Some pics I have found while googling!

These ones show the history of the formation of the separate states/colonies:

http://www.nla.gov.au/guides/federation/images/map.jpg

http://www.teachers.ash.org.au/mrlaneis/z_z_maps_state_colony_development.gif

And this one is interesting... A "pre-designed" state layout that never took off! I notice some names have been recycled too :)

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/australia_1838.jpg

Wow.. i never knew victoria was like closer to the equator than spain! No wonder it doesn't snow here~!

LOL Tassie up in the NT!!! If that had gone ahead I would of been born in Cooksland and gre up on the far south of Torresia. Anybody have a clue on what all the capital cities?

Wow ! Looks like Australia added states. over the years, at the expense of NSW.

classic stuff!
thanks for posting

Melbourne not even on the map yet :)

I think I'd prefer to live in Torresia then Queensland but Syd & Melb would be living in Guelphia - where does that come from?

In modern Australia the capitals would be?
Dampieria - Broome
Victoria - Perth
Tasmania - Darwin
Nuytsland - Eucla, pop about 50 - is there a bigger town?
Carpentaria - Mt Isa
Flindersland - Adelaide
Torresia - Townsville
Cooksland - Brisbane
Guelphia - well wouldn't that be interesting

I think I'd prefer to live in Torresia then Queensland but Syd & Melb would be living in Guelphia - where does that come from?

In modern Australia the capitals would be?
Dampieria - Broome
Victoria - Perth
Tasmania - Darwin
Nuytsland - Eucla, pop about 50 - is there a bigger town?
Carpentaria - Mt Isa
Flindersland - Adelaide
Torresia - Townsville
Cooksland - Brisbane
Guelphia - well wouldn't that be interesting

Van Dieman's Land - Hobart (its obviously the island, not the name, that causes us to be forgotten :P)

We wouldn't have been able to change its name to Tasmania had that top left bit taken the name first!

And yes, I can see Guelphia's capital would have been a major shitfight :P Would have gone to Sydney though, as the population at the time was way in their favour. Melbourne would be the Townsville or Launceston of the state (ie. "the non-capital that gets ignored!")

Melbourne & Sydney in the same colony / state?

I get most of the other names, but "Guelphia" ? WTF? :lol:

who / what / where is Guelph(ia) ?

the only reference I can think of is a Canadian one: Guelph's a town in the Toronto metro :lol:

Lots more on "Guelphs" on this link here (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07056c.htm).

Interestingly, in the article they say "the Guelphs were in the main... republican, commercial, burgher...". I'd say this sums up Sydney and Melbourne pretty well!

Although it was most likely named like the City of Guelph near Toronto (as Tays has mentioned above) after King George IV (ruler of the time, or just before the map was made) of the House of Hanover from Brunswick and the House of Este and Guelph. (Link here) (http://www.city.guelph.on.ca/document.cfm?documentid=370&category=65)

Once upon a time NSW took half of this continent.

Somehow Victoria invaded NSW...

The End.

well hot diggity damn ;)

glad you could be bothered googling it up Tony, back later after I cook mah tea ;)

Van Dieman's Land - Hobart (its obviously the island, not the name, that causes us to be forgotten :P)

We wouldn't have been able to change its name to Tasmania had that top left bit taken the name first!

What do you mean? Van Dieman was the governor of Batavia.

Dampier was the first person ever to see Australia around 1650

I think the Queensland border should be moved south to where that border is. It would solve oh, so many problems.

Once upon a time NSW took half of this continent.

Somehow Victoria invaded NSW...

The End.

:rofl:

correction: one day Victoria seperated from NSW and a year later got extremely rich and the rest is history ;)

What are the lines with the circles?
They come from rivers... maybe they were canals?

Guelphia sounds like a disease taysers mum would get.

What are the lines with the circles?
They come from rivers... maybe they were canals?
I believe they are routes that early explorers took when going inland...

:lol: dan. This thread is currently being smothered in gold!

Dampier was the first person ever to see Australia around 1650

Hardly. Willem Jansz sailed the Duyfken along the east coast of the gulf of Carpentaria in 1606, although he didn't realise he'd discovered a new continent.

