The POD is the Napoleonic Wars. The Napoleonic Empire decisively defeats Britain and the Coalition forces, changing the course of history forever. With Britain forced to sign a humiliating and harsh peace treaty, the colonies declare themselves independent from the British Empire and adopt the traditions of the United States of America. However, Australia remains in a precarious position as major imperial powers take interest in acquiring territory in the land down under, with the newly-independent government being extremely unstable and prone to uprisings and coups.

In the late 19th century, seven major imperial powers (the German Empire, Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, the Russian Empire, Imperial Japan, the Empire of Brazil, and Italy) and five minor imperial powers (Qajar Iran, Abyssinia, Greece, Kingdom of Siam, and Scandinavia) compete to conquer, partition, and colonize Australia. This results in massive war and territorial disputes. To stop further conflicts, Emperor Franz Joseph of Austria-Hungary initiates the Linz Conference where all the imperial powers sign a treaty to consolidate territorial gains in Australia.

How would the Scramble of Australia play out? What would the alternate colonized Australia look like?
 

Pangur

Donor
The POD is the Napoleonic Wars. The Napoleonic Empire decisively defeats Britain and the Coalition forces, changing the course of history forever. With Britain forced to sign a humiliating and harsh peace treaty, the colonies declare themselves independent from the British Empire and adopt the traditions of the United States of America. However, Australia remains in a precarious position as major imperial powers take interest in acquiring territory in the land down under, with the newly-independent government being extremely unstable and prone to uprisings and coups.

In the late 19th century, seven major imperial powers (the German Empire, Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, the Russian Empire, Imperial Japan, the Empire of Brazil, and Italy) and five minor imperial powers (Qajar Iran, Abyssinia, Greece, Kingdom of Siam, and Scandinavia) compete to conquer, partition, and colonize Australia. This results in massive war and territorial disputes. To stop further conflicts, Emperor Franz Joseph of Austria-Hungary initiates the Linz Conference where all the imperial powers sign a treaty to consolidate territorial gains in Australia.

How would the Scramble of Australia play out? What would the alternate colonized Australia look like?
This would be 1805, 1814? White Australia scarcely existed. Take the UK out of it ands the French n Spain.
 
This would be 1805, 1814? White Australia scarcely existed. Take the UK out of it ands the French n Spain.
For reference, the ATL is set after Britain is defeated in the Napoleonic Wars and the French Empire is forced to sign a peace treaty with the German Empire, leading to loss of territories and prestige for both powers. Spain is not interested in Australia, since the Spanish colonies in America is enough to provide resources and wealth for the Spanish Empire.
 
The only white people for thousands of kilometres in Australia during that time were in a prison in Port Jackson and on Norfolk Island, so @Pangur has a strong point
 

Typho

Banned
The only people willing to go to that barren land were prisoners, so not really willing. Australia isn't another North America, it's far out the way, and very harsh living conditions.
If the POD is Napoleonic Wars, well then there is already an Anglo-Celtic settlement.
 

Pangur

Donor
The only people willing to go to that barren land were prisoners, so not really willing. Australia isn't another North America, it's far out the way, and very harsh living conditions.
If the POD is Napoleonic Wars, well then there is already an Anglo-Celtic settlement.
True enough 90% is barren however the remaining 10% is a lot of land. With England out of the equation what is today Sydney is not a given to survive.
 
Last edited:
Whilst Australia is pretty large it was yet in early 20th century more unknown continent than Africa. And there is not way to divide the place between that many nations. Perhaps France and Britain could divide the place between themselves. Many have not even intrest on such distant and barred region.

And if Napoleon wins his wars, how ther is German Empire? And I doubt that A-H is going to under any condition to participate to Scramble of Australia. And excuse me but OE was almost joke on end of 19th century. It wouldn't be able to participate anyway.
 
You need a minor European country make the first claim, the moment a major European power established a claim on the entire continent, it was game over for a scramble. So you need a country like Denmark or Sweden set up the first claim and then have other move in.
 

