Aigyptos Has Risen! (Rise, Aegyptus v2.0)
- Thread starter God-Eater of the Marshes
- Start date
Thank you!
Thanks for the subscription! You don't really need to read the old one... But you can if you want of course.
Godamnit! You've made me impatient for the next chapter! I can't wait!
Thanks!
I've got exams this week but I'll definitely try and get the next update out as soon as possible.
Very nice! I like the new format, and of course I love the premise of a Coptic state.
Quick question: I was under the impression that the Coptic name for Egypt was Kīmi or Kēme. Where does Khme come from? A different dialect?
Quick question: I was under the impression that the Coptic name for Egypt was Kīmi or Kēme. Where does Khme come from? A different dialect?
Good day fellow AHer of Egypt! Very glad you like it, very glad indeed.
It could be a difference in dialect. I'm using lexicons for the Sahidic dialect, the prominent dialect in the 7th century. However, the Bohairic dialect is the only dialect used today...
Alternately, perhaps they're both pronounced the same way, just spelt differently?
Okay, this isn't bad, but still, I have quibbles with your distinct divisions between "Greeks" and "Copts", as though this were a racial thing in the modern sense. I'm pretty sure that by the fifth century AD at the latest all Egyptians would have referred to themselves simply as "Roman"- Dioskoros of Aphrodito certainly does, and he lived in a land-working village community of very ordinary people.
Furthermore, weren't Monophysite doctrines a product of the "Greeks" of Alexandria in the first place?
Furthermore, weren't Monophysite doctrines a product of the "Greeks" of Alexandria in the first place?
If you said "What are you?", all Egyptians would likely say "Romans". The thing is: Is he a Coptic or Melkite Roman? Religious identities in Egypt were very accentuated: To the point where the camps used different liturgical languages (Coptic versus Greek) and were composed of different socio-economic groups (wealthy urbanites versus commoners) and even lived in different areas (Alexandria + the exclusive "Greek" cities like Naukratis versus the countryside and the smaller towns). Short of identifying as a nation, the Copts had many of the characteristics of one. This isn't like German-speaking Catholics from the south that could potentially be from any/all socio-economic class versus German-speaking Protestants from the north that could potentially be from any/all socio-economic class, the divisions, whether identified or not, are much greater.
Notice that when Benjamin I refers to "independence" it is in a religious sense, and the Copts are referred to in a religious context by the characters. And the struggle to achieve (religious) independence was not a new idea, as the primary purpose of Cyrus of Alexandria was to "end religious separatism".
The main POD of the TL is that when the Persians occupy Egypt, the religious identity suddenly becomes spotlighted and the national identity of being a "Roman" is lost, so they cling to their religious identity. A sort of proto-nationalism occurs. This pretty much parallels that happened IOTL with the Arab invasion, except that:
- Benjamin I (who essentially becomes/became the representative of the Copts IOTL and ITTL) doesn't like the govn't which replaces the Romans and
- The replacers of the Romans are a helluva lot weaker.
Do you sorta understand what I'm getting at here?
(I'm having trouble wording this in a professional-sounding manner
)The main pusher of the Miaphysitist doctrine (the preferred term, as Monophysite implies a total disunion, the Coptics prefer to be known as Miaphysitism, which implies an extremely loose union, but still a union of sorts) was Cyril I. It's hard to say what ethnicity he was as he wrote in Greek, but his uncle (the previous Pope) wrote in Coptic. But either way, he wrote the doctrines before the Council of Chalcedon, so the Coptic Church was essentially an archbishopric of the Greek Orthodox (or Catholic I guess) church and thus everyone in Egypt believed in it. Only after Chalcedon did the difference between Greeks (Melkites) and Copts become relevant.
I hope I've addressed your comments successfully, I am sleepy so I am a little unsure... Feedback much appreciated as always.
It is coming, it is coming!
Last edited:
I think your initial POD is quite reasonable, don't worry about that! I do question the extent with which "Roman" identity would disappear, though. Much is made by modern scholars of how Heraclius was unable to properly consolidate the Empire because a "generation" had grown up without Roman rule, but that's only really true for a few parts of Syria, elsewhere, it'd been under a decade. The scholarship is shaky, I believe, but I would think that Egyptian Christians would have continued to think of themselves as "Romans of the province of Egypt" for at least forty or fifty years after the Arab conquests.
