WI: French settle Australia in the 17th century

[Janprimus]

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.

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?

Sorry for quoting this much, however it applies to all points raised. The colony might very start out with a mixed population. Gradually the part of the population with European ancestry will start to dominate, especially after naval technology improves further.

 

[Flocculencio]

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

Very good points about the driving factors behind Australian settlement,
Julius. I had forgotten about Australia's pivotal role in supplying the Indian Army with horseflesh.

But, yes, a settler colony needs an economic incentive. It was Cod and furs in New England and Canada, tobacco in Virginia, sugar in the Caribbean, a strategic location in the Cape Colony (Afrikaner settlement was actually strongly discouraged by the VOC), a perceived need to regulate the whaling resupply stations in New Zealand.

Australia just doesn't offer anything as an economic incentive for an initial settlement.