Also got to pick you up on a technicality - Jansz was the first European to sight Australia - the Aborigines were here & other native peoples in the region were aware of the existance of Australia & traded with the Aborigines.

u can see New South Wales gradually being taken apart, yet western australia stays untouched the entire time? weird!

and that old state map is cool. I must say id like that (although alot of the names are weird)

Nuytsland would be the most useless state in the history of ever.

Dampieria, Nuytsland and tasmania would all be equally useless

Dampieria, Nuytsland and tasmania would all be equally useless

At least Dampieria and 'Tasmania' have extractable resources. I don't thing Nuytsland has anything at all!

:rofl:

correction: one day Victoria seperated from NSW and a year later got extremely rich and the rest is history ;)

Show us the map when New Zealand was part of New South Wales. Let's educate...the glorious times when the Kiwis was one of ours...

What do you mean? Van Dieman was the governor of Batavia.

Dampier was the first person ever to see Australia around 1650
Dirk Hartog from Dutch East India Co sighted Western Australia in 1616.

This is great stuff, obviously WA was never modified because northern parts weren't heavily settled. I reckon if gold had been discovered in Vic before they broke off - NSW wouldn't have let them go so easily!

As for Guelphia or whatever it's called - the capital would've been Canberra! Think about it!

As for Guelphia or whatever it's called - the capital would've been Canberra! Think about it!
I dunno about that... Canberra was settled in it's own later devised "Australian Capital Territory" which arguably would have been created on top of those States anyways, as per actually happened?

What do you mean? Van Dieman was the governor of Batavia.

Dampier was the first person ever to see Australia around 1650

Not sure what you mean I mean :)

The point of my post was that Van Diemen's Land was missed off the list of states by Oriolus, but Tasmania (the north-western one) was included.

The fact that I bolded the 'a' in 'Dieman' was to show the spelling of van Dieman and how it varied from other records mentioning the island or (as you say) Anthony van Diemen/Dieman.

At least Dampieria and 'Tasmania' have extractable resources. I don't thing Nuytsland has anything at all!

The location of 25° 20' S, 131° 01' E, appears to be in the far top right corner of Nuytsland. My guess is the state would now be surviving on tourism and nothing else. I'll leave you to guess (or look up) what is at this location!

I dunno about that... Canberra was settled in it's own later devised "Australian Capital Territory" which arguably would have been created on top of those States anyways, as per actually happened?

True, but it was created to solve an argument between states... if Melb and Syd were in the same state, there wouldn't have been a problem.. although there could have been arguments between cities within a state. It also depends if the decision was made when Sydney was clearly dominant, or when the population was more balanced.

The point of my post was that Van Diemen's Land was missed off the list of states by Oriolus, but Tasmania (the north-western one) was included.


It seems as if Van Dieman's Land was not proposed as a state - it was part of Guelphia - all the states have large block letters with a number above.

The location of 25° 20' S, 131° 01' E, appears to be in the far top right corner of Nuytsland. My guess is the state would now be surviving on tourism and nothing else. I'll leave you to guess (or look up) what is at this location!

Ayers Rock

It seems as if Van Dieman's Land was not proposed as a state - it was part of Guelphia - all the states have large block letters with a number above.

Ah.. maybe.. I thought it was just written smaller cause there wasn't any space :P But seeing as they appear to be going with the equal-sized colonies, being part of Guelphia makes sense!

There appears to be many anomolies with this map, printed in 1838 in London. It must have been based on earlier proposals. It shows Adelaide as being in Flindersland, yet the 'British Province of South Australia' was proclaimed in 1836, and Sydney was very much part of New South Wales. Also Van Diemans Land changed its name to Tasmania in 1835.

I believe they are routes that early explorers took when going inland...

Don't know what they are, but they are certainly not to do with actual explorers. The map must date back to some part of the first half of the nineteenth century at a time when there were absolutely no cross-country routes through the inland of Australia. The area around point "a" in the middle of real-world Western Australia is still virtually unexplored.

Also Van Diemans Land changed its name to Tasmania in 1835.

That was 1855.

So far as the rest of it goes - how long would the SA proclamation news have taken to reach the UK from SA? Combine that with how time consuming map drawing must have been in those days...

That was 1855.

