|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on January 26, 2005, January 26, 2006, January 26, 2007, and January 26, 2008.|
- 1 Ancestry?
- 2 "ravage" of women before Lady Juliana
- 3 George Johnston link
- 4 Illegal imigrant
- 5 missing reference?
- 6 Europeans
- 7 log of Supply
- 8 Port Jackson
- 9 Rio to Cape of Good Hope
- 10 First Fleet vs. first fleet
- 11 the first fleet/song.
- 12 Tidy the lead section?
- 13 Requested move
- 14 copyedit
- 15 Kohi marine
- 16 Wikipedia
- 17 Mucking around
- 18 Durations - Why the difference
- 19 References/sources
- 20 smallpox aspects
"ravage" of women before Lady Juliana
On the pbs show I just watched they said something about men "ravaging" women who came before the Lady Juliana and the head of the colony requested more women.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.127.116.11 (talk • contribs) 09:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC+10 hours)
If you are going to post, please sign! --Dumbo1 22:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
The link to George Johnston is incorrect - it links to a Canadian who was born many years after the sailing of the first fleet.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 18.104.22.168 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC+10 hours)
Would we class them as illegal imigrant? Enlil Ninlil 06:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
There are three references to "Gillen" (with page numbers) but the article lacks a reference section specifying Gillen's book. can someone provide pls? Coughinink 09:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- I agree; it would be much appreciated if someone could provide this Gillen's full name and which book of his/hers was referred to in this article. Amazon.com gives several possibilities if one searches for "gillen australia", but I have no idea which one it could be. Marialadouce 17:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- I'm guessing it would be, Mollie Gillen.
The Founders of Australia: A Biographical Dictionary of the First Fleet (1989) This is the seminal work on the first fleet that led to her honourary doctorate and being awarded the Order of Australia. I will edit all references to this. Macr237 (talk) 13:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
MISSING REFERENCE - the same goes for Robert Hughes, mentioned in text but not in reference section: "The Fatal Shore", Robert Hughes
I have noticed inappropriate uses of the word European to describe the colonists when in fact there were no less than 13 people of African descent. I think it would be better as 'colonists'. Can I go ahead and change it? If you need a source, Black Founders by Samantha Pybus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 11:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- I can't see where that is really valid. How can you use it in context in the examples below:
- (establish the first European colony in New South Wales); or
- (The Dutch colony of Cape Town was the last outpost of European settlement)?
- I can see the removal of the word European from:
- (Unknown to the first European arrivals), but not the substitution of the word colonist. --Macr237 (talk) 09:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I've been following this up. The book is: Cassandra Pybus, Black Founders: the unknown story of Australia's first black settlers (Sydney, University of New South Wales Press, 2006) ISBN 0-86840-849-2. Pybus details the stories of 12 men in the First Fleet who are known to have been of African descent. Some had been born in England, others in the American colonies. She cautions (pp 180-182) against importing 19th and 20th century notions of "race" back into the 18th or attributing such notions to Aboriginal cultures. These men were among the many people of African descent who were living in England at that time: Peter Fryer, Staying Power. I would therefore think that their presence on the First Fleet doesn't affect the character of the colonists as "European". --Wikiain (talk) 23:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
log of Supply
According to the log of the HMS Surply the first fleet arrived at Camp Cove in Port Jackson on the 23 January 1788. With the fear of turnable deep water a foot party was dispatched that arrived at the tank stream on the 26 January 1788 on that lite a signial fire. The fleet arrived in farm cove on the 27 Febuary and set up a settlement on the east side of the tank stream named Sydney Cove —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 13:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- And? What has that got to do with the word European? Macr237 (talk) 13:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
The article on Port Jackson states: "Eighteen years later, on 21 January 1788, after arriving at Botany Bay" whereas this articles states that: "They arrived at Botany Bay on 26 January 1788." —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrFredBloggs (talk • contribs) 06:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Rio to Cape of Good Hope
There's been some recent good-faith reverting regarding the Fleet's path from Rio, and whether they entered the Pacific via the Cape of Good Hope or Cape Horn.
It was the Cape of Good Hope - from Rio in South America directly across the Atlantic to the Cape of Good Hope in southern Africa and into the Pacific via the Indian Ocean.
This seems a little counter-intuitive when the shortest route would be to sail south from England down the African coastline, without crossing to South America. The reason, as outlined in Arthur Philip's journal of the voyage, was to avoid the calms that frequently delayed ships off the west African coast. Philip also knew he could replenish the ships stores in Rio, and was less assured of a safe harbour on the African coast before Cape Town.
When the Fleet finally arrived at the Cape of Good Hope they encountered an American ship that had taken longer to sail directly from the Canary islands than they had taken going all the way to Rio and back - proving Philip's argument about Africa's calm coastal winds correct.
First Fleet vs. first fleet
The problem I have is not with the article, but with the disambiguation statement above it.
A numbered fleet of whatever nation is a group of warships and auxiliaries permanently grouped together under one operational command, with continuity from one operation to the next.
I very much suspect that the "first fleet" in this case was simply an ad hoc group of ships sent on one voyage together and then sent individually on whatever other duties were most pressing.
In the military history that I have read, I have never seen a designation like "First Army" or "First Fleet" much prior to World War I.
The reference to the "British First Fleet" and the statement that for the American equivalent, one should see "US First Fleet" are misleading. The fleet that took these particular convicts to Australia was "first" chronologically, not "First" in any order of battle.
On further reflection, I think it was more the British custom to designate particular fleets by their area of operations rather than numbering--e.g., Home Fleet, Channel Fleet, Mediterranean Fleet, Pacific Fleet, etc.
- That's an intersting point you've raised Terry. I'm guessing you're not Australian. As a now quite mature Australian adult I can tell you that for most of my life the only first fleet I had ever heard of was the First Fleet that brought the first non-Aboriginal settlers to this country. If you Google "first fleet australia" you will get over a million hits, every one of which (that I've looked at so far) has both words capitalised, and refers to the one I've mentioned. But I can't dispute your perspective, apart, perhaps, for the second line. I can't tell you when our First Fleet was first given its name (maybe when the second one was assembled?), but it's been that way for a very, very long time. HiLo48 (talk) 03:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- I've just looked up First Fleet in my Macquarie Dictionary. That's the Australian equivalent of the USA's Websters or Funk & Wagnells. It tells me that First Fleet (with caps) means The ships which took the first convicts to Australia in 1788, the meaning that all Aussie kids learn at school. Unfortunately it doesn't give an etymology. I guess it's just a uniquely Australian usage of the term. HiLo48 (talk)
the first fleet/song.
oh ya wanna know about the fist fleet its interesting that author Philip was the best hes the one who done the rest oh ya oh ya oh ya its the best to learn about him oh ya its the best to see him if u wanna know info, so wanna do Wat i told u i know u would love to. sorry i did not complete the song! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 08:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Tidy the lead section?
The lead section now mixes discussion and statistics, and has the people stats repeated in different forms. Would somebody with direct access to the stats (for reliability) like to tidy this, probably moving all people stats out of the lead section? --Wikiain (talk) 01:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea, but it is separate for a reason. The top half contains the official number of colonists excluding crew as reported by the government, while the bottom half contains 'calculated' statistics. Since there was no offical crew numbers reported, and the crews eventually left shorly after to continue with their jobs, any attempt will always be speculative, and as such should not be mixed with the official historical numbers. By showing both sets of numbers, the reader can come to their own conclusion as to how reliable the calculated statistics are. David.moreno72 (talk) 03:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, David - I had you in mind, of course! What I was thinking of, was to move the first stats passage - from "consisting of ..." to the first footnote - down into a new section together with the other stats passages, and in that section explain (just as you now have) how the different sets of stats have been arrived at. --Wikiain (talk) 22:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Since nobody, including myself, seems to be able to identify "kohi", I've removed it - "a marine" seems enough anyway. --Wikiain (talk) 13:20, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
I am a regular user of wikipedia. I was very happy when I signed up because you can get more information which is very good for research. Hannahgunning1 (talk) 09:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC) Signed hannahgunning1
The last three revisions (all by Witeboyrapper) need to be undone. They are all Doctor Who references and really, need I say more?
Durations - Why the difference
The supply ships are being tabulated with durations of voyage several days longer than the other ships even though they are tabulated as arriving on the same day. Are these as recorded in a primary source? Or are they just wrong?
- They were just wrong. have fixed them to match the actual dates sailed and arrived. Euryalus (talk) 05:54, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- There's quite a lot of errors in this article. I've just fixed a few others, like the mysterious "prefab governor's house" and the idea the Fleet sailed bringing "pre-cut wood." The dates might have been an error in adding the six days sail from Botany Bay to port Jackson, or they could have been vandalism. Either way, more to be done here. :) Euryalus (talk) 06:10, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- The context is the material brought to found the colony rather than shipboard supplies. These would also have included quantities of ammunition, sailcloth, pitch and a host of other items, but I suggest the quantities were trivial compared to the actual colonial stores and there would be little justification for including them in the list of equipment. Euryalus (talk) 07:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- Btw, being the first to admit I was wrong: I have found a reliable source for of the unreferenced and mysterious prefab governor's house, in a letter from one of Sirius' crew. Apparently a wooden frame was brought out from England, to serve as a frame for a temporary Government House while stone was prepared for a permanent one. I've put the mention back in with a reference to Southwell's letter home. I haven't restored the mention of the Fleet bringing out a supply of wood or bricks - Cook and Banks had made clear the area was forested and timber was one of the principal commercial motivations for the colony, along with flax, so I remain unconvinced they brought vast stores of timber with them for colonial use. The absence of a supply of bricks is also well documented, mostly in the context of none of the convicts being expert in making them and that this inability condemned almost everyone to thatched huts or tents for the first couple of years. But on the prefab govt house, mea culpa and I've restored the mention. :) Euryalus (talk) 04:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Some good references for improving this article:
- http://www.sl.nsw.gov.au/discover_collections/history_nation/terra_australis/index.html (which includes The First Fleet)
- Tales from the First Fleet http://www.sl.nsw.gov.au/discover_collections/history_nation/terra_australis/tales.html
The First Fleet journals held in the State Library of New South Wales are listed in Tales from the First Fleet.
- First Fleet smallpox
- Recent scholars, Christopher Warren (2007), Craig Mear (2008), and Michael Bennett (2009) have argued that the First Fleet probably introduced live smallpox virus into Australian aboriginal tribes. Earlier writers were divided over 1) whether the First Fleet introduced smallpox and 2) whether this was deliberate. Mear's paper argues that the First Fleet was the origin of the disease but says there is no proof that smallpox was deliberately released [see Mear (2008) pg 17]. Bennett suggests that brutalised veterans from the American War of Independence could have used smallpox, but Bennett notes that convicts were more likely to release smallpox as an act of revenge after Australian natives killed and attacked unarmed convicts.
- Historian Judy Campbell previously argued that it was highly improbable that the First Fleet was the source of the epidemic as "smallpox had not occurred in any members of the First Fleet" and as the only possible source of infection from the Fleet was the variolous matter imported for inoculation against smallpox. Campbell argues that the variolous matter was probably inactivated by heat and humidity and that there is no evidence that Aboriginal people were exposed to the material. She points to regular contact between Macassans from the Indonesia archipelago, where smallpox was episodic (excluding Macassar), and Aboriginal people in Australia's North as a possible source for the introduction of smallpox. There remains some disputation in avowedly conservative media such as Quadrant particularly as it now appears there was no recorded outbreak of smallpox at Macassar prior to the Sydney outbreak.