Pangur

Donor
Whilst Australia is pretty large it was yet in early 20th century more unknown continent than Africa. And there is not way to divide the place between that many nations. Perhaps France and Britain could divide the place between themselves. Many have not even intrest on such distant and barred region.

And if Napoleon wins his wars, how ther is German Empire? And I doubt that A-H is going to under any condition to participate to Scramble of Australia. And excuse me but OE was almost joke on end of 19th century. It wouldn't be able to participate anyway.
I agree, if you take Britain and Spain out of then in that time frame its France and just maybe Portugal
 

Grey Wolf

Gone Fishin'
Donor
The Australian colonies are independent of each other, and most of them don't exist yet. There's nothing on the West coast, the French have been visiting it, but nobody has tried to settle it yet.

New South Wales is the main colony, and includes what would later become Victoria. It will have just put down an insurrection by the Irish at around the time that Britain falls, so will have stabilised itself, but it hasn't really started building up much infrastructure yet
 
I'd say the best way to have a Scramble for Australia is to have Britain defeat the American Revolution and have most of its convicts continue to be sent to North America. Granted, it wasn't the only reason Britain colonized Australia but it was the most urgent one for the British. Without them, then it would be possible for more European powers to claim part of all of Australia, even Sweden who had plans for it IOTL.
 
How does the first Little Corporal defeat Britain? He has no fleet, so can't invade. Even if he manages not to lose 120,000 men on the eastern front, the best he can hope for is a minor victory near Brussels and a stalemate in the north and west, until the industrial capacity of the United Kingdom overmatches him. As for the Imperial colonies suddenly all deciding to become mini-Carolinas and reverse the emancipatory trend that was already in play, I think you'd need to move the thread to ASB. In fact, with a French victory, you probably ought to anyway.
 

Typho

Banned
If none of the great powers colonize Australia, what does it look like by the 20th century? In terms of development.
 
And if Napoleon wins his wars, how ther is German Empire?
The German Empire exists as a result of discontent with the Napoleonic Empire and its oppression of Germans coupled with the sentiment that all Germans should unite under one country. This results in the Unification of Germany and the Franco-Prussian War.
And I doubt that A-H is going to under any condition to participate to Scramble of Australia.
And excuse me but OE was almost joke on end of 19th century. It wouldn't be able to participate anyway.
Can you explain why?
How does the first Little Corporal defeat Britain? He has no fleet, so can't invade. Even if he manages not to lose 120,000 men on the eastern front, the best he can hope for is a minor victory near Brussels and a stalemate in the north and west, until the industrial capacity of the United Kingdom overmatches him.
The turning point is that Napoleon I defeats the Duke of Wellington during the Battle of Waterloo. This causes massive casualties for the British side and the French promptly holds the remaining survivors hostage. Britain is forced to sign a declaration of surrender in order to ensure the safety of all remaining British troops held hostage by the French. The declaration of surrender demands Britain not to intervene in matters of Continental Europe and relinquish any industrial capacity to France and Prussia with Britain being forbidden from building up any industrial capacity higher than France and Prussia.
 
The German Empire exists as a result of discontent with the Napoleonic Empire and its oppression of Germans coupled with the sentiment that all Germans should unite under one country. This results in the Unification of Germany and the Franco-Prussian War.

If France becomes such dominant power it is not going to allow Germany to unite. Best what it is going to get is Rheinish Confederacy and it would be just French puppet.

Can you explain why?

A-H wasn't ever intrested colonial adventures. Furthermore Australia is not worth for the empire anyway.

And Ottomans were declining at end of 19th century. Them had already too many worries without colonial adventures.

The turning point is that Napoleon I defeats the Duke of Wellington during the Battle of Waterloo. This causes massive casualties for the British side and the French promptly holds the remaining survivors hostage. Britain is forced to sign a declaration of surrender in order to ensure the safety of all remaining British troops held hostage by the French. The declaration of surrender demands Britain not to intervene in matters of Continental Europe and relinquish any industrial capacity to France and Prussia with Britain being forbidden from building up any industrial capacity higher than France and Prussia.

