Byzantine control of Egypt isn't impossible so long as they get their act together. Saint Louis nearly took it with less forces than the Byzantines would muster in any campaign. Granted, WEuropean Frankish Knights are vastly superior to period Byzantine forces, but the point is that it's not an impossibility.
AHC: Make the Byzantine Empire a colonial power
- Thread starter Sextus Munatius Piso
- Start date
You would dispute the point that armored Western Knights in the 13th century onward were largely superior to the types of armies fielded by the Byzantine Empire?
Feudal armies are absolutely the worst kind of army at any type of organized war. Nevermind knight is a social class, not a military distinction and meant different things at different times to different people.
Also, Louis' crusades would have failed. They simply were doomed by attrition, resistance, and crusader incompetence. Best bet for a Crusader Egypt is Amalric but I think Nur al-Zangi would have just invaded Jerusalem when he died and the whole thing would have fallen over.
Somehow I doubt the paternalistic and devoutly christian society of Byzantium is more willing than the Ottomans.
Deleted member 67076
Yes.
The only advantage they had from 1200 onward was they were better was that they had larger pools of manpower.
In terms of logistics, discipline, equipment, etc the Byzantines surpassed Western Europe until the the mid 1300s.
Have you ever read Digenes Akritas?
The main hero was half Greek-half Arab and that was praised as a good thing. It was seen as something that made him stronger than the non mixed people. Then there's the whole shuffling ethnic groups around and surrounding them with Greeks so that they would intermarry and assimilate faster.
The Romans had absolutely no problem with mixing and should they have a colonial empire, its going to be about as mixed as Latin America is.
And why does devoutness effect anything? So long as both are Christian it doesn't matter.
...
Um, Egypt is not Christian.
Unless you're referring to colonies but that's even more confusing.
Last edited:
In what time period, because it was. For a long time, and vestiges remained even under muslim rule (even up to now)
Except that we are talking about the fifteenth century here.
By the time of Saladin the Coptic population was at best a plurality.
Are we? OP didn't set a POD from what I can see.
Given that there seems to be no accurate census for Egypt, this is only based on estimates, but even today as much as 10% (some even go 16-20% but I thiught I'd err on the side of cautiin) of the population could be christian. After nearly 1500 years of islamic rule.
Call me a betting man but I'm willing to wager a shiney penny that 600 years ago more of the population were christians. Even if only 40% then establishing control ought to be a much easier task than some are suggesting. (Though that is assuming doctrinal differences can be put aside, though one would assume a resurgent Roman empire would not have the inclination to make things more difficult for themselves.)
All in all saying that Egypt was muslim is not entirely true. Even today.
Last edited:
Deleted member 67076
I was referring to colonies.
That said, they'd probably mix with the Christian Egyptians and even many Muslims. There's quite a lot of stories about people whose parents were of separate faiths in this time period.
Why would the Byzantines and the Russians be allied? Russia will still be expansionist. The Caucauses and the Dardanelles will be of interest to them just as the Baltic States, the Ukraine, and Poland were.
As to Austria, I have no idea. But a central European power would affect the Balkans. Whether tha power comes from Vienna, Prague, Budapest, Krakow, Venice doesnt really matter. The fact is the Byzantine Empire would have most likely faced a potent threat from their northwest.
This the number one challenge for them. Adaptation is actually incredibly hard. By 1700, the Byzantine Empire would have had 2000 years of tradition focusing their attention on the Levant, Balkans, and Mideast. Given the opportunities and threats that would have remained ITTL, looking beyond the region would have been highly unlikely.
Colonial growth was a natural state for Britain, France, Netherlands, Spain, and Portugal because the lacked direct trade routes to the east. A Byzantine Empire would not.
I have no idea whether they would keep up with Western Europe or not. I would just note the further East one goes from the Rhine, the further these countries fell behind.
The Turks had a remarkably diverse empire. Hell when they took Constantinople they had Venetians, Genoans, Austrians, Hungarians and a whole host of other non-Turks in their employment. That didnt help the Turks in the long run.
Perhaps the Byzantines would have been a colonial leader. But I dont think that TL is nearly as easy and likely as you do.
Wasn't the Eastern Roman Empire suffering from under-population from day one?
Even today Greece is not populous (11 million, or twice that of Singapore).
Even today Greece is not populous (11 million, or twice that of Singapore).
Deleted member 67076
Common religion, common cultural influences, historical ties, already a history of working together for centuries, Russia's immense love of Byzantium, common dislike of steppe nomads (Not like the Ottomans who funded the Crimeans to harrass Russia), etc.
Not to mention geopolitically speaking, they both benefit. A friendly Byzantium gives Russia easy access to the straights and supplies from India, East Africa and Southeast Asia without much hassle, and probably at a lower cost than buying from the West. At the same time, a friendly Russia protects Byzantium from the various steppe nomads that move through Eurasia and allow it to better focus on other fronts that.
And France faced Habsburg Encirclement. And the Dutch being in the middle of England, Spain and France. And Spain a coalition of powers determined to stop her at all costs.
In any case, with a friendly Russia the Byzantine Empire only has to focus on guarding her frontiers less. More forces can be put towards defending the Balkans.
What makes you say that? Because they never did it IOTL? States don't just stop having goals once they complete them. They find new ones.
And again, there's a tradition of crisis means reform. Adaption comes to the Byzantines somewhat more naturally than other states due to their historic experiences.
The natural outgrowth past the Mideast would be India and the Far East; the sources of the Silk Road. Cutting out the middle man of Persia would be immensely profitable and beneficial to the state. Hence the establishment of trading outposts if need be.
Determinism isn't useful.
The Turks didn't mix nearly as much as the Byzantines did with their conquered subjects, nor did they move them around as much, nor were their government nearly as centralized for most of its history. Furthermore, again, the Ottoman state were much larger than the Byzantines for most of their history, making any changes harder to implement.
Looking at the Ottomans to find an analogy doesn't make much sense when you realize the significant differences in the way the governments worked, their cultures, the sizes and of course, their policies.
No effort at colonization is ever easy. Its always a significant investment filled with struggles.
What about Turkey, the levant and Egypt? Keep them in the empire and you have enough arable land to support a fairly large population. Retake Italy and you have another wealthy area to add.
Greece is not the best place to gauge of how the EREs population could have grown. Keeping Asia Minor etc removes that problem (though how these areas are retained becomes the problem.)
This is actually pretty damn wrong; Copts were 10-15% of the population even during the earlier Arab periods. Both Shanjool Jiwa in his "Towards a Shi'a Mediterranean", a translation of al-Maqrizi's account of Fatimid Egypt, and Ibn al-Athir attests to this.
Ultimate Paragon
Banned
Maybe they can be retained by preventing the Byzantine-Sassanid war of the 600s.
Institutions in all shapes and form have a difficult time adapting to significant change. This is true for countries, companies, religious organizations, governments, schools, etc. It just is and it generally holds more truth the longer the entity has been in existence and/or the more successful it has been. So your starting point should be what makes this different than the norm rather than assuming adapting to change is the norm.