Is there any way they could have repelled the British?
EDIT: oops should be in pre-1900
Could they have defeated the First Fleet? Most definitely, particularly if they chose to strike food supplies during the very early days of Port Jackson when food resources were at their most lean. Have the view amongst some influential indigenous leaders, like Bennelong, move from "exploit the new contact" to "fear the new contact" and take a view similar to Pemulwy. There would then be a clear motivation to attack and plunder.
Bennelong and Colby, the two most regular Indigenous visitors to early Sydney, were more interesting in convincing the Governor to ally with their peoples in an attack to annihilate the neighbouring Cammeraygal. If they have a greater understanding of potential future threat posed by the Briitsh and a non-cooperative Governor still refuses to assist them, these two decide payback has been earned, and the Governor's spearing ends up instead being the Governor's death.
If the Indigenous Australians don't deal with the settlement in the first couple of years, they are destined to be overrun.
Is there any way they could have repelled the British?
EDIT: oops should be in pre-1900
Short answer: no.
Long answer: absolutely not. They were too weak, divided, disorganised, technologically-backward and peaceful.
Absolutely no way possible without going back a considerable amount of time. White Australia is invertible. Their population was too low to sustain any kind of revolt, their technology was in the Stone Age and they hadn't even got the bow and arrow yet. Unless their first contact was a state that would protect them, or just gave the aboriginals firearms and iron tools, and THAT would have worked in at least in 1600, so their military skills could develop. The aboriginals were incapable of advanced warfare and it is inevitable that they would be conquered by any colonial empire, not just the British (the Dutch, French and Portugese may of had a chance).
Peaceful? Then how do you explain the actions of resistance leaders like Jandamarra or Yagan?
Probably more developed agriculture.How do we get an Australian Aboriginal group nearly as organized and organized in war as the New Zealand Maori, who arguably gave the English/British their biggest challenge for a Settler colony of any native group. (Second place, the Iroquois?)
Which in turn would require a "founder crop".Probably more developed agriculture.
I believe that the biggest problem is that the area lacked a good temperate climate crop, a reason why the maori where less numerous on the southern island of New zealand.Which in turn would require a "founder crop".
I believe that the biggest problem is that the area lacked a good temperate climate crop, a reason why the maori where less numerous on the southern island of New zealand.
Wouldn't south eastern australia be a good area for agricultural growth?
Not peaceful against the invading force, but easily more humane and decent towards each other. They were simply acting in self-defence, in more or less the same way that Menelik II of Ethiopia was acting in self-defense against the invading Italians at Adwa, or that Crazy Horse, Sitting Bull and their fellow commanders were acting in self-defense against the invading Americans at Little Bighorn.Peaceful? Then how do you explain the actions of resistance leaders like Jandamarra or Yagan?
Wattleseeds, boabs and pencil yams come to mind. Here's a link that might be of interest.Which in turn would require a "founder crop".