WI: Swedish Australia

Zachariah

Banned
With the British preparing to colonize Botany Bay, the Government of Gustav III agreed to sponsor William Bolts' proposal for an equivalent colonisation venture in Nuyts Land (SW Australia), and in November 1786, William Bolts was given a contract by King Gustav III of Sweden to discover an island off the coast of Western Australia, where a Swedish colony and trading post could be established. However, the plan was shelved after Sweden became embroiled in war with Russia in the following year; Bolts was given 250 pounds for his trouble, and the proposed colony was never established.

So then, what if the contract had never been nullified, and Sweden had merely placed its Australian colonial ambitions on hold? As such, William Bolts still sets sail as the leader of a small Swedish colonial expedition in 1791, after the signing of the Treaty of Värälä, raising the Swedish flag and establishing the first trading post for the new Swedish Australian colony in the vicinity of the Swan River, on what would have been Garden Island IOTL in 1791. What would be the best case scenario for Swedish Australia ITTL?
 
Probably Western Australia just has a more Swedish ancestry but in the end speaks English, and is part of whatever government forms on the Eastern side.
 
No chance of a colony succeeding on Garden Island. It's little more than sand dune. So either the colony fails, or promptly moves to the Swan River. What happens after that could vary considerably... Swedish WA would not bother Britain the way a French WA would... if Swedish WA is even remotely financially viable, which is very much open to debate. There is not much in the way of trading that would occur there, nor does Sweden have the imperial resources/necessities to easily prop up a colony in the way the British could. IMO the most likely outcome is that Britain ends up buying whatever Swedish colony is established to prevent the French from doing so. Long-term however the consequences would be pretty significant. Would convicts ever end up in Western Australia? Would the Swedish colony retain some degree of its own laws/culture? A few hundred colonists would likely just be swallowed up in demographic terms, but the histories of the early Australian colonies were heavily dependent on individual personalities. WA could end up very different to OTL.
 
No chance of a colony succeeding on Garden Island. It's little more than sand dune. So either the colony fails, or promptly moves to the Swan River. What happens after that could vary considerably... Swedish WA would not bother Britain the way a French WA would... if Swedish WA is even remotely financially viable, which is very much open to debate. There is not much in the way of trading that would occur there, nor does Sweden have the imperial resources/necessities to easily prop up a colony in the way the British could. IMO the most likely outcome is that Britain ends up buying whatever Swedish colony is established to prevent the French from doing so. Long-term however the consequences would be pretty significant. Would convicts ever end up in Western Australia? Would the Swedish colony retain some degree of its own laws/culture? A few hundred colonists would likely just be swallowed up in demographic terms, but the histories of the early Australian colonies were heavily dependent on individual personalities. WA could end up very different to OTL.
Garden Island has 720 people OTL, sure it's not the most appealing place and the Swan River is better, but it's nowhere near what you are saying it is. Everything else you said is good though.
 
It would probably end up like another New Sweden, swallowed up by another colonial power (Britain in this case) and mostly forgotten about. Maybe some Swedish architecture will remain and become a tourist attraction and there will be some descendants of the Swedish settlers but it will still be an English speaking part of Australia. Western Australia will definitely look quite different to it is today but little Swedish influence will remain today.
 
Garden Island has 720 people OTL, sure it's not the most appealing place and the Swan River is better, but it's nowhere near what you are saying it is. Everything else you said is good though.

Garden Island all on its own is unviable, or at best ridiculously inefficient. No substantial resources, limited fresh water, limited space. It can be settled as an adjunct to a much larger colony on the Swan River (or today as a naval base), but as the core of a settlement there is really no chance of it surviving. You'd have to ship most of the food, timber and other building materials, and water from the mainland.
 

Zachariah

Banned
Garden Island all on its own is unviable, or at best ridiculously inefficient. No substantial resources, limited fresh water, limited space. It can be settled as an adjunct to a much larger colony on the Swan River (or today as a naval base), but as the core of a settlement there is really no chance of it surviving. You'd have to ship most of the food, timber and other building materials, and water from the mainland.
It isn't the core of a settlement ITTL. It's merely the first place where Bolts raises the Swedish flag, establishing a trade post there as a formality (having been given explicit instructions by Gustav III to establish the first Swedish colony and trading post on an island off the coast of Western Australia, and being under obligation to follow this order), before establishing the actual core of the first Swedish colonial settlement in the vicinity of Rockingham. Does that improve their chances somewhat?
 

Zachariah

Banned
No chance of a colony succeeding on Garden Island. It's little more than sand dune. So either the colony fails, or promptly moves to the Swan River. What happens after that could vary considerably... Swedish WA would not bother Britain the way a French WA would... if Swedish WA is even remotely financially viable, which is very much open to debate. There is not much in the way of trading that would occur there, nor does Sweden have the imperial resources/necessities to easily prop up a colony in the way the British could. IMO the most likely outcome is that Britain ends up buying whatever Swedish colony is established to prevent the French from doing so. Long-term however the consequences would be pretty significant. Would convicts ever end up in Western Australia? Would the Swedish colony retain some degree of its own laws/culture? A few hundred colonists would likely just be swallowed up in demographic terms, but the histories of the early Australian colonies were heavily dependent on individual personalities. WA could end up very different to OTL.

Is there really not much in the way of trading that would occur there? Rockingham was a highly successful timber port for the British, exporting Jarrah timber and sandalwood into the 20th century. Couldn't the Swedish establish timber mills too? And didn't Sweden have the imperial resources to prop up a colony? After the Russo-Swedish War, the greatest naval victory ever achieved by the Swedish Navy at the Battle of Svensksund, and the Treaty of Värälä, Sweden's navy was widely acknowledged as the third strongest in the world, second only to those of Great Britain and France. Sure, it wouldn't be easy to prop it up, but you'd think they'd have at least some chance of doing so...
 