I think an independent Christian Egypt in the circumstances you describe is quite doable, though I doubt it'd formally break off from the Empire. What I think is more likely is the Egyptian regime declaring itself subject to the Roman state (as Egypt had been for 800 years or so anyway), but in practise independent, rather as the Franks did in Gaul. With Constantinople tied up against the Muslims, Egypt can continue to develop, until a point when she's no longer a temporarily self-governing province but a fully separate, and potentially rival state, to the Roman Empire.
I do dispute this, though. Yes, the camps used different liturgical languages to some degree, but I'd argue that's more a reflection of religious differences than "national" ones- Peter Brown comments that Coptic was a language in sharp decline by the fifth century and was only revived at length by Egyptian priests to differentiate themselves from Chalcedon.
I'm not sure how many exclusively "Greek" cities there were at this point- my best guess is somewhere around zero. Egypt had been ruled by a Greek speaking administration for a millennium by this point, and the old distinction between a Greek ruling class and an Egyptian ruled one would likely have entirely disappeared by this point. Yes, the ruling classes spoke Greek, but it is very unlikely that their distant ancestors were entirely native or Greek in descent. Once again, I refer you to Dioskoros, who comes from a small town on the Nile but operates in a very "Greek" environment and calls himself a Roman. Incidentally, he never once refers to his take on the Council of Chalcedon, despite being a quite politically active figure.
A fair point taken into consideration.
This is an idea that I've been flirting with quite a bit, and one of the reasons I restarted this idea. Although Benjamin I definitely wants full independence as it fulfils with political goals completely - but the other backers of the plot wouldn't be so satisfied. Especially the ethnic Greeks whose interests are vested heavily in the Roman Empire.
What I was planning was a sorts of council that ruled Aigyptos as nominally part of the Roman Empire, but after the
capture of Constantinople by the Muslims and the deposition of the Emperor by the prefect of Africa, the state of Aigyptos cuts all ties, so to speak.
"To some degree" is an understatement. The Roman Church never used Coptic, the Coptic Church (almost) never used Greek. That said, the difference in languages is quite a reflection of religious differences, but my point is that the differences between the adherents of one religion, as opposed to the other, were not only large and polarising, but quite uniform. In the same manner that differences between two nationalities might be. I'm not doubting that they're Romans, I'm saying that Romans and Romans can be different. Think American Whites and Blacks during the '50s - only they also speak different languages. Sure, they're both Americans, but hell are they very different.
Somewhat humorously, the divisions are so visible that an Egyptian Greek writer in the third century wrote to his bother: " 'Perhaps you will think, brother, that I am some kind of a barbarian or an inhuman Egyptian' ". (From Bowman FYI)
If this revival in the 5th century you speak of is the efforts of Shenoute the Archimandrite, he didn't stop it from dying, rather, he took a popularly spoken language and turned it into a standardised and recognised literary language. None of the sources I've looked at mention a "decline", most recognise a "flourish" from the third to seventh centuries, but no decline in between.
I'd dispute this. The strict regulation of citizenship to these cities (note: citizenship to, not the ability to live and work within or near it) - the gymnasial class - began in 4/5AD and continued well after that. Indeed, after Caracalla nullified the social status of Roman Citizenship, the status of being a member of the gymnasial class actually became much more overtly important. Seeing as the gymnasial class was alive and well during the third century, I doubt they'd evaporate totally by the seventh.
True - intermarriage was common.
Hmmm interesting... Actually, do you think you could link me to his works (if they're online, that is), my interest is piqued. Seems like an interesting source.
And as always, this is the type of discourse I enjoy, thanks for your feedback!
Actually that reminds me, you mentioned you're writing about this kind of stuff in your dissertation, sounds very interesting.
Oh you! How flattering. Actually the real reason this is taking so long is because I had a shit-ton of exams over the past two weeks, I'm still in high school son! Remember the jaw-breaking stress associated with it?
Anyway, update by the end of the week, I promise. Map as well maybe - depending on whether my not-shit computer is back from repairs by then.
