AHC: Make the Byzantine Empire a colonial power

[Legend-in-Exile]

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.

And they would be reliable sources? I can cite Herodotus to prove that Egyptians have thick skulls while the Persians have brittle skulls. Doesn't make it true. In fact I will; "On the field where this battle was fought I saw a very wonderful thing which the natives pointed out to me. The bones of the slain lie scattered upon the field in two lots, those of the Persians in one place by themselves, as the bodies lay at the first- those of the Egyptians in another place apart from them. If, then, you strike the Persian skulls, even with a pebble, they are so weak, that you break a hole in them; but the Egyptian skulls are so strong, that you may smite them with a stone and you will scarcely break them in. They gave me the following reason for this difference, which seemed to me likely enough:- The Egyptians (they said) from early childhood have the head shaved, and so by the action of the sun the skull becomes thick and hard. The same cause prevents baldness in Egypt, where you see fewer bald men than in any other land. Such, then, is the reason why the skulls of the Egyptians are so strong. The Persians, on the other hand, have feeble skulls, because they keep themselves shaded from the first, wearing turbans upon their heads. What I have here mentioned I saw with my own eyes, and I observed also the like at Papremis, in the case of the Persians who were killed with Achaeamenes, the son of Darius, by Inarus the Libyan."

Even the Egyptian government (with a low ball estimate places Christians at around 6-8%) that amount of resiliance seems a bit exceptional if you are correct.

Your model has the majority converting rather quickly and then maintain pretty much the same proportion of the population for a thousand years or so? That doesn't seem likely. I could be wrong but I can't see what you propose occuring.

 

[Pachac]

And they would be reliable sources? I can cite Herodotus to prove that Egyptians have thick skulls while the Persians have brittle skulls. Doesn't make it true. In fact I will; "On the field where this battle was fought I saw a very wonderful thing which the natives pointed out to me. The bones of the slain lie scattered upon the field in two lots, those of the Persians in one place by themselves, as the bodies lay at the first- those of the Egyptians in another place apart from them. If, then, you strike the Persian skulls, even with a pebble, they are so weak, that you break a hole in them; but the Egyptian skulls are so strong, that you may smite them with a stone and you will scarcely break them in. They gave me the following reason for this difference, which seemed to me likely enough:- The Egyptians (they said) from early childhood have the head shaved, and so by the action of the sun the skull becomes thick and hard. The same cause prevents baldness in Egypt, where you see fewer bald men than in any other land. Such, then, is the reason why the skulls of the Egyptians are so strong. The Persians, on the other hand, have feeble skulls, because they keep themselves shaded from the first, wearing turbans upon their heads. What I have here mentioned I saw with my own eyes, and I observed also the like at Papremis, in the case of the Persians who were killed with Achaeamenes, the son of Darius, by Inarus the Libyan."

Even the Egyptian government (with a low ball estimate places Christians at around 6-8%) that amount of resiliance seems a bit exceptional if you are correct.

Your model has the majority converting rather quickly and then maintain pretty much the same proportion of the population for a thousand years or so? That doesn't seem likely. I could be wrong but I can't see what you propose occuring.

They are reliable sources because they had access to Fatimid census records. I don't think you understand this but the Jizya was one of the most important taxes in the Arab world. Some Arab polities' decline can be partially attributed to the decline in non-muslims which caused revenues to fall drastically over a 150 year period. I can cite numerous secondary sources in this matter such as Hugh Kennedy in the "The Great Arab Conquests" for example. Understanding how many Copts there were was essential to Fatimid finances and we have a rough figure of how many there were as a result of this. You cannot dismiss historians, especially considering that Medieval Arab historians generally had more rigorous studies than Herodotus. It's like saying Thucydides is wrong because he's a primary source. Herodotus is an outlier and even he's shit on too much because people miss the point of his works.

Population do not decrease in an arithmetic fashion. A lot of the Coptic population can be attributed, to be honest, to British favoritism and support for them during the colonial period. Egypt's population ballooned from 4 million to 12 in the span of about 50 years and the Copts grew disproportionately to the entire pop.

 

[Legend-in-Exile]

They are reliable sources because they had access to Fatimid census records. I don't think you understand this but the Jizya was one of the most important taxes in the Arab world. Some Arab polities' decline can be partially attributed to the decline in non-muslims which caused revenues to fall drastically over a 150 year period. I can cite numerous secondary sources in this matter such as Hugh Kennedy in the "The Great Arab Conquests" for example. Understanding how many Copts there were was essential to Fatimid finances and we have a rough figure of how many there were as a result of this. You cannot dismiss historians, especially considering that Medieval Arab historians generally had more rigorous studies than Herodotus. It's like saying Thucydides is wrong because he's a primary source. Herodotus is an outlier and even he's shit on too much because people miss the point of his works.

Population do not decrease in an arithmetic fashion. A lot of the Coptic population can be attributed, to be honest, to British favoritism and support for them during the colonial period. Egypt's population ballooned from 4 million to 12 in the span of about 50 years and the Copts grew disproportionately to the entire pop.

Well I admit to being facetious, but only due to your tone.

You cited old sources who would likely have had an agenda, as the only reason why I would be wrong. I admit that I am not an expert on Egyptian history, but Islam did not have an insta-convert button which was pressed when taking new territory. (After Persia was taken Zoroastrianism survived for centuries as a fairly large proportion)
I also concede that most higher members of society/ traders would have felt pressured to convert and would likely have done so. That does not mean every one would.

As I've said elsewhere it's easier for the Romans to just not lose the place than try to reclaim it. Though I still think a later reclamation could have been possible in the right situation.

Edit: on my phone which is being abysmally slow. Will try to answer more fully later.

 

[Deleted member 67076]

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.

The fact that in nearly every single period of crisis the Byzantines have shown a willingness to change their institutions to combat these modern challenges.

The Exarchs during the Lombard and Mauri invasions, the establishment of the themata, the Tagmata, the Komnenian reforms, even the Palaiologian reforms, etc, all give historical precedent to the Roman state time and time again successfully adapting towards new challenges.

 

[Riain]

I'd suggest that with the outpost on the Crimea the Byzantine were a colonial power, or at least tried to be.

I don't think it's beyond the realms of possibility for the Byz to gain trading sites in the Red Sea in conjunction with a surviving and allied Outremer.

 

[Dragos Cel Mare]

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.

Have to agree with Sov; the prohibition on Christian Men marrying Muslim Women is going to be less enforceable in a Byzantine Egypt.

 

[Caesar Biden]

People will say this is unscientific, but one just gets the feeling of a civilization that is tired by late Byzantium. These people had been retreating from their borders for centuries, a few revivals aside. How many civilizations can really keep up their cultural capital that long?

In answer to your question: China.

 

[Dragos Cel Mare]

In answer to your question: China.

Incidentally, China also evolved in much the same way as the Romans/Byzies, with Han China and Song being as different as Rome and Byzantium were different.

 

[Caesar Biden]

Incidentally, China also evolved in much the same way as the Romans/Byzies, with Han China and Song being as different as Rome and Byzantium were different.

Not true at all. Rome and "Byzantium" were much more closely related than Song and Han China. Or the Quing or PRC, for that matter.

I don't like the "Byzantium is destined to fall" trope. It really doesn't make any sense, considering how ridiculously long they survived IOTL.

 

[Dorozhand]

If the Byzantines could build an early Suez Canal, they could become fabulously wealthy monopolizing trade through it. Even if they don't, Western European trade along the silk road is still passing through Constantinople here, so there will be less of a pressing drive towards finding an alternate route to the east. A much more powerful Byzantine Empire during the late middle ages will become very wealthy from that in any case.

I agree with the scenario in IE. A hostile, powerful Iran controlling Mesoptamia and cutting off the silk road from that direction will prompt the construction of such a Suez Canal or at least Byzatine naval expeditions down the Red Sea even in the absence of any Mongol Invasions.

 

[Dragos Cel Mare]

Bumping for tomorrow.

 

[Martinus Paduei]

I tend to agree that if the Byzantines were to become colonizers, they would do so via the Indian Ocean, and Egypt is the key. Since the ancient Egyptians were able to construct a Nile-Red Sea Canal, which remained open intermittently until the time of the Islamic conquest (it had to be constantly maintained or--no surprise--it filled up with sand), I see no reason that a Byzantine state which controlled Egypt on a sustained basis couldn't reopen it.

Long term, I could see trading colonies around the Indian Ocean in India, the east coast of Africa, Indonesia. If they are looking to expand in areas with significant Christian populations, they could take Socotra or parts of southern India. For settler colonies, I could see Madagascar, South Africa and Australia, The climate wouldn't be all that different from parts of their current lands. That's a timeline I wouldn't mind seeing. I am sort of surprised that one or more of the rabid Byzantine Empire fan-boys on this site hasn't already done this.

