Thanks RareMaps.com for supporting my video! Their maps and descriptions are a huge part of the research and visuals that go in these videos. You can purchase your own Terra Australis map from their website. - RareMaps.com/
The failure on the part of the French to actually colonize any part of Australia (even Western Australia, which was the closest to being so) was the result of a combination of factors, such as many of the explorers and their ships either sinking or not landing in quite the right spot, the French Revolution and its aftermath, and the Napoleonic Wars and their aftermath. I highly recommend reading a book by Noelene Bloomfield (an academic based in Western Australia) called "Almost a French Australia", which provides the details behind all of what I'm saying here. Also, the Bougainville expedition was in the late 1760s, not the late 1660s as the video says.
Summary: The Dutch and the French were not interested in Australia, and probably neither the Portuguese before them. No trade value. So they left it for the Brits. Who took it: "Just so that the French couldn't have it ...". And as everyone with a solid British education has learned: "James Cook discovered Australia!"
5:10 - I find it amazing that Bouganville managed to spend over a century in his attemot to circumnavigate the world. Departed 1666, and was only off the east coast of what is now Straya, just two years before Lieutenant Cook's Endeavour, sailed those waters. That's a sign of either a surprisingly leisurely attitude, or remarkable dedication to a task!
Thank you for featuring the mapping and early claims to my home country. The sending of the massive First Fleet by Great Britain to Sydney Cove in 1788 was by far the biggest investment into this land by any of the European powers. The arrival of Governor Lachlan Macquarie in 1810 saved the colony from starvation. Macquarie envisioned Sydney as more than a penal colony. He planned the streets, established farms and granted land for agriculture to convicts who had finished their sentences.
He also planned the massacres and killings of thousands of first nations across NSW to implement his plans. Macquarie was a horrible human, his wrongs outweigh what little good he did do.
Regarding the voyage of Captain Arthur Philip that landed in Australia in 1788 as the first fleet from Britain. It did not contain any free settlers being only soldiers and convicts. The first free settlers in Australia arrived in 1793 on the Bellona. I know this because Thomas Rose, a farmer, and his family arrived on the Bellona and I am a descendent of that family.
Fact checked this and it checks out. It appears that the Wikipedia page on the first fleet has the wrong info as it incorrectly states there were free settlers among them.
Keep in mind that these people were looking for resources to exploit, tropical islands to build plantations on, and natives to enslave, not necessarily a new home with a temperate climate to live on. Something like Haiti or Suriname would be much easier to control and milk resources out of.
Britain just had more criminals, particularly irish thugs, and not many colonies at the time, britain just tried desperatly to copy what the guys on the continent were doing. They had a serious fear of missing out and took every chance they got, while the Dutch, Protugues, French and Spanish were already very active on other continents and islands and were more picky. Arguably Mexico, Brazil, Indonesia, Canada and India are more important than Australia. The dutch should have bought criminals from Germany to colonize the region, it would have been a win-win situation. They would have learned dutch in no time. Many german criminals were instead sold to Venice where they died as galley slaves.
The portuguese set foot in Australia long before the French or British. A Portuguese caravel from the 15th century was recently found buried in Australia.
I believe if Baudin hadn't died on Mauritius coming back from their Navigations, and meeting Matthew Flinders, he could have championed Napoleon to declare new Holland for France. Who knows Australia could have been Half " New Holland " that became rich from iron ore and " New South Wales " known for the Colonists with the sheep and Gold lands . What then could have happened with Tasmania South Australia's free Colony and the proposal of Combining with New Zealand could be not too far stretched ?
I actually have to disagree with you, Napoléon had a great deal of interest in colonising Australia, In the northern winter of 1814, a French armada set sail for New South Wales. The armada’s mission was the invasion of Sydney, and its inspiration and its fate were interwoven with one of history’s greatest love stories - that of Napoleon and Josephine. The Empress Josephine was fascinated by all things Australian. In the gardens of her grand estate, Malmaison, she kept kangaroos, emus, black swans and other Australian animals, along with hundreds of native plants brought back by French explorers in peacetime. And even when war raged between France and Britain, ships known to be carrying Australian flora and fauna for ‘Josephine’s Ark’ were given safe passage. Napoleon, too, had an abiding interest in Australia, but for quite different reasons. What Britain and its Australian colonies did not know was that French explorers visiting these shores, purporting to be naturalists on scientific expeditions, were in fact spies, gathering vital information on the colony’s defences. It was ripe for the picking. The conquest of Australia was on Bonaparte’s agenda for world domination, and detailed plans had been made for the invasion, and for how French Australia would be governed. How it all came together and how it fell apart is a remarkable tale - history with an element of the ‘What if?’ No less remarkable is how the tempestuous relationship between Napoleon and his empress affected the fate of the Great Southern Land. I recommend you to read the book Napoleon's Australia by Terry Smyth To Know more about this. This needs a separate video of it's own to explain it.