Last edited:
Chapter I: The Bureaucrat and the Pope
Part II
Bust of the Roman Emperor Theodoros, created during his reign.[1]
Part II
Bust of the Roman Emperor Theodoros, created during his reign.[1]
-14th of January, 624AD. The Sacred Palace of Constantinople.
Theodoros, the magister officiorum[2] of the Roman Empire, marched across the great hall of the Sacred Palace[3]. His footsteps thundered like that of a pagan titan, and his eyes smoldered with the evanescent embers of ambition. He was like a hunter in his gait, and indeed, his prey lay before him. Heraclius, the Roman Emperor, was thrown to the ground by the palace guards in an ironic reversal of roles. His bedraggled hair and once-regal clothes were matted with mud from all corners of Asia Minor: Some from Phrygia, a bit from Persian, a smudge from a dewy slopes of Cilicia: The Persians had not been kind to him, treating him like the prisoner he was.
And a prisoner he remained: The arms which were once shackled with Persian chains, were now under the grip of Roman iron. The Emperor retained his purple robe, though the color had seemingly drained from it. A long, smooth gash ran itself along the face of the Emperor. It had no intent of healing, rather, the gash had become horribly infected and was seeping all kinds of fluids that Theodoros did not care to think about. The two glared at each other for a moment, a volume of unsaid words telepathically beamed. Then, Theodoros indicated for the Emperor to be lifted: The filth of the Emperor was dirtying the fine rugs.
"Take the prisoner - " said Theodoros coldly, not sparing an inch of emphasis on the word 'prisoner', "Take the wretch and blind him. Let it be known that if this man who calls himself 'Emperor' acts with the foresight and governmental ability of a blind hermit, let him live as such! If governs the Roman Empire as a corrupt priest governs his donations, let him be punished as such!"
The palace guards nodded silently, but Heraclius refused the implied modicum of silence, "You d-d-dare! I am t-t-the Emperor!" he stuttered, half because of fear, half because of an infernal anger, "You are an usurper!! G-God will bring about y-your foul demise, traitor! Y-You dare to c-c-c-call yourself a Roman!"
Theodoros smiled inwardly, and then turned to Heraclius, "Remember Phocas? Well consider this revenge from the unearthly hand of a dead Emperor!"
The palace guards were astounded at that comment, yet they started to drag the hollering Emperor away regardless. Of course, Theodoros never liked Phocas, no-one actually did or had. But he thought it'd be fun to leave Heraclius with something to think about during his decades of isolation in a Cappadocian monastery.
"Snake! Barbarian! You're the one who is truly blind! Ambition and greed covers your gaze!"
For a few moments until the screaming of Heraclius died out, Theodoros remained still. He stood by a marble pillar and admired the smooth curves of the marblework. Such perfection, but yet: chips in the handiwork were noticeable. Smiling, Theodoros traced the chips and cracks in the marble, they were so minute, but yet they were there. Nothing was perfect, he reasoned, everything could be broken. Like Heraclius. Such a promising Emperor and such a brilliant commander, such a tragic end. Like Bonus, whose blind faith in his friend had cost him his life. A single well-placed bribe had allowed Bonus to be executed, and strung up, hanging from Constantinople's north walls. Like John Athalarichos, the illegitimate son of Heraclius. Theodoros had played upon John's hate and fear for his estranged father, and tricked him into revealing the whereabouts of the rest of the Heraclian family[4].
Theodoros walked to a nearby balcony that overlooked one of the many palace gardens. The fresh breeze of aromatic scents engulfed him, welcoming themselves upon his senses. He breathed in a draw of crisp, perfumed air. With Bonus and the Heraclian family either in chains or dead, and the bureaucracy under the direct control of Theodoros, the only opponent he might face was Sergius I of Constantinople, the Ecumenical Patriarch. But they say that the most righteous of people, are just as easily felled as the rest of us.
***
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.
"... With dissent and resentment towards the Persians weaving itself through all strata of Egyptian society, and the Coptic Church openly condemning the Sassanian regime, chances of revolt was increasing. In fact, primary sources indicate that Kyrillos Eikosidekas and Benjamin I began planning for the eventual revolt began as early 623AD. But as instrumental as they were, Kyrillos and Benjamin I were not the only instigators. In the February of 624AD, what would later become the Alexandrian Heptarchy secretly met in a skete[4] in the Scetis Valley. The seven in question were the following: Benjamin I, Coptic Pope of Alexandria, Kyrillos Eikosidekas, praeses of Aegyptus Iovia, Vasilios Kymineianos, a powerful and wealthy merchant, Dimitrios Scylitzis, the ex-dux[5] of Thebais Superior, Isaias Marangoudakis, the commander of an auxiliary regiment serving with the Persians, Asim Psati, dockmaster of Alexandria and influential ex-Navy captain and Antonios Contostefanos, praeses of Libya Inferior. With three Copts, three Melkites, two militarymen, a Pope, two governors, a merchant and a dockmaster, it was a very colourful group. But as the future would prove, the fate of Egypt was held in the hands of those seven, however different they might be ..."
***
-24th of February, 624AD. Unnamed skete in the Scetis Valley.
Benjamin I watched as the room slowly filled with his co-conspirators. The small room had seemed crowded when it was just Kyrillos and himself, and then Vasilios Kymineianos had entered, and it seemed full. But eventually, Antonios Contostefanos entered, then Isaias Marangoudakis, then Dimitrios Scylitzis and finally Asim Psati entered. They sat, elbow-to-elbow, hair brushing against the low ceiling. What would in future be the Alexandrian Heptarchy. Until the room had filled, one-on-one small talk was present, but upon the arrival of Asim Psati, business began.
"Kalos orisate!" said Benjamin I to the group, tactfully choosing to nominate Greek as the language of conversation, "I suppose I don't have to define the purpose of this meeting?"
"Of course not!" said the volatile Dimitrios Scylitzis, "Revolt is why we came! Revolt against the Persians, am I right?"
"Hear, hear!" piped up Antonios Contostefanos,the other attendees to the meeting nodded.
"Okay, so we all know what we're here for" said Benjamin I, arms waved for silence, "The question is how do we accomplish it? How do we get the Persians out of Egypt?"
"Well, force of arms is necessary" said Isaias Marangoudakis,
"Obviously" commented Asim Psati,
"Diplomacy is not an option frankly, we need to rally the old legions" continued Isaias Marangoudakis, "Though disbanded by the Persians, they're still a reasonable fighting force"
"We'll need weapons, armour" said Kyrillos Eikosidekas,
"I'll handle purchases" promised Vasilios Kymineianos, "I have the funds and ties with the Romans, I'll be able to arrange the shipments, if given enough time. But Asim must make sure the shipmakers actually make it past the docks"
"Yes, the Persians haven't kicked me out... Yet." said Asim Psati, "I'll make sure the shipments make it through, and are transported to the necessary areas".
"Right, and who'll handle the actual military logistics?" questioned Benjamin I,
"I'll take command of the auxiliary regiments in the Persian army" said Isaias Marangoudakis, "We're a large force in Egypt, almost as large as the actual Persians. And with the legions, we'll be able to take down Khosrau II's[6] forces, no problem."
"Right, I'll take the legions" uttered Dimitrios Scylitzis, "I've already got Thebais down and handled, if Kyrillos can rally the Alexandrian legions, I can take control of them as well"
"I'll do my best" said Kyrillos hesitantly. Military ordeals were certainly not his area of expertise.
"We'll leave the intricacies of the military movements to you two" asserted Benjamin I, referring to Isaias and Dimitrios, "But when will we strike? Our attack should have some kind of repercussive effect"
"Indeed, we can't just choose some random day, it's just sloppy" reaffirmed Antonios Contostefanos. But after that comment, the room fell into a lull. Everyone made do with awkwardly staring at the table or concentrating on their wine harder than normal. Eventually, Kyrillos Eikosidekas came up with an answer,
"The arrival of Shahin Vahmanzadegan[7]" he said, "He's been confirmed as the satrap of Aegyptus, I got the message a few days ago. Most likely, they'll welcome his arrival with some sort of procession or a parade, through the streets of Alexandria. They'll want to prove their subjugation over us by parading their dominance in front of our faces. Typical victory-mentality. So, we'll ambush the procession in full view of the public, kill the great spahbod, and bring the whole glass temple crashing to the ground. The propaganda value of such an attack would be enormous."
"Brilliant!" proclaimed Asim Psati, "As the praeses of Aegyptus Iovia, though, it is your responsibility that the plan goes according to plan"
"I'd have it no other way" said Kyrillos Eikosidekas.
***
Excerpt from The Coptic Dream: An Early History of the Modern Egyptian State.
© 1939 by Henri-Louis de Mâcon, Western Historiography Press.
"... Once the intricacies of the rebellion had been worked out by the conspirators, they immediately became divided upon the fate of Egypt if their revolt was successful. Of course, full independence was the objective of Kyrillos Eikosidekas and Benjamin I, but the others were skeptical of this fairly radical idea. Antonios Contostefanos, Dimitrios Scylitzis and Isaias Marangoudakis advocated the full return of Aegyptus to the Roman Empire. Profound arguments from both sides were offered, but eventually, Asim Psati made the proposition which would later be implemented: That Egypt be returned to the Romans, but remain in control of its own military and its domestic affairs, similar to an exarch, and that Aegyptus be renamed Aigyptos. It was a viable middle ground between the two divisions, and immediately Isaias Marangoudakis and Antonios Contostefanos latched to the idea, with Kyrillos Eikosidekas hesitantly joining their voices. Both Benjamin I and Dimitrios Scylitzis violently opposed the compromise, but nonetheless, they were convinced in the end ..."
***
Here ya go! Here is the update! Unfortunately no map yet, I'm working on that aspect.
'kay, Footnotes:
[1]: Not actually Theodoros. This is OTL a bust of Caracalla.
[2]: The magister officiorum (trans.: "Master of Offices") served as one of the most senior administrative positions in Late Roman/Early Byzantine empires. It was eventually nullified in the late 7th, early 8th centuries.
[3]: The Sacred Palace of Constantinople was the principal residence of the ERE Emperors in Constantinople.
[4]: In OTL, John Athalarichos and Theodoros would plan a coup against Heraclius in the 640s. Their plan never succeeded and they were suitably punished.
[5]: Mentioned this earlier, a dux is the processor of the doux. Essentially, a military commander of a province.
[6]: Khosrau II is the current king of Persia ITTL.
[7]: Shahin Vahmanzadegan was a very prominent spahbod, or general, of the Sassanian Empire. He led a string of victories against Heraclius in the previous war which culminated in the capture of Chalcedon in 614AD.
Last edited:
Hey guys from Malta! I've been on vacation so things are moving slowly, but I thought I'd drop two things:
- First, I got a call from home that my laptop is back as of today, I'll return the incapable rental, so you can expect a map soon.
- Secondly, I was thinking about writing a narrative following an ordinary Egyptian family to supplement the TL. This would mean you all would get an insider's view into Egyptian life as well as a sorts of barometer for things like public opinion, class/race/religious relations, current affairs et cetera. Of course, if I did write this supplement, it would mean the regular updates would take longer. Would you all like this or not?
Cuāuhtemōc
Banned
I rather wait until the timeline is finished for you to do the narrative. But it is your choice.
I rather wait until the timeline is finished for you to do the narrative. But it is your choice.
Okay, so TL, but no narrative is preferred? Okay dokey.
Danke for the feedback.
I finally manage to read your TL and it's very good, I'm hooked!
I like the narrative sections, if they serve a purpose, why not use them?
The compromise seems odd, but what do I know? with Egyptian liberating themselves from the Persians, the Romans will manage to take back Anatolia? the persians would be dealt an heavy blow and that should make things easier for Theodoros...
Also what about Islam? It's still on? I'm sorry if somebody already asked, but I didn't follow the 1.0 version of this TL.
I like the narrative sections, if they serve a purpose, why not use them?
The compromise seems odd, but what do I know? with Egyptian liberating themselves from the Persians, the Romans will manage to take back Anatolia? the persians would be dealt an heavy blow and that should make things easier for Theodoros...
Also what about Islam? It's still on? I'm sorry if somebody already asked, but I didn't follow the 1.0 version of this TL.
Last edited: