WI: French settle Australia in the 17th century

Teejay

Gone Fishin'
After the voyages of Abel Tasman (1642-44), the French decided to investigate OTL Tasmania some more as a suitable place to establish a colony. In this voyage, they not just find out more about Tasmania, however they explore the coast of OTL Southern Victoria.

Around 1660 the French establish a settlement, where OTL city of Melbourne is and name (lets say) Louisville after King Louis XIV. Also Australia is named New Britanny. I anticipate the settlement of New Britanny to along the lines roughly of that of Quebec (during the rule of the sovereign council)

The climate of Southern Victoria is similar to Northern France (expect with milder winters). Also it is much healthier than France is, so the population is going to grow at an extremely fast rate doubling every 25 years (even if immigration is minimal).

The economic development of New Britanny is boosted dramatically about a decade after the first settlement by the discovery of massive gold deposits only 100km or so to the Northwest. This region in OTL Victoria is called the Goldfields and was the site of a massive goldrush in the middle of the 19th century.

Thoughts on what happens next.
 
I like the idea of New Aquitaine or New Lorraine. New Brittanny, sounds to close to Britain - Especially with Oriental nations hearing them putting two and two together. Where as these French names stands out.
Côte d'Or, is a beautiful name - which literary means Golden Coast, in French.

The French can create wine plantation, quickly, win does not spoil over years and would be a great trading leverage with China and Japan.
With a strong hold in that area, France, would have better resources taking over Indo-China.

A French Australia will take their men away from America leading to a domination of Spain and Britain. And with Australia under french control would the Dutch have move their influence to the Americans, keeping New Amsterdam under Dutch control.
 
This would be interesting. We could see a much different East Indies. I'd expect France to own part of OTL Indonesia leading to a different set up
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Why not simply Australie?

After the voyages of Abel Tasman (1642-44), the French decided to investigate OTL Tasmania some more as a suitable place to establish a colony. In this voyage, they not just find out more about Tasmania, however they explore the coast of OTL Southern Victoria.

Around 1660 the French establish a settlement, where OTL city of Melbourne is and name (lets say) Louisville after King Louis XIV. Also Australia is named New Britanny. I anticipate the settlement of New Britanny to along the lines roughly of that of Quebec (during the rule of the sovereign council)

The climate of Southern Victoria is similar to Northern France (expect with milder winters). Also it is much healthier than France is, so the population is going to grow at an extremely fast rate doubling every 25 years (even if immigration is minimal).

The economic development of New Britanny is boosted dramatically about a decade after the first settlement by the discovery of massive gold deposits only 100km or so to the Northwest. This region in OTL Victoria is called the Goldfields and was the site of a massive goldrush in the middle of the 19th century.

Thoughts on what happens next.

Why not simply Australie?

The 1600s seems early; what's the economic draw? At least New France had furs...

If there are some minor French settlements, however, before the 1763 Treaty of Paris, you could get the French agreeing to surrender New France in return for British recognition of French rights to Australie et Aotearie...and if the British go full bore for Indochine, so much the better...

If the Spanish are doing better in North Africa (or the Turks hang on to it), I could see a France-Pacifique series of colonies that would combine aspects of the pied noirs and caladogches "settler" culture with Maori and Polynesian culture...the Aborigines will probably suffer heavily from Eurasian diseases, however.

Lots of ripples, of course.

Best,
 
L'Austalie, with more mixed French-indigenous Australian population through intermarriage, a predominantly Roman Catholic country and possibly distinct accent when they speak French...

This is interesting!
 
Why not simply Australie?

The 1600s seems early; what's the economic draw? At least New France had furs...

Kangaroo fur could be good :) And Australie sounds so forced. And a french language with an Australian accent

Although this flag would be cool :D

French Australia.png
 
A French Australia will take their men away from America leading to a domination of Spain and Britain.

Not necessarily, considering that only around 10,000 French people actually settled in Canada in OTL (and some returned to France anyway). A high birthrate was the main driver of population growth in French Canada. In proportional terms, France sent a much smaller share of its population overseas than the English, Spanish and Portuguese. More people could have left, but New France simply wasn't considered a very desirable place to settle. A French Australia perhaps could have drawn more people.
 

Teejay

Gone Fishin'
Not necessarily, considering that only around 10,000 French people actually settled in Canada in OTL (and some returned to France anyway). A high birthrate was the main driver of population growth in French Canada. In proportional terms, France sent a much smaller share of its population overseas than the English, Spanish and Portuguese. More people could have left, but New France simply wasn't considered a very desirable place to settle. A French Australia perhaps could have drawn more people.

New France (Quebec) did not have massive gold deposits, like this colony would have.
 

Teejay

Gone Fishin'
Why not simply Australie?

The 1600s seems early; what's the economic draw? At least New France had furs...

If there are some minor French settlements, however, before the 1763 Treaty of Paris, you could get the French agreeing to surrender New France in return for British recognition of French rights to Australie et Aotearie...and if the British go full bore for Indochine, so much the better...

Actually I believe the opposite would occur, Britain would want Australie et Aotearie in exchange for France keeping Canada. Although by the 1763 I would see French settlement all along the Eastern Seaboard of Australia, extending to OTL Adelaide and also possibly settlements in New Zealand as well.

Because there is just not a lot of good agricultural land in Australia. In the East and South, the lands which aren't arid or semi-arid are along the coast and on the Great Dividing Ranges. Immediately beyond that the climate is semi arid. One can imagine groups of people of mixed European and Aboriginal descent living a pastoral lifestyle (herding cattle and sheep) on these plains and venturing in the vast deserts of Australia.

In the North, only coastal areas of Far North Queensland, along with the OTL Top End of the Northern Territory have a climate which is not either Arid or Semi-Arid. Even then the soils are quite poor and attempts to turn the Top End into a foodbowl have not been terribly successful.
 

