What took so long to find Australia? If they were colonizing in Indonesia and papua new guinea etc why didn't they just also travel south?
What took so long to find Australia...
it was only really useful as a prison
Most of Australia is uninhabitable waste
When the British landed in the southeast (Sydney) they realised it's potential for a colony. Dutch and Portuguese explorers only ever really interacted with the Northern and Western coasts of Australia, Inhospitable desert and jungle with spear chucking 60 IQ cavemen.
They knew about it, and did some trading with the natives, but Australia is essentially a shithole and the natives had nothing of value to trade with outsiders. It wasn't until the Europeans arrived that any outsider found any use for the place (as an open-air prison).
It has more arable land than France, Germany and Italy combined, so not really.
Are you stupid?
Most of Australia is uninhabitable, like he said.
God I hate snarky r*dditors
oh sorry user, I'll be sure NOT to do research next time.
In the side facing away from Indonesia and the old world. The side facing colonisers was pretty unpleasant
Good luck trying to navigate unknown waters without nowadays technology. Also, they knew of it but not the overall size and good regions (there weren't that many expeditions just to discover and to map stuff), like the majority of countries in Europe with America 300y earlier.
Queensland is not desolate on the coast, sorry.
Please do as your ''research'' is you reaching into your arsehole and pulling out crap
Mainly in the South and East, guess which parts were arrived to last
Arable Land-
1) Germany- 167,250 square KM
2) France- 287,665 square KM
3) Italy- 131,620 square KM
4) Australia- 4,062,690 square KM
Choke on my dick.
He's not wrong, old mates right that it's mostly uninhabitable but it does have that much arable land
We're talking about the proportion of land that is useful you dense faggot. Austrailia is huge, yes it has more arable land than tiny European countries, but what is the proportion of arable to waste land there?
That's not what we're saying you stupid cunt
Most of Australia is uninhabitable. Just because it has a lot of habitable land doesn't change that.
God you're stupid.
aka every non white thing in the world come at me bro
No trade partners from Australia's distance.
Without fail, every single Euro I've met has been shocked at the size of Australia when they visit. Apparently they all have a mental picture of it being the size of France. It's actually larger than Europe.
No it fucking does it. That stats I provided is Agricultural land, not total land mass. Fuck off.
Yes but they fucking didn't land in the middle of Australia you dumb cunt. They would have landed on the coast with inhabitable land.
the fucking north west coast which is desert.
>He's not wrong, old mates right that it's mostly uninhabitable but it does have that much arable land
That's literally what I said. You need to calm your mangina
Nibba, I remember the early 2000s when I tought Australia was really small. I swear most maps didn't depict it as that big. Around 2010 I noticed it's just a tad bit smaller than Brazil and "what the bloody hell?" I tought. Mandela effect, perhaps? Or was I retarded?
[spoiler] most likely the latter [/spoiler]
It was discovered in 1522 by a portuguese explorer but it was kept a secret to avoid any competition in the area.
Theres even a map of the coast of Australia made by them but apparently it was burned in the Lisbon earthquake
>pic related
Retard
No it's not what you said at all.
>get proven wrong
>r-retard!
Eurocucks have a tiny mindset
>anyone who disagrees with me is reddit.
Seems legit.