Aigyptos Has Risen! (Rise, Aegyptus v2.0)

God-Eater of the Marshes · May 31, 2012

Aigyptos Has Risen!

Aigyptos Has Risen!

An alternate history timeline chronicling the ascendency and subsequent consequences of the independent Coptic Egyptian State.

Stylised bust of Kyrillos I, widely considered to be the first true Coptic ruler of the region known as Egypt. Done in the Greco-Roman style circa 9th century AD.

Author's Note

Essentially, this is a re-write of my previous timeline Rise, Aegyptus. Although in the previous manifestation of this timeline I raised the question of re-writing it and was subsequently and almost unanimously advised to continue with the old one, I decided after much deliberation to re-write the timeline. Here are my reasons why:

I recently obtained a whole slew of new texts on late-antiquity Egypt and would hence like to incorporate my newfound knowledge.
I would like to incorporate more styles of writing into this timeline.
I would like to include more detail and historical accuracy.
I feel some parts of the timeline should have happened differently in retrospect.

So there are my reasons. Keep in mind that this is not a total re-write in the sense of other timeline re-writes. The overlying progression will remain largely the same, but there will be changes. I'd prefer it if you thought of this as a v1.5 then a v2.0 if you know what I mean. Some of you may have noticed a change in the name, from Rise, Aegyptus! to Aigyptos Has Risen! While minor, the change in the title reflects the kind of changes I'll be making on the timeline: Aigyptos is a much more relevant and historically accurate name as it is the Greek, rather than antiquated Latin, name for Egypt. From time to time, I might also use the name "Khme" for Egypt, especially when writing from the perspective of non-Hellenised Coptic Egyptians. This is because "Khme" is the actual Coptic name for Egypt, roughly translating to "Black Land". The characters that were essential in the old timeline, such as Kyrillos and Benjamin I will still be here, but they will be more fleshed-out and much more accurately depicted. I hope.

So that's it. I hope those who were readers of Rise, Aegyptus! will still enjoy and appreciate this new manifestation and I hope that those who didn't like it find the flaws that turned them away rectified. As I am re-writing this timeline, if you have any ideas about how you think the timeline should have played out after reading the old one, I implore you to let me know. Your ideas would be highly appreciated. Likewise, any criticisms/comments you have should not be withheld, I want to know what you think.

Thanks.

Introduction

Excerpt from the preface of The Coptic Dream: An Early History of the Modern Egyptian State.
© 1939 by Henri-Louis de Mâcon, Western Historiography Press.

"... The modern Egyptian state is often a puzzling case to contemporary students of history. Indeed, the modern iteration of the "Coptic Dream" is a cultural and religious pariah of Eurasia. Totally unique in most aspects, not the least in their rich and maintained history, which dates back more than a few thousand years. The attempt to write about the early modern Egyptian state may appear to be foolhardy for a variety of reasons. Evidence may appear tomorrow that could turn everything said in this book upon its head. The awareness of the aforementioned sways the modern Egyptologist away from making sweeping generalisations of this turbulent period. My archaeological team and I can claim only a layman's familiarity with this strange and mysterious land and our ability to analyse first-hand documentation of the time relies on our basic knowledge of archaic Coptic and Greek and hence, we hope our translations and the subsequent analysis is as accurate as possible. But with the aforementioned withstanding, we are still confident that our account of the beginnings of the Coptic state holds true to actual happenings and is not pure speculation, much unlike so many other resources published in this field. Many historians open their accounts by trying to pinpoint an exact point at which the Coptic Egyptian state "began". But history is history, and the question of "when" is not nearly as important as "how" and to deny that assertion is the pretence of knowledge. Thus, this account will start by examining the "how" of the inception of the Coptic state rather than the "when". The "how" in question has been deliberated upon extensively, but eventually our team of historians and archaeologists have decided to begin with the Battle of Issus in 622 ..."

Concluding Statement by the Author: For those unfamiliar with my old timeline or for those who still wish to access it, it can be found here. Also, I'll be occasionally be using Coptic words, mainly to add context and create atmosphere. Of course, I'll add footnotes for necessary words, but for those words I don't add footnotes to, a lexicon of basic Coptic vocabulary can be found here. Also, during the writing of this timeline, you may notice I use different names to refer to the people/places of Egypt. "Egypt" refers to the geographical region, and to the actual nation of people. "Aigyptos" refers to the state/government of said region. For a modern-day parallelism, think Russia versus the USSR: one is a nation, one is a state. "Aegyptus" refers to the old Roman province (and later, diocese) of said region. "Copt" refers to any native Egyptian who speaks the Coptic language. Since the Copts were almost unanimously adherents of the Coptic Church, it'll also be used to describe Copts in the religious sense as well. "Melkite" refers to an Egyptian (Greek, Coptic or otherwise) who follows the Roman branch of Orthodoxy.