 

[Caesar Biden]

I tend to agree that if the Byzantines were to become colonizers, they would do so via the Indian Ocean, and Egypt is the key. Since the ancient Egyptians were able to construct a Nile-Red Sea Canal, which remained open intermittently until the time of the Islamic conquest (it had to be constantly maintained or--no surprise--it filled up with sand), I see no reason that a Byzantine state which controlled Egypt on a sustained basis couldn't reopen it.

Long term, I could see trading colonies around the Indian Ocean in India, the east coast of Africa, Indonesia. If they are looking to expand in areas with significant Christian populations, they could take Socotra or parts of southern India. For settler colonies, I could see Madagascar, South Africa and Australia, The climate wouldn't be all that different from parts of their current lands. That's a timeline I wouldn't mind seeing. I am sort of surprised that one or more of the rabid Byzantine Empire fan-boys on this site hasn't already done this.

I doubt they would have many settler colonies in Australia or South Africa. I do agree, though, one of their goals would be to grab some of the Indian Ocean trade. I could see some colonies from East Africa to Taiwan, with the goal of securing all that wealthy trade.

Now we have to have a TL with a Byzantine Raj...

 

[Martinus Paduei]

I doubt they would have many settler colonies in Australia or South Africa. I do agree, though, one of their goals would be to grab some of the Indian Ocean trade. I could see some colonies from East Africa to Taiwan, with the goal of securing all that wealthy trade.

Now we have to have a TL with a Byzantine Raj...

As the opening poster requested, the idea is to have a surviving Byzantine Empire be a colonial power in the nineteenth century. Since any likely POD would be more than half a millennium before that, and the world would be unrecognizable by the time the nineteenth century rolled around, talking about goals, as though they'd remain constant through the centuries, is not realistic. If the Byzantines were powerful, and positing a level of technology roughly comparable to OTL, they might well have had population pressure (just as Europe did, OTL) which could have led them to plant settler colonies in addition to having a trading empire with footholds in strategic locations like Malacca, Djibouti/Aden, Ceylon, and so forth.

 

[Caesar Biden]

As the opening poster requested, the idea is to have a surviving Byzantine Empire be a colonial power in the nineteenth century. Since any likely POD would be more than half a millennium before that, and the world would be unrecognizable by the time the nineteenth century rolled around, talking about goals, as though they'd remain constant through the centuries, is not realistic. If the Byzantines were powerful, and positing a level of technology roughly comparable to OTL, they might well have had population pressure (just as Europe did, OTL) which could have led them to plant settler colonies in addition to having a trading empire with footholds in strategic locations like Malacca, Djibouti/Aden, Ceylon, and so forth.

Goals for colonies do remain constant throughout centuries: to benefit the empire. Mostly, money.

But I would argue that it is very hard for the Byzantines to have that sort of population pressure. They had a policy of settling extra manpower along the border, and would have to conquer quite a bit just to be in a position to colonize. It all depends on the circumstances though, as you pointed out.

Actually, I would think settler colonies would mostly spring up in those strategic positions. Why would one colonize the Cape when one could colonize the horn and make money off of trade?

 

[Martinus Paduei]

But the Cape of Good Hope is a strategic location, at least once one has a better idea of world geography. And if,eventually, the Byzantines realize just how mineral rich the OTL South Africa area is...

 

[Axeman]

The best route I can see for a Byzantine Colonial Empire would be holding the levant and Egypt, but everything to the east is held by one sold political entity. As a result the Byzantines, in competition with the Western Europeans, use the Red Sea as an outlet to get to India and Indonesia.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

But the Cape of Good Hope is a strategic location, at least once one has a better idea of world geography. And if,eventually, the Byzantines realize just how mineral rich the OTL South Africa area is...

It wouldn't be so important for the Byzantines, though, since they'd presumably just go through Egypt and bypass the need to sail round Africa altogether.

 

[Martinus Paduei]

It wouldn't be so important for the Byzantines, though, since they'd presumably just go through Egypt and bypass the need to sail round Africa altogether.

That depends on who owns everything in between Egypt and South Africa. That is rather a long distance. The OP was looking to make the Byzantines a colonial power, not the colonial power. LOL

 

[Caesar Biden]

But the Cape of Good Hope is a strategic location, at least once one has a better idea of world geography. And if,eventually, the Byzantines realize just how mineral rich the OTL South Africa area is...

For the English? it's an amazing strategic location. For the Romans, not as much. I find it much more likely a power who cares about the cape more (Portugal, Spain, Britain, France, Netherlands, any ATL power) to grab it, while the Romans focus into Southeast Asia.

As far as maximum possible extent: I could see them reaching to Pacific Islands and places like New Zealand. It's going to be nearly impossible to get them to the West Coast of the Americas, for obvious reasons.