Europeans didn’t sight Australia until the early 1600s, much later than the time period we are discussing here. Australia didn’t offer anything much to trade such as furs, spices, or ivory. Unlike the people of the Americas, the native Australians weren’t agriculturalists, and didn’t mine gold. The northern part of the continent close to the parts of Indonesia visited by Europeans was sparsely populated, and not suitable for European agriculture. Conditions were completely different from Brazil. And Australia was much, much farther from Europe than Brazil was.
That’s not really possible, for reasons already very thoroughly discussed.
No, I’m asking you to provide examples after Columbus did discover America. Provide an example of a major landmass discovered by Europeans in the early 1500s that was ignored just because it wasn’t on the way to Asia. Your claim is that any area not on the circum-African route should have been ignored and not explored, exploited, or settled. This is contrary to history.
My cites are my cites. I’ve provided a large number of detailed cites to support my position, you’ve provided none to support yours.
You sure fooled me. You’re just not interested in defending an argument with facts.
Yes, but the point stands… By 1600, there was a dedicated and permanent Naval presence of European powers in the East Indies. It was one of the worlds main trade routes.
They missed a continent to their South. So it is certainly possible that such a thing could have happened in the Western Hemisphere. Not likely. Possible.
And lets not even get started on Antarctica; Cook actually came close, and Patagonia and South Africa had been settled by Euros for centuries before the first discovery.
They didn’t “miss” it. They knew it was there, they just decided that it didn’t have anything to offer. Brazil did and was exploited almost as soon as it was discovered.
No it isn’t, for reasons that have been thoroughly explained. Australia is not a good comparison for Brazil.
What were Europeans going to exploit in Antarctica except whales? Which they did.
Patagonia I can understand, but there’s all the Roaring Forties,
Furious Fifties and Screaming Sixties between SA and Antarctica, it’s really no surprise no-one found the one from the other.
I repeat my point - despite being nothing but tropical islands and some jungle mainlands, the Spanish had settled in Columbus’ discoveries within 10 years and had a thriving set of colonies within a generation. The Portuguese may have taken a bit more time to exploit Brazil because they already had the monopoly on trade routes to India and were doing quite well with that - so hacking through jungles looking for mythical gold was not high on their to-do list.
Once Spain had a decent set of colonies, many other European powers decided to get into the act- France and Britain especially.
You’re just not interested in defending an argument with facts.