God-Eater of the Marshes · May 31, 2012

Prologue: The Roman Defeat at Issus

The lands held by the Sassanian Empire circa 620AD, midway through the Sassanian-Byzantine War of 602–628[1]. The light green areas indicate realms recently captured from the Romans.

Excerpt from Materne's Military History of the Eastern Roman Empire.
© 1971 by John D. Materne, Marshal-Constantine Publishing.

"... The overall decline of the Eastern Roman's military hegemony can be traced to the monumental Battle of Issus. The Battle in question was an attempt by the then-Emperor Heraclius to reverse the military losses of the Eastern Roman Empire by opening a counter-offensive against the advancing Sassanian Persians. Immediately after the Easter of 622AD, Heraclius sailed from Constantinople, the Great Roman Capital, to the town of Pylae in the Anatolian region of Bithynia. Subsequently, the Emperor spent the summer training his men and improving his own generalship. When Autumn struck, Heraclius gathered his army and marched forth in the direction of Northern Cappadocia. The intended (and achieved) effect was that the general Shahrbaraz was forced, under the threat of Heraclius having access to Persia through Cappadocia, to retreat from the frontlines of his conquests (which were in Galatia and northern Bithynia at the time) to Eastern Anatolia so that Heraclius would not have access to Persia. Indeed, with the pressure on Western Anatolia relieved, Heraclius marched forth to the retreating Persian army and met them near the town of Issus, situated in Cilicia ..."

***

13th of September, 622AD. The hills surrounding the town of Issus.

Kontas was having a pretty bad day. But as one of the comitatenses[2] that made up the bulk of the Roman armies, a bad day was not unusual. However what differentiated this day from any other bad day was that the commanding officer of his scout unit was ill with a virulent fever, and the temporary replacement, a high-ranking but utterly incompetent soldier by the name of Alexios, was not only unprofessional and inexperienced in the scouting business but arrogant and pompous. Typical of a minor aristocrat's son from Constantinople.

"Alexios..." sighed Kontas half-heartedly, "We're under clear instructions to investigate both ranges of hills..." He raised an arm and gestured at the hills that surrounded the other side of the town. The town of Issus was surrounded to the eastern side by the foothills of the Amanus Mountains, on the western side by a range of lightly wooded and tall (but not as tall as the Amanus mountains or indeed the foothills) hills, to the south by the Gulf of Issus by which the Roman army was camped.

"...Besides, we haven't even finished scouting these hills!" Kontas exclaimed,

Alexios, who was currently sipping some Bithynian wine, sighed out a sarcastic response, "I'm sorry if I don't fulfil your orders..." he paused for comedic effect, "Sir..."

The rest of the scouting patrol either rolled their eyes in silence or chuckled with laughter. Kontas did neither, choosing instead to harrumph in indignation. Being a Greek from the isolated town of Paraetonium in the Diocese of Aegyptus certainly did not help his standing with the more cosmopolitan Greeks of Anatolia and Thrace.

Alexios continued with his juvenile joke, "Do you have any more orders for me... Sir..."

"Yes, actually I do! You're acting like an idiot Alexios! I know camp is warm and the food fresh, but orders are orders, not to be squandered for personal comfort! I don't know why you volunteered to take up this position, be it because you're angling for promotion or because you're tired of masturbating to portraits of Heraclius, I don't know!" Kontas spat out his words furiously, "But you took this job, so treat it like a job!"

Suddenly, everyone in the scouting team went deathly silent. One person burst out laughing. Alexios turned a bright shade of beetroot red. And then struck Kontas to the ground with his gauntleted hand,

"You scum! I am the commanding officer!" he barked, before turning to the rest of the scouting group, "Come on, we're heading back to camp. For the record, we investigated both hills, found nothing, and this worm..." he gestured to Kontas, "... Will be tried before Heraclius!"

***

Unfortunately for the incompetent Alexios, his lack of scouting and general competence on the battlefield would later lead to one of the most catastrophic defeats in Roman history. As it turned out, Persian commander, Shahrbaraz, had devised an ingenious ambush that awaited the Romans.[3] When the Roman Army tentatively entered the outskirts of the town, they saw the Persian force garrisoned in the town. But the force was unusually small. From that moment, Heraclius knew something was up. And not at all coincidentally, at that moment, the trap was sprung. Persian warriors descended down from the hills on either side, and arrows rained death and cold iron upon the confused Romans. With all flanks engaged, the army quickly panicked. The elite bucellarii[4] fought a pathway through the Persians, and the Emperor and the leader of the troops, Heraclius was able to escape the trap. But the battle was lost. Watching their emperor flee the battle was the final demoralising blow, and the Roman soldiers simply gave up. Out of the 22 000 troops deployed by Heraclius, only 3 400 escaped. Most were captured, but a large minority were killed or seriously injured. Later, Persian cavalrymen would intercept the fleeing emperor. Heraclius is reputed to have put up a minor fight, but ultimately surrendered on the banks of the Ptyramus River, about thirty kilometers from the town of Issus.

