The Maoris colonized New Zealand in the 15th century. What if they also colonized Australia? Noting the difference in the British colonial experience NZ versus Australia, would TTL Australia have a more hybrid Anglo-Native culture as NZ?
WI: Maoris colonize Australia
- Thread starter tallwingedgoat
- Start date
Imagine Australia full of strong tribes all round the coast due to attacking the aboriginals or each other. So basically you have hundreds of strongholds that can support a very large population
tallwingedgoat said:
Umbral said:
Actually they colonised it between 800 and 1300. More interesting proto Maoris were off the Australian coast by 1200BC on Timor and the Bismarck Archipelago. A push westwards (if they can cross the Great Barrier Reef) would land them in Australia 2000 years ahead of the Europeans.
Assuming that AH is not possible, a move west from New Zealand at the same time as that to the Chatham Islands would put colonisation circum 1300. It is a long hop, but not really much further than Cooks Islands to New Zealand or the Marquesas to Hawaii.
Either way as Umbral has stated, the farming Maori are going to roll up the hunter gatherer Aborigines in the south. They would probably go south to and either wipe out the Tasmanians or push them into hills.
When the Europeans turn up there is going to be a lot more people living there so building a Botany Bay in Australia is going to be less appealing. In fact the British might decide not to bother and build it in Canada instead. Thus instead the history of Australia could very well parallel that of OTL New Zealand with European colonisation only taking place in the 19th century.
As far as I know, the Maori were really good at working up a high population density. I am reminded of the notion that more people generate more ideas.
I wonder how high-population tribes/nations of Maori could develop before european contact given that amount of space to work with?
I could see them crystallizing into fircely warring nations.
I wonder how high-population tribes/nations of Maori could develop before european contact given that amount of space to work with?
I could see them crystallizing into fircely warring nations.
Susano
Banned
Hm, what? Native settlement didnt rule out Terra Nullis. Not at all. Africa was more or less in its entirety conisdered Terra Nullis, for example.
bard32
Banned
They'd have to fight the Aboriginies. The Aboriginies had boomerangs. The
boomerangs came in two flavors. Hunting, and war. The hunting boomerangs
were the ones that returned to you. The war boomerangs were much heavier.
I'm sure those would be the deciding factor in any large scale movement of peoples.
What kind of weapons did the Maori have?
bard32
Banned
I don't know. You tell me. I'm more familiar with Australia than I am with New Zealand.
It's organization that win wars, not weapons. The superior organization adapt to new weapons and tactics if they prove effective. Besides the mace and spear are military classics. The boomarang is... of doubtful military value.
First of all, wooden boomerangs that take an amazing amount of time and skill to make and would break on your average shield are not superior to maces, spears, and arrows.
Secondly, there were no war boomerangs. The Aust-Abs were deeply divided into families, clans, groups, tribes, etc. They didn't really fight each other that much, because they were mostly trying to survive.
The problem with the Maoris colonising Australia is one of numbers as much as anything. The Aboriginal population would vastly outnumber them as we're are talking a local population of something between 700 000 to 3.5 million (depending upon who your talk to) - most of whom have already settled in the more furtile regions for well over 20 000 years. Considering the Maoris aren't really armed any better than the Aboriginals, unlike the British advantage when they arrived in 1788, I find it hard to believe that the Maoris would succeed, to the point where they take over the entire continent, akin to what the British managed to do.
Thats happened over and over again in human history. Looks like it might have happened in the Americas, with the Clovis culture landing 70 individuals and wiping out the previous inhabitants utterly.
Australias had 3 immigration waves as I understand.
San! lost out to the africans, Celts to the Saxons, human history is just full of that happening. The maori are more agressive, have a better food package, organize for war and superior population density.
Australias had 3 immigration waves as I understand.
San! lost out to the africans, Celts to the Saxons, human history is just full of that happening. The maori are more agressive, have a better food package, organize for war and superior population density.
Australian Aboriginals placed as much emphasis on the spear as the boomerang. Furthermore they also had the Woomera, which was a device attached to a throwing spear, to gain extra throwing distance & accuracy. They also used clubs whenever it suited them as well as bark sheilds. In this respect they were better armed than the Maori.
There was no need for a "war" boomerang as a hunting boomerang would be more than a match for killing any human, considering boomerangs were used to kill Red & Grey Kangaroos - especially in the case of a Red Kangaroo who is just as big as any human & probably 10 times as tough. Even today, hitting one with a car, whilst doing 100kph, is enough to write off your motorvehicle. So if a boomerang could taken down an animial who can do that to a car, you can be rest assured that some human is going to be shitting in their pants if such a boomerang hits them.
This statement is too generalistic. Aboriginals seldom had wars because they had developed a very complex legal system, which was rather foreign to European laws. Essentially it came down to "pay back" or a revenge type system. If someone in another tribe did wrong to you, & you could prove it, then you were entitled to return that wrong. It usually meant sticking a spear into their leg or somesuch. But it was a legal practice observed by everyone. Occasionally, though, there was also a war, which was often ongoing for generations.
The next aspect here is the societal structure. Yes they had their "families, clans, groups, tribes, etc" but, in many repsects, that's not overly different to anyone else. However, loyalty was to the tribe which had a strong bond. The problem, though, in fighting off the British was one of numbers along the East Coast, where the population of a given tribe was low, in some cases less than 1 000 members, whilst there were many tribes settled everywhere. But importantly, even when the British met one of the bigger tribes, where they were vastly outnumbered by the Aboriginals in question, it didn't matter in the end because the British had guns!
Now the Maoris coming to take over Australia will have two distinct disadvantages. Weapons technology wise they'll be no better off than the Aboriginals. In fact they'll be at a disadvantage having next to no distance weapons, unlike the Aboriginals. Plus the Maoris won't have any numerical supremacy to offset the weapons situation, unlike the British.
Last edited:
I don't think you could claim that the Maoris, at the time in question, were farming people. That happened after they colonised New Zealand.