I have heard of WHALEING HUNTING ERA MAPS THAT SHOWED LANDS BOTH IN THE ARCTIC AND ANTARCTIC WHICH NO LONGER ON MAPS .. THERE ARE ALSO STORIES OF WHALEING SHIPS FINDING PASSAGE THREW THE SEA OF ICE TO FIND OPEN WATER BEYOND AND LANDS .. DOES ANYONE KNOW WHERE THESE MAPS ENDED UP ?
Well, if the French revolution never occurred, France could have focused on colonization but France was almost constantly at war during 20 years. And even after the wars France is in debt so the king limited spending. In fact, the only French monarch who was interested by Australia was Louis XVI, but he was beheaded. ☹️
Not quite, In the northern winter of 1814, a French armada set sail for New South Wales. The armada’s mission was the invasion of Sydney, and its inspiration and its fate were interwoven with one of history’s greatest love stories - that of Napoleon and Josephine. The Empress Josephine was fascinated by all things Australian. In the gardens of her grand estate, Malmaison, she kept kangaroos, emus, black swans and other Australian animals, along with hundreds of native plants brought back by French explorers in peacetime. And even when war raged between France and Britain, ships known to be carrying Australian flora and fauna for ‘Josephine’s Ark’ were given safe passage. Napoleon, too, had an abiding interest in Australia, but for quite different reasons. What Britain and its Australian colonies did not know was that French explorers visiting these shores, purporting to be naturalists on scientific expeditions, were in fact spies, gathering vital information on the colony’s defences. It was ripe for the picking. The conquest of Australia was on Bonaparte’s agenda for world domination, and detailed plans had been made for the invasion, and for how French Australia would be governed. How it all came together and how it fell apart is a remarkable tale - history with an element of the ‘What if?’ No less remarkable is how the tempestuous relationship between Napoleon and his empress affected the fate of the Great Southern Land.
Basically, to white people's ears, at the time, "Indian" sounded very exotic, unknown, and alien. Thus, it stirred wanderlust and a passion for exploring. To wit, nobody could've cared less about *the Caribbean* , *the Malay Archipelago* , or *the American Aboriginals* . But, "the West Indies," "the East Indies," and "the American Indians" would command huge amounts of interest-and *money* . And it was not unique. Contemporaneously, *Guinea* became an enticing and alluring name for places in no way related to West Africa-namely, New Guinea and the Guianas. Later on, the Russian explorers would collectively describe both northern Asia and Alaska as *Grand Tataria* , even though the inhabitants of those lands were far more closely related to the Mongols and Turks than to the *Tatars* (who are actually distant cousins of the Hungarians and Finns). "Grand Tataria" was simply more marketable a term. Even today, travel agents refer to Vieques and Culebra as *the Spanish Virgin Islands* , even though they don't belong to Spain but rather to Puerto Rico. But-to put it bluntly-nobody will ever pay for a 5-star, luxury vacation to "the Puerto Rican Virgin Islands." And if we ever make contact with people from outer space, then prepare yourself for a vast overuse of *Martian* , instead of "extraterrestrial," even though none of them will have actually come from Mars!
Thanks RareMaps.com for supporting my video! Their maps and descriptions are a huge part of the research and visuals that go in these videos. You can purchase your own Terra Australis map from their website. - RareMaps.com/
The failure on the part of the French to actually colonize any part of Australia (even Western Australia, which was the closest to being so) was the result of a combination of factors, such as many of the explorers and their ships either sinking or not landing in quite the right spot, the French Revolution and its aftermath, and the Napoleonic Wars and their aftermath. I highly recommend reading a book by Noelene Bloomfield (an academic based in Western Australia) called "Almost a French Australia", which provides the details behind all of what I'm saying here.
Also, the Bougainville expedition was in the late 1760s, not the late 1660s as the video says.
Summary: The Dutch and the French were not interested in Australia, and probably neither the Portuguese before them. No trade value. So they left it for the Brits. Who took it: "Just so that the French couldn't have it ...".
And as everyone with a solid British education has learned: "James Cook discovered Australia!"
They stumbled on the part that has the iron ore. Mountains of it.
@@listohan yeah, they just were lucky to land on the only parts that are like... actually livable.
No, Napoleon had a plan to colonize Australia but archaic monarchic English traders did everything again to stop him and democracy.
@@draphotube4315 gotta watch out for drop bears more then poor living conditions mate.