Attic+red+figure+skyphos+depicting+the+abduction+of+Briseis+by+Agamemnon+with+Talthybios+and+Diomedes+c.480+BC.jpg

A Persian relief dated to the 7th century depicting the captured Roman commanders swearing fealty to the king of the Persians, Khosrau II.

With the battle lost and the Emperor of the mighty Romans in Persian chains, all hopes for an effective counteroffensive were lost[5]. With no-one to stop them, the Persians very easily conquered the rest of Anatolia. The towns of Ephesos, Attalia and Nikomedeia[6] held out for an admirable amount of time, but in the end, were just minor obstacles. By early 623AD, the entirety of Anatolia was under the control of the Persians. Meanwhile, on the other side of the Hellespont, the Slavs and the Avars had been pouring into the European side of the Eastern Roman Empire[7]. By 623AD, they had captured almost all of the interior of so-called "Greece", even making it down to Morea and west to the Dalmatian coast. Allies of the Persians, the two attempted to jointly besiege Constantinople in mid-623AD.

By this time, the Romans had fallen totally under the leadership of Sergius I, the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. But Sergius I, who had his undoubtable merits, was no military commander. However, the magister militum, Bonus, was a capable and celebrated commander. Initially, it seemed to all that Constantinople was lost: Besieged on both sides of the Bosporus and with no Emperor or hopes of reinforcement. But it was not to be so. The primary reason was that the Avars lacked in the siege expertise that the Persians possessed, but being on the European side of the city, had to bear the brunt of the siege. Wave after wave of Avars and Slavs crashed against the walls, and each time they were decisively repelled. After the second week of the tiresome siege, the Persians finally decided to make contact with the Avars on the other side. Previously, the Romans had been blockading all Persian attempts to send siege supplies or military advisors over and the Persians had not dared to engage the superior Roman fleet in open combat. But Bonus had learnt of the signal that would be used to signal for the Persian fleet to cross and rendezvous with the Avars on the other side. And when, in the dead of a chilly night, the signal was made, the Roman army sprung from the harbour and ambushed the Persians, crushing the fleet and killing several high-ranking commanders on board.

***

Placeholder map of the Sassanian and Avar conquests in the Near East[8]

Excerpt from Materne's Military History of the Eastern Roman Empire.
© 1971 by John D. Materne, Marshal-Constantine Publishing.

"... The war was finally concluded four weeks into the siege of Constantinople, when the Slavs and Avars could no longer keep up their siege, and made peace with the relieved Romans in return for a payment of about 350,000 solidi and a guarantee (in the form of Heraclius's firstborn daughter, Eudokia) that the Romans would not step into territory that was Avar-held at the time, until the death of the Khagan, upon which the guarantee would be rendered void and Eudokia returned. When the Persians were informed of this, the commander, Shahrbaraz, promptly made peace with the Romans, as they had no way of taking Constantinople without the aid of the Avars and Slavs. Thus, in late-623AD, a disgraced and belittled Emperor was released from the Sassanian chains on the terms that he promised no revenge attack during his lifetime. He was free to make his way back to Constantinople. The loss of the Roman-Sassanian War of 608-623, in which the Persian had gained many important territories such as Egypt and Anatolia, marked the end of Roman martial hegemony over the Eastern Mediterranean. But their military history does still go on ..."

***

You guys may notice this is almost identical to the prologue in the old timeline, albeit with a few changes. This is because I want the basic POD to be mainly the same. Unless anyone reasonably thinks the main POD should be changed?

Footnotes:
[1]: This "Sassanian-Byzantine War of 602–628" is according to OTL, in TTL, the war only lasts till 623AD.
[2]: The comitatenses made up the bulk of the pre-tagmata ERE armies. They were essentially extensions of the old legionnaires.
[3]: In OTL, the Romans scouted out the ambush without the Persians realised. Then they proceed to do a feigned retreat out of the valley, leading the Persians out, before counter-ambushing them.
[4]: Bucellarii were the bodyguard of the generals. In the sense of eliteness, they were the pre-tagmata equivalent of the Optimatoi.
[5]: In OTL, the Roman victory at Issus enabled Heraclius to embark on a war-winning campaign, all the way to the heart of Persia.
[6]: See this map.
[7]: The Avars and the Slavs acted as allies to the Persians, and had been invading European Byzantium en masse since circa 614AD.
[8]: Please excuse the lame map. My real computer is in for repair for the next couple of weeks, so I'm renting this dirt-cheap laptop that can't handle GIMP. I'll update the map when my computer gets back, but I hope this map gives you the general idea. Apologies.

