Three things happened in 1603.
1. Hugh O'Neill, the earl of tyone, surrendered to Baron Mountjoy esentially completing the english conquest of ireland. Certainly I think 1603 is the first time you can really say the english had complete control of the island.
2. A few days before that, James VI of Scotland became James I of England, meaning that Great Britain was also all ruler by one man, which is something that had never happened before for any meaningful ammount of time.
3. The first english trading port was built at Banten in Java. This was the first posession of the british east india company.
And just four years later, in 1607, Jamestown, the first succesful british colony in the americas, was founded.
It's very easy to connent those four events. That the fact that James I was the first monarch to control all of the british isles is also why he was the first british monarch to successfully expand outside europe. That the british empire could only become what it became because the british isles were under one ruler which meant that it had no land borders at home to man and could concentrate on events abroad.
But at the same time, the french and dutch empires didn't really kick off until the early 1600s either (and the less successful prussian, danish, swedish, courlandic, maltese etc attempts didn't start until even after that) so maybe that was just the right time for someone else to start competing with the iberians where it wasn't possible earlier and it's a coincidence that the british isles were united about then in otl.
So simple question, in a timeline with a divided britain where at least scotland if not also parts of ireland and maybe even wales were independent going into the 17th century how would the british empire(s) have evolved? Expand slower, expand faster, not happen at all, what?
1. Hugh O'Neill, the earl of tyone, surrendered to Baron Mountjoy esentially completing the english conquest of ireland. Certainly I think 1603 is the first time you can really say the english had complete control of the island.
2. A few days before that, James VI of Scotland became James I of England, meaning that Great Britain was also all ruler by one man, which is something that had never happened before for any meaningful ammount of time.
3. The first english trading port was built at Banten in Java. This was the first posession of the british east india company.
And just four years later, in 1607, Jamestown, the first succesful british colony in the americas, was founded.
It's very easy to connent those four events. That the fact that James I was the first monarch to control all of the british isles is also why he was the first british monarch to successfully expand outside europe. That the british empire could only become what it became because the british isles were under one ruler which meant that it had no land borders at home to man and could concentrate on events abroad.
But at the same time, the french and dutch empires didn't really kick off until the early 1600s either (and the less successful prussian, danish, swedish, courlandic, maltese etc attempts didn't start until even after that) so maybe that was just the right time for someone else to start competing with the iberians where it wasn't possible earlier and it's a coincidence that the british isles were united about then in otl.
So simple question, in a timeline with a divided britain where at least scotland if not also parts of ireland and maybe even wales were independent going into the 17th century how would the british empire(s) have evolved? Expand slower, expand faster, not happen at all, what?