Ancient Egypt Stays to this day (Batlle of Actium)

i have made a timeline where ancient egypt survives, with a PoD in a diffrent result in the batlle of actium. now a few notes here:
1.) I am aware that there is a timeline where ancient egypt survives, and i am trying to read throuh it somehow...
2.) The PoD might be the batlle of actium, but i had to do some other changes later to avoid a slightly later roman conquest or a muslim conquest.
3.) this is not finished yet.
so here we go:
Octavian looses the batlle of actium and soon enhauf marc anthony becomes ceaser. he has a long and prosperous reign, and cleopatra also keeps ruling egypt for some time. both have a nice succesion. rome continues in a similar fasion to OTL, but start fearing that egypt might block the food source of the empire. well aware of this, egypt invades the roman empire in the second century during a civil war, and even after it ends they keep controll of palestine. eventually, like in OTL, rome accepts christianity. earlier, egypt accepts the cult of isis as there official religion, demoting other gods to an equivilent of angels in christianity. later rome splits in three, the eastern roman empire, with the greek part of the empire, the central roman empire in italy, OTL croatia and the province of africa, while the western roman empire keeps gaul and hispania. the germanic invasion in OTL happen similarly in this TL. meanwhile, as the cult of isis spreads in the vandal kingdom, it is eventually split in half by this. the eastern half is later assimilated into egypt while the west becomes vandaland.
Islam is not butterflied in this TL, and they do take the sasanid state and from the roman empire, syria, aswell as parts of anatolia. they do attack egypt and take OTL israel and sinai, but a batlle in alexandria pull sthem back. the boundry between islam and egypt will stay in sinai until the 20th century. through the midlle ages, egypt colonizes parts of east africa and india several times, loosing them and regaining them as the state stabilizes and destabilizes. during the colonial period of europe, egypt colonizes east africa and india again.
as the industrial revolution happens, the egyptian concept of divine kinship starts disapearing. this results in a violent revolution in egypt, a litlle bit after the french one. during this the europeans take the egyptian colony in india while the colonies in east africa become independent. however, after it the egyptian republic takes that back, expanding inland during the scramble for africa.during it, gotha, what became of the visigoth state in iberia, goes into direct conflict with egypt over the OTL lake of victoria, but egypt win. several french and english attempts to grab egypt fail.
when a conflict similar to WWI starts in 1913, egypt joins the entente as the "ottoman" empire joins the central powers. the entente wins, and egypts annexes OTL israel. eventually it forces the zionist setelers to leave, which results in them going into british syria and creating a militia. as egypt and britain have worsening tentions over the border, especially after a facist party takes power in memphis, the british accept this. when nazi germany invades poland, starting ww2, egypt also joins the axis. due to the egyptian help, aswell as pearl harbour not happening, the axis win WW2 after churchil is murdered. realizing the threat, the US starts a war against germany and japan. however, the axis win this after the egyptians drop nuclear bombs on new york and san francisko. the US is divided between germany and japan in 1952.
oh, and because africa is the name of a part of egypt, the whole continent is called "ghana".

upload_2019-6-11_16-21-32.png
 
The butterflies would be ridiculous. I meant there's no guarantee that the UK, France, Italy, etc. even form as nations and South America's borders...
 
Ignoring all of the butterflies that would occur with such a scenario you laid out (@Archduke is very much correct to infer that they would be significant), Antony winning Actium does not guarantee that he'll be master of the Roman world. Even to win at Actium Antony would pretty much have to roll all 20's due to the fact that Octavian's naval forces were of higher quality and more experienced in naval combat.

If Octavian loses then he does one of two things:
a) builds another fleet and will attempt to yet again score a decisive naval victory over Antony
b) do what he did OTL after winning at Actium and march his legions through the eastern client kingdoms and attack Egypt

You're definitely going to need to kill of Octavian prior to the war.
 
How exactly does France form without Islam or the Papacy? Or even Germany, would not exist in any sense without Islam or the Papacy. Why would Turkey exist in detail? Who exactly is Egypt also? Are we attempting to keep the Ptolemies perpetually the rulers of Egypt?
 