Basileus Giorgios · May 31, 2012

Okay, not bad, not bad. A couple of small critiques.

- Most historians nowadays believe the term "Sasanian" is to be used in preference to "Sassanid".
- In the circumstances of Heraclius' defeat, it seems unlikely that no-one in Constantinople would have proclaimed himself Emperor- I doubt the Heraclian line would survive Issus for very long at all.
- A Roman army of 50,000 is much, much too large. Contemporary accounts of the Strategikon generally talk of standard Roman armies around the year 600 as being made up of between 5000 and 15,000 men, with 25,000 considered to be an exceptionally large force.

Cuāuhtemōc · May 31, 2012

I like it.

St. Just · May 31, 2012

As do I- good TL.

God-Eater of the Marshes · May 31, 2012

Basileus Giorgios said:
Okay, not bad, not bad. A couple of small critiques.

- Most historians nowadays believe the term "Sasanian" is to be used in preference to "Sassanid".

Very well. I wasn't aware of this, thanks for enlightening me.

Basileus Giorgios said:
- In the circumstances of Heraclius' defeat, it seems unlikely that no-one in Constantinople would have proclaimed himself Emperor- I doubt the Heraclian line would survive Issus for very long at all.

Remember that Bonus was effectively in charge of the military in Constantinople and that Bonus was very loyal to Heraclius and one of his closest associates. As long as he's in charge I cannot see him letting anyone take power. Once Heraclius comes back to try and get back the reigns, it might be a different story. It'll be covered in the next update methinks.

Basileus Giorgios said:
- A Roman army of 50,000 is much, much too large. Contemporary accounts of the Strategikon generally talk of standard Roman armies around the year 600 as being made up of between 5000 and 15,000 men, with 25,000 considered to be an exceptionally large force.

Wikipedia gave the number of 50,000, and I checked this up with Norwich's A Short History of Byzantium, and it states that Heraclius commanded an army (admittedly a part-Khazar army) of 40,000 in around 626AD. It didn't seem too unlikely. Other than that, no other source I have available gave a number. That said, barring half-Barbarian armies, would you suggest 25,000 as the absolute maximum then?

Cheers for your feedback, though, much wanted!

Cuāuhtemōc said:
I like it.

Thank you very much!

Massa Chief said:
As do I- good TL.

Also, thanks a lot!

brokenman · May 31, 2012

I will be following this.

God-Eater of the Marshes · May 31, 2012

brokenman said:
I will be following this.

That's always a plus — thanks!

Bartholome de Fonte · May 31, 2012

I like the TL, subbed.

God-Eater of the Marshes · May 31, 2012

Novak said:
I like the TL, subbed.

Thank you kindly sir. I am glad.

Cuāuhtemōc · May 31, 2012

God-Eater of the Marshes said:
Thank you kindly sir. I am glad.

We in Bacchanallia like to look after our own.

Basileus Giorgios · May 31, 2012

God-Eater of the Marshes said:
Wikipedia gave the number of 50,000, and I checked this up with Norwich's A Short History of Byzantium, and it states that Heraclius commanded an army (admittedly a part-Khazar army) of 40,000 in around 626AD. It didn't seem too unlikely. Other than that, no other source I have available gave a number. That said, barring half-Barbarian armies, would you suggest 25,000 as the absolute maximum then?

Cheers for your feedback, though, much wanted!

Yes, I would suggest that no army in this period should have more than 30,000 men at the outside- a more average figure is probably half that. Which is interesting when you consider that the Arab army facing the Romans at Yarmouk probably actually had a numerical advantage...

Not a problem, I'll be interested in how you take this. The subject of Christian minorities in the late antique Eastern Mediterranean is the subject I'm planning to do my dissertation on.

God-Eater of the Marshes · May 31, 2012

Basileus Giorgios said:
Yes, I would suggest that no army in this period should have more than 30,000 men at the outside- a more average figure is probably half that. Which is interesting when you consider that the Arab army facing the Romans at Yarmouk probably actually had a numerical advantage...

Not a problem, I'll be interested in how you take this. The subject of Christian minorities in the late antique Eastern Mediterranean is the subject I'm planning to do my dissertation on.

In response to your feedback, the amount of troops deployed by Heraclius has been changed to 22,000, and the amount of escapees to 3,400 respectively. In regards to the Battle of Yarmouk, primary sources place the numbers of the Byzantine army at up to twenty times the number of Arabs! Haha, but I'll take your word for it. Actually when you think about it, the Arabs would have had a numerical advantage many of the battle they'd have fought, while common perception is the opposite...

