Spanish Australia

[Teejay]

According to this article King Charles IV of Spain in the 1790's planned to invade Australia and invade the British colony in Sydney Cove with a fleet of 100 ships.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ustralia-in-1790s-with-100-vessel-armada.html

If this invasion had occurred, very likely the British would have tried to recover Australia from the Spanish. It would depend on wither the re-conquest would have been worth the effort, given the Napoleonic Wars. If the Spanish managed to keep Australia, they would have definitely colonized New Zealand as well.

Personally is see a Spanish Australia being a antipodean version of Argentina, which would have declared independence during the 1890's.

This idea would make an interesting Timeline, if anybody wants to go ahead with creating such a timeline. I am happy to help you with it.

 

[Brunaburh]

Spain didn't have the resources or energy to colonise Australia in the 19th century. You need an earlier POD that wipes out Spain's long term decline.

 

[Koprulu Mustafa Pasha]

According to this article King Charles IV of Spain in the 1790's planned to invade Australia and invade the British colony in Sydney Cove with a fleet of 100 ships.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ustralia-in-1790s-with-100-vessel-armada.html

If this invasion had occurred, very likely the British would have tried to recover Australia from the Spanish. It would depend on wither the re-conquest would have been worth the effort, given the Napoleonic Wars. If the Spanish managed to keep Australia, they would have definitely colonized New Zealand as well.

Personally is see a Spanish Australia being a antipodean version of Argentina, which would have declared independence during the 1890's.

This idea would make an interesting Timeline, if anybody wants to go ahead with creating such a timeline. I am happy to help you with it.

If Spain does it earlier it has a better chance holding it than starting from the 1790s. And yes, between 1700 and 1760 Spain has a better chance with them having a base in the Philippines.

 

[Escape Zeppelin]

An earlier Spanish Australia couldn't have occupied more than a portion of the coast, leaving plenty of space for a competing colony. And Australia in the 1700's until the gold rush seems much like Spanish California; a nice place to live and raise cattle but not particularly strategic or wealthy. Would it even be profitable for Britain or France to attempt to capture it?

 

[Gwachiko]

If Spain does it earlier it has a better chance holding it than starting from the 1790s. And yes, between 1700 and 1760 Spain has a better chance with them having a base in the Philippines.

The Spanish held Philippines until 1899 though.

 

[Padilla]

Spain didn't have the resources or energy to colonise Australia in the 19th century. You need an earlier POD that wipes out Spain's long term decline.

I mean most Spanish emigrants went to Cuba in the XIX century. If they had the option of going to a place with a similar climate to the south of Spain,with more space and way more farmland a lot of then would have chosen to move to Australia. And Australia wasn't India unless Britain or France wanted it at all costs,I don't see how Spain couldn't keep it for at least 50-60 years

 

[Lampiao]

I mean most Spanish emigrants went to Cuba in the XIX century. If they had the option of going to a place with a similar climate to the south of Spain,with more space and way more farmland a lot of then would have chosen to move to Australia. And Australia wasn't India unless Britain or France wanted it at all costs,I don't see how Spain couldn't keep it for at least 50-60 years

Most Spanish migrants during the 19th century and early 20th century actually went to Brazil and Argentina. There were plenty of people willing to migrate but not enough resources even to sustain the rest of the crumbling colonial empire.

 

[Padilla]

Almost 1,2 million Spaniards left for Cuba between 1821 and 1931.On the other hand in that same period a little more than 1 million Spaniards left for Argentina and 750,000 for Brazil.Cuba became the region that recieved the largest Spanish emigration in total,and in fact Puerto Rico recieved close to as many Spanish inmigrants than Brazil,so it is pretty clear that the population of emigrants usually chose to inmigrate inside Spain eventhough Argentina,Brazil or the US offered more farmland or better life conditions.

 

[kasumigenx]

I think a Spanish Australia would be possible if the British were able to gain Luzon from the Spanish or the British gain the Troublesome and Backwater parts of Luzon from the Spanish which are netdrain to the Spanish.

 

[Teejay]

Spain didn't have the resources or energy to colonize Australia in the 19th century. You need an earlier POD that wipes out Spain's long term decline.

Australia is actually very easy to control, because nearly all the decent agricultural land is either on or the Eastern side of Great dividing range of the Eastern portion of the continent. Australia is the direst inhabited continent in the world, also the rainfall is pretty erratic because of the El-Nino/La Nina cycles. Immediately beyond those areas the land needs to be irrigated to grow crops (other than wheat and barley), then it fades into a desert comparable to the Sahara.

Also the Spanish government would encourage Spanish immigration by assisted passage (The British government did this for British immigrants to Australia in OTL). South-Eastern Australia would be quite attractive to Spanish immigrants since the climate is much more like their homelands. This would mean that Australia becomes the Antipodean version of Argentina and Uruguay.

However I believe Australia would have a bloody War of Independence in the 1890's which the United States would intervene in. Therefore Australia would become an independent nation, closely allied to the United States. An interesting side effect is that the most popular sports would be Soccer (Association Football) and Baseball, in OTL it is either Aussie Rules Football/Rugby League and Cricket.

Regarding New Zealand, it is highly likely the British might still colonize it. Essentially to beat the Spanish colonizing it.

Economically even before the gold rushes, the colony is going to be an massive asset for Spain because the Merino Sheep (which are a Spanish breed) being introduced to Australia. You might have an antipodean version of the gauchos (many have part aboriginal ancestry) emerge who would manage the huge herds of sheep and cattle.

 

[Teejay]

Almost 1,2 million Spaniards left for Cuba between 1821 and 1931.On the other hand in that same period a little more than 1 million Spaniards left for Argentina and 750,000 for Brazil.Cuba became the region that recieved the largest Spanish emigration in total,and in fact Puerto Rico recieved close to as many Spanish inmigrants than Brazil,so it is pretty clear that the population of emigrants usually chose to immigrate inside Spain even-though Argentina,Brazil or the US offered more farmland or better life conditions.

Australia is a lot more healthier than Cuba, Puerto Rico and Brazil and with the Spanish government assisting their passage. Australia would become a major destination for Spanish immigrants. Even after independence around 1900, the independent the Australian government is likely going to assist the passage of Spanish, Portuguese and Italian immigrants to Australia.

 

[Brunaburh]

*snip*.

I think that to do this you need to avoid the Napoleonic invasions and a lot more besides. Spain was incapable of keeping its colonial empire OTL, I can't see it having any ability to populate Australia at the same time as being thrown out of South America. Nor can I see it trying to, really. Who would swap Potosi for Circular Quay? All of Spain's attention is going to be on holding South America.

So, yes it is possible, if Britain is hammered and Spain has a completely different history, but the things that would make it possible are more significant than the thing itself.

 

[Brunaburh]

BTW, in terms of the OP, looking at the article. It's by no means clear that Spain had the ability to send such an armada across the pacific and conquer Australia, and if it did, it would likely lose any gains at some point before the Battle of Trafalgar, or definitely afterwards. Obviously, if we have no battle of Trafalgar, the thread should be entitled "NO BATTLE OF TRAFALGAR!"

 

[Teejay]

BTW, in terms of the OP, looking at the article. It's by no means clear that Spain had the ability to send such an armada across the pacific and conquer Australia, and if it did, it would likely lose any gains at some point before the Battle of Trafalgar, or definitely afterwards. Obviously, if we have no battle of Trafalgar, the thread should be entitled "NO BATTLE OF TRAFALGAR!"

Perhaps you are right, however I thought it would make for an interesting discussion.

 

[Padilla]

Australia is a lot more healthier than Cuba, Puerto Rico and Brazil and with the Spanish government assisting their passage. Australia would become a major destination for Spanish immigrants. Even after independence around 1900, the independent the Australian government is likely going to assist the passage of Spanish, Portuguese and Italian immigrants to Australia.

It is not that Australia is wealthier.Cuba was really wealthy in the XIX century.It is that Cuba and Puerto Rico agriculture was dominated by slaves and peasants would have a way easier settling in Australia,specially if Spain keeps the ban on emigration to America further than OTL,forcing emigrants to choose Australia over Argentina or Brazil even easier

 

[Padilla]

I think that to do this you need to avoid the Napoleonic invasions and a lot more besides. Spain was incapable of keeping its colonial empire OTL, I can't see it having any ability to populate Australia at the same time as being thrown out of South America. Nor can I see it trying to, really. Who would swap Potosi for Circular Quay? All of Spain's attention is going to be on holding South America.

So, yes it is possible, if Britain is hammered and Spain has a completely different history, but the things that would make it possible are more significant than the thing itself.

Spain was incapable of keeping its colonies due the Napoleonic invasion and Riego's coup.If you butterfly Napoleon's invasion and Riego Spain could have kept the empire for some more years but that's a lot of butterflies.Hell the royalists won in Mexico in OTL without any support from Spain.

 

[Brunaburh]

Spain was incapable of keeping its colonies due the Napoleonic invasion and Riego's coup.If you butterfly Napoleon's invasion and Riego Spain could have kept the empire for some more years but that's a lot of butterflies.Hell the royalists won in Mexico in OTL without any support from Spain.

Yes, I agree. But if we look at the changes we need to get the situations we are talking about, Spanish Australia is going to be a tiny side show. We are basically talking Napoleonic victory timelines, where Spain remains a French ally, or no revolutionary wars in American and France.

An earlier POD is more interesting if you ask me, what would have happened if Spain had found and had reason to settle Australia from Peru in around 1690.

 

[Padilla]

Yes, I agree. But if we look at the changes we need to get the situations we are talking about, Spanish Australia is going to be a tiny side show. We are basically talking Napoleonic victory timelines, where Spain remains a French ally, or no revolutionary wars in American and France.

An earlier POD is more interesting if you ask me, what would have happened if Spain had found and had reason to settle Australia from Peru in around 1690.

Some people believed that both Spain and Portugal knew about the existance of Australia for a long time.There is this town in Galicia that has a 400 years old tree that can only be find in Australia for example.My guess is that Spain and Portugal never found anything of value in Australia and the American empire was vast enough as it alredy was

 

[Lampiao]

Almost 1,2 million Spaniards left for Cuba between 1821 and 1931.On the other hand in that same period a little more than 1 million Spaniards left for Argentina and 750,000 for Brazil.Cuba became the region that recieved the largest Spanish emigration in total,and in fact Puerto Rico recieved close to as many Spanish inmigrants than Brazil,so it is pretty clear that the population of emigrants usually chose to inmigrate inside Spain eventhough Argentina,Brazil or the US offered more farmland or better life conditions.

My sources say that Argentina was the first, followed by Cuba and then Brazil, even with the language barrier and a formal ban on immigration to Brazil made by the Spanish government. But that's not the point. Spain wasn't capable to have a colonial empire, it was a poor nation during the entire 19th century. People migrated en masse even to Algeria not because population surplus caused by industrialization like in the rest of the Western Europe, but because of straightfoword economic duress.

Australia is a lot more healthier than Cuba, Puerto Rico and Brazil and with the Spanish government assisting their passage. Australia would become a major destination for Spanish immigrants. Even after independence around 1900, the independent the Australian government is likely going to assist the passage of Spanish, Portuguese and Italian immigrants to Australia.

Australia has received much less immigrants than Argentina or Brazil during the turn of century. Before the export of raw industrial material becomes a thing in the international market, Australia has very little to offer to its owner... strategic cashmere?

 

[Padilla]

My sources say that Argentina was the first, followed by Cuba and then Brazil, even with the language barrier and a formal ban on immigration to Brazil made by the Spanish government. But that's not the point. Spain wasn't capable to have a colonial empire, it was a poor nation during the entire 19th century. People migrated en masse even to Algeria not because population surplus caused by industrialization like in the rest of the Western Europe, but because of straightfoword economic duress.



Australia has received much less immigrants than Argentina or Brazil during the turn of century. Before the export of raw industrial material becomes a thing in the international market, Australia has very little to offer to its owner... strategic cashmere?

Your source is wikipedia I am guessing. The thing is that emigration to Cuba wasn't considered emigration by the Spanish administration so only post-independence data had been recorded which only between 1889-1930 was close to 800,000 people. The population of Puerto Rico in the XIX century increased by 10 due inmigration as well but there is not precisse data about it other than expeculation.
Britain put a ban on foreign inmigration to Australia and most of British migrants chose Canada and the US as inmigration destinations. Australia has a similar climate to some parts of Spain and plenty of empty land for farming. If the goverment kept a ban on emigration to America most migrants would probably choose Australia over Cuba.
Spain in the XIX invaded Cambodia and crushed all Cuban rebellions. It had a permanent presence in Asia due the Phillipines. So claiming it couldn't hold a colonial empire is outright wrong because you know it had one.
I don't know how it is far fetch for Spain to keep Australia if Britain doesn't bother to retake it.
And barely anyone in Spain emigrated to Algeria. I mean it is so residual that I don't know why you bring it up.