NationStates Jolt Archive

Hey guys, I'm starting to cobble together a major piece of written work at the moment, it hinges on a "what-if" alternate history idea.

What, in your opinion, would have happened if the Australian Continent was a rich and fertile land when discovered by the European powers?

Would the Aboriginals have formed complex agrarian civilisations? Would the continent have been ruled by the Indonesians?

Furthermore, how would this discovery of a "New" New World impact on the world stage?

Would Australia end up like Canada, split down the middle between England and France (Or the Dutch)? Or would it become a thriving Democratic Superpower?

Post your opinions.

Hey guys, I'm starting to cobble together a major piece of written work at the moment, it hinges on a "what-if" alternate history idea.

What, in your opinion, would have happened if the Australian Continent was a rich and fertile land when discovered by the European powers?

Would the Aboriginals have formed complex agrarian civilisations? Would the continent have been ruled by the Indonesians?

Further more, how would this discovery of a "New" New World impact on the world stage?

Would Australia end up like Canada, split down the middle between England and France? Or would it become a thriving Democratic Superpower?

Post your opinions.


i doubt it would be a democratic super power..i am more willing to bet it would be split between france, britain and/or the dutch...then again britain was the first of those three to arrive and i have no doubt it would swiftly become part of the empire, then again when the chinese visited Australia in 1447 they found it a bit....barren, if they had found it a rich and fertile land i suppose they would have taken it for their own. :)

the chinese discovery isnt historically proven, the earliest we can be certain australia was landed on is in 16something, maybe 1667? (lemme know the actual date) by the dutch

If there were a developed civilization present (developed as in having cities), the European powers of the time would have been more than willing to annihilate it to make way for their own aspirations. Just like they did everywhere else.

The native Aboriginal population never really left the stone age.
Any Asian empire could have invaded anytime and killed off the natives.

The native Aboriginal population never really left the stone age.
Any Asian empire could have invaded anytime and killed off the natives. No doubt, the Natives would most likely have been slaughtered. But let's not forget that a large part of them never leaving the Stone Age was due to the extensive lack of arable and reliably fertile land.

No doubt, the Natives would most likely have been slaughtered. But let's not forget that a large part of them never leaving the Stone Age was due to the extensive lack of arable and reliably fertile land.

True, they never built up a population high enough to force themselves to upgrade to agrian technology. They were never a united nation, but a bunch of warring tribes like African tribes. The never had the concept of say Kingship like Africa developed.

so the question here is what if australia was a green terreained continent???

well i think it would have been one of the following scenarios...

1- a rich strong isolated cultural land like indonesia or japan, and wouldv probably been divided by several civiliaztions..

2- the same as today, because canada is the same as australia really, but wouldve had dutch influence instead of french in quebec.

3- like the USA, but i think its the least likely scenario, because its away from the atlantic and european trade zone that witnessed the golden age of immigration in the USA in i think 1700s (correct me if im wrong)

so i think in australian scenario, australia would still be the same..

3- like the USA, but i think its the least likely scenario, because its away from the atlantic and european trade zone that witnessed the golden age of immigration in the USA in i think 1700s (correct me if im wrong)

More or less, that's what we are. If we were colonised 200 years beforehand, we probably would have turned out like that.

More or less, that's what we are. If we were colonised 200 years beforehand, we probably would have turned out like that. Not likely. Australia is simply too old, barren and dry to ever hope to match the U.S. in terms of production, resources and people. We have trouble even now supporting 20 Million, 250 Million would be impossible.

Not likely. Australia is simply too old, barren and dry to ever hope to match the U.S. in terms of production, resources and people. We have trouble even now supporting 20 Million, 250 Million would be impossible.


Its true, we just have way too much desert that cant be cultivated, we can only reasonably live on the coastlines and some inland eastern areas

although technically, australia is just as old as anywhere else. remember Pangea, the supercontinent?

Originally Posted by Falhaar2
Not likely. Australia is simply too old, barren and dry to ever hope to match the U.S. in terms of production, resources and people. We have trouble even now supporting 20 Million, 250 Million would be impossible.