So far as the rest of it goes - how long would the SA proclamation news have taken to reach the UK from SA? Combine that with how time consuming map drawing must have been in those days...
Yes, correct it was 1855 or 1856 as my encyclopeadia says. But getting back to Adelaide, the position is pinpointed correctly so the mapmaker must have known about the rest.

About the random lines with circles, considering they all begin/end at coastal water access points (bays, inlets etc), then one must assume it was a plan for a series of inland waterways, cansl, as suggested by someone further up, and the circles representing ports or transfer points.

And considering it was printed in 1838 for the Journal of the Royal Geographic Society (ie not official government planning dept), it would be either a- for an article to show how someone official had previously proposed the state/colony structure of Australia, or b- just a made up thing by the authors of the article.

Very interesting to think about though, thanks for posting!!

That's it.. from now on whenever a Sydney vs. Melbourne shitfight breaks out - it's time to bring out the map and yell 'Ok Guelphian's !! Enough's Enough!!' !!

I particualrly like DAMPIERA - which I'm suprised noone has suggested would have been a more appropriate name for the current Victoria

And NUTTYSLAND (sic) - well no argument for the part of the world that covers from me !!

That's it.. from now on whenever a Sydney vs. Melbourne shitfight breaks out - it's time to bring out the map and yell 'Ok Guelphian's !! Enough's Enough!!' !!

:applause:

We in NSW and Victoria should stop this silly bickering and needless fighting over some of the most trivial issues about our relative dominance in culture and business over each other, and live in peace and unity as Guelphians, and united, we can quite rightly fight over our sheer dominance in important issues of culture and business over other, *obviously* inferior, regions of the world....

:devil:

I always reckon Victoria was well and truly dudded by NSW when they agreed to give all of the Murray River away and the straight border bit should have gone straight across to Tathra instead of down on an angle to Cape Howe.

yes i know this is very old but


And this one is interesting... A "pre-designed" state layout that never took off! I notice some names have been recycled too :)

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/australia_1838.jpg

oh thank god this didn't happen, other wise i would of been born and raised in Victoria.:lol:

and if Guelphia had started then it would have over half australias population and what would be the main football code, afl/nrl?

but does anyone know why queensland extended their border to the west?

It's intresting Westernaustralia didn't go further east when it had the chance, seeming that strip was unclaimed.

And i think if we did get Guephia, everyone would laugh at us (but not as much as at nuttyland)

Anyone know anything about the vic/nsw border being in the wrong place (today) how it was originally supposed to be further north at the Murrumbidgee river or something?

I've never seen that map, very interesting

They were dreaming if they thought that plan was ever going to work.

It's intresting Westernaustralia didn't go further east when it had the chance, seeming that strip was unclaimed.

And i think if we did get Guephia, everyone would laugh at us (but not as much as at nuttyland)

Anyone know anything about the vic/nsw border being in the wrong place (today) how it was originally supposed to be further north at the Murrumbidgee river or something?

WA was claimed to a certain distance. So yes it strange.

Good luck trying to devide WA up because if i know my constitution New states effecting a state territory need that States approval. Nuytsland population 2,000. :lol:

Yeah, whoever Nuyts was would be laughed at by australia in the future.

Central Australia lol

http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/3034/australianstateshistorygo0.gif

Yeah, for some reason they created the territory of Central Australia in 1927 and then it reverted back to the Northern Territory in the 1930s.

None of the maps show Hutt River Province!

http://www.hutt-river-province.com/new_page_3.htm

None of the maps show Hutt River Province!

That's cause it's just a figment of its citizen's imagination!

That's cause it's just a figment of its citizen's imagination!

Actually no. The loop hole closed after it?

God damn, if that went ahead Id be a bloody victorian. God help us all!

I've always disliked the stupidly obvious state names for NT WA & SA.

Carpentaria would have been good for NT and Flindersland for SA and maybe NobodygivesaflyingFu*kbaoutyouland for WA. :lol:

*sniff*:cry:

you victorian bastard you :lol:

I've always disliked the stupidly obvious state names for NT WA & SA.

Carpentaria would have been good for NT and Flindersland for SAAgreed on both counts. I hope that when the NT becomes a state that they choose a proper name instead of just Northern Australia.

Chuq / ||-GOB-||

There are another maps not mentioned:
Where it shows North Australia (now included in NT and QLD) in 1846 which includes all landmass above the 26ºS parallel not including WA (above the northern boundary of SA)

http://www.nrw.qld.gov.au/museum/articles_complete/surveying/border.html

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/Australian_states_history.gif

Actually this also brings up the question of Queensland spliting in two. Is this not an issue anymore in North QLD?

you victorian bastard you :lol:

Go figure Vic is named after that old hag. At least WA is inderpendant and original. :lol:

None of the maps show Hutt River Province!

http://www.hutt-river-province.com/new_page_3.htm

That's because NO ONE recognises it.

Chuq / ||-GOB-||

There are another maps not mentioned:
Where it shows North Australia (now included in NT and QLD) in 1846 which includes all landmass above the 26ºS parallel not including WA (above the northern boundary of SA)

http://www.nrw.qld.gov.au/museum/articles_complete/surveying/border.html

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/Australian_states_history.gif


Wow, imagine having two WA sized states.

Actually this also brings up the question of Queensland spliting in two. Is this not an issue anymore in North QLD?

I think it's died off for the time being. In saying that I wouldn't be surprised if it was brought back up in a few decades when Townsville/Cairns/Mackay get significantly bigger populations.

Here is something interesting I learned in a constitutional law lecture, before Federation the NSW colonial legislature (concerned about the other up-and-coming colonies usurping its god given preeminence) passed a Bill giving NSW sole permission to use the word "Australia". Not surprisingly the UK Imperial Parliament repealed it immediately.... IF they had had their way Australia really would have begun and ended with Sydney :cheers: :banana:

It's intresting Westernaustralia didn't go further east when it had the chance, seeming that strip was unclaimed.

I guess there was no point, as no one had ever been to that strip anyway, and a claim would mean nothing but a line on a map :P

But LOL, looking at those maps almost makes me feel sorry for NSW. It's went from covering half the continent to.. well, what it is now :lol:

lol i don't understand why NT was split up for a short while. SUrely splitting WA should of been further up the list :lol:.

That's really interesting. I've always wondered about the states. The Central Australian territory seemed a bit pointless. And what about the Australa (sp) state?

Weren't all these boundary changes- pre 1901, at least- approved and essentially designed in London?

Perhaps I'm flogging a dead horse here, but the recent ABC
TV documentary 'pipe dreams" alluded to a pre-federation plan to create a state of 'Aurelia' centered on Kalgoorlie/Esperance.

"Australia's open North" -published c. 1960- canvased the idea of states based on Brisbane, Rockhampton, Townsville, Cairns, Darwin, the Kimberleys ... and Perth, of course.

As I recall it, proposal for a new england state based on Newcastle got as far as a referendem (which failed) at one stage. There was also a lot of talk about a Riverina state, where transport lines extend to Melbourne rather than Sydney.

So we could have had over a dozen states.

Great Map.....Imagine in 1863-1911 looking out north from the coast near where Darwin is and thinking..I'm in South Australia! But I have also seen maps with New Zealand called New South Wales.

So we could have had over a dozen states.

Well the US has 40-odd states in the same area that we have 6.

The last thing in the world I'd want to do is split up QLD but I reckon it'd be very interesting to see how things would develop if it was divided up into Vic sized stated based around regional centres. Ditto for NSW. You could probably turn QLD+NSW into 6 states overnight if done properly.


ie:
NSW -> NSW, Southern NSW, New England
QLD -> SEQ, Central QLD, Northern QLD

:ohno: Here is something interesting I learned in a constitutional law lecture, before Federation the NSW colonial legislature (concerned about the other up-and-coming colonies usurping its god given preeminence) passed a Bill giving NSW sole permission to use the word "Australia". Not surprisingly the UK Imperial Parliament repealed it immediately.... IF they had had their way Australia really would have begun and ended with Sydney :cheers: :banana:

Creating new states requires both that the state be economically viable (which is why the Geographic Society map of 1838 is only of historic interest) and it also needs to desired politically.

I haven't seen much enthusiasm in central and northern Queensland for seccession, although it might actually help what is a very large region in the long run. In my humble opinion, Rockhampton & Townsville are natural state capitals. Jo & Flo wouldn't agree!