I have removed this because it places a very heavy emphasis on just one of the results, or possible results of European settlement, and gives it undue weight, in an article that is about the First Fleet, rather than the Early Settlement of Sydney. It is almost certain that no Aboriginal person contracted Smallpox while a passenger on the First Fleet.
Moreover, knowing that Smallpox and other European epidemics had decimated the Aboriginal population, historians, some twenty years ago, hit on the tubes of smallpox scabs that were issued to the First Fleet as the answer. In a kind of hysteria, it was very easy to interpret that they were carried to infect the local indigenous population. In fact, nothing could have been further from the truth. The tubes of scabs were used specifically to vaccinate people against Smallpox. When vaccination first came into use, Smallpox scabs were used, causing a (usually) mild case of smallpox. It was then discovered that coxpox could be used just as effectively.
While the medical impact of European settlement on Aboriginal people has a place on Wikipedia, it isn't in this article. Not unless you are setting out to tell the whole story of European impact.
- I agree with Amandajm. There are clearly various theories for the smallpox outbreak and it's an interesting topic. But this is an article on the First Fleet, not on the early settlement of Sydney. The smallpox outbreak occurred after the First Fleet, not during it. It had no impact on the decision to send the Fleet or the Fleet's voyage. It is more appropriately located in an article on Sydney, Indigenous Australians or the impact of early settlement.
That is not agreed. The First Fleet was entirely involved with the arrival of smallpox. Of course any details of the outbreak itself would be best placed elsewhere, but the simple fact that the First Fleet carried the virus that led ti important impacts is relevant. You would not delete themes of artillery from articles covering Napoleonic battles on the basis that they would be better off in articles on the history of France, or articles on the technology of war. An accurate understanding of the First Fleet includes everything it carried, possessed, and ensuing ramifications - anything about early preparations, and even the subsequent fate of the different ships and of various identities - even it would seem - commemoration gardens and fictional works.
However the first large paragraph, introducing aspects concerning Macassans, does seem extraneous, and is damaging the focus.
It is necessary to have some reference to the fact that this area is contentious and some reference for interested viewers to follow-up.
There is no reference in any refereed source that the issue of the First Fleet carrying and introducing smallpox is a so-called "red herring". This is not how First Fleet scholars present the issues. Such tagging represents a private unsubstantiated view.
No academic source says it is 'hysteria'. It would be remiss not to mention probably one of the most significant fact from the First Fleet that differentiates it from similar colonial projects.
- Slightly off-topic, but the spread of disease as a result of colonization is so common as to be a standard event. It cannot be described as something that differentiates the First Fleet from similar colonial projects. More on-topic - you wouldn't remove references to artillery from an article on Napoleonic wars because artillery were an instrumental part of the Napoleonic Wars, affecting how they were planned, how they were fought and who won. Whereas smallpox had no impact on the conception or execution of the voyage of the Fleet, had no or negligible impact on the actual members of the Fleet and spread (or was spread) to the indigenous population after the Fleet had disbanded and most of its vessels sailed away. Smallpox is relevant to the early history of Sydney and deserves significant coverage there. Happy to agree it may be relevant that it was carried aboard the Fleet - but surely only in brief, not in several substantial paragraphs. Euryalus (talk) 02:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
That is beside the point. Information on the First Fleet is not confined to "on the conception or execution of the voyage of the Fleet". The first paragraph could go.
In general British colonisation did not spread smallpox. Mixing the issue with other disease spread is not appropriate as this would require extension of the subject to include dysentry, tuberculosis, fevers and venereal diseases. This would need a better informed contributor.
The recent carriage of the issue by Journal Of Royal Historical Society, Bulletin of the Histroy of Medicine, Journal of Australian Studies, and Quadrant is, sourced, appropriate and balanced.