Check out how rich and fertile the land is in India and then check out how many people they have. Australia could support a few billion.

Its true, we just have way too much desert that cant be cultivated, we can only reasonably live on the coastlines and some inland eastern areas

Why, just like the US!

Los Angeles is built in an arid area and is one of the worlds largest cities. Las Vegas is built in a desert. Salt Lake City....Phoenix...


Not likely. Australia is simply too old, barren and dry to ever hope to match the U.S. in terms of production, resources and people. We have trouble even now supporting 20 Million, 250 Million would be impossible.

We have trouble supporting 20 million? Since when?

Check out how rich and fertile the land is in India and then check out how many people they have. Australia could support a few billion.

That's if we could stop the centre of Australia become drier. Most of the population live near water and theres' not much of that in the centre with some huge deserts.

That's if we could stop the centre of Australia become drier. Most of the population live near water and theres' not much of that in the centre with some huge deserts.

Yeah, I think "a few billion" is a bit much, but we could easily match the USA.

That's if we could stop the centre of Australia become drier. Most of the population live near water and theres' not much of that in the centre with some huge deserts.

Don't need the desert interior. It can stay empty. Just use the land where there is rainfall as intensively as in India. India has vast empty dry regions too where almost no one lives.

I'm not suggesting that it would be a good idea to cram a few billion people into Australia just to see how many we could fit, but it's not hard to imagine an alternate history where Australia was setteled by Indians with a current population of a billion or more. And that's without assuming Australia was more fertile than it was.

Don't need the desert interior. It can stay empty. Just use the land where there is rainfall as intensively as in India. India has vast empty dry regions too where almost no one lives.

I'm not suggesting that it would be a good idea to cram a few billion people into Australia just to see how many we could fit, but it's not hard to imagine an alternate history where Australia was setteled by Indians with a current population of a billion or more. And that's without assuming Australia was more fertile than it was.

Come to think of it...the tropical north could support a *lot* of people.

Don't need the desert interior. It can stay empty. Just use the land where there is rainfall as intensively as in India. India has vast empty dry regions too where almost no one lives.

I'm not suggesting that it would be a good idea to cram a few billion people into Australia just to see how many we could fit, but it's not hard to imagine an alternate history where Australia was setteled by Indians with a current population of a billion or more. And that's without assuming Australia was more fertile than it was.

It was more fertile! We once had megafauna and a huge inland sea in the past. All gone under millions of tonnes of sand now with the water somewhere else.

This is all conjecture, just like the planned Chinese invasion of Australia in a couple of decades time. :D

Joh Bjelke Petersen would have founded a fascist dictatorship in Queensland.

an australian empire would be a good idea, i think. we could all be drinking beer all day.

In Guns Germs and Steel Jared Diamond said that Australians were handicapped by having no animals that could be realistically domesticated except perhaps the dingo, and very little in the way of plants that could be domesticated. Out of the hundred of varieties of plants that can be used for food in Australia, only one has been domesticated that I know of - the macadamia nut tree.

Australians would need better plants and animals in your alternate history to have a good chance to develop agarian civilization(s). But perhaps these could have been introduced by outsiders earlier if Australia was more fertile?

an australian empire would be a good idea, i think. we could all be drinking beer all day.

Wooohooo! I like you already.

Come to think of it...the tropical north could support a *lot* of people.

If you like cyclones, tropical humidity, mosquitoes and high 30's temperatures. ;)

Unfortunatley for the Australians, if they couldn't develop agriculture of their own they would probably be pushed out of arable land by those who introduced it. Real history is full of examples of one group being marginalized or even exterminated by another group with a "superior" set of technologies.

If you like cyclones, tropical humidity, mosquitoes and high 30's temperatures.
Sounds like India to me. (Except the cyclones go the other way of course.)

In Guns Germs and Steel Jared Diamond said that Australians were handicapped by having no animals that could be realistically domesticated except perhaps the dingo, and very little in the way of plants that could be domesticated. Out of the hundred of varieties of plants that can be used for food in Australia, only one has been domesticated that I know of - the macadamia nut tree.