You also have to consider the Australian Senate ... even in the Lower House, the Constitution provides that Tasmania shall have at least five members (some monotreme will probably tell me I'm talking crap because it isn't in Wikipedia!) ... knowing how hard it is to get a referendum through, can't imagine the difficulties in accepting an extra state. Yet the Americans did it, many times.

I like it the way it is. Although WA is unreasonably big. But thats ok :)

Great Map.....Imagine in 1863-1911 looking out north from the coast near where Darwin is and thinking..I'm in South Australia! But I have also seen maps with New Zealand called New South Wales.

yeah nz was part of the colony of nsw until 1841 then it became it's own colony. now that would be a good extended map of nsw to see! they didn't want to be part of the federation. if they were, would they have been 2 states or 1?

Well the US has 40-odd states in the same area that we have 6.

The last thing in the world I'd want to do is split up QLD but I reckon it'd be very interesting to see how things would develop if it was divided up into Vic sized stated based around regional centres. Ditto for NSW. You could probably turn QLD+NSW into 6 states overnight if done properly.


ie:
NSW -> NSW, Southern NSW, New England
QLD -> SEQ, Central QLD, Northern QLD

^^ I was wondering if anyone was going to mention this. Not sure if you just guessed those options, but they have all been tabled before.

There is a movement in Northern NSW to create a New England state, with a southern border around about Port Macquarie/Taree, right up to the Tweed, and west past the divide and it was to have Armidale (if I recall correctly) as it's capital. It even went to local referrendum quite a few years back - in favour was about 75% I think.

Along with the other ones mentioned above, I believe that alot of it had to do with people in rural areas feeling under-represented by City-centric governments, and wishing to have more return for their representation etc.

The federation was formed with a view to increase the number of states as time went on, but it never really happened as expected. Not sure how it would work, but dividing up NSW and QLD like that would almost be like abolishing state government but under a different name.

And I have always thought New Zealand should join the Commonwealth. I don't imagine they'd have a bar of it, though.

To create a new state or scede from one you need to get the backing of that state's parliment. This will never happen unless a referendum changes the constitution or there's a civil war.

Interestingly WA tried to scede from Australia in the 1930's. They petitioned the UK Parliment, who just ignored them.

There have been various 'new state' movements in Aus over the years. The most well known is that of New England. They wanted a new state centered on Newcastle.
There've been a couple in WA, Kalgoorie (actually wanting to become a seperate colony and then join Aus as a state), and the southern area around Bunbury.
I think Northern Queensland has had a movement too.

Not sure if you just guessed those options, but they have all been tabled before.
Yeah, I've done a fair bit of research on the topic over the last few years, it's always been something that's interested me.

I just came across this proposed map from 1857. It's interesting in that Cooksland stretches from just south of Rockhampton right down to Coffs Harbour.

http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/4206/nlapw0.jpg

If we had a lot of these states, they would be poor and with little population. But in saying that, Australias major percentage of population is in the capital cities. Maybe with more states and more capitals our population would be spread over a greater distance.

^^

Also the 7 pointed star on our flag and emblem would become pointless if another state is created.

The current symbol represents 6 states for each point and 2 territory for 1 point.

^^

Also the 7 pointed star on our flag and emblem would become pointless if another state is created.

The current symbol represents 6 states for each point and 2 territory for 1 point.

Just to be a pendant but it's one point for each state and one point to represent all of the territories.

To create a new state or scede from one you need to get the backing of that state's parliment. This will never happen unless a referendum changes the constitution or there's a civil war.

Interestingly WA tried to scede from Australia in the 1930's. They petitioned the UK Parliment, who just ignored them.

There have been various 'new state' movements in Aus over the years. The most well known is that of New England. They wanted a new state centered on Newcastle.
There've been a couple in WA, Kalgoorie (actually wanting to become a seperate colony and then join Aus as a state), and the southern area around Bunbury.
I think Northern Queensland has had a movement too.

Kalgoolie was full of Victorians at that stage and Sir John Forrest was delaying Federation. Anyhow for a region to secede it needs parliments approval for a State to leave the Federation in 2007 all it needs is a vote to do so.

