry French name. Recherche Bay, for instance. I think it highly likely that assuming that Tasmania does not turned over to the UK in 1814, then it would stay French. Look at the early history of New Caledonia. All that happened and the French still held on to it and indeed still do as an overseas department.

To get a colony off the ground you need two basic things.Food/water and resources. Tasmania has both. So a colony would do very well indeed. Where it would run into problems is at a later stage, especially commencing the late 1960's when globilisation, free trade and the like make it economically dependent on British Australia. It is the most subsidised state in Australia in terms of Federal money.The same largess would not come from France,at least not in the same numbers. Whilst there are some advantages, like not having local businesses close down and relocate to Melbourne to avoid freight costs and the ability to levy customs taxes, they are outweighed by far by the negatives and Tasmanian income would likely sit below a bit that of New Zealand I would think.

Sadly,for the Tasmanian aboriginals the fate would likely be the same. Never numerous in the first place, a colony's agricultural based economy and desire for land would provoke conflicts and these and European diseases would do their work.
 
As another Tasweigen (albeit of mainland birth... no second head or amorous encounters with siblings), let me through a few thoughts out:

First, what is the POD? If the French attempt to colonize in the 1800-1815 timeframe, and events further afield are generally inline with OTL, either the poms roll in and boot 'em out or the colony's early development is badly stifled... Putting things simply, the early prosperity of Tas was based on three things: Agricultural exports principally to NSW (the Sorell district near Hobart was once the breadbasket of the colonies); whaling and sealing. With the Napoleonic raging number one is out big time, number two is much more limited than OTL (there's a blockade limiting how much you can reliably ship home, thus implying vastly reduced profits relative to OTL), number three was largely conducted outside areas of real control of any government. Additionally, the blockade will make shipping colonists out from France difficult (relative to the poms sending people to Aus IOTL), so I suspect a more likely source of migrants would be the French Indian Ocean colonies of Mauritius and Reunion (but IOTL both taken by the poms 1808-1810...), with interest results in terms of demographics (French, Indians, Africans, Chinese... oh my...).
Of cause, you could forestall that by having the Napoleonic Wars end earlier... Also could generate some interesting butterflies if the poms don't boot 'em out (earlier colonization of OTL Melbourne or more rapid development of the Hunter Valley as alternate food sources for NSW?).

The other alternative is the French explorers show less interest and the poms don't get startled into acting in 1803/4. Once things back in Europe calm down 1810-15ish then the frogs go a colonizing...

Second, longer term? Broadly speaking, Tas's economics up till circa 1900 can be summarized as: Grain and whaling 1805-1840ish; gold rush 1850ish, overshadowed by Victorian equivalent (Melbourne rises from a handful of mud huts to one of the leading cities in the Southern Hemisphere, putting Hobart in the shade); back to agriculture (more sheep and wool than grain); tin rush 1870s; development of west coast lead, zinc and copper mines (1880s on). The gold and tin rushes have a significant chance of seeing largescale migration, including probably a fair few Anglo-Australians and possibly Chinese (per OTL in Victoria during the 1850s or Tas during the 1870s tin rush).

Aborigines? This depends... the French were rather variable in their treatment of native peoples, but then again, so were the poms. I suspect it comes down to early development and growth of the colony... if (per scenario one) growth is relatively slow then I see assimilation as more likely then OTL's near extermination. Still, either way, come 1900ish the Tas Aborigine population will be a small minority...
 
The fate of a french Tasmania (what would it be called ? Baudinia ?), being a small colony next to a bigger British one could be compared to the one of Saint-Pierre and Miquelon next to Canada.
Hence, I don't see it being annexed by Australia : it's not especially attractive for Australia, plus it would create a major diplomatic problem. UK and then Australia being allied to France during the whole XXth century wouldn't look to annex a part of France.
You could expect its economy to be based first on agriculture and fishing, and later tourism.
I think it would a vibrant culture, especially for its cuisine.
It actually could lead to higher development of Melbourne with a higher commercial activity, maybe even outranking Sydney.

I'd love to see a TL focused on a french Tasmania!
 
Top