@@skinnydelegateofrhyme8637 yeb yeb
One if the best videos so far keep it up
I appreciate it! I’ll do my best!
Some videos on when Europeans thought California was an island might be interesting.
5:10 - I find it amazing that Bouganville managed to spend over a century in his attemot to circumnavigate the world. Departed 1666, and was only off the east coast of what is now Straya, just two years before Lieutenant Cook's Endeavour, sailed those waters.
That's a sign of either a surprisingly leisurely attitude, or remarkable dedication to a task!
Outstanding job!
Thank you!
Thank you! This was very interesting!!
Thank you for featuring the mapping and early claims to my home country. The sending of the massive First Fleet by Great Britain to Sydney Cove in 1788 was by far the biggest investment into this land by any of the European powers. The arrival of Governor Lachlan Macquarie in 1810 saved the colony from starvation. Macquarie envisioned Sydney as more than a penal colony. He planned the streets, established farms and granted land for agriculture to convicts who had finished their sentences.
Captain Willem Janszoon, the Dutch navigator who was the first European to set foot on the Australian mainland. 1606
He also planned the massacres and killings of thousands of first nations across NSW to implement his plans. Macquarie was a horrible human, his wrongs outweigh what little good he did do.
The Dutch were right about Australia not having enough water and fertile soil. We've been struggling with that from day one !
Plenty of fertile soil in Tasmania
@@skinnydelegateofrhyme8637 Nobody cares about Tasmania 😜
Any increase in the Population need to stay above the tropics Latitudes where it rains more often and has a lot more fresh water rivers
The Southeast is really fertile
I've just discovered your channel. Awesome content mate, keep it up!!
I appreciate it! I'll do my best
I’m Australian and this is the first time I’m hearing about a lot of this
8:32 Gotta love the English map where Britain is huge and France is tiny
Great video series!
Regarding the voyage of Captain Arthur Philip that landed in Australia in 1788 as the first fleet from Britain. It did not contain any free settlers being only soldiers and convicts. The first free settlers in Australia arrived in 1793 on the Bellona. I know this because Thomas Rose, a farmer, and his family arrived on the Bellona and I am a descendent of that family.
Fact checked this and it checks out. It appears that the Wikipedia page on the first fleet has the wrong info as it incorrectly states there were free settlers among them.
Captain Willem Janszoon, the Dutch navigator who was the first European to set foot on the Australian mainland. 1606
@@waso778 we aren’t talking about the first European to set foot on the continent but rather the first free person to settle there mate
I am sure Thomas Rose told that story of free settling to his children
lol.
@@therenback92 that was certainly not English. What you mean about first free person?
Crazy to think an entire continent isn’t worth it. Of course the British would settle it.
Keep in mind that these people were looking for resources to exploit, tropical islands to build plantations on, and natives to enslave, not necessarily a new home with a temperate climate to live on. Something like Haiti or Suriname would be much easier to control and milk resources out of.
Britain just had more criminals, particularly irish thugs, and not many colonies at the time, britain just tried desperatly to copy what the guys on the continent were doing. They had a serious fear of missing out and took every chance they got, while the Dutch, Protugues, French and Spanish were already very active on other continents and islands and were more picky. Arguably Mexico, Brazil, Indonesia, Canada and India are more important than Australia. The dutch should have bought criminals from Germany to colonize the region, it would have been a win-win situation. They would have learned dutch in no time. Many german criminals were instead sold to Venice where they died as galley slaves.
The portuguese set foot in Australia long before the French or British. A Portuguese caravel from the 15th century was recently found buried in Australia.
Niceee work again!! Looking forward to the real Tartarian story. Think you can make that difference.
Hang on a sec, were those coins buried by the French in Western Australia ever found?
Yep
I believe if Baudin hadn't died on Mauritius coming back from their Navigations, and meeting Matthew Flinders, he could have championed Napoleon to declare new Holland for France. Who knows Australia could have been Half " New Holland " that became rich from iron ore and " New South Wales " known for the Colonists with the sheep and Gold lands . What then could have happened with Tasmania South Australia's free Colony and the proposal of Combining with New Zealand could be not too far stretched ?
I actually have to disagree with you, Napoléon had a great deal of interest in colonising Australia, In the northern winter of 1814, a French armada set sail for New South Wales. The armada’s mission was the invasion of Sydney, and its inspiration and its fate were interwoven with one of history’s greatest love stories - that of Napoleon and Josephine.
The Empress Josephine was fascinated by all things Australian. In the gardens of her grand estate, Malmaison, she kept kangaroos, emus, black swans and other Australian animals, along with hundreds of native plants brought back by French explorers in peacetime. And even when war raged between France and Britain, ships known to be carrying Australian flora and fauna for ‘Josephine’s Ark’ were given safe passage.