Kalgoolie was full of Victorians at that stage and Sir John Forrest was delaying Federation. Anyhow for a region to secede it needs parliments approval for a State to leave the Federation in 2007 all it needs is a vote to do so.

The way I understood it WA didnt want to join the federation so England threatened to create a state that would include Kalgoorlie and use Esperance as it's port city. England was pissed because WA didnt allow the citizens of other states who were in WA to vote. Once WA caved to Englands demands the foreign/interstate miners were allowed to vote and Federation was approved.

To leave the Federation you need more than parliamentary approval. You need to change the constitution. The reason WA couldn't succeed last time we voted is that WA voting yes isn't enough. To succeed WA would need a majority of people in the majority of states and a majority of Australians overall.

Yeah, I've done a fair bit of research on the topic over the last few years, it's always been something that's interested me.

I just came across this proposed map from 1857. It's interesting in that Cooksland stretches from just south of Rockhampton right down to Coffs Harbour.

http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/4206/nlapw0.jpg

thats a really interesting map - im from queensland, but the look of it makes a lot more sense than the current arrangement.

i found a bunch of essays/theories on australian colonial/state development a while ago, it was either linked from SSC or wikipedia. one of the main points was that each colony championed its capital's development, and tailored the rest of the state to support the capital.

using that logic, australia would have turned out very interesting and different. the states would have been smaller, but i think the greater competition would have encouraged economic and population growth.

my prediction for 50 - 100 years from now is greatly increased population growth across the parts of northern australia. i think if that ever happens, NT will be much more important, and there will be strong independence movements in the north of QLD and WA

i doubt that in our life time there will be any new states created (other than NT maybe becoming a state) or any states leave federation. the current mood is for less state powers in favour of more commonwealth powers, ie, the lessening of the need for states. it would be good to see northern australias population boom, it could support many millions more people than it does, especially in the north west with the whole ord river irrigation scheme. the south east, especially the murray region, is probably already beyond capacity.

i don't support the move to more commonwealth powers. I think only Howard does, cause the state liberals can't get into power in most states :lol:

in any state! :)

You also have to consider the Australian Senate ... even in the Lower House, the Constitution provides that Tasmania shall have at least five members (some monotreme will probably tell me I'm talking crap because it isn't in Wikipedia!) ... knowing how hard it is to get a referendum through, can't imagine the difficulties in accepting an extra state. Yet the Americans did it, many times.

Your correct, because Tasmania was a founding state it has different privilages to that of any new state. Firstly it's allowed equal number of senators, currently 12. For a new state like NT proposals to increase the number of senators as the population increases have been advised but has not been legislated. Regarding the house of reps all founding states are allowed a minimum of 5 MPs. Currently there is 150 lower house MPs with 20.8 million (ABS Population Clock) this gives about 139,000 per division. Tasmania would need 693,000 to be on par this currently 200,000 short. This info is in the constitution.

^^ the last map posted is similar to the one I saw in "Australia's Open North".

Placing a boundary along the Tropic of Capricorn would make very little sense, however.

Incidentally, the map above is very wrong about the river system of Northern queensland ... it has one river rising near Bowen and flowing into the Gulf of Carpenteria.

i found a bunch of essays/theories on australian colonial/state development a while ago, it was either linked from SSC or wikipedia. one of the main points was that each colony championed its capital's development, and tailored the rest of the state to support the capital.

That would also imply that the outcome for Melbourne might have been massively different if it had not separated from NSW in the same year that gold was discovered in Victoria.

I wonder if the benefits of the gold rush might have instead flowed north, turning Sydney into a far larger city, and leaving Melbourne to end up like another Adelaide, or even smaller?

That would also imply that the outcome for Melbourne might have been massively different if it had not separated from NSW in the same year that gold was discovered in Victoria.

I wonder if the benefits of the gold rush might have instead flowed north, turning Sydney into a far larger city, and leaving Melbourne to end up like another Adelaide, or even smaller?

Getting the gold of Ballarat & Bendigo onto the high seas via Geelong & Melbourne was a relatively short haul ... and led to the development of state railways, quick-smart. And the development of Melbourne!

Connecting Sydney to the Victorian Goldfields by anything better than a bullock-track took decades. It's not just political boundaries, it's geographic and economic realities.