Arab Conquest of Egypt

Egypt is a sitting duck for invaders.

Almost every empire that manages to control Syria will eventually march on Egypt, it's just the next logical step. And Egypt can't do anything about it, because it's just a narrow strip along the Nile.

I think for a Byzantine or non-Muslim Egypt to survive Syria & Palestine must not fall; otherwise it's just a matter of time before Egypt goes too.
 
Egypt is a sitting duck for invaders.

Almost every empire that manages to control Syria will eventually march on Egypt, it's just the next logical step. And Egypt can't do anything about it, because it's just a narrow strip along the Nile.

I think for a Byzantine or non-Muslim Egypt to survive Syria & Palestine must not fall; otherwise it's just a matter of time before Egypt goes too.

By that logic, Egypt should have fallen to the Crusaders early in the twelfth century. The place is, by some way, the wealthiest area of the antique/medieval world, and can look after itself quite well.
 
Hello Elfwine,

I'm not sure. Unlike the Byzantines, the Arabs aren't in a state of disarray and exhaustion.

I think the danger is - as always - reading an event through subsequent history. It makes things look more inevitable than they really were. For example: We look back at the Crisis of the Third Century and marvel at the Empire's political and military resiliency. But we look back at the crisis of the Fifth Century and zero in on the internal flaws - or the exogenous threat of the Huns - that made it inevitable, or nearly so.

The reality is that Amr ibn al-Aas pulled the thing off on a shoestring, with only 4,000 men (at least in the first phase) and little in the way of logistical support, and he had to manage a few lengthy sieges at each step along the way to do it. Give the Byzantines a better commander at any point, or if we can extend Heraclius's years of vigor a little longer - he was dying at this point, and died after belatedly assembling his relief force for the siege of Alexandria in 641 - such that he reacts much faster, and with more vigor to relieve Egypt - and it's not so hard to imagine Amr being forced to withdraw.

We talk about Byzantine exhaustion after the brutal Persian war, and there's no denying that the Empire had yet to fully recover. Manpower was at a premium, as Basileus rightly notes above. But that is also true for the Arabs. They had their successes with real economy of force.

So imagine a world in which . . . Magnum's scenario happens. The Byzantines counterattack at Heliopolis - or in the alternative (actually, a better alternative), the siege drags on, and Amr's army is decimated by disease in its siege camps, and Amr (or his successor) has to withdraw the scraps of his army in humiliation to Palestine.

Now the shoe is on the other foot. The Arabs had gone from success to success. Now, they've faced a real setback. And if it's disease, it may seem to them a divine disfavor for Amr's impetuous invasion. Umar had thought the whole thing unwise in the first place. Now he's sitting in Damascus with a relatively small Arab force in control of a Christine Levant, facing (let us say), a Heraclius the Great, Conqueror of the Sassanids, older but still hale, assembling to counterattack. Umar decides to let Egypt be for the time being, and works to consolidate himself in Syria.

This scenario works best with a Heraclius who lives longer, stays healthy. But even one POD of a devastating loss at Heliopolis could be enough to allow Byzantine Egypt to hold on long enough until Constans (or some other effective emperor) moves over to the counterattack in the 640's or even 650's.

Hello Basileus,

IMHO, this post wins the thread as by far the most sensible and reasonable account of how things were in Late Antique Egypt. Nice work, Athelstane.

Many kind thanks, sir.

We forget that the Byzantines still had control of the sea at this point, and made heavy use of it. Even with Roman roads . . . the sea was often a faster way to communicate and travel, especially to such an isolated province as Egypt, reachable only through the desert of Sinai.

In short, Egypt was, at least by land *always* isolated in some real sense.
 
Last edited:
Egypt is a sitting duck for invaders.

Almost every empire that manages to control Syria will eventually march on Egypt, it's just the next logical step. And Egypt can't do anything about it, because it's just a narrow strip along the Nile.

I think for a Byzantine or non-Muslim Egypt to survive Syria & Palestine must not fall; otherwise it's just a matter of time before Egypt goes too.

I think this underrates the difficulty of getting into Egypt.

