|
|
Post by diamondstorm on Mar 6, 2023 3:44:59 GMT
For the record, I condemn all forms of racism, colonialism, and genocide. But, I've been thinking about this lately. After the American Revolution, the British turned to Australia largely as a place to settle its overcrowding prison population. However, if the American Revolution was defeated or never occurred, it's likely that British convicts would continue to stream into America, particularly Georgia, Maryland, and Virginia. Or alternately, what if Britain found other ways to deal with its prison population or if it never developed a serious interest in developing colonies in Australia? In this scenario, is it possible for Australia to avoid colonization? Aside from Britain, most European countries did not express major interest in colonizing Australia or recognized that this would essentially be a vanity project because it would be hard if not impossible to profit from it. In other words, it was seen as a money sink. How differently could Australia develop if it was untouched by Europeans for an additional several decades? Of course, the Aboriginals would fair significantly better, at least for an extended period of time, but what other changes could there be (including eventual colonizers of the continent)?
|
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Mar 6, 2023 14:38:59 GMT
No, it isn’t possible.
It is not possible for Britain, as the major maritime power of the time, to ignore the utility of Sydney Harbour, flax or any one of multiple other factors, apart from the convict issue. Nor is it possible for the other powers, including the French who were sniffing around the whole area, to blithely ignore Australia.
Australia did not develop before settlement by any measure of the term.
|
|
|
|
Post by diamondstorm on Mar 6, 2023 18:00:03 GMT
No, it isn’t possible. It is not possible for Britain, as the major maritime power of the time, to ignore the utility of Sydney Harbour, flax or any one of multiple other factors, apart from the convict issue. Nor is it possible for the other powers, including the French who were sniffing around the whole area, to blithely ignore Australia. Australia did not develop before settlement by any measure of the term. I guess it depends on the point of divergence. The one I’m thinking of is if America loses its Revolution against the British in 1776 or 1777 and thus most convicts are still sent to the Americas. |
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Mar 8, 2023 14:41:05 GMT
In that case, big-scale settlement will have to wait until the gold will be discovered. Which'll probably be later.
|
|
|
|
Post by diamondstorm on Mar 21, 2023 20:53:18 GMT
In that case, big-scale settlement will have to wait until the gold will be discovered. Which'll probably be later. In our timeline it was the 1850s so would that be about right for this TL? |
|
|
|
Post by TheRomanSlayer on Mar 22, 2023 0:36:31 GMT
If Britain does defeat the American Revolutionaries and focuses solely on developing its North American crown jewel, at one point Australia might be neglected long enough for either France or the Netherlands to snap it up.
|
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Mar 22, 2023 2:17:51 GMT
The North American/American bias comes through strongly in that idea.
Britain never focused solely on North America - what of India? It also ignores the China trade, which as I said was a significant point in the settlement of Australia.
The Dutch? The freaking Dutch? They weren't in any condition for major expansion or colonisation at that point, being a declining minor power. If France somehow beats Britain to the bell with regard to Australia, and that is an extremely tenuous and fraught assumption, then it simply loses it in the next war.
This was a prize that wasn't simply going to be given up because of somehow getting distracted looking for a lost handkerchief.
The entire scenario is based on a false assumption - that the whole purpose of the colonisation of Australia was based on the convict issue. Cook's voyage took place before the American Revolution; the strategic utility of Port Jackson/Sydney Harbour was identified and known.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheRomanSlayer on Mar 23, 2023 4:28:02 GMT
The North American/American bias comes through strongly in that idea. Britain never focused solely on North America - what of India? It also ignores the China trade, which as I said was a significant point in the settlement of Australia. The Dutch? The freaking Dutch? They weren't in any condition for major expansion or colonisation at that point, being a declining minor power. If France somehow beats Britain to the bell with regard to Australia, and that is an extremely tenuous and fraught assumption, then it simply loses it in the next war. This was a prize that wasn't simply going to be given up because of somehow getting distracted looking for a lost handkerchief. The entire scenario is based on a false assumption - that the whole purpose of the colonisation of Australia was based on the convict issue. Cook's voyage took place before the American Revolution; the strategic utility of Port Jackson/Sydney Harbour was identified and known. Didn't the Dutch held on to southern Africa though during the ACW? |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 64,706 
Likes: 45,786
|
Post by lordroel on Mar 23, 2023 4:51:32 GMT
The North American/American bias comes through strongly in that idea. Britain never focused solely on North America - what of India? It also ignores the China trade, which as I said was a significant point in the settlement of Australia. The Dutch? The freaking Dutch? They weren't in any condition for major expansion or colonisation at that point, being a declining minor power. If France somehow beats Britain to the bell with regard to Australia, and that is an extremely tenuous and fraught assumption, then it simply loses it in the next war. This was a prize that wasn't simply going to be given up because of somehow getting distracted looking for a lost handkerchief. The entire scenario is based on a false assumption - that the whole purpose of the colonisation of Australia was based on the convict issue. Cook's voyage took place before the American Revolution; the strategic utility of Port Jackson/Sydney Harbour was identified and known. Didn't the Dutch held on to southern Africa though during the ACW? The Dutch Cape Colony was held until 1806. |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Mar 23, 2023 5:09:59 GMT
That is the pedantic version. In reality, it fell to the British in 1795 and was only ceded back in the Amiens Pause. The Dutch were puppeted by the French revolutionists in January 1795 and the conquest of the Cape was complete in September of the same year. It was too strategic not to take and keep.
So, no. Absolutely no. The Dutch didn’t hold onto Southern Africa until the 1860s or 1870s. They kept their tiny holdings on the Gold Coast until 1872, but for all practical intents and purposes, Dutch imperial ambitions in Africa ended when there was a 17 in front of the year.
|
|
|
|
Post by diamondstorm on Mar 23, 2023 18:49:25 GMT
The North American/American bias comes through strongly in that idea. Britain never focused solely on North America - what of India? It also ignores the China trade, which as I said was a significant point in the settlement of Australia. The Dutch? The freaking Dutch? They weren't in any condition for major expansion or colonisation at that point, being a declining minor power. If France somehow beats Britain to the bell with regard to Australia, and that is an extremely tenuous and fraught assumption, then it simply loses it in the next war. This was a prize that wasn't simply going to be given up because of somehow getting distracted looking for a lost handkerchief. The entire scenario is based on a false assumption - that the whole purpose of the colonisation of Australia was based on the convict issue. Cook's voyage took place before the American Revolution; the strategic utility of Port Jackson/Sydney Harbour was identified and known. Wouldn’t the British eventually overexpand though? Did they have the means to hold Australia and all their pre-1783 colonies (including India under the East India Company) let alone what they would add in Africa and Asia later (including South Africa)? The British had the strongest Navy in the world but they weren’t infallible. Something would have to give somewhere down the road imo. |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Mar 23, 2023 22:16:21 GMT
They never did overexpand and yes, they more than had the means to hold everything that they historically held. There isn’t such a thing as a magical limit.
Do you know the size of the land garrisons and naval forces used to ‘hold’ Australia? Both were extremely small.
I would suggest some research on the matter to inform your opinion, as it in this case, it is wrong and based on incorrect assumptions.
|
|
|
|
Post by diamondstorm on Mar 25, 2023 0:31:29 GMT
They never did overexpand and yes, they more than had the means to hold everything that they historically held. There isn’t such a thing as a magical limit. Do you know the size of the land garrisons and naval forces used to ‘hold’ Australia? Both were extremely small. I would suggest some research on the matter to inform your opinion, as it in this case, it is wrong and based on incorrect assumptions. Okay, so here's some research I've done about the British decision to colonize Australia. John Callander proposed in 1766 for Britain to found a colony in Australasia but wasn't largely considered until after James Cook made landfall in eastern Australia. More specifically in 1779 when scientist Sir Joseph Banks recommended Botany Bay as a suitable site for a penal settlement with 200-300 convicts where. they could be left to their own devices and not be a burden on British taxpayers. It was only in 1783 when, with a plan devised by American Loyalist James Matra, commodities like sugar, cotton, tobacco, timber, hemp, and were considered alongside forming a base for trade in the Pacific Ocean. Before then it was largely about convicts. So my educated guess is that it would come down to timing. A Britain that is victorious over the Thirteen colonies in 1776 will have a differed level of interest and priorities than a victory in 1779 or 1780 and certainly different by 1783 or 1788. Also, it's one thing if they still attempt to do it IOTL in 1788 even with a British victory over North America in 1776 but another if it ends up lasting as long (IOTL the First Fleet almost decamped and left after a wave of starvation hit in 1790). Just my two cents on the matter. |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Mar 25, 2023 1:18:04 GMT
Good on you for research and effort, but what can we get for 2 cents? Not a great deal. There is always more below the surface of the cursory history of any country. Not everything rises or falls simply because of the USA, the American Revolution or any point in between. Was the North American situation a factor? Certainly. A significant factor? Certainly. The decisive or central factor? Not as such.
The matter is explored on the work of Geoffrey Blainey, particularly 1980’s A Land Half Won. The First Fleet, a fairly unprecedented endeavour in and of itself, did not occur in a vacuum or purely because of the convict issue; rather, that matter was a useful added bonus.
The big prize was the Indies trade, specifically China. The major player there was no France or the Dutch or the Spanish; the actual trade with China proper would follow, but as of the late 18th century, the East was already a significant prize and factor.
The main enemy of Britain was France. They would not idly give up such a prize to the traditional foe.
|
|
|
|
Post by diamondstorm on Mar 25, 2023 1:33:48 GMT
Good on you for research and effort, but what can we get for 2 cents? Not a great deal. There is always more below the surface of the cursory history of any country. Not everything rises or falls simply because of the USA, the American Revolution or any point in between. Was the North American situation a factor? Certainly. A significant factor? Certainly. The decisive or central factor? Not as such. The matter is explored on the work of Geoffrey Blainey, particularly 1980’s A Land Half Won. The First Fleet, a fairly unprecedented endeavour in and of itself, did not occur in a vacuum or purely because of the convict issue; rather, that matter was a useful added bonus. The big prize was the Indies trade, specifically China. The major player there was no France or the Dutch or the Spanish; the actual trade with China proper would follow, but as of the late 18th century, the East was already a significant prize and factor. The main enemy of Britain was France. They would not idly give up such a prize to the traditional foe. I do appreciate the response. I had not considered the last part so I will look into that more plus A Land Half won. |
|