- If there is to be mention of “First Fleet Smallpox” in this article, I cannot see how it can be done responsibly without including information based on Judy Campbell’s book which is a significant source regarding this issue.
- There is a recent misconception (see Warren) that because there was no outbreak of smallpox in Macassar in 1789, this means that the ‘Macassans’ could not have brought smallpox to northern Australia.
- Campbell, however, makes it clear that the ‘Macassans’ included fisherman and boats from a number of islands in the Indonesian archipelago as well as from areas of Sulawesi other that Macassar (and that the fishing fleets stopped off, on the way to the Australian coast, at other islands such as Timor to pick up fresh water, supplies and additional crewmen) and it certainly hasn’t been determined that there were no outbreaks of smallpox on any of the islands at the 'right' time.
- There is also the problem that a ‘Macassan’ carrier of the virus may have arrived on Australia’s north coast not in 1789 or 1788 but several years before that. The smallpox virus can take years to cross a continent but the studies of smallpox in tribal groups in North Africa including Sudan and Ethiopia show that it can cover considerable distances over a period of years.
- This argument about smallpox outbreaks, however, is based on a fundamental misconception about how smallpox spreads. Just because there may have been no recorded outbreak in a particular area does not mean that there were no persons infected with smallpox in that area. Smallpox can be passed from person to person with very small numbers being infected at one time (the numbers remaining very low as a result of quarantine/isolation either intentional or inadvertent - such as the infected person being in an area with a low population density). An ‘outbreak’ occurs when a relatively large number of people contract the virus at about the same. This is a chance occurrence often related to population density, such as when an infectious person travels to a more densely populated region with a corresponding increase in potential contacts.
- Nor was the virus spread exclusively through trading relationships. Since Aboriginal beliefs of the time ascribed deaths from disease to sorcery or evil spirits (or a combination of both), the typical response to an epidemic was to flee the area, and since some of those that fled would already have been infected they would be taking the virus with them to infect anyone they encountered. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 08:52, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
cambells approach was entirely based on the core principle that smallpox had NOTHING to do with the First Fleet.
Anyone who knows anything about this will know that Cambell is precisely the one author that has no relecvance to the First Fleet. Zero. That was her entire point.
- So what do you propose? Do we include only the sources who speculate that the smallpox came from the First Fleet and leave out the source who is the top Australian expert on the smallpox epidemics, who has spent decades studying this very issue, because she says that it did not come from the FF? BTW she is not the only person who has examined this issue and come to the conclusion that there was a northern origin. That would mean leaving all readers of this article with the false impression that there is no doubt that the FF spread smallpox and that it is only a question of whether it was deliberate or accidental. If there is controversy over an issue or multiple theories, then they must all be canvassed, at least briefly. The fact that Campbell says the FF did not spread smallpox IS her relevance to this topic. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 00:11, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Have trimmed the first para a little, removing information regarding the origins of those referred to as Macassans. Seemed unnecessary for the purposes of this article although perhaps more relevant to other articles where this controversy is discussed more extensively.18.104.22.168 (talk) 05:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
- Warren C., "Could First Fleet smallpox infect Aborigines? – A note", Aboriginal History 31, pp 152–164. Online: http://www.scribd.com/doc/49665744/Warren-AbHist31-2007
- Mear C. "The origin of the smallpox in Sydney in 1789". Journal of Royal Australian Historical Society 94 (1): 1–22.
- Bennett, MJ, "Smallpox and Cowpox under the Southern Cross: The Smallpox Epidemic of 1789 ...", Bulletin of the History of Medicine, 83(1), Spring 2009, pg 48.
- Invisible Invaders: Smallpox and Other Diseases in Aboriginal Australia 1780 – 1880, by Judy Campbell, Melbourne University Press, 2002, pp 55, 61, 73–74, 181
- Willis, HA, "Poxy History" Quadrant, September 2010 and Letters to Editor, April 2011