Egypt was a very rich, populous land and it was also a very isolated land, surrounded to the east, west and south by harsh expanses of desert, and to the north by the sea. The easiest way to reach Egypt was, in fact, by the sea. The success of Cambyses, Alexander, Khosrau and Amr in conquering Egypt overland shouldn't disguise that fact. Alexander and Khosrau faced essentially no resistance, Cambyses had the entire Persian Empire at his back (and help from local allies), and Amr had a fair bit of luck and faced a depleted Byzantine Army. Egypt isn't really all that tied to the fortunes of the Levant. It's quite defensible - if there's someone there to defend it (emphasis) - because it has natural buffers to any invading force. Think of the numerous occasions when the Seleucids, Parthians and Sassanids managed to overrun Syria, but weren't able to move on to Egypt. And yes, there is the case of the Crusaders, too.

As I said above, Amr did the whole operation on a shoestring, more or less against orders, and had some luck in pulling it off. It was far from sure he would manage it. Had he failed, as was not improbable, it would all be a footnote in history, a foolhardy desert raid gone bad, and we would marvel at the resilience of the restored East Roman state, now in its seventh century of direct rule of Egypt.
 
I do not think that an independent Egypt will happen any time soon. if the Arabs are defeated then that will boost the empire. They will consolidate and try for Syria again. I think people overestimate the ability of many in the empire to want independence. what many wanted was the central gov in there quarter.

And the Copts had no experience with self-rule - they were mostly excluded from administration or army leadership posts. There was no obvious figure for them to rally around, unless it was the Patriarch/Pope of Alexandria.

The Copts may have been unhappy with Chalcedonian primacy in the empire, but they were fairly disunited among themselves, and Heraclius went out of his way to reconcile them after he restored Byzantine control of Egypt after the brutal Persian occupation.
 
If the Muslim invaders are defeated? Hmmm... So that leaves Egypt cut off from the rest of the Empire in a very Exarchate-of-Africa-like scenario. What I think would happen is that Egypt would remain in Byzantine hands, at least for the short term. There's no real catalyst for a sudden revolt and I think the Egyptian populations, while certainly they don't like or are impressed by Constantinople's rule, they're certainly not in a position to spontaneously revolt.

However, if Syria stays in Arab hands, which it will, methinks. (The Byzantines are far too exhausted and depleted to launch an effective counterattack anywhere before 660~, whereas the Arabs are facing a population surplus, are overcome by religious ferocity and zealousness and still have exceptional generals at their disposal.) then you might see a few things happen to Egypt.

Firstly, you'd see the population become even more apathetic to Byzantine rule. While being cut off doesn't physically isolate Constantinople from the Egyptians, psychologically, it probably would. I doubt a Byzantine victory would "galvanise" the Egyptians. If I recall correctly, the Byzantine victory against the Persians a decade earlier certainly didn't. Also, the Coptic Pope at the time, Benjamin I, was a real wildcard and would have certainly amplified Egyptian discontent at the time. It wasn't a good thing for the Byzantines to have approx. 70% of your population led by a dude who was not only extremely charismatic and intelligent, but who hated the Byzantines with a passion.

Secondly, as well as a more apathetic population, you might see Egypt become more politically isolated. Its very probable that sooner or later, central rule from Constantinople just stops being practical and they appoint Egypt as an Exarchate. This could occur for a few reasons, namely Constantinople becomes weaker (assuming one victory doesn't butterfly the long-term decline of Egypt), the land divide becomes greater, communication by sea becomes impractical or unreliable (the emergence of another power?) and/or the population becomes less "Byzantine". Or, it could happen because the Romans finally realise that having Egypt ruled by a Melkite Patriarch is really bloody stupid.

Sooner or later, you'd see an independent Egyptian state emerge. In my humble opinion, this is more or less inevitable. If they become an Exarchate, you could see the Exarch declare independence during a time of Byzantine strife (see: Africa). If they don't become an Exarchate, you would probably eventually see a successful revolt. The thing was, Egypt's political scene was a boiling kettle heated by religious and (too a lesser extent) ethnic strife. Unless the Byzantines address the issues heating said kettle, its pretty evident that a revolt would take place.

And the Copts had no experience with self-rule - they were mostly excluded from administration or army leadership posts. There was no obvious figure for them to rally around, unless it was the Patriarch/Pope of Alexandria.
And the Pope would be an excellent figurehead to rally around indeed. Especially a character such as Benjamin I. The Pope's influence was widespread and weighty, so much so that they often had to go into hiding (and conversely, the Byzantines would go to great lengths to find them, see: Mennas) for fear of banishment, imprisonment or maybe death by the Byzantines. As for being excluded, its important to remember that the lines between a Copt, a Hellenised Copt and a Greek often blurred, especially in cities such as Alexandria. There were plenty of Hellenised Copts or ethnic Copts who were Melkites who served in the bureaucracy.
Heraclius went out of his way to reconcile them after he restored Byzantine control of Egypt after the brutal Persian occupation.
Oh? If I remember correctly, his compromise "monothelitism" doctrine aimed at mainly the monophysites of Egypt was regarded as heretical by both ends and had little long-term effect.
 
The Copts may have been unhappy with Chalcedonian primacy in the empire, but they were fairly disunited among themselves, and Heraclius went out of his way to reconcile them after he restored Byzantine control of Egypt after the brutal Persian occupation.

I'm not sure how true that is. Dioscorus of Aphrodito (the subject of my dissertation) was involved in the affairs of his local town and certainly visited Constantinople, though he was probably a Copt. The whole idea of an Egypt divided in the seventh century into Greeks and Copts is one I'm not really too happy with- the populations had had a thousand years of mixing behind them at this point, and in any case all likely considered themselves merely to be Roman subjects.

If the Muslim invaders are defeated? Hmmm... So that leaves Egypt cut off from the rest of the Empire in a very Exarchate-of-Africa-like scenario. What I think would happen is that Egypt would remain in Byzantine hands, at least for the short term. There's no real catalyst for a sudden revolt and I think the Egyptian populations, while certainly they don't like or are impressed by Constantinople's rule, they're certainly not in a position to spontaneously revolt.
As Athelstane says above, as long as the Romans maintain sea-power, which they will do into the 650s at minimum, then Egypt will remain intricately linked into the imperial system of an eastern Mediterranean Empire.

God-Eater of the Marshes said:
However, if Syria stays in Arab hands, which it will, methinks. (The Byzantines are far too exhausted and depleted to launch an effective counterattack anywhere before 660~, whereas the Arabs are facing a population surplus, are overcome by religious ferocity and zealousness and still have exceptional generals at their disposal.) then you might see a few things happen to Egypt.
Probably true about counterattacking, although the Empire will enjoy a much happier 640s because of Egyptian taxes, in all likelihood. Also, I'm not sure about religious issues being as key to the Arabs as everyone says. Personally, I'm quite convinced by the idea that Islam as a concept only solidified around the end of the seventh century under Abd al-Malik, which is why I'm talking about "Arabs" rather than "Muslims" here. Certainly we have Muawiyah putting up buildings and inscriptions with crosses on them in the middle of the seventh century.

God-Eater of the Marshes said:
Firstly, you'd see the population become even more apathetic to Byzantine rule. While being cut off doesn't physically isolate Constantinople from the Egyptians, psychologically, it probably would. I doubt a Byzantine victory would "galvanise" the Egyptians. If I recall correctly, the Byzantine victory against the Persians a decade earlier certainly didn't. Also, the Coptic Pope at the time, Benjamin I, was a real wildcard and would have certainly amplified Egyptian discontent at the time. It wasn't a good thing for the Byzantines to have approx. 70% of your population led by a dude who was not only extremely charismatic and intelligent, but who hated the Byzantines with a passion.
I doubt that the populace of Anatolia, Sicily or the Chersonese were all too thrilled about remaining under Constantinople's orbit in the 640s and 650s, but you didn't see them revolt, and I can't see why Egypt would differ from that. As far I understand it, all of the sources for seventh century Coptic leaders date from much later than the seventh century, so we don't really know how people like Benjamin really felt towards the Empire. I would put money on the degree of anti-Chalcedonian sentiment being vastly exaggerated in hindsight, though.

