Why didnt indonesian states colonize Australia
- Thread starter alpha
- Start date
Probably the same reason why the Dutch didn't, because there was no reason for it.
Contrary to what some people here seem to think, the fact that there is empty (or mostly empty) new land is not a good enough reason to colonise it.
Except that it was colonised by the aboriginal Australians. And the North is fairly tropical, so I too have often wondered why nobody bothered to check it out.
From an official and realistic point of view, the Indonesian peoples did not colonize Australia by the same reasons Arabs didn't colonize Madagascar or Romans didn't colonize the Canary Islands: those territories didn't offered them anything that could motivate an eventual colonization.
Indonesian peoples were not pushed by others to search new lands and they have whatever they needed in their archipelago.
For those who love fantastic or bizarre explanations, I once read in a blog of anthropology a discussion regarding the survival of folk memories in the area related to extinct megafauna like the Megalania, that could have discouraged the peoples of the Malay archipelago to travel to Australia (in a similar mood like middle-ages European sailors feared to travel too westwards into the Atlantic ocean).
Of course, it's doubtful that folk memories about the Megalania could survive for several milennia (even if it's proven that the Malagasy conserved folk memories about giant lemurs or hippos for more than 1000 years); anyway, the Indonesian knew of many large species of Varanus in the zone, so Megalania could have been a plausible (and terrifying) creature for them.
They probably did check it out (I believe there is some archeological evidence for it) and didn't see any reason to stay. And why would they. Because it is there is no good reason to colonise it. If the home situation wasn't oppresive or overcrowded, there is no reason to move. If you combine that with the fact that for the Indonesian the local aboriginal inhabitants of Australia didn't have anything the Indonesian were interested in or could as easily get elsewhere, they probably ignored Australia from that moment on.
They just came to northern Australian coast to trade trepang with the indigenous Australians, although there's a cultural influence on the latter.
The trade with the northern Aborigines were already very beneficial for the Macassans and the relations were stable, thus there were no reason to settle.
It is easier to go North from Java than to go South. There was no need to colonize new lands when occupied lands are more profitable. If I were a Majapahit monarch, it would be more profitable to go to what is now Philippines or Borneo or Sumatra or Malaya, where you got millions to conquer.
Son of Leman Russ
Banned
You all should also remember that the "sea" south of Java and Nusa Tenggara Islands is actually really deep and stormy.
While today's ships can more or less take the journey without much problems, the open construction of Indonesian ships before 17th century means they are unsuitable for waging their ways against long storms and torrential rains...
not to mention a certain group of huge maneaters roaming there, making survival when you're thrown into the sea... pretty much a grim prospect...
While today's ships can more or less take the journey without much problems, the open construction of Indonesian ships before 17th century means they are unsuitable for waging their ways against long storms and torrential rains...
not to mention a certain group of huge maneaters roaming there, making survival when you're thrown into the sea... pretty much a grim prospect...
Flocculencio
Donor
Migration =/= colonisation.
They knew it was there but there was no reason to go beyond a few trading expeditions.
Colonisation efforts require some sort of incentive- even IOTL much of Borneo and the other Indonesian islands weren't *that* heavily settled until the 20th C. There's space there much closer to Austronesian population centres in Malaya and Java to absorb normal migration- settlement further afield would pretty much have to have some sort of financial objective.
IIRC, the Top End, while tropical, isn't all that suited for the Austronesian crop package. Rice production has recently started to take off in the Northern Territory but that's got all the developments of modern agrotechnology behind it- it simply may not have been that feasible back then- which is besides the point anyway, since you'd still need an incentive for Widjojo the Potential Settler to go to Northern Australia instead of Borneo or the Moluccas.
The trepang trade is only firmly documented from, IIRC, the 1750s. While it's likely somewhat older than that it's doubtful if there was much contact between the East Indies and northern Australia before 1700.
In other words there's only really and 100-150 year interval the "Indonesians" can move to try colonization before the British start developing interests up that way.
I also doubt there was that much motive for the various small states of the Indies to expand that way... it's worth noting they didn't make any substantial attempt to expand into New Guinea despite it just being a matter of island hopping rather than crossing open ocean.
Last edited:
Overseas colonization had a motive - whether it's needed to extract resources, to find a refuge, a dumping ground for undesirables, or to secure an area for other regional interests (or as an outpost for more far flung colonies) - human beings just don't build empires to build empires, especially across stretches of hostile ocean. The global European empires came about in baby steps originating from the primary goal of securing Asian trade.
this more than anything else seems likely. Back in those days, if you couldn't take your agriculture with you and the local flora and fauna don't have anything you can domesticate, it's enough to discourage settlement...