Eastern Australia specifically. So this is a little outside my wheelhouse but something I read recently peaked my interest. I'm looking at the possibility that the French beat Cook to the east coast of Australia and immediately launch a few follow up voyages. I've sketched an outline that seems plausible but I'm curious if it's actually reasonable. Forgive the length.
Probably most people are familiar with the 18th century voyages of discovery in the Pacific. Starting with Wallis for the British and Bougainville for the French in 1766 who both visited Tahiti and then James Cook's three voyages which discovered the east coast of Australia, circumnavigated New Zealand, discovered New Caledonia, Hawaii etc etc.
The French contemporaries of Cook were less successful. Jean Francois Marie de Surville roamed the western pacific and made some discoveries in the Solomons before an unfortunate stop over in New Zealand after which he limped across the Pacific only to die coming ashore in Chile where the Spanish Viceroy impounded his ship, journals and detained the few surviving crew. Kerguelen's expedition discovered the eponymous islands before breaking up with Kerguelen returning home to France to give an exaggerated account of his discovery and St Alouarn continued on to western Australia (New Holland) barely making it back to France himself, where he died shortly after. And finally Marion du Fresne's which discovered the Crozet Islands before stopping at Van Diemen's land and then New Zealand with tragic results. Crozet continued the voyage in a large arc around the pacific from Tonga to Guam and then back to Ile de France (Mauritius).
The one that interests me most is Surville's. His was not planned as a purely scientific mission as it was intended to discover and trade with rich lands in the Pacific. Thus his ships were loaded with trade goods. It also suffered greatly from scurvy, a common theme amongst the French expeditions in comparison to Cook's. At any rate while he was in the Solomons with supplies running low he, for whatever reason, decided to make for New Zealand. Given the difficulty in gaging longitude he headed in a southwest direction to the latitude of New Zealand before turning east so as to be sure not to miss it by coming down too far east of it. Supposedly he may have come within only a few hundred km of the east coast of Australia around the latitude of Botany Bay or Port Jackson.
So I'm wondering what would have happened had he sailed just a little further west. He arrives in Australia around November 1769 about 5-6 months ahead of Cook. He puts in at Botany Bay or Port Jackson to resupply. I can't say for sure where he's likely to go from there. There are three options probably depending on the state of his crew and ship, either down the coast, up the coast or back to sea to make for New Zealand. I think if he could he'd probably try to head out to sea as his mission was to search for 'Davis Land' in the eastern Pacific. Doing that he'd probably pass by Cook somewhere in the Tasman Sea.
But I'm more interested in a scenario where he explores North up the coast, perhaps with the goal of returning to the Solomons to pick up where he left off. He then returns to Ile de France either by way of Timor via the Torres Strait or by way of Malacca after circling round the north side of New Guinea. This would put him back at Ile de France by early 1771, probably earlier depending on the route and how much time he spends exploring around New Guinea. Both Marion du Fresne and Kerguelen were there from about August to September 1771 preparing for there respective expeditions.
So what if Surville discovers eastern Australia, probably calling it France Australe, or maybe Nouvelle France Australe (New South France) for fun, in 1769, ahead of Cook, and then a year or so later pulls into Ile de France with stories of his voyage. It seems likely it would instantly be the focus for the two subsequent voyages. Kerguelen, St Alouarn, du Fresne and Crozet, seemed all to be fairly competent navigators. Their expeditions were not as well equipped as Cook's to combat scurvy and were perhaps not quite as good at charting the lands they discovered but any of them would be adequate. And more over the French had a propensity, as demonstrated by St Alouarn, for claiming ownership of the new lands.
So is there any scenario where follow up French expeditions chart more of Australia, perhaps finding the Bass Strait and demonstrating that Van Diemen's land is an island, perhaps exploring the southern coast. Or maybe crossing the Tasman and exploring New Zealand. The reports from one or several of the them upon returning to France are favorable, certainly there would be no need for Kerguelen to exaggerate the suitability of the new lands. Then things spiral from there.
Then the question becomes the plausibility of settlement. Is there any chance at all that a colony of resettled Acadians could be established? Or if its too late for them perhaps just some French peasants instead? Or maybe something really crazy like Maurice de Benyovksy establishing a colony there instead of his OTL abortive attempt in Madagascar. A small French outpost maybe 10 or 15 years before OTL Sidney? Long term prospects are uncertain. The American Revolution kind of limits the British ability to respond immediately but I'm sure they'd do so by the mid 1780s. Then the French Revolution would limit the French ability to counter the British and sustain the colony. But still French discovery and possibly even settlement of Australia ahead of the British is pretty interesting.
