Why didn't the East colonise Australia?

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
5,156
Sydney
things are not often precise in old accounts ,
the use of general terms for location and strangers from far away is common
most ancient civilizations were not very interested in precise mapping
there was some ancient geography but most of it was hearsay from traders
accurate mapping was a particular European practice born of land claims and the later spirit of exploration
the Portuguese started it
 
Jul 2019
28
hongkong
This is a simulation model of Zheng He's fleet and Columbus's fleet, proving that China was fully capable of conquering Australia in the age of great voyage, but they had no motive. Because ancient China was so rich, it was hard for you to imagine a millionaire robbing slums. The same reason I think applies to India.

Conclusion: Australia has no conquest value for the East.


123.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: sparky

Shaheen

Ad Honorem
May 2011
2,566
Sweden
Why would they? Most of the big Asian powers were comfortable in their lands. China and the Arabs did send out explorers but the purpose behind these explorations was to locate and initiate trade, not form colonies and demographically take over a specific geographic region.
 

janusdviveidis

Ad Honorem
Mar 2014
2,002
Lithuania
This is a simulation model of Zheng He's fleet and Columbus's fleet, proving that China was fully capable of conquering Australia in the age of great voyage, but they had no motive. Because ancient China was so rich, it was hard for you to imagine a millionaire robbing slums. The same reason I think applies to India.

Conclusion: Australia has no conquest value for the East.


View attachment 21443
If that is real reconstruction, I would say, that Columbus had better chance to discover whatever he chose. For exploration seaworthiness matter, not size. I really would not want to sail on that huge barge with small sail masts put in strange places all around the ship.
 

deaf tuner

Ad Honoris
Oct 2013
14,533
Europix
This is a simulation model of Zheng He's fleet and Columbus's fleet, proving that China was fully capable of conquering Australia in the age of great voyage, but they had no motive. Because ancient China was so rich, it was hard for you to imagine a millionaire robbing slums. The same reason I think applies to India.

Conclusion: Australia has no conquest value for the East.


View attachment 21443
If it really had that size (it's debatable), it's highly unlikely they sailed the high sea.
 

Belgarion

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
6,748
Australia
This is a simulation model of Zheng He's fleet and Columbus's fleet, proving that China was fully capable of conquering Australia in the age of great voyage, but they had no motive. Because ancient China was so rich, it was hard for you to imagine a millionaire robbing slums. The same reason I think applies to India.

Conclusion: Australia has no conquest value for the East.


View attachment 21443

The ship in this picture is one of Menzies fantasies.
 

HackneyedScribe

Ad Honorem
Feb 2011
6,536
This is a simulation model of Zheng He's fleet and Columbus's fleet, proving that China was fully capable of conquering Australia in the age of great voyage, but they had no motive. Because ancient China was so rich, it was hard for you to imagine a millionaire robbing slums. The same reason I think applies to India.

Conclusion: Australia has no conquest value for the East.
The tomb of hongbao that was excavated in 2010 had an epitaph which mentioned that Zheng He's flagships were 5000 liao ships, which meant these ships displaced 2000 tonnes. This was the first time we have direct evidence from a primary source which stated the scale of Zheng He's flagships. Whereas the ship model shown in the picture is based off of a Ming novel (not Menzies, although Menzies believed it) and cannot be relied on.

A ship which displaced 2000 tonnes was still quite big, the only contemporary European ship I know of that could have been of this size was the Grace Dieu.

Anyway, for China there was no hostile Ottoman Empire in the way that cut off much wanted supply of spices/tea/porcelain. On the one hand they didn't view the Ottoman Empire as a hostile force, on the other hand they were a large empire themselves which meant they had varied geography. So a lot of what they desired could be found within their own borders. In fragmented Europe small countries relied on trading with other countries to get what they want, and if a hostile force is in the way then alternative paths would need to be found. If a trade partner decided to stop trading, then alternative trade partners or colonies would need to be found. In Ming China if a province decided to stop all trade with another province, or block the trade of another province, that would be called "rebelling".
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: suphen
Jul 2019
28
hongkong
If that is real reconstruction, I would say, that Columbus had better chance to discover whatever he chose. For exploration seaworthiness matter, not size. I really would not want to sail on that huge barge with small sail masts put in strange places all around the ship.
This ship is the flagship and the fleet has more boats.
 
Apr 2017
732
Lemuria
The Chinese were never aggressive colonizers. For example the Chinese could have wiped out the Koreans or Tibetans but they didn't. It's just not in their nature even though extreme population pressure could have justified aggressive expansions. In that way they are a very honorable people.

As for the Arabs, the climate, diseases, flora and fauna might have made any large colonization attempt impossible for them. It would be like Europeans earlier attempt to colonized deeper into the centre of Africa where they and their animals died in drove to diseases. They only managed a serious foothold in South Africa that has a climate not too different from Europe. Besides, European colonization of Australia is not that successful. There are only 20 million people on such a large continent and the population growth mostly due to immigration.