It isn't the core of a settlement ITTL. It's merely the first place where Bolts raises the Swedish flag, establishing a trade post there as a formality (having been given explicit instructions by Gustav III to establish the first Swedish colony and trading post on an island off the coast of Western Australia, and being under obligation to follow this order), before establishing the actual core of the first Swedish colonial settlement in the vicinity of Rockingham. Does that improve their chances somewhat?
If it's just a formality, and the real settlement is on the mainland, then sure that's a lot more plausible.

Is there really not much in the way of trading that would occur there? Rockingham was a highly successful timber port for the British, exporting Jarrah timber and sandalwood into the 20th century. Couldn't the Swedish establish timber mills too? And didn't Sweden have the imperial resources to prop up a colony? After the Russo-Swedish War, the greatest naval victory ever achieved by the Swedish Navy at the Battle of Svensksund, and the Treaty of Värälä, Sweden's navy was widely acknowledged as the third strongest in the world, second only to those of Great Britain and France. Sure, it wouldn't be easy to prop it up, but you'd think they'd have at least some chance of doing so...
Western Australia is great for an extract colony, if that is what the colony is designed to do, but that is not the same as a trading post. It's worth noting that the British did not turn its Australian colonies into profitable enterprises for some time after they were established.

Sweden doubtless has the resources to start a colony, but what is the incentive to maintain it? Is there a massive demand in Sweden to send its citizens across the world to a remote outpost? Any resources that exist in WA will take some time to develop, and are much less readily apparent than elsewhere given the total lack of knowledge of the land. The Swedish navy may have been fairly capable, but in the Antipodes the Royal Navy was unchallengeable. A Swedish colony will survive only so long as there is no conflict with Britain. None of this says that Sweden physically could not build and maintain a colony, but it is important to ask the question 'why?'. It's just not readily apparent in the late 18th century.
 

Zachariah

Banned
If it's just a formality, and the real settlement is on the mainland, then sure that's a lot more plausible.


Western Australia is great for an extract colony, if that is what the colony is designed to do, but that is not the same as a trading post. It's worth noting that the British did not turn its Australian colonies into profitable enterprises for some time after they were established.

Sweden doubtless has the resources to start a colony, but what is the incentive to maintain it? Is there a massive demand in Sweden to send its citizens across the world to a remote outpost? Any resources that exist in WA will take some time to develop, and are much less readily apparent than elsewhere given the total lack of knowledge of the land. The Swedish navy may have been fairly capable, but in the Antipodes the Royal Navy was unchallengeable. A Swedish colony will survive only so long as there is no conflict with Britain. None of this says that Sweden physically could not build and maintain a colony, but it is important to ask the question 'why?'. It's just not readily apparent in the late 18th century.

Well, a lot would depend upon goings-on back in Sweden. If Gustav III escapes his assassination in March 1792- a big ask, but possible, if Bolts manages to return to Sweden from Western Australia by then, and his personal audience with the king (along with the reception of the colony, both among the wider public and among the members of the aristocracy conspiring to kill the king and reform the constitution) subsequently has a significant enough butterfly effect- then there is a clear incentive; the same as that of the British in Australia, but to a even greater extent. It had been with the Riksdag of 1786, and his subsequent passage from semi-constitutionalism to semi-absolutism, that his foreign policy had become more adventurous; in doing so, Gustav had aroused popular indignation against the mutinous aristocratic officers, resulting most infamously in the Anjala Conspiracy to declare Finland an independent state, but Gustav III ultimately quelled these rebellions and arrested the leading conspirators, with public opinion on his side. Capitalizing on the powerful anti-aristocratic passions thus aroused, Gustav summoned a Riksdag early in 1789, at which he put through an Act of Union and Security on 17 February 1789 with the backing of the three lower estates. This reinforced monarchical authority significantly, and further inflamed the nobility's hatred of the king. Most of those aristocrats who were found to be conspiring against him, and convicted of high treason, were sentenced to death; but only one or two were actually executed, with the overwhelming majority either sent to prison or deported. And in Russia and Denmark, where most of them ended up, they were far from isolated, continuing to incite regicide against him.

So, where better to send all of these rebels, dissidents, political prisoners and independence activists, instead of into the open arms of Sweden's enemies, than to his newly established colony in South-West Australia? Given that he agreed to sponsor William Bolts' proposal to colonize Australia immediately after the Riksdag of 1786, within less than a week of it, it seems fairly likely that this was the chief motive and incentive behind Gustav III's desire for an Australian colony in the first place. And remember, in the Third Coalition against Napoleon, Sweden and Portugal were Great Britain's only European Allies against Napoleon, after Russia allied with France. Considering events closer to home, Sweden's status as a critical British ally, and that the Swedish colony's in a location which the British were deeply concerned that the French would lay claim to, I'd say they'd have a more than decent chance of the British being fully supportive of the Swedes' claims to Western Australia. They'd be the ones keeping it out of the hands of the French, after all; and it'd lighten the British Royal Navy's own load. Would it be profitable as a colony, or trade post? Probably not for a while. But it'd be immensely valuable in maintaining the coherence and stability of Gustav III's revived Swedish Empire, especially in its early stages. The British had the Irish that they wanted to send far, far away; the Swedish, at this stage, still had the Finns to fill the same role...
 
Last edited:
Top