The concept of a surviving and sovereign Egyptian state from antiquity is a great idea, but it's survival changes so much about world history it's difficult to even quantify. Within a few generations of writing, you will more or less be writing original fiction as opposed to extrapolating events based on OTL history from your initial POD.

Basically, Rome never truly becomes ROME the way we find ourselves imagining it as this all-conquering imperial entity without first conquering and annexing Egypt. The vast wealth that Egypt was capable of generating financed the Roman Empire in nearly all facets of their economy and allowed Rome to be able to keep expanding since she had all that Egyptian money able to bankroll imperial wars and conquests. Octavian wanted Egypt for that reason and he was the one that rebuilt it's infrastructure after decades of mismanagement by the Ptolemies.

A surviving sovereign Egypt basically will be trying to fend off continued Roman expansion for years to follow if Octavian doesn't annex it first at Actium. It was simply too valuable to not draw further attention from some of the competing regional powers and likely can't maintain her own sovereignty without allying herself with at least one of them, probably becoming a client state or vassal at first.

Let's say that Rome simply can't conquer Egypt, that it basically becomes a bridge too far for them. Rome's empire is still very large and still very prosperous, but it wouldn't be able to take and hold further lands without running out of money eventually. Egypt's money allowed Rome to raise legions nearly out of thin air and allowed Rome to be able to absorb and sustain heavy losses while continuing their roll forward. Furthermore, Rome itself had the bureaucracy to take advantage of Egypt to the fullest, so long as someone as great and visionary as Octavian was running the show and pulling the strings. So even if Rome eventually conquers Egypt, whoever is running Rome may not have the capacity to do as much with it as Octavian did, who was truly at the right moment at the right time.

An independent Egypt won't expand much at first. However, if Egypt could rebuild her infrastructure to take advantage of it's profit potential, it could become a regional hegemon in it's own right in competition with Rome, Persia, and Axum. It's best shot at continual survival would be to play off the biggest regional hegemons against each other when they can and know when it's time to accept clienthood if it means retaining her own independence.

As for Rome, she'll be able to hold more easily accessible regions for a longer time than anything further afield, but I would predict that Rome loses control of the Levant before too long, as the costs of keeping that under control without the steady finances of Egypt may prove to be too high. I doubt Rome tries to expand into Brittania or Germania and I have doubts over how much of the Black Sea coast they could control from Rome directly. Gaul will constantly be in upheaval if Rome can't continue to afford the legions required to safeguard it, and I see Rome sticking closer to the Mediterranean in both Gaul and Hispania to save costs.

That doesn't even go into how not having all this extra money may impact the very infrastructure of Rome going forward. The roads for instance enabled the rapid spread of Christianity, the aqueducts were used for centuries after Rome's collapse in OTL. If they can't continue to effectively keep paying for these public works projects, the centralization goes down the tubes and that in itself leads to a much different Roman Empire altogether.

Gaul may retain more Gallic culture, the Germanic tribes might not come into contact as frequently with the Romans, the Britons may still be the prevailing cultural group in Brittania, more Celto-Iberian and proto-Basque peoples in Spain, and Christianity simply might not take off the way it did in OTL, especially if Rome can't afford to hold onto the Levant.

Egypt allowed Rome to shape the Mediterranean world and Europe to the extent she did. Without it, the western world would be entirely unrecognizable.
 
Octavian wanted Egypt for that reason and he was the one that rebuilt it's infrastructure after decades of mismanagement by the Ptolemies.

Oi, fight me! Cleopatra had that place running like clockwork!

But yeah, while I disagree with a few of the minor details of your post, big picture I am one-hundred-percent with you. The butterfly-nets in place here are certifiably insane.
 
The concept of a surviving and sovereign Egyptian state from antiquity is a great idea, but it's survival changes so much about world history it's difficult to even quantify. Within a few generations of writing, you will more or less be writing original fiction as opposed to extrapolating events based on OTL history from your initial POD.

Basically, Rome never truly becomes ROME the way we find ourselves imagining it as this all-conquering imperial entity without first conquering and annexing Egypt. The vast wealth that Egypt was capable of generating financed the Roman Empire in nearly all facets of their economy and allowed Rome to be able to keep expanding since she had all that Egyptian money able to bankroll imperial wars and conquests. Octavian wanted Egypt for that reason and he was the one that rebuilt it's infrastructure after decades of mismanagement by the Ptolemies.

A surviving sovereign Egypt basically will be trying to fend off continued Roman expansion for years to follow if Octavian doesn't annex it first at Actium. It was simply too valuable to not draw further attention from some of the competing regional powers and likely can't maintain her own sovereignty without allying herself with at least one of them, probably becoming a client state or vassal at first.

Let's say that Rome simply can't conquer Egypt, that it basically becomes a bridge too far for them. Rome's empire is still very large and still very prosperous, but it wouldn't be able to take and hold further lands without running out of money eventually. Egypt's money allowed Rome to raise legions nearly out of thin air and allowed Rome to be able to absorb and sustain heavy losses while continuing their roll forward. Furthermore, Rome itself had the bureaucracy to take advantage of Egypt to the fullest, so long as someone as great and visionary as Octavian was running the show and pulling the strings. So even if Rome eventually conquers Egypt, whoever is running Rome may not have the capacity to do as much with it as Octavian did, who was truly at the right moment at the right time.

An independent Egypt won't expand much at first. However, if Egypt could rebuild her infrastructure to take advantage of it's profit potential, it could become a regional hegemon in it's own right in competition with Rome, Persia, and Axum. It's best shot at continual survival would be to play off the biggest regional hegemons against each other when they can and know when it's time to accept clienthood if it means retaining her own independence.

As for Rome, she'll be able to hold more easily accessible regions for a longer time than anything further afield, but I would predict that Rome loses control of the Levant before too long, as the costs of keeping that under control without the steady finances of Egypt may prove to be too high. I doubt Rome tries to expand into Brittania or Germania and I have doubts over how much of the Black Sea coast they could control from Rome directly. Gaul will constantly be in upheaval if Rome can't continue to afford the legions required to safeguard it, and I see Rome sticking closer to the Mediterranean in both Gaul and Hispania to save costs.

That doesn't even go into how not having all this extra money may impact the very infrastructure of Rome going forward. The roads for instance enabled the rapid spread of Christianity, the aqueducts were used for centuries after Rome's collapse in OTL. If they can't continue to effectively keep paying for these public works projects, the centralization goes down the tubes and that in itself leads to a much different Roman Empire altogether.

Gaul may retain more Gallic culture, the Germanic tribes might not come into contact as frequently with the Romans, the Britons may still be the prevailing cultural group in Brittania, more Celto-Iberian and proto-Basque peoples in Spain, and Christianity simply might not take off the way it did in OTL, especially if Rome can't afford to hold onto the Levant.

Egypt allowed Rome to shape the Mediterranean world and Europe to the extent she did. Without it, the western world would be entirely unrecognizable.
Well, i guess you are right. i will have to re-think this one, though i think christianity is close enhauf to the PoD to expand like in OTL, at least at start (which is the whole lavlant, asia minor, greece and rome basically). so yeah, i guess that map with facist egypt and nazi germany goes to the trash can.
Oh shit what butterfly massacre. And these spacefilling empires. My eyes hurt.
well, in this map thoose are not space filling empires any more then colonial africa was. in this scenario, the facists win ww2 and take all that land. german ghana, for example, is a german colony. south america has the colour of "minor or unimportant state" in the colour scheme i am using. anyway, like my reply to ivan lupo suggests, i am going to HEAVILY rethink this.
 
How exactly does France form without Islam or the Papacy? Or even Germany, would not exist in any sense without Islam or the Papacy. Why would Turkey exist in detail? Who exactly is Egypt also? Are we attempting to keep the Ptolemies perpetually the rulers of Egypt?
Well, islam has sure made cultural changes, but the kingdom of the franks would exist without this in my opinion. it didn't affects france that much. even more so with germany. also, i wonder which part of this TL do you think means the papacy does not exist? the fact i did not mention it (because it did not change enhauf for this timeline), dosen't mean it was butterflied away.
i will be curious to hear because i am currently rethinking this timeline...
 
