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.
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: