What if Constantine made Alexandria the eastern capital instead of Byzantium?

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
What if Constantine made Alexandria the eastern capital instead of Byzantium? Does an Egypt-focused eastern Empire encourage an earlier permanent loss of Thrace and Anatolia to barbarian or Persian invasions during the migration period? Does the Egyptian-focus of the ERE regime result in Egypt holding off Arab-Muslim conquest, with Palestine and Jerusalem featuring as a frequent contested borderland between the Egypt-based ERE and the southwest Asia based Caliphates over the centuries (eternal Crusades, for reasons both spiritual, and strategic)? Or does Egypt's proximity/vulnerability to Arabia likely cause the demise of the ERE in early centuries of Arab-Muslim conquest?

I rolled the dice, and Alexandrian Rome is going to do well. It will be comparatively strong as well rich. The leadership focus on the capital keeps it protected. This could well mean that Anatolia and the Danube and Anatolian frontiers are under-protected, and collapse as early as the west in the 5th century. However, Alexandrian-Rome will be able to continue to benefit from the Levant, Cyprus, the Aegean islands and Peloponessus, and parts of the Greek and Asia Minor coast most of the time thalassocratically using naval power. Asia Minor and Grece may hold out longer, and not collapse until Persian and Avar (or other steppe-denizen) invasions in the 7th century. By this point (roll of the dice again), Islam and Arabian unity are butterflied away. Alexandria may face some close calls from invasions by Persian armies or Persian-client Arabian armies, but in the end always keeps the border at Suez, or to the east of it. And when it has periods of strengh, it occupies buffer territories beyond, including Sinai, Palestine and the Holy Sites, and at the highest tides, Syria, Arabia Petraea, Hijaz, and Yemen. That is Alexandrian Rome's eastern frontier.

In the west, it reclaims the provinces of Africa from the Vandals and holds them basically in perpetuity. It controls the major Mediterranean islands with near perpeuity except for occassional invasions and separatist rebellions, and occasionally occupies Greece, the Ionian coast, and portions of the Italian and Iberian peninsulas.

Alexandro-Egyptian Rome, without a reliable connection to the silk road, keeps a vigorous monsoonal Read Sea-Indian Ocean trade going with India, that bypasses the usually antagonistic states ruling Persia that often extend as far as Syria and Anatolia/Asia Minor. Improvements in the commerce over time, and use of middle men, hook in the empire to further discoveries down the eastern coast of Africa, and trade for the spices of Southeast Asia and maritime trade with China.
 
Done that in my TL, the issue with such a move is that Alexandria for Constantinople is hardly a good trade off if you want your capital to be secure(the highest priority imo)
Alexandria is a port, a coastal city by definition which requires a strong navy to protect it as no amount of walls are going to stop sea raids(plus the theodosian ones most likely would be butterflied away anyway) and trying to hold anything other than Egypt from it is going to be a huge chore that probably would require the state holding it to be a thalassocracy which the romans were anything but
 
Against that, a strong navy is really, really useful. Provided, of course, you can build enough nimble ships ?? ( See UK for example...)

IMHO, securing the Dardanelles against Eastern raiders means there will so be a strong city there.

Alexandria has the army-swallowing Western Desert to West, the Suez' Bitter Lakes / marshes 'moat' to NE, and SE flank protected by the near-waterless mountain range between Nile and Red Sea. IIRC, that range has very few passes...
Also, there will still be the Roman-era chain of guard / signal forts across North Africa...
And, surely, there'll be a fleet plus much more 'awareness' of happenings up and down the Red Sea.
One huge butterfly may be that Alexandria takes notice of, then stomps Mr M before he build a serious backing in Mecca, Medina, Jeddah etc...
 
If you want another city or place to compete with Constantinople it needs to be better overall in these criteria:

How defensible is this place?
(the more defensible is good, except for islands far from the coast like Cyprus, Corsica, Rhodes and the Balearics. They are bad because the Romans had a big cultural prejudice against sailing)
Is this place in a strategic region?
(that is where most places that people remember would compete and even win against Constantinople, places like Antioch, Nicomedia, Rome itself, Alexandria, Carthage, all have something going for them in this criterion)
Is it a big and old place?
(If yes, it is bad. That because Constantine wanted to basically demolish the city and build another in its place, a big old city would be full of pagan temples and other buildings both public and privately owned with pagan references, also there would be a big population that would need to be replaced or converted, Byzantium was a city of 20-30,000 people so there wasn't that many buildings to demolish and the population was small enough to be supplanted when the city grew to more than 100,000 inhabitants)
 
Constantinople is in a good strategic localtion in that it connects directly to the Black Sea, the Med, to Europe and Asia. Controlling the main land and sea routes doesn't necessarily make it first choice for capital city, but it's a big plus because of all the intel available on the spot.
Alexandria would miss out by always getting the news late and at second hand, and so be constantly wary of the plots and schemes (real and imagined) up north.
There is also the symbolic aspect of Constantinople facing east and west, while Alexandria faces west - not so good for the eastern empire.
 
I'm inclined to agree that Alexandria overall isn't a great seat for a Mediterranean empire, despite being a rich and prosperous city; it is too dependant on Egypt and a navy, super bad for quickly deploying a land based responsive force, equally distant or more from any other key Imperial asset save for Egypt (duh) and Africa (which really isn't a problem, insofar Egypt holds). It does have unknown potential through Red Sea trade, but that is not an immediate factor as Constantine decides where to install his new Government.
 
It doesn't make sense in the Dominate political system. The emperor is primarily the army commander. The Straits Zone (Byzantium, Nicomedia) is optimal for the capital because it is close enough to the Danubian and Syrian borders that the emperor can maintain control over this armies.
 
Also, the main borders that needed to be defended at the time were in the Balkans and in Armenia/Syria - Constantinople (or Nicomedia, Diocletian's choice) are both well-placed if the emperor needs to move with his army one way or another - in comparison, Alexandria is too far away from both of these borders.
 
I think that if Constantine had choosen Alexandria he wouldn't be able to completely erase the past of the city as he wanted. The citizens would be very unhappy resent him and even resist against his building program and his policy of bringing people from Rome itself. In this situation Constantine could even choose to not live inside Alexandria itself, building a new palace outside of the city like Domitian and many other emperors did before, even building a new complex of buildings outside the city and call it his New Rome. Still, the strategic position of Alexandria wouldn't offer much advantage, the city would end up like any of the cities that became seats of emperors during the tetrarchy, an important regional center, but not really Newer Romes, future emperors or even Constantine himself would end up changing the imperial seat to other cities in the future, probably back to Nicomedia or to Antioch, as they are closer to the troops on the frontier and the capital would probably be moved more times if the emperor of the day thinks that it suits better his needs.
 
Last edited:
Top