Probably most people are familiar with the 18th century voyages of discovery in the Pacific. Starting with Wallis for the British and Bougainville for the French in 1766 who both visited Tahiti and then James Cook's three voyages which discovered the east coast of Australia, circumnavigated New Zealand, discovered New Caledonia, Hawaii etc etc.
The French contemporaries of Cook were less successful. Jean Francois Marie de Surville roamed the western pacific and made some discoveries in the Solomons before an unfortunate stop over in New Zealand after which he limped across the Pacific only to die coming ashore in Chile where the Spanish Viceroy impounded his ship, journals and detained the few surviving crew. Kerguelen's expedition discovered the eponymous islands before breaking up with Kerguelen returning home to France to give an exaggerated account of his discovery and St Alouarn continued on to western Australia (New Holland) barely making it back to France himself, where he died shortly after. And finally Marion du Fresne's which discovered the Crozet Islands before stopping at Van Diemen's land and then New Zealand with tragic results. Crozet continued the voyage in a large arc around the pacific from Tonga to Guam and then back to Ile de France (Mauritius).
The one that interests me most is Surville's. His was not planned as a purely scientific mission as it was intended to discover and trade with rich lands in the Pacific. Thus his ships were loaded with trade goods. It also suffered greatly from scurvy, a common theme amongst the French expeditions in comparison to Cook's. At any rate while he was in the Solomons with supplies running low he, for whatever reason, decided to make for New Zealand. Given the difficulty in gaging longitude he headed in a southwest direction to the latitude of New Zealand before turning east so as to be sure not to miss it by coming down too far east of it. Supposedly he may have come within only a few hundred km of the east coast of Australia around the latitude of Botany Bay or Port Jackson.
So I'm wondering what would have happened had he sailed just a little further west. He arrives in Australia around November 1769 about 5-6 months ahead of Cook. He puts in at Botany Bay or Port Jackson to resupply. I can't say for sure where he's likely to go from there. There are three options probably depending on the state of his crew and ship, either down the coast, up the coast or back to sea to make for New Zealand. I think if he could he'd probably try to head out to sea as his mission was to search for 'Davis Land' in the eastern Pacific. Doing that he'd probably pass by Cook somewhere in the Tasman Sea.
But I'm more interested in a scenario where he explores North up the coast, perhaps with the goal of returning to the Solomons to pick up where he left off. He then returns to Ile de France either by way of Timor via the Torres Strait or by way of Malacca after circling round the north side of New Guinea. This would put him back at Ile de France by early 1771, probably earlier depending on the route and how much time he spends exploring around New Guinea. Both Marion du Fresne and Kerguelen were there from about August to September 1771 preparing for there respective expeditions.
So what if Surville discovers eastern Australia, probably calling it France Australe, or maybe Nouvelle France Australe (New South France) for fun, in 1769, ahead of Cook, and then a year or so later pulls into Ile de France with stories of his voyage. It seems likely it would instantly be the focus for the two subsequent voyages. Kerguelen, St Alouarn, du Fresne and Crozet, seemed all to be fairly competent navigators. Their expeditions were not as well equipped as Cook's to combat scurvy and were perhaps not quite as good at charting the lands they discovered but any of them would be adequate. And more over the French had a propensity, as demonstrated by St Alouarn, for claiming ownership of the new lands.
So is there any scenario where follow up French expeditions chart more of Australia, perhaps finding the Bass Strait and demonstrating that Van Diemen's land is an island, perhaps exploring the southern coast. Or maybe crossing the Tasman and exploring New Zealand. The reports from one or several of the them upon returning to France are favorable, certainly there would be no need for Kerguelen to exaggerate the suitability of the new lands. Then things spiral from there.
Then the question becomes the plausibility of settlement. Is there any chance at all that a colony of resettled Acadians could be established? Or if its too late for them perhaps just some French peasants instead? Or maybe something really crazy like Maurice de Benyovksy establishing a colony there instead of his OTL abortive attempt in Madagascar. A small French outpost maybe 10 or 15 years before OTL Sidney? Long term prospects are uncertain. The American Revolution kind of limits the British ability to respond immediately but I'm sure they'd do so by the mid 1780s. Then the French Revolution would limit the French ability to counter the British and sustain the colony. But still French discovery and possibly even settlement of Australia ahead of the British is pretty interesting.