Mayflower lands in New York Harbor

The Iroquois alliance isn't even just mere pragmatism for the English to protect their own colonies, it's supporting the most powerful Amerindians north of Mexico who loathe the French - who are conveniently England's archenemies - to forever make them miserable. Which is pretty much exactly why the Convenant Chain happened in reality. As for Kieft's War (1643-1645), any equivalent will happen just in time for the New England Confederation (started 1643) to help out New Plymouth and give it breathing room.

I see no reason why New England Proper wouldn't have the same basic settlements patterns if any differently at all. Yankees from New England only pushed past the Green Mountains and colonized the eastern Hudson Valley in the 1750s-1770s, then flooded the western bank in the 1780s onward. Here the New Plymothians will be settling *Albany and *Kingston (Beaverwood and Wildwood, I suppose, since Beverwijck and Wiltwijck were so named for their literal physical descriptions) and just that due to the lack of specifically Pilgrim colonists (again, paralleling New Netherland/OTL Plymouth Colony's underpopulation issues), while the rest of New England will be settling their own boundaries first - I mean, Yankees had a century to move to the Hudson since 1664 but didn't start till 90 years later after all of WestMass, inland Connecticut, inland New Hampshire, etc. were finally tamed. And here they have the luxury of ethnic English/English-speakers with their exact values on townships colonizing the Hudson Valley: not a patroonship in sight, and hence both no feudalism or tenant riots to hinder settlement and/or disrupt local life as happened in 1753-1754, 1766, etc.

EDIT: Really, details can change, I just see it again that as New Plymouth in so many ways will be an English New Netherland/Province of New York forty years early, and the various colonies are concerned with local affairs in their first decades of existence, that so much of broad history won't change. You won't see big upheavals with Englishmen moving westward into Ohio, Ontario, or anything because the Dutch aren't "blocking" the west.... but because so much of New England and the Hudson Valley are begging for settlers in their OWN lands till the 1780s, for example.
 
Last edited:

VT45

Banned
So what do you think happens when the New Englanders start setting up praying towns in the Hudson Valley and along the frontier of Iroquois territory? The natives of New England didn't take too kindly to it, and the Iroquois are a totally different beast.
 
It's along the frontier, not within Iroquois territory, that's the thing. And the Iroquois are powerful enough to make the English respect them if they don't want missionary work - look at what they did to French Jesuits. You don't exactly hear of Christianity being a common thing for the Confederacy in the colonial era.

I'm sure individual Iroquois could run off to be part of the praying towns, alongside whatever local tribes actually lived in the Hudson Valley who'd make up the bulk of these praying town populations, but as a commonly recurring thing beyond a few runaways over the decades? No. They're powerful enough to make even New Englanders listen... ESPECIALLY at the time.
 
Maybe the initial generosity in governmental terms shown to OTL New Netherlands is instead given to captured Acadia/Nova Scotia since IT will be England's first actual colonial conquest in this world, which gets peacefully assimilated a la OTL New Netherlands - as the non-Yankee English settlers of OTL New York don't bother going to already-settled-and-Puritan New Plymouth, but instead take up and Anglify the great trading spot of Nova Scotia and we see the Acadians as a surviving little quirk in English colonial history parallel to the Hudson Valley Dutch (people and language).

That's tough to pull off. The religious difference there is much greater. You're no longer talking about two Protestant groups that largely believe in the same thing, you're talking about Protestants and Catholics, who didn't peacefully assimilate too often back then.
 
That's tough to pull off. The religious difference there is much greater. You're no longer talking about two Protestant groups that largely believe in the same thing, you're talking about Protestants and Catholics, who didn't peacefully assimilate too often back then.

Extremely fair point and I'm willing to concede it. I figured the English would attempt to have a light touch for their first conquest in this world.
 

VT45

Banned
Okay, since I've never actually written a full on timeline, what kind of format would you like to see me write this in?
 
Here are two options:
The Dutch settle upriver and New Amsterdam is the hinterland for New Plymouth.
The Dutch join with the Pilgrims and develop the region in peace.

For reason one, sadly if they settle upriver this is after New Plymouth is founded AND they'd have no access to the sea. In a word, impossible.

For reason two, I could see maybe small amounts of Dutchmen settle in New Plymouth City as merchants and based off of the fact the Pilgrims had been based in the Netherlands for a while. They'd still have to acknowledge they'd be living in a New England dominated by Englishmen, though.
 
This means we don't have Santa Claus, waffles, yachts, and many other things in whatever emerges in British North America without temporarily Dutch New York.
 

VT45

Banned
Which is why I suggested Philadelphia, or maybe south of Jamestown, somewhere in the Carolinas.
 
Top