Well, islam has sure made cultural changes, but the kingdom of the franks would exist without this in my opinion. it didn't affects france that much. even more so with germany. also, i wonder which part of this TL do you think means the papacy does not exist? the fact i did not mention it (because it did not change enhauf for this timeline), dosen't mean it was butterflied away.
i will be curious to hear because i am currently rethinking this timeline...

How do you even know the Roman Empire let alone the Franks exist in this timeline without Augustus winning the Battle of Actium. There is most certainly no Islam. The Franks were also Christian. I doubt Christianity exists or at least exists the way it did OTL.

A surviving Ptolemaic Egypt has plenty of other implications.

Lastly, as someone mentioned before Augustus would most probably win after this so the Roman annexation of Egypt from that point onward seems pretty inevitable. Nonetheless, unless Mark Antony and Cleopatra get really really lucky, a loss for Augustus at the Battle of Actium might just ending up being a small footnote in Roman history.
 
Timeline Part one-Until 620
in 203 BC, a big rebellion of egyptians starts under an egyptian general. by 207, they restore native rule to egypt, crowning the general as pharoe. this new dynasty starts rebuilding egypt from ptolemy dismanagment.
fast forward to juilius ceaser, he is stabbed like in OTL and a civil war starts. however, octavian is not born and so marc anthoni's oposition is weak. that means marc anthony becomes emperor. after that egypt and rome have growing hostilities, and in 86 AD rome invades egypt. the dynasty ruling persia (which is not sasanid in this TL) joins the war against rome. when that war ends, persia extends into syria and egypt into "palestine", where they deal with a roman suported revolt in 123 AD and succefully crush it. rome is starting to prepare to invade egypt again, but in 124 the roman emperor dies and a civil war starts.
Eventually, as egypt accepts the cult of isis and rome accepts christianity, the tables reverse. egypt and persia have growing hostilities and an egyptian-roman allience defeats persia in 194. however, soon a persian-roman allience pushes egypt back to OTL southern israel. as this balance of power keeps on, a big rebelion breaks out in gaul in 387, which eventually breaks away. however, it is regained the following year. later rome splits into 3, OTL byzantium (but without egypt), italy and africa as the central roman empire and gaul with hispnia lastly. during the great migration period, vandals setlle in africa, assimilating into the culture and evolving into an upper class, and goths in hispania (which is more limited to the coast in this timeline), and the franks counquer gaul. the west roman emperor in massilia recognices the central roman empires authority after this, which eventually becomes a similar thing to OTL papacy. later they crown a frankish king as roman emperor, and an empire similar to the modern carolingian one apears. however, it later splits in two (NOT three). then, well i haven't thaught that up yet.
 
Last edited:
Why would it be called "Vandalland"?" The Vandals left few permanent traces in Africa, since there were no more than a few thousand of them, which could be outnumbered by the population of a provincial city like Caesarea (let alone Hippo or Carthage).

The idea of Europe colonizing North Africa is straight up ridiculous because it only happened IOTL because they were stagnant and deeply divided. If North Africa is part of the same cultural civilization as their neighbors then they'll be no weaker than Spain or Portugal at worst, and odds are a hell of a lot better (oil).
 
Why would it be called "Vandalland"?" The Vandals left few permanent traces in Africa, since there were no more than a few thousand of them, which could be outnumbered by the population of a provincial city like Caesarea (let alone Hippo or Carthage).

The idea of Europe colonizing North Africa is straight up ridiculous because it only happened IOTL because they were stagnant and deeply divided. If North Africa is part of the same cultural civilization as their neighbors then they'll be no weaker than Spain or Portugal at worst, and odds are a hell of a lot better (oil).

Good point. in the updated timeline i have not given the vandals any mention appart then that they setlle there, so i think i will just make the vandals become a ruling upper class that soon assimilates into the local culture, and the name "africa" returns. the bigger issue though would be egyptians beleiving in isis, rather then the christian god, and that would cause a split in africa later on.
 
Top