Thanks for your feedback though, I do hope to cover the religious minorities well... It is a fairly important point in my TL.

God-Eater of the Marshes · Jun 1, 2012

Interlude I: A Delicate Dichotomy

A Pharaohic-era depiction of the various races of Egypt.

Excerpt from Races & Religions of Late-Antiquity Mediterranean.
© 1953 by W.J.C. Zimmermann, Sächsische Universität Publishing.

"... Superficially, a very clear dichotomy existed in Late Antiquity Egypt. On one side, there were the Copts, descendants of the great pyramid-building Pharaohs who had tilled the soils of the Nile since time immemorial. On the other side, the Greeks, who were largely descendants of those Greeks that had steadily trickled in along with the Ptolemaic dynasty and the subsequent Roman dynasties. As would be expected, the Coptic populations outnumbered the Greeks in Egypt significantly. But while the Copts were numerous, the political, social and economic dominance of the Greeks was far-reaching and influential in a manner that was grossly disproportionate to the actual number of Greeks. Before the arrival of the Greeks, the native Egyptian social order seems to have been tied closely to function. The social identities of administrators, soldiers and priests is very clear and further down the scale that of artisans, merchants and traders, slaves, serfs and freemen is equally so. Social mobility was no-where near current levels, but it did exist to a degree. The existence of pre-Ptolemy Greeks can be pointed to the Greek trading post at Naukratis[1] to the Carian Greeks who settled in Memphis and to the Theran Greeks that built the city of Cyrene on the Cyrenaican coast. And while the early Greeks did bring their own cultural and linguistic heritages, they did not insulate themselves from mainstream Egyptian society entirely - many intermarried. Egyptian shires have also been found in cities founded by Greeks. The coming of the Greeks created, in effect, a social revolution as the traditional society of the native Egyptians was overlaid with a new dominant elite. During the first century of Ptolemaic rule, Greek immigration began on a truly large scale. Although what we now anachronistically call "Greece" was actually a collection of separate polities united only by language, immigrants to Egypt came from all over the Hellene world - from Morea, the Aegeans, Thrace, Anatolia, Macedonia et cetera. A heavy concentration was built in Alexandria and along the Mediterranean coast, and penetrating all parts of the Nile valley ..."

Excerpt from The Coptic Dream: An Early History of the Modern Egyptian State.
© 1939 by Henri-Louis de Mâcon, Western Historiography Press.

"... When covering the roots of the modern Coptic state as extensively as this account attempts to do, it is first essential to understand exactly who the Copts - and what their relationship with the Greeks and Jews - were. The "Copts" were essentially the ancient Egyptians that we associate Pharaohs and pyramids with. The only real difference between the two was language and religion. In essence, the Coptic language was virtually identical to Demotic Egyptian[2], except that it was written in Greek characters and contained a few additions. As for religion, while the Ancient Egyptians practiced a mystical type of polytheism, the Copts adhered to the "Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria", which was an oriental branch of Orthodox Christianity similar to Syriac Orthodoxy. The primary difference between the Christianity practiced by the Romans of Constantinople and the Coptic Church was their interpretation of Christ's divinity. The Romans were dyophysites and thus believed that Christ had two unique aspects to him: his divine self and his human self. The Romans asserted that these two natures were separate and existed in a delicate dichotomy with each other. On the other hand, the Coptic Church (and other so-called "Oriental Churches") were miaphysitists and believed that the two aspects of humanity and divinity were fused together in one single "physis"[3] and that the two were united without separation, without confusion, and without alteration. In fact, one could argue that the primary difference between Ancient Egyptians and the Copts was really only religion. As the development of Coptic as the predominant language of the native Egyptians from about 300AD onwards can be ascribed to the Church's need to reach out to non-Hellenised Egyptians. As this was before the Council of Chalcedon when the Coptic Church became truly "Egyptian" and was still linked by umbilical cord to Constantinople, it iterates the antipathy and cultural divide between the Greeks and Copts of Egypt ..."

Excerpt from Religious Relations of the Coptic Church as Explained by His Holiness, Simeon XIV.
© 2010 by His Holiness, Pope Simeon XIV of Alexandria, G.É.t.K Publishing.

"... The basic relationship between a Copt and a Greek citizen of Egypt during the rule of the Eastern Roman Empire was far more complicated than it would seem at first glance. On one level there was the religious divide: The Greeks were primarily Melkites and thus followed the Orthodox Church centered in Constantinople. On the other hand, the vast majority of the Copts adhered to the Coptic Church. The religious divide was by no means the only factor in Greek-Copt relations, but seeing as the Melkite Archbishop of Alexandria (also confusingly referred to as the "Patriarch of Alexandria" along with his Coptic counterpart) was the most powerful man in Egypt during Roman rule, the religious divide was especially relevant. Nonetheless, there were also other dividers: political divides existed: During the rulership of the Romans, the Greeks were almost always the pagarchs of their respective pagi[4]. Not unsurprising, the Greeks also occupied the high-ranking governmental and bureaucratic positions and they had some forms of democratic representation (that Copts did not) in the form of civil assemblies with in the so-called "Greek cities". Economic divisions existed: During the Roman rulership, the exploitation of Egypt's natural resources was executed in a manner more efficient and systematic than any Pharaoh previous, and the Egyptian population (estimates range from four million to as high as eight and a half million) probably reached levels not seen before in North Africa or Mesopotamia. However, the riches of Egypt was almost always concentrated into the pockets of the Greek elite: especially when the semi-feudalisation of the late Roman Empire entrenched the rich and accentuated the gap between the wealthy and those in poverty. Social divisions existed as well: Until the regime of Kyrillos I and his subsequent reformations, an Egyptian could potentially be a citizen of Egypt, Alexandria, Naukratis (or any other exclusively Greek city) and the Roman Empire. Indeed citizenship of the "Greek cities" in Egypt was heavily regulated and citizenship of the Roman Empire even more so. Each echelon of citizenship added civic prestige, privileges and status to the holder. Indeed, the state of the "Greek cities" reflected the economic divide heavily: Within the aforementioned cities, there existed citizen assemblies, gymnasiums and other civil institutions. Public-funded beautification was undertaken in said cities and often, citizenship of a "Greek city" would offer unique bureaucratic advantages. For example, Antinoopolis exempted its citizens from public service outside of Antinoopolis. From the evidence presented, it is obvious that the divisions between the Copts and the Greeks were not just religious, but political, economic and social ..."

***

Hey guys! Not a real update here, but this is here to present some context to the timeline as a whole. If you have any question, do not hesitate to ask!

Footnotes:

[1]: Naukratis is an excellent example of a "Greek city": a city founded and populated by Greek colonists that had a regulated and separate citizenship. Naukratis was originally a trading post, and evidence points to the fact that it may have been settled by Greeks as early as the Minoans.

[2]: Demotic Egyptian was essentially a "cursive" of hieroglyphics. Widely readable and writeable by the masses.

[3]: Physis describes the united nature of Christ. Not unsurprisingly, it is the Greek word for "nature" i.e. the physis (nature) of Christ.

[4]: The pagi were the successors to the Nomes of Ancient Egypt. Much smaller than a Nome, they were ruled by the pagarch, a wealthy landowner from the region that was essentially a tex-collector.

Jonathan Edelstein · Jun 1, 2012

Just checking in to hit the "like" button.

God-Eater of the Marshes · Jun 1, 2012

Jonathan Edelstein said:
Just checking in to hit the "like" button.

Haha, I don't know if this is Facebook, but thank you for your support.

God-Eater of the Marshes · Jun 2, 2012

Chapter I: The Bureaucrat and the Pope
Part I

Small 10th century mural of Pope Benjamin I of Alexandria, found in a church in Abydos.

Excerpt from Religious Relations of the Coptic Church as Explained by His Holiness, Simeon XIV.
© 2010 by His Holiness, Pope Simeon XIV of Alexandria, G.É.t.K Publishing.

"... Without a doubt one of the greatest and most volatile members of the Coptic Church to have existed was Pope Benjamin I of Alexandria, who was known as "the Ouaab"[1] by his subjects. He is often viewed as the catalyst of Coptic Independence: The Coptic Church holds the general consensus that without him, Egyptian independence would not have been achieved at all. By the Grace of God he was chosen to be the Pope, for the character of Benjamin I was what set him apart. He started his life as a man of the faith under the guidance of an abbot by the name of Theonas. Theonas guided the young disciple through the studies of theology, philosophy and the scriptures. Indeed, Theonas could see that Benjamin I was well ahead of other such young disciples in his search for Christian perfection and so one day, Benjamin I was accompanied by Theonas to visit the Patriarch of Alexandria, who was then Andronicus. The Patriarch was so impressed by the ability, confidence and piety of Benjamin I that he took him on as a servant, and would later ordain him to the priesthood personally. Already, we can see the makings of a great man. Not unsurprisingly, when Andronicus passed away, Benjamin I was elected as the 38th Pope of the Church of Alexandria in 622AD. But the tenure of Benjamin I as Pope was full of hardship and challenge, much unlike his early life. Firstly, during the during the Roman occupation, he was forced the go into exile by the Roman patriarch Cyrus[2] who was intent on curbing religious separatism: mainly through coercion, but through force of arms if necessary. He promptly lived incognito in a monastery in Scetis, where he continued his studies. Next during the Persian occupation of Egypt that began in 623AD, a great many churches were destroyed and ruined. Cyrus was exiled from the country, but with the going of the de facto governor of Egypt came great chaos: looting, rape and brutality at the hands of the Persians was reported and resentment that had been previously aimed at the Romans simply switched to the Persians. But although the Persians had just defeated the empire that previously was the most powerful in Europe, they could be described in Benjamin I's own words as an "apple with a bad core", strong superficially, but in reality, weak. It seems the challenge he faced at the onset of his reign, coupled with his innate strong-mindedness and ability forged him into a man determined for the independence of his church, and the Coptic people with it ..."