Teejay

Gone Fishin'
L'Austalie, with more mixed French-indigenous Australian population through intermarriage, a predominantly Roman Catholic country and possibly distinct accent when they speak French...

This is interesting!

I personally believe that the population would be overwhelming European in ancestry, French speaking and Roman Catholic. Although I can see groups of people of mixed aboriginal and European descent living out in the regions beyond the Coastal fringe and Great Dividing Ranges.

Because the aboriginal population is going to take a massive hit from the diseases the European settlers introduce. Although there is going to be less conflict between the European settlers and Aboriginals, compared to what occurred between the French and Native Americans in New France.
 
As was mentioned above, France few people emigrated from France to the Americas. Below is a comparison of the net migration between Europe and the Americas as cited in "The Creation of the British Atlantic World". One has to remember that much of the net British, French and Dutch migration was actually to the Caribbean, especially before 1700.

Net Migration to the Americas 1500-1760
Great Britain & Ireland 642,000
Portugal 500,000
Spain 350,000
France 100,000
Germany 97,000
Netherlands 20,000

A successful French colony could have been founded with as few as 5-10,000 people, because the climate in Southern Australia at least could have been healthy enough where the birth rate remains higher than the death rate. However, it would probably have been established sometime after the Thirty Years War and before the War of Spanish Succession. At a time when France was prosperous enough and not too distracted by foreign wars.
 
I personally believe that the population would be overwhelming European in ancestry, French speaking and Roman Catholic. Although I can see groups of people of mixed aboriginal and European descent living out in the regions beyond the Coastal fringe and Great Dividing Ranges.

Because the aboriginal population is going to take a massive hit from the diseases the European settlers introduce. Although there is going to be less conflict between the European settlers and Aboriginals, compared to what occurred between the French and Native Americans in New France.

Isn't there likely to be more conflict between Aboriginals and European settlers than there was between the French and Native Americans in New France, given the higher population of French settlers moving to Australie?
 

Teejay

Gone Fishin'
As was mentioned above, France few people emigrated from France to the Americas. Below is a comparison of the net migration between Europe and the Americas as cited in "The Creation of the British Atlantic World". One has to remember that much of the net British, French and Dutch migration was actually to the Caribbean, especially before 1700.

Net Migration to the Americas 1500-1760
Great Britain & Ireland 642,000
Portugal 500,000
Spain 350,000
France 100,000
Germany 97,000
Netherlands 20,000

A successful French colony could have been founded with as few as 5-10,000 people, because the climate in Southern Australia at least could have been healthy enough where the birth rate remains higher than the death rate. However, it would probably have been established sometime after the Thirty Years War and before the War of Spanish Succession. At a time when France was prosperous enough and not too distracted by foreign wars.

Australia (especially Southern Australia) would be healthier than France, so the population would be doubling every 25 years (not including any immigration). Actually given the climate of Southern Australia (especially Victoria), the colony really would be a New France compared to Quebec. Since Victoria has a climate similar to at least the Southern regions of France, Tasmania is more similar to Northern France.
 
Last edited:

Teejay

Gone Fishin'
Isn't there likely to be more conflict between Aboriginals and European settlers than there was between the French and Native Americans in New France, given the higher population of French settlers moving to Australie?

Compared to the Native Americans in New France, the Aboriginal populations of Australia were less advanced technologically and in social development. The native American populations of New France were at least at a neolithic level, while the Aboriginal populations were at a Mesolithic level.

That is why the level of conflict between the British settlers and Aboriginals in OTL was never as high as between the Europeans and Native Americans in North America. Therefore there would be conflict between the Aboriginals and French settlers, however not very much.
 
What's the economic draw?

Because Australian settllement IOTL, was kick started by a very partcular series of events, namely, Britain needing someplace to dump convicts once America was closed to them for this purpose. It's not like anyone knew there was gold and as the other chap pointed out, there isn't really that much prime agricultural land.

Bar a unique event like this, Australia really doesn't have much to encourage settlement which is why no one bothered. Settler colonies are usually driven by specific economic motives.
 
I agree with Flocc. This is a common problem with all "send more / different European migrants to X or Y colony", the migrants need to be convinced and they will likely move on if things are not what they seem, or they can't find good work/land. It is a bit harder to do so in the 18th century than it was in the 19th century sure, but it will still happen.

IOTL, in addition to the drivers mentioned by the others, there were other advances - shipping was improving quickly in terms of capacity and speed, refrigeration came along later in the 19th century, extensive European animal and crop stocks were introduced, the Indian Army wanted good horses, London wanted to invest in railways and businesses with all their spare capital, communication improvement helped encourage foreign investment and of course, there were massive marketing campaigns in the UK by the colonial boosters.

Some of which France could do for Australia, but it will all be much harder in the 17th century than it would be when Britain did it OTL.

What is the gain for France to settle a very far off land? They are not playing Civilisation II
 
In the 17th century? The problem of scurvy hasn't been properly solved yet, so isn't a voyage as long as the one to Australia likely to involve relatively heavy losses? Wouldn't the expectation of this decrease people's willingness to make the trip?
 
In the 17th century? The problem of scurvy hasn't been properly solved yet, so isn't a voyage as long as the one to Australia likely to involve relatively heavy losses? Wouldn't the expectation of this decrease people's willingness to make the trip?

Indeed. Just as a personal point of comparison, it took one major set of ancestors about 95 days to sail from Edinburgh to Dunedin in 1858, when the shipping route was well known and understood, where there were plenty of way stations along the route. God knows how long it would have taken 100 years or 200 years earlier. Even then several members of my family apparently died (the first wife of my great great great(?) grandfather died and her sister (my ancestor) married him on board).
 
Top