This matter is subject to huge debate, and is so contentious that it has been dubbed "The History Wars", particularly controversial are the "Australian frontier wars". I will attempt to provide both sides of the argument, the sides are called the "Black Armband" view and the "White Blindfold" or "Three Cheers" view.

The "Black armband view" states that there was massive resistance which was met with brutal force, such as the much debated Black War. Aboriginal sources frequently claim there were more than a million aboriginal inhabitants at the time of settlement, some sources listing many millions, and some referring to the cumulative total population over time, which is measured in billions. In John Pilger's the Secret Country it is said that the battle to take Sydney lasted for twenty years and cost more British troops than in all subsequent Australian wars combined. It is widely accepted that there were widescale massacres of aboriginal people, and indigenous sources go so far as to call it a systematic attempt at genocide, followed by a hundred and fifty years of apartheid. This paper "Hiding the bodies:the myth of the humane colonisation of Aboriginal Australia" outlines aboriginal death which are typically omitted from western histories, including the deliberate use of sexual abuse, child abduction and disease in an attempt to eradicate the entire population.

The "White Blindfold" or "Three Cheers" view which is broadly accepted by official sources, estimates the initial population at less than 300,000 aboriginals, indeed the official British declaration of Terra Nullius claimed the continent was entirely uninhabited by humans, since aboriginals did not qualify. Prominent author and historian Keith Windshuttle argues hat the total number of violent deaths was only a few hundred, that the "stolen generations" is a myth and that aboriginal populations were themselves extremely brutal and colonization was a godsend. These topics are covered extensively in his various works such as "Killing History" and "The Fabrication of Aboriginal History", as well as numerous government publications he has worked on. I have not listed many sources on this view, as it broadly constitutes the current official view, and supporting texts can easily be found in most western publications of Australian history.

Each of these points of view is roughly aligned with each of the major Australian political parties, and the official history of settlement is often changed when the Australian government changes. This is achieved by appointing proponents of each cause to various positions of power, overseeing national museums, broadcasters and schools. Consequently the views Australians take of their history is often determined by which government they grew up under, and what their political affiliation is. This extreme politicisation makes it exceedingly difficult to discuss the facts of colonisation in Australia.

Was there resistance? Yes

Was there large-scale resistance? No

The nature of their social structures, centred mostly around families and tribes, made it almost impossible that anything like the resistance of the Maori or the native Americans would occur

For the very early encounters, I'd suggest reading Watkin Tench, and his description of a British hunting party sent out to capture and retaliate against aboriginals in the area that is now Sydney's eastern suburbs. Being nomadic hunters, the aboriginals scattered at the approach of the British troops (Red uniforms are quite conspicuous in the Australian scrub) so none were caught, despite the Governor's orders

Tench also describes some of the resistance, including the spearing of Governor Phillip - although that may have been a dispute over ownership of a beached whale, rather than resistance to the British settlement entirely. This incident was surprising because Phillip did not retaliate against the native people for it, nor even the individual who speared him