Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I know that much of Australia is fairly inhospitable to horses, but did any group of aborigines ever manage to incorporate the horse into their lifestyles and cultures while they were still independent from the colonial or national governments?
Why didn't any other European nation establish a colony in Australia?
Horses did not exist in Australia until the Brits showed up, so certainly their were not aborigional horse tribes in existance before then.
If aborigionals did use them, it is certainly not well documented, Aborigionals were of course very skilled at hunting aussie animals before the euros showed up, so they would not of needed them for that, most aussie animals are better hunted by stealth rather than on a big noisey horse anyway.
As for the euro occupation of Australia, I am sure someone else might give a better story than me, however the general consensis is that french, dutch and prortugese explores who mapped much of Australia before the Brits showed up, basically ran into the desert parts along the west and South Coast, or the Crocodile infested swamps of the North. They found a land they had little use for, it was not until James Cook sailed up the east coast some 220 years after the first landing on the west coast that Australia was considered a land that europeans could inhabit, he claimed it for Great Britan, and the rest as they say is histroy.
History is of course very interchangable, you may be aware that cooks ship nearly sank on the great barrier reef, he had to stop and repair it for several months. If it had of sank , I would almost certianly be typing this in French.
Last edited by danielsa1775; 05-18-2011 at 02:03 AM..
Horses did not exist in Australia until the Brits showed up...
And horses did not exist in the America's until the Europeans showed up, but flourished among the native americans within a very short time, particularly the nomadic tribes of the west.
So I think that is the answer: 1.) The australian outback was not as hospitable for horses as opposed to the american great plains, where horses found good grazing ground and was able to multiply like crazy in the wild, and 2.) Aborignies were not nomadic by nature.
And horses did not exist in the America's until the Europeans showed up, but flourished among the native americans within a very short time, particularly the nomadic tribes of the west.
So I think that is the answer: 1.) The australian outback was not as hospitable for horses as opposed to the american great plains, where horses found good grazing ground and was able to multiply like crazy in the wild, and 2.) Aborignies were not nomadic by nature.
some of the native americans who adopted the horse had earlier been sedentary, IIUC. I think the big difference is the absence in australia of a herd animal like the bison that was well suited to hunting from horseback.
... and 2.) Aborignies were not nomadic by nature.
That isn't universally true. Like American Indians, the Australian Aborigines are NOT a monolithic culture. There are many, MANY different cultures and groups among the Australian Aborigines, with widely differing beliefs and practices. A large number of them are definitely nomadic -- to survive as hunter-gatherers in the harsh dry environment, they must move from place to place.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.