Mixing the ARW and the W3K

Let's assume that the Wars of the 3 Kingdoms are delayed and mixes in with anti-Parliament sentiment in the colonies.

How does this play out?
 
Wars of the three kingdoms? Are we talking about time tunnels here, or something- isn't that a phase in Chinese history circa 500BC?

The only other reference that comes to mind is the English Civil War, as it is more frequently known, and in contrast with the above example, is different only in degree, not in kind- still amounts to rejecting the notion that events happen in causal sequence.

To have a revolution, you need a cause, you need rebels and something to rebel against, and the cause was barely being born in the 1640's. London certainly had no strong grasp over the colonies, which mainly ran on militia and were full of the puritans who at home made up the backbone of the Parliamentary armies.

The colonies did very little in the course of the war, apart from cheer vaguely; most of the individuals involved were biased towards parliament, but if they had wanted to take an active part they wouldn't have emigrated.

They weren't generating enough money at that stage to be worth fighting over, either- and the first Caribbean colonies that did were acquired by the commonwealth in the aftermath of victory.

No, I think you have to have the war and the politics of it before you can start them on the path to independence, put sufficient distance politically between them and the home country that they end up talking past each other and being unable to peacefully resolve it, and you need the time for the economic development that gives the central government reason to fight to hold it, and the rebels enough to rebel with.
 
Sorry, that was a bit harsh. First thing in the morning on my personal timescale and not up to dealing with acronyms yet, I had a bit of a WTF moment.

My basic point is that the American revolution was a consequence of the English civil war, and had to come after it, probably at least two or three generations after.

But...

Already larger, stronger colonies could have played a larger part in the war; there would certainly have been butterflies across the Atlantic if nothing else.

If Roanoke had been much luckier- had been a shattering success even- many more people would have gone to America- but thinking about which people, it tends to be those with no good reason to stay, the adventurous and the disgruntled, people who were not happy at home in England- and a high proportion of them would have been puritans.

A thriving America is probably an advantage for Charles I, because many of his opponents would have left, perhaps including Cromwell- there was a timeline done on this, I think.

So the volatile fraction has boiled off, and the parliamentarians are that much weaker when Charles blunders his arrogant, stupid, egocentric way into civil war, for which he justly and righteously had his head cut off. (Did I mention that I was a member of the Roundhead Association?)

The wars would probably be less professional, go on longer, be more like the thirty years' war in Germany, and there's a much bigger chance of an outside result, complete monarchical victory or leveller revolution.

Hm.
 
A Stuart continuation instead of 1688's Glorious Revolution (John Churchill / Marlborough fights for James? James masks his Catholic beliefs?) and history bumbles on. Protestants / Whigs tend to emigrate to the colonies but the conflict with France is pretty much unavoidable in geopolitical terms.

Likely to be a less financially competent English / Scottish / GB government so Seven Years War analogue results in near financial ruin for the nation.

Increased taxes on colonies and home nation lead to a Civil War where Parliament and the Colonies are reasonably aligned (but don't necessarily have the same end goal). Colonies suffer a Scottish style invasion post Civil War by Republican forces to restore home country control.
 
Sorry, that was a bit harsh. First thing in the morning on my personal timescale and not up to dealing with acronyms yet, I had a bit of a WTF moment.
No worries
My basic point is that the American revolution was a consequence of the English civil war, and had to come after it, probably at least two or three generations after.

But...

Already larger, stronger colonies could have played a larger part in the war; there would certainly have been butterflies across the Atlantic if nothing else.

If Roanoke had been much luckier- had been a shattering success even- many more people would have gone to America- but thinking about which people, it tends to be those with no good reason to stay, the adventurous and the disgruntled, people who were not happy at home in England- and a high proportion of them would have been puritans.

A thriving America is probably an advantage for Charles I, because many of his opponents would have left, perhaps including Cromwell- there was a timeline done on this, I think.

So the volatile fraction has boiled off, and the parliamentarians are that much weaker when Charles blunders his arrogant, stupid, egocentric way into civil war, for which he justly and righteously had his head cut off. (Did I mention that I was a member of the Roundhead Association?)

The wars would probably be less professional, go on longer, be more like the thirty years' war in Germany, and there's a much bigger chance of an outside result, complete monarchical victory or leveller revolution.

Hm.

A Stuart continuation instead of 1688's Glorious Revolution (John Churchill / Marlborough fights for James? James masks his Catholic beliefs?) and history bumbles on. Protestants / Whigs tend to emigrate to the colonies but the conflict with France is pretty much unavoidable in geopolitical terms.

Likely to be a less financially competent English / Scottish / GB government so Seven Years War analogue results in near financial ruin for the nation.

Increased taxes on colonies and home nation lead to a Civil War where Parliament and the Colonies are reasonably aligned (but don't necessarily have the same end goal). Colonies suffer a Scottish style invasion post Civil War by Republican forces to restore home country control.

Yes, I'm thinking Stuart continuation and no union leads to continued status quo until a centralising movement butts heads with republicans and federalists and the War of the Umpteen Kingdoms kicks off.
 
Top