***

-5th of October, 623AD. The office of Kyrillos Eikosidekas, Alexandria.

Kyrillos Eikosidekas was having a pretty bad day. But seeing as he had been forcibly thrown into a position that was totally alien and unusual to him a bad day was not unusual. The aforesaid "position" in question was the praeses[3] of the Aegyptus Iovia province. After the Persian capture of Egypt, the old Roman praesides and duces[4] were expelled, and the Persians either filled the ranks themselves, or more commonly (because of their sufficient overextension of bureaucratic ability after their conquests), had native Copts fill the ranks. The expectation was that the Copts would be obedient and docile, after having lived under the rulership of the Romans in that manner for so long. And indeed, this was almost always the case. Almost.

"Lord! You're late!" a voice as loud as it was indignent manifested itself from beyond the wooden door that separated his office from the busy city of half a million outside. Kyrillos sighed in annoyance as he hastily filed away papyrus manuscripts he had been sorting through. As efficient as the Roman-style bureaucratic measures were, they were a royal pain in the ass.

"Au!" called out Kyrillos, and the door summarily opened, "Late for what?"

"Late for your council with His Holiness Benjamin I" said the dark-skinned Copt that had been knocking. Clearly from the south, the Nubian features spoke volumes, "Do you know where he resides?"

"Of course I know!" spat Kyrillos, slightly insulted. Saint Mark's Cathedral[5] was very prominent and hard to miss, "I haven't been living under a rock you know!"

"Okay..." the secretary said sheepishly before leaving. Kyrillos sighed and placed a hand on his head.

***

Excerpt from The Eikosidekid Dynasty: An Egyptian Perspective.
© 1987 by Matsimela Atrapes, Rakote Jwwme Publishing.

"... Without a doubt, the founder of the Eikosidekid dynasty, Kyrillos I, was an unlikely character. For starters, he was a Copt and according to Roman sensibilities, that should be reason enough to bar him from any power. He also claimed membership of a poor family from Taposiris Magna which was anything but connected. Many would claim it was merely luck that catapulted him into the throne of Aigyptos, and indeed, it is a well-reasoned argument. A high-ranking but minor bureaucrat working in the Aegyptus Iovia province, he was known for his impeccable command of Coptic, Greek and Latin and for his organisational ability. When the Romans were expelled from the Diocese of Aegyptus, the Persians decided upon Kyrillos to govern Aegyptus Iovia, apparently as a convenient placeholder while they digested their gargantuan gains in Asia Minor and Syria. The second stroke of luck that catapulted him to power was when Pope Benjamin I of Alexandria decided to make Kyrillos I the vehicle through which his church would achieve independence. It isn't clear what made Benjamin I choose Kyrillos I, but it seems evident that he had chosen well ..."

***

-5th of October, 623AD. Saint Mark's Coptic Orthodox Cathedral, Alexandria.

What Kyrillos didn't know was that the reason Benjamin I had called him to consul with him was not because of "Organisational matters relating to Persian grain barge movements" (indeed, Kyrillos had been wondering what in the name of heck the church had to do with grain barge movements). No, the real reason Benjamin I had called Kyrillos was to check if he was his type of guy. The type of guy that would aid Benjamin I in his quest for independence and ultimately - power.

"El praeses of Aegyptus Iovia!" called Benjamin I from his throne, "Thanks to God you arrived safely!"

"Axa, thank the lord for my safe travel" Kyrillos said, "But more importantly, for your deliverance back to your throne"

The Pope smiled and slouched back into his throne a bit more. He impatiently gestured for Kyrillos to sit on one of the couches that adored the room. Kyrillos took a moment before sitting, admiring the iconography about the room and the gold jewel-encrusted cross that rose like an omniscient guardian above Benjamin I. When Kyrillos did take a seat, the Pope began abruptly speaking again,

"Yes yes, now about these wretched Persians..."

"Wretched? With all due respect your Holiness, are they not the reason you have returned to this palace?"

Benjamin I chuckled, internally he was gleeful: they had gotten into the desired discussion earlier than he had hoped. "Ay, their persecution is not as organised as the Romans, so I've decided to take advantage of the situation. But have you not heard of their atrocities? Why not yesterday, a woman was raped in Alexandria on the street for all to view! Such is the conquests of the victor..."

"Where are you going with this?" an indignant Kyrillos was slightly bewildered by the audacity of the Pope,

"I'm going nowhere... Now" said Benjamin I with the hint of a smug smile, "The question is: Where we'll go in the future?"

"I hope you're not -"

"- What if I am?"

"That is preposterous! Even... Even if I were willing, the Persians would crush us!"

"And why do you say that? Surely you don't assume that because the Persians defeated the Romans, that they're invincible? My son, the Persian victory was due to luck: They managed to capture their Emperor, and destroy their armies in one fell sweep. Had the Romans won the Battle of Issus, for whatever reason, the cracks in the Persian supply lines and the holes in their coffers would have been exposed. Think about the amount of land they had to not only conquer, but traverse and occupy. Enormous! Wonder why the Persian troops here all look either suspiciously old or young and why they act so unprofessionally? It is because they're reserves. Wonder why you are a praeses? Because the Persian bureaucracy is stressed enough with the more volatile regions: Syria and Anatolia. They paid the price of their conquests in manpower: military and otherwise, and in coin. And where does that leave us?"

"Listen to yourself my lord..."

"No, you listen to me, allow me to tell you a parable: Once upon a time, there lived an old Coptic goat-herder. This is a man with little love in his life or love for his life. Characteristically, he is wifeless and childless. One day, whilst in the markets of Hermopolis, he spies a young girl, of about ten years of age. The young girl is strikingly beautiful, and the goat herder wishes her to become his wife. The father of the young girl names a dowry, which happens to be extremely high. Not to be rebuffed, the goat herder saves and saves until some years later he is able to afford the virgin bride, who is now of a ripe fifteen years of age. Seems like a story of overcoming your burdens, right?"

Kyrillos nodded silently and Benjamin I continued, "Not really, my son. For the father is bereft of a daughter, and has to watch his beautiful daughter fall to the hands of a poor goat-herder, after all, he named a dowry. As for the goat herder, he is penniless and old. Crooked teeth and a handful of skinny goats is not enough to support a family, let alone his beautiful bride, so who really wins? The bride. For after all the squabbling, when her husband dies, which he will, she will inherit his wealth, however meagre it is, and she will be free to make her own life, marry her own man"

Benjamin I sat there and peered at Kyrillos, searching for a reaction, would he dismiss Benjamin I's analogy? Challenge it? Maybe even realize the truth of it?

"You're actually promoting open rebellion, aren't you? You're serious?"

Benjamin I offered a snake-like grin that put the chills into Kyrillos, "The real question is: Are you? The organisational matters are sorted: The Greek nobles and their disbanded legions would be in support, as no Persians means more power for them, the Copts would be in our support as would my church. We'd have the entirety of Egypt."

Kyrillos was speechless, bewildered, annoyed and a little affronted. But in his mind, the seed of doubt had already been planted. And that seed could grow into a tree.

And that tree could bear fruit.

***

Again, very similar to it's old TL analogue. But I tried to add in more detail.

Footnotes:
[1]: Ouaab mean "holy, pure".
[2]: Cyrus was the Melkite Archbishop of Alexandria. He was also the prefect of Aegyptus, and as such was the de facto ruler. He was known for his fervent belief in his version of Orthodoxy, but also for his cruelty. In OTL, he would torture and murder Minnas, the brother of Benjamin I.
[3]: The praeses is the civil governor of a Roman province.
[4]: A dux is the processor of the doux. Essentially, a military commander.
[5]: The Saint Mark's Coptic Orthodox Cathedral is the seat of the Coptic Patriarch and one of the oldest churches in Egypt, having been founded by Mark the Evangelist himself. IOTL, it is known for its distinctive Coptic architecture.

St. Just · Jun 3, 2012

What is the Hanging Church? The footnote was not there.

God-Eater of the Marshes · Jun 3, 2012

Massa Chief said:
What is the Hanging Church? The footnote was not there.

Whoopsie-daisy

. The Hanging Church is actually the wrong church, changed it to the more correct church, Saint Mark's Cathedral. Sorry about that, footnote has been added in.

For your information, the Hanging Church is the current seat of the Coptic Church. It is named for its location above a gatehouse of Babylon Fortress, the Roman fortress in Old Cairo, with its nave is suspended over a passage.

Muwatalli' · Jun 3, 2012

Very interesting so far. Subscribed.