Only way get Britain to surrend and accept such terms is that Napoleon marches to London. And Waterloo is just too late for any kind of Napoleon's victory.
 
Napoleon I defeats the Duke of Wellington during the Battle of Waterloo. This causes massive casualties for the British side and the French promptly holds the remaining survivors hostage. Britain is forced to sign a declaration of surrender in order to ensure the safety of all remaining British troops held hostage by the French. The declaration of surrender demands Britain not to intervene in matters of Continental Europe and relinquish any industrial capacity to France and Prussia with Britain being forbidden from building up any industrial capacity higher than France and Prussia.

If we accept the ridiculous proposition that the 70,000 French somehow defeat the 120,000+ British, Dutch, Hanoverian and Prussian troops opposing them, then we should suppose the allied forces have suffered greater casualties than in the OTL. For the British component of that force, which suffered over 25% losses anyway, that would mean less than 15,000 irregulars remain alive to be captured. Meanwhile, the bulk of the first-rate regiments are still on the other side of the Atlantic.

No government will accept terms such as those and the conflict will continue, with UK industry outproducing and out-innovating the largely agrarian economy of the Republic. Prussia won't have changed sides so France will find both that its ports are blockaded by the Royal Navy and that most crossing points along the Rhine are closed by the Prussians. Any mistreatment of prisoners by the French will be noted by ALL nations and principalities, which will prejudice diplomacy for decades after.

It might take longer for Napoleon to be defeated but his outright victory is, frankly, ASB.
 
Last edited:
The most reasonable answer is France, since they already had plenty of interests in that region and at one point even sent a mission to New Zealand.

The second most reasonable answer for this scenario is Britain, since we're getting into ASB fantasy land if the world's first industrial nation somehow can't recover in 50+ years to colonise a land it did in fact colonise. I mean let's get real here, look how quickly the German states recovered from the Napoleonic Wars, or Japan from WW2.

The third most reasonable answer is Germany, since German missionaries IIRC were active in remote Aboriginal communities and Germany would gladly take any remote colony to expand its empire.
five minor imperial powers (Qajar Iran, Abyssinia, Greece, Kingdom of Siam, and Scandinavia)
Qajar Iran and Abyssinia spent most of the 19th century as wartorn hellholes, in particular the latter. I don't see how it's even remotely feasible they (or Siam) could modernise to a level that's greater than "survive with all territories intact." Greece also had an extremely poor 19th century and only benefitted by picking its alliances carefully. It can't feasibly become an imperial power because all of its efforts are spent against the Ottomans.
 
Qajar Iran and Abyssinia spent most of the 19th century as wartorn hellholes, in particular the latter.
Can you explain what was going on in those countries that left them in a state of war and misery?
The most reasonable answer is France, since they already had plenty of interests in that region and at one point even sent a mission to New Zealand.

The second most reasonable answer for this scenario is Britain, since we're getting into ASB fantasy land if the world's first industrial nation somehow can't recover in 50+ years to colonise a land it did in fact colonise. I mean let's get real here, look how quickly the German states recovered from the Napoleonic Wars, or Japan from WW2.

The third most reasonable answer is Germany, since German missionaries IIRC were active in remote Aboriginal communities and Germany would gladly take any remote colony to expand its empire.
Is it still possible for Italy, Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, the Russian Empire, Imperial Japan, and the Empire of Brazil to join the fray?
In the context of the ATL, obtaining territory in Australia during the Scramble for Australia would provide last-ditch prestige for the declining empires (Ottoman Empire and Empire of Brazil), or provide resources for rising empires (Italy and Imperial Japan), or gain overseas territories for empires (Austria-Hungary and the Russian Empire).
 
Oh yeah, I'd put the Dutch as very, very likely, assuming they exist TTL. Control of South Africa and Indonesia gives them a huge reason to do something in Australia if colonialism goes slower.
Can you explain what was going on in those countries that left them in a state of war and misery?
Ethiopia - Essentially collapsed in the aftermath of wars with the Ottomans and Somalis and then Oromo migrations. The era is called Zemene Mesafint.
Qajar Persia - Lost several wars to Britain and Russia, losing a huge amount of territory. Frequently suffered internal tribal revolts. Utterly collapsed in the early 20th century to the point about the half the country died. Nowhere near as bad as Ethiopia I'll admit, but definitely not a candidate for anything but "manages to survive intact." It doesn't help that there was no Persian naval tradition worth of speaking for centuries and centuries. Their ports are remote and blocked by mountains and they don't have much wood (the forests are on the opposite side of the country). Not much coal either.
Is it still possible for Italy, Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, the Russian Empire, Imperial Japan, and the Empire of Brazil to join the fray?
In the context of the ATL, obtaining territory in Australia during the Scramble for Australia would provide last-ditch prestige for the declining empires (Ottoman Empire and Empire of Brazil), or provide resources for rising empires (Italy and Imperial Japan), or gain overseas territories for empires (Austria-Hungary and the Russian Empire).
Doubt it. All of those nations are incredibly impoverished and backwards entering the 19th century and France decisively winning by 1815 isn't going to change much. They've got endless internal issues to sort out and have strong regional enemies. They don't have the luxury to go for a colony on the other side of the world and often have better places to colonize i.e. Africa or Central Asia. Look at OTL examples of similar nations like Spain or Portugal--Spain only bothered with a tiny strip of Africa and Portugal only expanded to some more ideal borders before promptly being muscled out of the rest by Britain. It should also be noted that at times Portugal had a lot of issues expanding to modern Anglo/Mozambique's borders because of backwards equipment, corruption, and expenses they could hardly afford.

Of those, only Brazil (if it has Portugal and thus East Timor) makes sense. They supposedly were the first Europeans to discovered Australia after all. They were still very poor and ridden with all sorts of internal struggles, and have strong regional rivals, and would rather spend the money internally or expanding African colonies, but they at least have SOME reason to go there. And Japan of course, since 19th century Japan was very much a colonialist nation. They'd still somehow have to beat France and Britain to Australia though, and that just isn't likely since those two countries, particularly the latter, helped modernize what was more or less a nation that had frozen in time for 300 years.

Point is, I don't think a Scramble for Australia is feasible since the best parts of the country will get locked down early and fast due to the fact they are on an important sea route (Brouwer Route), making it easy to project power everywhere else in the continent, especially along the western and southern coasts. And France was pretty much right behind Britain OTL, so TTL they'd mostly or even totally win.
 
And there is not way to divide the place between that many nations.
That is extremely true. Australia is remarkably devoid of natural barriers, and except for the southwestern quarter whose climatic variations are chiefly controlled from the Antarctic, its climate tends to vary in an extremely strong synchronicity based upon El Niño /La Niña cycles. In terms of Jared Diamond’s “connectedness”, Australia is a step beyond China — extreme connectedness and natural unity. That means division is not feasible.

Nonetheless, I have long thought that a “scramble for Australia” would not be implausible if the United States had been able somehow to send its slaves back to Africa as was desired by the majority of people in the free states during the half-century before Appomattox. This is because the cost of sending slaves back to Africa would require the US to gain something in return, which would obviously mean colonising at least part of Africa, probably the southern part of West Africa. With the US controlling at least part of Africa, Australia would become the obvious target for the resource-impoverished European nations.

However, Australia’s extreme natural connectedness means, as “Lalli” said, that partition is extremely unlikely to be stable.

As a further note, it was 1890 before aluminium could be smelted in substantial quantities, and other major lithophile metals like titanium were not commercially available as pure metals until the 1940s. So many of Australia’s immense natural resources could not be exploited during the era when a “scramble” would have been likely under a US repatriation of slaves to Africa. Because Africa is less ancient and weathered than Australia it is less rich in these difficult-to-smelt metals, but richer in many (though by no means all) of the easily reduced metal ores.
 
Top