Australians would need better plants and animals in your alternate history to have a good chance to develop agarian civilization(s). But perhaps these could have been introduced by outsiders earlier if Australia was more fertile?

Most "bush" food is seasonal and there isn't much animals about compared to other nations. While we do have the introduced species trashing the local environment, some of them aren't the type to be eaten like Asian Water Buffalo (full of nice diseases).

Sounds like India to me. (Except the cyclones go the other way of course.)

I live in Darwin which got Cyclone Tracy-ied. I live dangerously. :confused:

In Guns Germs and Steel Jared Diamond said that Australians were handicapped by having no animals that could be realistically domesticated except perhaps the dingo, and very little in the way of plants that could be domesticated. Out of the hundred of varieties of plants that can be used for food in Australia, only one has been domesticated that I know of - the macadamia nut tree.

Australians would need better plants and animals in your alternate history to have a good chance to develop agarian civilization(s). But perhaps these could have been introduced by outsiders earlier if Australia was more fertile?
yeah, i see no reason that australia would have turned out differently than new guinea did. without the breadth of plant and animale life available to be exploited as was done in eurasia, the improvement in climate wouldnt make for that much overall improvement

but it would make it much more exploitable for european powers. or maybe as was sugggested the chinese might have brought in a few of their own smaller animals and plants. so australia could have become a center of rice and silk production if the climate were different.

Sounds like India to me. (Except the cyclones go the other way of course.)

Exactly.

If you want Australia to be more fertile, why not put the inland sea back? That would create much more rainfall, and what do you know? More beaches!

If you want Australia to be more fertile, why not put the inland sea back? That would create much more rainfall, and what do you know? More beaches!

It would lower the sea level too :D

Some heavy glacial action would be good to create better soils... Increased volcanism in Australia could also improve soils. Perhaps your history departs from real history with a rift in the Indo-Australian tentonic plate that creates the inland sea and more volcanos. The volcanoes don't have to be active now.

i dont see any reason why the aborigines would not have developed complex agrarian cultures in the same way that the aboriginal people of the americas did. the incas, mayas and aztecs spring to mind but even in the less "civilized" north, the anasazis lived in cities in the desert southwest and the city of kahokia (modern day east st louis) was as big as any european city was at its height in the 13th century.

and if you want to consider the guns germs and steel thesis in this, the biggest reason that the incas and aztecs lost to the spanish was massive deaths brought on by susceptibility to european diseases. if the australian aborigenes had worse germs than their invaders, the outcome could be quite different than that of the american indians.

Check out how rich and fertile the land is in India and then check out how many people they have. Australia could support a few billion.

India has more arable land than even China. I don't think Ozland has enough arable land to support a bigger population. What is the size of cultivable land in Oz anyway?

i dont see any reason why the aborigines would not have developed complex agrarian cultures in the same way that the aboriginal people of the americas did. the incas, mayas and aztecs spring to mind but even in the less "civilized" north, the anasazis lived in cities in the desert southwest and the city of kahokia (modern day east st louis) was as big as any european city was at its height in the 13th century.

Yes, but they had corn. As far as we know there is no Australian plant that can be bred to be as productive as corn. Then there is Australia's unpredictable weather that would have made life very difficult for agriculturalists.

and if you want to consider the guns germs and steel thesis in this, the biggest reason that the incas and aztecs lost to the spanish was massive deaths brought on by susceptibility to european diseases. if the australian aborigenes had worse germs than their invaders, the outcome could be quite different than that of the american indians.

Small pox was a huge killer. If it was introduced earlier to Australia, say by Indonesian fishermen, (a possiblility) it could have lead to Australians developing resistance. But without agriculture and urban environments, Australia would be unlikely to develop much in the way of dangerous diseases itself.

India has more arable land than even China. I don't think Ozland has enough arable land to support a bigger population. What is the size of cultivable land in Oz anyway?

More or less, this:

http://img275.imageshack.us/img275/4671/austagri8qo.gif

The more arid areas support wheat-growing...the wetter tropical areas are capable of supporting rice cultivation. (Of course, them rainforests get in the way)

India has more arable land than even China. I don't think Ozland has enough arable land to support a bigger population. What is the size of cultivable land in Oz anyway?

The word cultivable is a problem. Currently I think Australia's cultivatable land is shrinking as marginal farms go out of business. But if there were an extra billion or so people to feed, a lot of land that we now think is worthless would be put under cultivation and mountains would be ground up to provide phosphurous. If Australia had been colonized by Indians hundreds of years ago and they had Indianformed the landscape, replacing wetlands with rice paddies and savanah with wheat etc, then Australia could support a lot of people. Both Australia and India have poor soils, but India shows that even poor soils can support a lot of people if you really have to. But it would take a lot of work, a lot of irrigation, a lot of drainage, a lot of damn building, a lot of phosphurous mining, the addition of a perhaps few million tons of calcuim to currently magnesium rich soils, etc.

Kanabia,

Thanks. Pictures do speak a thousand words. :)

Phylum Chordata,

Is the Oz desert increasing like how the Sahara is increasing? Is there "reclamation" effort going on (like how the Israelis made cultivable land out of desert)?

What? You mean Australia isn't a rich and fertile land? I love national anthems. USA's is a rambling piece to a terrible tune, England's has to edit itself every time the monarchy changes gender, France's talks about fighting itself, and Australia's is a real estate commercial.

Australians all let us rejoice,
For we are young and free;
We've golden soil and wealth for toil,
Our home is girt by sea;
Our land abounds in Nature's gifts
Of beauty rich and rare;
In history's page, let every stage
Advance Australia fair!
In joyful strains then let us sing,
"Advance Australia fair!"

Beneath our radiant southern Cross,
We'll toil with hearts and hands;
To make this Commonwealth of ours
Renowned of all the lands;
For those who've come across the seas
We've boundless plains to share;
With courage let us all combine
To advance Australia fair.
In joyful strains then let us sing
"Advance Australia fair!"

Seriously, if you plan to make this a written work, I would suggest taking a line from this to be your title. Something like Golden Soil and Wealth for Toil or Nature's Gifts or maybe even just Australia Fair. Then you can, say, include the first verse on the page before the book/story actually begins for a sense of ironic context.

And I do love national anthems, no sarcasm.

The Aboriginal population almost forced the British to leave, one man (I don't remember his name) united and organized the whole of the East Coast tribal groups against the British with a scorched earth policy. The Aboriginals could simply live off the land, and then they would burn crops, buildings and kill livestock which the Brits relied upon. They almost won, but the leader (I wish I could remember his name) was betrayed.

As for Advance Australia Fair, that's just typical of Australian understatement. Fair is only one box above poor.

[edit]And it's unpatriotic to sing the second verse, cuts into beer time.

Source (http://www.cadigalwangal.com.au/profile.php)

Nope, he wasn't betrayed (my memory betrayed ME).

Pemulwuy was a Bidjigal who became the most famous freedom fighter in Aboriginal history. Later known as the Rainbow Warrior, he united the different clans of the Eora to resist the British.

Pelmuwuy was a tall, athletic man with a blemish in one eye and may have been a carradhy (clever man). His ability to elude capture earned him mythical status among the British.

Pelmuwuy was responsible for the Cooks River killing of Governor Philip's hated gamekeeper John Macentire. He master-minded military style lightening raids of farms around Parramatta and used his people's expertise in firestick farming to create devastating bush fires which ruined their crops.

In 1797 Pemulwuy was cornered, shot and taken to hospital in chains. However, he survived and managed to escape, adding to his growing reputation among the British and his people that he could not be killed by bullets.

In 1802, however, a Madagascan convict shot and killed him. In a final indignity, his head was preserved in spirit and sent to England for Joseph Banks, a patron of Phillip who had been pestering him for Aboriginal heads for "research".

The legend of Pemulwuy forms part of the belief system and oral history of the Aboriginal people of east coast of Australia. Yet his name and achievements have been deliberately left out of white Australian history books.