Byzantine Egypt.

[el t]

Hellenism was dying in Egypt decades before the Arab conquest. Alexandria was becoming increasingly alienated from the rest of the country. If Islam had never arisen, could the Egyptians have finally revolted and expelled the Byzantines forever?

[Skokie]

Mmm. There was a little something called Christianity in between, I believe. And Alexandria was always alienated from Egypt.

[Basileus Giorgios]

Originally Posted by Skokie

Mmm. There was a little something called Christianity in between, I believe. And Alexandria was always alienated from Egypt.

I think that's sort of the point; the Egyptian Christians were not reconciled to the Christianity of Constantinople, and the violence between different communities of Egyptian Christians could get pretty nasty prior to Islam, which levelled the playing field.

In answer to your question, I think that Egypt may well rebel against Constantinople, but probably not as an independent state; I think what's more likely is a Coptic general trying to make himself Emperor and then reverse the persecution so that it is instead directed against the Orthodox Christians of the northern and western parts of the Roman Empire. Eventually, and this will most likely take over a century, the persecution will be toned down, as constant revolts and rebellions in Egypt and Syria mean:

a. A ready opening of dissatisfied Roman citizens for Persia and the African states to manipulate against Rome.

b. Rebellions in Rome and Constantinople, as the population will not be getting their dole of Egyptian grain.

c. A constant drain on Imperial finances with the legions having to put down rebellions across the East.

d. A sharp drop in agricultural produce, since the countryside will become devastated by repeated uprisings and suppressions of uprisings.

Sometime in the early eighth century, a policy of cautious religious tolerance will begin to emerge. It is possible that the Emperors will find an alternative scapegoat for the Christian sects to focus their attention upon, possibly Zoroastrians, or a form of heresy that is repellant to all of the sects.

[Mirza Khan]

I think that's sort of the point; the Egyptian Christians were not reconciled to the Christianity of Constantinople, and the violence between different communities of Egyptian Christians could get pretty nasty prior to Islam, which levelled the playing field.

Yes, this can't be stressed enough. Many Egyptian Copts and Syrian Jacobite Christians saw the Muslim invasion as a liberation from Byzantine persecution. I expect that, if there had been no Islam, the Empire would have had a hard time maintaining control over the Middle East for much longer than it did in OTL.

Also, aside from religious differences with Byzantium, native Egyptians at this point mostly spoke Coptic, which came from Ancient Egyptian the same way modern English comes from Old English.

In answer to your question, I think that Egypt may well rebel against Constantinople, but probably not as an independent state; I think what's more likely is a Coptic general trying to make himself Emperor and then reverse the persecution so that it is instead directed against the Orthodox Christians of the northern and western parts of the Roman Empire. Eventually, and this will most likely take over a century, the persecution will be toned down, as constant revolts and rebellions in Egypt and Syria mean:

a. A ready opening of dissatisfied Roman citizens for Persia and the African states to manipulate against Rome.

b. Rebellions in Rome and Constantinople, as the population will not be getting their dole of Egyptian grain.

c. A constant drain on Imperial finances with the legions having to put down rebellions across the East.

d. A sharp drop in agricultural produce, since the countryside will become devastated by repeated uprisings and suppressions of uprisings.

Sometime in the early eighth century, a policy of cautious religious tolerance will begin to emerge. It is possible that the Emperors will find an alternative scapegoat for the Christian sects to focus their attention upon, possibly Zoroastrians, or a form of heresy that is repellant to all of the sects.

I doubt it-Byzantium was, and saw itself as, and Orthodox and Greek Empire. The Byzantine elite would never have accepted an Egyptian Copt (a foreigner AND a heretic) as a ruler-remember, this is the same government that literally refused to convert to Catholicism in order to save its existence. Unless your Coptic general magically comes up with a foreign army from somewhere, there's no way he could become Byzantine Emperor.

If Islam hadn't existed, Egypt (and Syria) most likely would have broken away from the Byzantines in some form or another (probably at a moment when the Greeks were pressured by the Arabs/Persians/Slavs and couldn't do much about it), and Greek culture would have declined there in favor of native Coptic (or Aramaic) culture.

[Nikephoros]

I'm actually beginning to explore this in my timeline. BTW, I should have the next part up by tommorow, that ends with trouble in Egypt.

[Megas Dux ton Kypraion]

I agree it's reasonable to suppose that Coptic Egypt would become a very disagreeable province, in the 7th century, if there is no Islam.

I think it's probable that, in Alexandria, the Orthodox would gain the upper hand and maybe expel the Copts if it comes to open civil war between the two sides. Alexandria could then be reprovisioned by sea from Cyprus, Greece or the Exarchate of Africa - and be an Orthodox stronghold in a hostile land.

At the head of the Nile Delta the famous fortress, called Babylon (on the site of modern Old Cairo), could be a bastion of imperialist forces for a while then - in all likelihood - be overwhelmed by Coptic forces or starved out. Then, Babylon would become the nerve-centre of Coptic resistance, military power and even administration if the Copts set up a state of their own.

To further mix things up again, either because Roman forces invade and put them under pressure, or because of their own initiative, the Coptic Kingdoms of Makuria/Nobatia/Alodia, maybe even Axum, come to the aid of the Copts by sending an army north. Its perfectly conceivable for a 'Basileia ton Aigypteon' ('Empire of the Egyptians') to be founded under a strongman from the south - uniting the whole Nile valley (at least for a while) - under its authority. If you had this happen, maybe the Empire of Egypt could be Rome's ideological rival again, just as it was in the time of Caesar, Antony and Octavian...

At any rate, I look forward to seeing your update, Nikephoros.

[Mirza Khan]

I agree it's reasonable to suppose that Coptic Egypt would become a very disagreeable province, in the 7th century, if there is no Islam.

I think it's probable that, in Alexandria, the Orthodox would gain the upper hand and maybe expel the Copts if it comes to open civil war between the two sides. Alexandria could then be reprovisioned by sea from Cyprus, Greece or the Exarchate of Africa - and be an Orthodox stronghold in a hostile land.

At the head of the Nile Delta the famous fortress, called Babylon (on the site of modern Old Cairo), could be a bastion of imperialist forces for a while then - in all likelihood - be overwhelmed by Coptic forces or starved out. Then, Babylon would become the nerve-centre of Coptic resistance, military power and even administration if the Copts set up a state of their own.

To further mix things up again, either because Roman forces invade and put them under pressure, or because of their own initiative, the Coptic Kingdoms of Makuria/Nobatia/Alodia, maybe even Axum, come to the aid of the Copts by sending an army north. Its perfectly conceivable for a 'Basileia ton Aigypteon' ('Empire of the Egyptians') to be founded under a strongman from the south - uniting the whole Nile valley (at least for a while) - under its authority. If you had this happen, maybe the Empire of Egypt could be Rome's ideological rival again, just as it was in the time of Caesar, Antony and Octavian...

Interesting, I hadn't thought of that. I have a "No Islam" TL bouncing around in my head, (I'm busy with classes now, so it will probably be a while before I get around to posting it) in which an Arab tribe (the Arabs still attack the Byzantines, but in a scattered, unorganized way similar to the Germanic attacks on Rome) takes over Egypt. At first they agree to become Exarchs (or whatever title you can think of) and pay a tribute (in grain and currency) to Constantinople and recognize Byzantine soveriegnty. But they gradually become more integrated into Coptic culture, and around the time of the Bulgar Krum's invasion of the Balkins, take the opportunity to declare independence and convert to Coptic Christianity (It'll also feature Gregory the Patrician, Emperor of Africa, an OTL figure sadly underused on this site, as well as the Manichean Turks )

[Chengar Qordath]

Just to toss out another possibility, if the Romans continue to hold Egypt and Syria it's entirely possible that continued efforts at a compromise solution such as Monothelitism might eventually bear fruit. That could see the schism healed, and if the Romans get their own house in order then the possibilities become interesting.

[Megas Dux ton Kypraion]

Originally Posted by Tolkienguy

Interesting, I hadn't thought of that. I have a "No Islam" TL bouncing around in my head, (I'm busy with classes now, so it will probably be a while before I get around to posting it) in which an Arab tribe (the Arabs still attack the Byzantines, but in a scattered, unorganized way similar to the Germanic attacks on Rome) takes over Egypt. At first they agree to become Exarchs (or whatever title you can think of) and pay a tribute (in grain and currency) to Constantinople and recognize Byzantine soveriegnty. But they gradually become more integrated into Coptic culture, and around the time of the Bulgar Krum's invasion of the Balkins, take the opportunity to declare independence and convert to Coptic Christianity (It'll also feature Gregory the Patrician, Emperor of Africa, an OTL figure sadly underused on this site, as well as the Manichean Turks )

I like it! When you come round to posting your TL can you please PM me and let me know? I'm not necessarily aware of all the new threads starting up out there on these sorts of scenarios... Cheers.

[Mirza Khan]

Just to toss out another possibility, if the Romans continue to hold Egypt and Syria it's entirely possible that continued efforts at a compromise solution such as Monothelitism might eventually bear fruit. That could see the schism healed, and if the Romans get their own house in order then the possibilities become interesting.

I don't know. The "union" approach to healing religious schisms was tried several times in OTL, none of which were particularly successful.

I like it! When you come round to posting your TL can you please PM me and let me know? I'm not necessarily aware of all the new threads starting up out there on these sorts of scenarios... Cheers.

Thanks. It certainly won't be until the end of this week, and quite possibly longer. I also have in my head the beginnings of a "Muslim Europe" (POD is Charles Martel's victory at Tours) timeline I'd like to work on.

[Skokie]

Originally Posted by Tolkienguy

I don't know. The "union" approach to healing religious schisms was tried several times in OTL, none of which were particularly successful.

Yep! The Melkite (imperial) Christians even allowed the Coptic Pope to live in Alexandria for a while, without bothering him much. Constantinople tried, on and off, to woo the Jacobites and Copts back to the fold. Didn't work out so well.