Anyone Ever Done A Coptic Christian Egypt Survives TL?
- Thread starter Landshark
- Start date
Xen
Banned
Ive worked on one along these lines. The basic jist is the Fourth Crusade conquers Egypt rather than Constantinople. The tricky part was having the Christians hold onto it from Muslims who want to reconquer it, not impossible but it was hard to do. Basically the Muslims were forced out of Egypt and settled in the Sudan. It led to the next crusade which was party of the church's reconquista of North Africa which had varying successes.
I was thinking on the lines of the Muslims being stopped before the even get into Egypt. More a Christian North Africa than anything else.
I suppose Islamic expansionism could be directed more to the East and India or more to the North West and Europe maybe even getting into Italy and Germany.
I suppose Islamic expansionism could be directed more to the East and India or more to the North West and Europe maybe even getting into Italy and Germany.
Xen
Banned
I have thought about working out a timeline where Persia turns to Christianity in the fifth century, which makes it politically stronger, in effect the Emperor of Persia is a puppet to the church. As Persia grows strong politically it does so militarily as well, forming a formidible and capable Army and Navy, the original target is Constantinople. However the Muslims still come to power in Arabia and launch an invasion against Persia. The Persians wont stand for it and send its armies into Arabia. Most of the Peninsula falls to Persia and is forced to convert. The Muslims are restricted to a small country consisting of the two major Holy Cities, Persia is battle exhausted and can in no way fight the Byzantines, though they can hold their own.
Perhaps if you write your timeline, you can have the Muslims defeated by the odd coupling of a Byzantine-Persian Alliance at Babylon or Baghdad. The Muslims look west to Africa, they are able to take the Sudan and much of Sub-sahara Africa but fall short in conquering northern Africa. Many native African communities are now united by a common religion (Islam) and a common tongue (Arabic) and form into semi-powerful nation states in their own right.
Problem is Egypt hated the Byzantines, perhaps sometime after the Great Schism you can have a rebellion in North Africa and the Middle East. The People of Palestine, Syria, Egypt, and Carthage rebel and are assisted by the Persians and the Catholics. Egypt becomes the most powerful nation state among these and forms a rather large Empire. Only Syria is reconquered by the Byzantines.
Perhaps if you write your timeline, you can have the Muslims defeated by the odd coupling of a Byzantine-Persian Alliance at Babylon or Baghdad. The Muslims look west to Africa, they are able to take the Sudan and much of Sub-sahara Africa but fall short in conquering northern Africa. Many native African communities are now united by a common religion (Islam) and a common tongue (Arabic) and form into semi-powerful nation states in their own right.
Problem is Egypt hated the Byzantines, perhaps sometime after the Great Schism you can have a rebellion in North Africa and the Middle East. The People of Palestine, Syria, Egypt, and Carthage rebel and are assisted by the Persians and the Catholics. Egypt becomes the most powerful nation state among these and forms a rather large Empire. Only Syria is reconquered by the Byzantines.
Landshark said:
There are estimates that Egypt was majority Coptic(peasants) in the 1300's. Have a European conquer Egypt and have some of the Muslims flee and you have a fairly stable state.
In my Renaissance TL (a very rough TL, admittedly), where civilization has suffered several setbacks due to plagues and stronger nomad incursions, I have a Coptic Empire spread across Egypt, Nubia, and Ehtiopia. Here's the map.
I think there was something in the 'Great North African crusade' TL?
I had this happen in a TL where most of Western Europe goes Arian, Mohammed becomes a Monophysite patriarch, and Egypt stays Christian in the Byzantine mould. I didn't have it continue to the 21st century, but it could well.
I'm afraid a crusade might not serve too well in this regard - crusaders were notoriously lousy at the whole 'hearts and minds' thing and the Copts may well find they actually prefer the Ayyubids of Mamluks.
I had this happen in a TL where most of Western Europe goes Arian, Mohammed becomes a Monophysite patriarch, and Egypt stays Christian in the Byzantine mould. I didn't have it continue to the 21st century, but it could well.
I'm afraid a crusade might not serve too well in this regard - crusaders were notoriously lousy at the whole 'hearts and minds' thing and the Copts may well find they actually prefer the Ayyubids of Mamluks.
carlton_bach said:
Actually, in that TL, Egypt remained under Islamic rule (the Abbasids invaded Fatimid Egypt soon after the Crusaders barrelled down from Italy and the Balkans). Everything from Cyrenica to around Oran was occupied by the Crusaders and gradually re-Christianized (Euro settlement, the native Donatist Christians who were still around in 1000-ish, Muslims who converted freely, and the occasional Inquisition), eventually schisming from Rome and adopting neo-Donatism.
Thanks for remembering my TL, though.
However, if there were large #s of Copts up until 1300, then perhaps a Coptic Egypt could result from a popular rebellion against the Islamic rulers in the aftermath of an Abbasid collapse (which will occur, though I haven't charted it out well enough). Carlton, you might have had a good point.
Last edited:
carlton_bach said:
Well, it depends on who's launching the Crusade. If it's like the Albingesian (sp?) Crusade ("Kill them all. God will know His own") than definitely not. If like OTL's Middle Eastern crusades, perhaps somewhere in the Middle--in one case, a Muslim writer praised Crusaders for not being as despotic towards the pesantry as the Muslim rulers were.
I think it comes down to who's in charge. The Franks/French were in control of the Crusades I mentioned above, and they were prone to thuggery and such, often as a result of ignorance or misguided religious zeal. The Italians and other Southern Europeans would be more familiar with Muslims, and might behave themselves.
In "The Great North African Crusade" TL, the Crusaders are on the tight leash of the mercantile city-states of Italy, which keep them from abusing the Muslims. This enables them to exploit divisions within Muslim society (notably recruiting huge #s of Berber mercenaries) to wipe the Fatimid Caliphate.
htgriffin said:
Well, for a post-600 POD, perhaps an Islamic regime that is clumsier/more domineering than OTL--forced conversions, more dhimmi abuse, etc--comes to power, and the outraged Copts revolt and overthrow them.
Matt Quinn said:
The Normans would have done a very good job of kicking out the Muslim merchants, and landholders. The Copts would probably prefer the lower taxes under Normans than the discriminatory taxes of the Muslims.
I believe the Normans held Sicily in this time frame perhaps they could have launched an assualt from there. I think someone has tried this but I can't remember.
The Normans, after re-conquering Sicily (1030) and consolidating their power in Southern Italy, were actually involved in expeditions to Tunisia and Tripolitania. A cadet line of the Altavillas became lords of Antioch, after the 1st crusade.davekohlhoff said:
Maybe a TL were the Norman kings do not get involved with the Houenstaufen, and keep their focus on the South and East. The big prize in this area is always and only Egypt