Napoleon, too, had an abiding interest in Australia, but for quite different reasons. What Britain and its Australian colonies did not know was that French explorers visiting these shores, purporting to be naturalists on scientific expeditions, were in fact spies, gathering vital information on the colony’s defences. It was ripe for the picking.
The conquest of Australia was on Bonaparte’s agenda for world domination, and detailed plans had been made for the invasion, and for how French Australia would be governed. How it all came together and how it fell apart is a remarkable tale - history with an element of the ‘What if?’ No less remarkable is how the tempestuous relationship between Napoleon and his empress affected the fate of the Great Southern Land.
I recommend you to read the book Napoleon's Australia by Terry Smyth
To Know more about this. This needs a separate video of it's own to explain it.
I have heard of WHALEING HUNTING ERA MAPS THAT SHOWED LANDS BOTH IN THE ARCTIC AND ANTARCTIC WHICH NO LONGER ON MAPS .. THERE ARE ALSO STORIES OF WHALEING SHIPS FINDING PASSAGE THREW THE SEA OF ICE TO FIND OPEN WATER BEYOND AND LANDS .. DOES ANYONE KNOW WHERE THESE MAPS ENDED UP ?
So Antarctica was the real Australia all along
Now I know how Australia came to be named, thanks
Well, if the French revolution never occurred, France could have focused on colonization but France was almost constantly at war during 20 years. And even after the wars France is in debt so the king limited spending. In fact, the only French monarch who was interested by Australia was Louis XVI, but he was beheaded. ☹️
Not quite, In the northern winter of 1814, a French armada set sail for New South Wales. The armada’s mission was the invasion of Sydney, and its inspiration and its fate were interwoven with one of history’s greatest love stories - that of Napoleon and Josephine.
The Empress Josephine was fascinated by all things Australian. In the gardens of her grand estate, Malmaison, she kept kangaroos, emus, black swans and other Australian animals, along with hundreds of native plants brought back by French explorers in peacetime. And even when war raged between France and Britain, ships known to be carrying Australian flora and fauna for ‘Josephine’s Ark’ were given safe passage.
Napoleon, too, had an abiding interest in Australia, but for quite different reasons. What Britain and its Australian colonies did not know was that French explorers visiting these shores, purporting to be naturalists on scientific expeditions, were in fact spies, gathering vital information on the colony’s defences. It was ripe for the picking.
The conquest of Australia was on Bonaparte’s agenda for world domination, and detailed plans had been made for the invasion, and for how French Australia would be governed. How it all came together and how it fell apart is a remarkable tale - history with an element of the ‘What if?’ No less remarkable is how the tempestuous relationship between Napoleon and his empress affected the fate of the Great Southern Land.
3 years and Cook couldn't find Antarctica? Only possible if the land mass encompassed him 🤷♂️
Three cheers for Australia.
Why everything was named after word "India". Example , Dutch East India company , british east india company , native tribes being called indian et.c.
Basically, to white people's ears, at the time, "Indian" sounded very exotic, unknown, and alien. Thus, it stirred wanderlust and a passion for exploring.
To wit, nobody could've cared less about *the Caribbean* , *the Malay Archipelago* , or *the American Aboriginals* . But, "the West Indies," "the East Indies," and "the American Indians" would command huge amounts of interest-and *money* .
And it was not unique. Contemporaneously, *Guinea* became an enticing and alluring name for places in no way related to West Africa-namely, New Guinea and the Guianas.
Later on, the Russian explorers would collectively describe both northern Asia and Alaska as *Grand Tataria* , even though the inhabitants of those lands were far more closely related to the Mongols and Turks than to the *Tatars* (who are actually distant cousins of the Hungarians and Finns). "Grand Tataria" was simply more marketable a term.
Even today, travel agents refer to Vieques and Culebra as *the Spanish Virgin Islands* , even though they don't belong to Spain but rather to Puerto Rico. But-to put it bluntly-nobody will ever pay for a 5-star, luxury vacation to "the Puerto Rican Virgin Islands."
And if we ever make contact with people from outer space, then prepare yourself for a vast overuse of *Martian* , instead of "extraterrestrial," even though none of them will have actually come from Mars!
@@grantorino2325 oh nice! Thanks for the info.
You can make translations in Arabic
British just lost the American colonies. Less two years later.. hello botany bay.
Or, Aboriginal Australia can be the law of the land. As it is meant to be. Europe has taken enough.
Australia would be much better off today if that had happened.
In terms of the Aborigines, maybe. In terms of quality of life and per capita GDP, not necessarily - Australia as it is is top notch in that respect!