God-Eater of the Marshes said:
Secondly, as well as a more apathetic population, you might see Egypt become more politically isolated. Its very probable that sooner or later, central rule from Constantinople just stops being practical and they appoint Egypt as an Exarchate. This could occur for a few reasons, namely Constantinople becomes weaker (assuming one victory doesn't butterfly the long-term decline of Egypt), the land divide becomes greater, communication by sea becomes impractical or unreliable (the emergence of another power?) and/or the population becomes less "Byzantine". Or, it could happen because the Romans finally realise that having Egypt ruled by a Melkite Patriarch is really bloody stupid.
Quite likely, given the Strategoi of Anatolia were beginning to act like Exarchs as the eighth century began. Egypt will be easier to control than Anatolia, though, because it can be reached quite easily by sea, rather than by having to trail across the bleakness of the Anatolian plateau. Unless of course, as you say, another sea-power emerges to threaten this. As for rule by a Patriarch, this certainly wasn't the case in the sixth century, and I'm not sure why it would be in the seventh either. Much later Coptic sources that discuss this are going to be using hindsight and deeply biased.

God-Eater of the Marshes said:
Sooner or later, you'd see an independent Egyptian state emerge. In my humble opinion, this is more or less inevitable. If they become an Exarchate, you could see the Exarch declare independence during a time of Byzantine strife (see: Africa). If they don't become an Exarchate, you would probably eventually see a successful revolt. The thing was, Egypt's political scene was a boiling kettle heated by religious and (too a lesser extent) ethnic strife. Unless the Byzantines address the issues heating said kettle, its pretty evident that a revolt would take place.
And if this was such a big issue, why weren't there Egyptian revolts under any previous regime? Why didn't the Egyptians revolt when Phocas deposed Maurice? Why not revolt when Heraclius deposed Phocas? Why not revolt when it seemed clear Heraclius was going to be defeated in about 612? Why not revolt against Heraclius in the fourteen year period after the restoration of Imperial rule? And those are just selecting moments of civil war when it might have been opportune to rebel.

The revolts of the Exarchs of Africa failed in the end, and Italy only went under because of outside conquest by the Lombards. Egyptian revolution seems to me to be a possible, but fairly unlikely chance.

God-Eater of the Marshes said:
As for being excluded, its important to remember that the lines between a Copt, a Hellenised Copt and a Greek often blurred, especially in cities such as Alexandria. There were plenty of Hellenised Copts or ethnic Copts who were Melkites who served in the bureaucracy.
Definitely true. And it's also important to remember that these distinctions would not have been recognised by any contemporary, given we have, to my knowledge, no contemporary Egyptian source that discusses the divide. Is it really plausible that a small group of Greeks in Egypt dating back to the time of Alexander and Ptolemy I would remain exclusive and inbred for one thousand years?

God-Eater of the Marshes said:
Oh? If I remember correctly, his compromise "monothelitism" doctrine aimed at mainly the monophysites of Egypt was regarded as heretical by both ends and had little long-term effect.
It's quite difficult to work it out. After all, the Monothelite regimes of Heraclius and Constans II failed to inflict any sort of serious defeat upon the Arabs and restore the Empire's situation. With Monothelitism thus having failed to win God's support, it made sense for all parties to claim that they had despised the heretical compromise. From what I recall, though, the doctrine was much more bitterly opposed in the West than it was in the East. I forget the source, but one Monophysite certainly gloated about dragging the Chalcedonians to the "orthodox" position.
 
Hello God-Eater (quite the handle you have there),

However, if Syria stays in Arab hands, which it will, methinks. (The Byzantines are far too exhausted and depleted to launch an effective counterattack anywhere before 660~, whereas the Arabs are facing a population surplus, are overcome by religious ferocity and zealousness and still have exceptional generals at their disposal.) then you might see a few things happen to Egypt.

Firstly, you'd see the population become even more apathetic to Byzantine rule. While being cut off doesn't physically isolate Constantinople from the Egyptians, psychologically, it probably would. I doubt a Byzantine victory would "galvanise" the Egyptians. If I recall correctly, the Byzantine victory against the Persians a decade earlier certainly didn't. Also, the Coptic Pope at the time, Benjamin I, was a real wildcard and would have certainly amplified Egyptian discontent at the time. It wasn't a good thing for the Byzantines to have approx. 70% of your population led by a dude who was not only extremely charismatic and intelligent, but who hated the Byzantines with a passion.

Secondly, as well as a more apathetic population, you might see Egypt become more politically isolated. Its very probable that sooner or later, central rule from Constantinople just stops being practical and they appoint Egypt as an Exarchate. This could occur for a few reasons, namely Constantinople becomes weaker (assuming one victory doesn't butterfly the long-term decline of Egypt), the land divide becomes greater, communication by sea becomes impractical or unreliable (the emergence of another power?) and/or the population becomes less "Byzantine". Or, it could happen because the Romans finally realise that having Egypt ruled by a Melkite Patriarch is really bloody stupid.

Sooner or later, you'd see an independent Egyptian state emerge. In my humble opinion, this is more or less inevitable. If they become an Exarchate, you could see the Exarch declare independence during a time of Byzantine strife (see: Africa). If they don't become an Exarchate, you would probably eventually see a successful revolt. The thing was, Egypt's political scene was a boiling kettle heated by religious and (too a lesser extent) ethnic strife. Unless the Byzantines address the issues heating said kettle, its pretty evident that a revolt would take place.

It's honestly hard to say. The butterflies seem likely to multiply quickly. And those butterflies would depend heavily on the manner (I would argue) in which Amr's invasion fails. If it's something like a terrible natural disaster like plague, that might be seen as a judgment by Allah, and that might not only discourage another attempt in the near future, but also possibly shake the confidence of the merging Caliphate. That might play out in unforeseen ways for its hold on the Levant. Byzantium would be the stronger for still having access to the grain, revenue, and manpower of Egypt, and Arab resources would be likely diminished, and much less likely to be channeled into naval attacks to anything like the same degree. The Caliphate might shift its center of gravity to Mesopotamia sooner if it faces heavier Byzantine resistance, focusing more on expansion into Asia.

But I *would* agree that the longer the Arabs keep the Levant, Egypt might well drift into a greater autonomy. The main impetus against that is how crucial it remains to Constantinople - more important than Africa or Italy. The emperors would want to keep a closer control over Egypt: their survival would depend on it, in their view.

And the Pope would be an excellent figurehead to rally around indeed. Especially a character such as Benjamin I.

No doubt. However, Benjamin so far hadn't made any effort to oust or replace imperial rule. And he had been an even more relentless enemy of Persian rule. Even he could see, as could all Egyptians, that imperial rule seemed preferable to infidels out of the East. The Arabs *did* look less dangerous than the Persians, to be sure, and that was why Benjamin was ready to make a deal with them after 641. But in this scenario, as Arab rule solidified to the East and Islam formalized itself and its doctrine, it might have looked more ominous to Benjamin and his successors - especially if the Caliphate turned to harsher measures to keep its control over the Levant. Which isn't all that unlikely.

Oh? If I remember correctly, his compromise "monothelitism" doctrine aimed at mainly the monophysites of Egypt was regarded as heretical by both ends and had little long-term effect.

Monothelitism *did* ultimately fail as a theological compromise. But my point was merely that both Heraclius and Constans II went out of their way not to repress monophysitism in Egypt or Syria. They both promoted monothelitism, but they did not insist on it. They were smart enough to know how shaky their renewed rule over the East was and the importance of not alienating non-Chalcedonian populations any more than they had to.

Only once those provinces were gone for good did Constantinople's position harden - because there was little political cost in doing so.
 
Hello Basileus,

I'm not sure how true that is. Dioscorus of Aphrodito (the subject of my dissertation) was involved in the affairs of his local town and certainly visited Constantinople, though he was probably a Copt. The whole idea of an Egypt divided in the seventh century into Greeks and Copts is one I'm not really too happy with- the populations had had a thousand years of mixing behind them at this point, and in any case all likely considered themselves merely to be Roman subjects.

I didn't mean to imply *that* kind of division.

I only meant that there was not some sense of Coptic nationhood, set against Chalcedonian (let alone Roman) supremacy. There was no political organization of resistance there of the sort that would be necessary. To the extent that there was resentment of Constantinople theologically or political, it seems to have been mostly inchoate. And that's all I meant.

I doubt that the populace of Anatolia, Sicily or the Chersonese were all too thrilled about remaining under Constantinople's orbit in the 640s and 650s, but you didn't see them revolt, and I can't see why Egypt would differ from that. As far I understand it, all of the sources for seventh century Coptic leaders date from much later than the seventh century, so we don't really know how people like Benjamin really felt towards the Empire. I would put money on the degree of anti-Chalcedonian sentiment being vastly exaggerated in hindsight, though.

I couldn't agree more.
 
Hello Elfwine,

I think the danger is - as always - reading an event through subsequent history. It makes things look more inevitable than they really were. For example: We look back at the Crisis of the Third Century and marvel at the Empire's political and military resiliency. But we look back at the crisis of the Fifth Century and zero in on the internal flaws - or the exogenous threat of the Huns - that made it inevitable, or nearly so.

I dunno about "more inevitable" than they really were. I'm just saying that the Byzantines are in a tight spot - when 20,000 represents a large army, for a state that once mustered armies in the tens of thousands - things aren't going so smoothly.

The reality is that Amr ibn al-Aas pulled the thing off on a shoestring, with only 4,000 men (at least in the first phase) and little in the way of logistical support, and he had to manage a few lengthy sieges at each step along the way to do it. Give the Byzantines a better commander at any point, or if we can extend Heraclius's years of vigor a little longer - he was dying at this point, and died after belatedly assembling his relief force for the siege of Alexandria in 641 - such that he reacts much faster, and with more vigor to relieve Egypt - and it's not so hard to imagine Amr being forced to withdraw.

We talk about Byzantine exhaustion after the brutal Persian war, and there's no denying that the Empire had yet to fully recover. Manpower was at a premium, as Basileus rightly notes above. But that is also true for the Arabs. They had their successes with real economy of force.

Sure. But the Arabs aren't at the end of their rope (as regards to holding Syria and south). If Amr is forced to withdraw, that doesn't mean the end of the Arabian war effort. On the other hand, if the Byzantines suffer a defeat equivalent to Heliopolis, that is (again, in regards to this particular bit of the empire) going to be a hard blow - as OTL shows.

OTL picked as an example of a timeline where the Arabs won, not as the inevitable result.

So imagine a world in which . . . Magnum's scenario happens. The Byzantines counterattack at Heliopolis - or in the alternative (actually, a better alternative), the siege drags on, and Amr's army is decimated by disease in its siege camps, and Amr (or his successor) has to withdraw the scraps of his army in humiliation to Palestine.

Now the shoe is on the other foot. The Arabs had gone from success to success. Now, they've faced a real setback. And if it's disease, it may seem to them a divine disfavor for Amr's impetuous invasion. Umar had thought the whole thing unwise in the first place. Now he's sitting in Damascus with a relatively small Arab force in control of a Christine Levant, facing (let us say), a Heraclius the Great, Conqueror of the Sassanids, older but still hale, assembling to counterattack. Umar decides to let Egypt be for the time being, and works to consolidate himself in Syria.
But how big a setback is this for the Arabs?

This scenario works best with a Heraclius who lives longer, stays healthy. But even one POD of a devastating loss at Heliopolis could be enough to allow Byzantine Egypt to hold on long enough until Constans (or some other effective emperor) moves over to the counterattack in the 640's or even 650's.

I think that's a bit optimistic. Not entirely impossible, but I think the Byzantine situation OTL (aka the only timeline we have accounts of) does not suggest that bouncing back would be this easy.

That being said, it's less "Egypt is doomed" and more "securing Egypt will not be easy", IMO. Call it a 40-60 Arab favor, say - harder for the Byzantines but not inevitable for the Arabs.
 
Hello Elfwine,

But the Arabs aren't at the end of their rope (as regards to holding Syria and south). If Amr is forced to withdraw, that doesn't mean the end of the Arabian war effort.

Sure, that's a possibility. As I said, it depends on the manner in which Amr's invasion fails.

The Arabs have their advantages, but they're still doing something new, and their leadership was volatile - it was soon to be consumed by a civil war.

The best time for Heraclius to deal with the Arab threat was at Yarmuk, of course. But with a lucky break, it's not at all inconceivable that they could hang on in Egypt. Even with their diminished army.
 
see the problem was the whole monophysite-orthdox rift. In reality the main cause for byzantine loss of egypt was because partriarch cyrus I believe made a deal with the arabs that in return for them paying a small tribute his people would be tolerated and allowed to live normally. After this he rallied the egyption people who withdrew their support for the rhomans who had been treating them like crap(arabs wouldn't do a better job anyway though this is known from hindsight)b and so the byzantine generals lost the support of the people and could no longer fight the arabs. Then only Alexandria remained but it too fell due to the numbers the arabs had by that point. Therefore to prevent the loss of egypt you must have relations be restored between the orthdox church of constantinople and the monophysite(coptic) church and Egyptians be treated much better than how they had been treated previously. Otherwise the generals of byzantium would lose support and be defeated.
 
see the problem was the whole monophysite-orthdox rift. In reality the main cause for byzantine loss of egypt was because partriarch cyrus I believe made a deal with the arabs that in return for them paying a small tribute his people would be tolerated and allowed to live normally. After this he rallied the egyption people who withdrew their support for the rhomans who had been treating them like crap(arabs wouldn't do a better job anyway though this is known from hindsight)b and so the byzantine generals lost the support of the people and could no longer fight the arabs. Then only Alexandria remained but it too fell due to the numbers the arabs had by that point. Therefore to prevent the loss of egypt you must have relations be restored between the orthdox church of constantinople and the monophysite(coptic) church and Egyptians be treated much better than how they had been treated previously. Otherwise the generals of byzantium would lose support and be defeated.

Please do some reading about actual history from an actual book, and learn to format your writing.
 
Sure, that's a possibility. As I said, it depends on the manner in which Amr's invasion fails.

The Arabs have their advantages, but they're still doing something new, and their leadership was volatile - it was soon to be consumed by a civil war.

The best time for Heraclius to deal with the Arab threat was at Yarmuk, of course. But with a lucky break, it's not at all inconceivable that they could hang on in Egypt. Even with their diminished army.

Yeah. I think we're at the point of arguing over how possible it would be, which - for me at least - is kinda futile.

The chance existed if the circumstances were right, although what it would take for them to be right is hard to say.

I mean, how do you avert Heraclius's failing health? He's not a young man and he's hard a pretty taxing time as emperor.

It's not something I think we can easily answer, although I'm hopeful someone who has studied this more extensively than I have can shed some light on what's going on there. It's not as if old but hale is impossible - Basil the Bulgarslayer comes to mind, say.
 
Please do some reading about actual history from an actual book, and learn to format your writing.

There's an interesting line in Colin McEvedy's book (The New Penguin Atlas of Medieval History) where - and this on the nature of the Trinity - "Every time a definition was imposed, a group that wanted to emphasize its identity opted for the heretical alternative."

That seems appropriate to me. The people who made the biggest stink about not following the "party line" as it were were the people being ornery and contrary for whatever reason - and religion just happened to be a convenient way of expressing that.

Maybe that's wording it a touch cynically, but Armenia, for instance. The Armenians were loyal to Rome (mostly) and served as disproportionately in the Empire as Scots in the British Empire, but they definitely were distinct enough to not just be part of the thing we call "Greek'.

The Copts being similar seems rather more credible than there was a sense of being oppressed in any sense other than how no one liked the Roman tax collection system.
 
Hello Elfwine,

The Arabs had fortune on their side, and some savvy leadership. The Rashidun armies took the field at a time when both of the great superpowers of the day were utterly exhausted from decades of all-out war - they couldn't have picked a better time in the history of the Roman or Sassanid Empires (save possibly the Plague of Justinian, and even then Justinian had some great generals). So they had perfect timing.

And once they won at Yarmouk - where they faced an already ailing Heraclius - the odds moved in their favor for conquering much, if not all, of the Byzantine Empire.

I mean, how do you avert Heraclius's failing health? He's not a young man and he's hard a pretty taxing time as emperor.

I agree that this is a more problematic POD, unless you just kill him off in 633 or so. But that would leave the question of who succeeds him, and whether he'd be any more up to the task than an old and ailing Heraclius. Constantine III was only 21 years old at the time. A succession struggle might have made things even worse, not better. It's hard to say.

Hard to blame Heraclius too much - he had already done more to save the Empire than any other emperor you could name. So it seems to me that it's easier to pick a local POD, a brilliant commander with a lucky break at Heliopolis wipes out Amr's army with a surprise attack, or plague decimates his army. Which would still leave the Byzantines with a "challenging" situation, but one where they have a fair chance, at least, of hanging on in Egypt. Their better chance was still at Yarmouk.

I suppose Byzantium had used up all its luck - or grace - against the Persians.
 
There's an interesting line in Colin McEvedy's book (The New Penguin Atlas of Medieval History) where - and this on the nature of the Trinity - "Every time a definition was imposed, a group that wanted to emphasize its identity opted for the heretical alternative."

That seems appropriate to me. The people who made the biggest stink about not following the "party line" as it were were the people being ornery and contrary for whatever reason - and religion just happened to be a convenient way of expressing that.

Maybe that's wording it a touch cynically, but Armenia, for instance. The Armenians were loyal to Rome (mostly) and served as disproportionately in the Empire as Scots in the British Empire, but they definitely were distinct enough to not just be part of the thing we call "Greek'.

The Copts being similar seems rather more credible than there was a sense of being oppressed in any sense other than how no one liked the Roman tax collection system.

:D

I think that's being seriously cynical, there! From what I've read, it seems to have been more individuals deciding that they, and they alone, would be the true fount of knowledge of God, with these individuals then acquiring a following. Heresies thus became rooted down and tribalistic, with dislike of the opposite side preventing fanatics from coming to a conclusion. 85% of the populace, meanwhile, would have just gone to whichever church was nearest.

Plus, Christianity has always had a persecution complex, and a ready number of those ready to martyr themselves in the cause of "Orthodoxy", however they might choose to define this!
 
Hello Elfwine,

The Arabs had fortune on their side, and some savvy leadership. The Rashidun armies took the field at a time when both of the great superpowers of the day were utterly exhausted from decades of all-out war - they couldn't have picked a better time in the history of the Roman or Sassanid Empires (save possibly the Plague of Justinian, and even then Justinian had some great generals). So they had perfect timing.

And once they won at Yarmouk - where they faced an already ailing Heraclius - the odds moved in their favor for conquering much, if not all, of the Byzantine Empire.

No argument here.
I agree that this is a more problematic POD, unless you just kill him off in 633 or so. But that would leave the question of who succeeds him, and whether he'd be any more up to the task than an old and ailing Heraclius. Constantine III was only 21 years old at the time. A succession struggle might have made things even worse, not better. It's hard to say.

Hard to blame Heraclius too much - he had already done more to save the Empire than any other emperor you could name. So it seems to me that it's easier to pick a local POD, a brilliant commander with a lucky break at Heliopolis wipes out Amr's army with a surprise attack, or plague decimates his army. Which would still leave the Byzantines with a "challenging" situation, but one where they have a fair chance, at least, of hanging on in Egypt. Their better chance was still at Yarmouk.

I suppose Byzantium had used up all its luck - or grace - against the Persians.

Yeah. I don't think OTL was the worst possible scenario, or the best, but it seems like it was a predictable outcome.

With the knowledge we have, that is.


Basileus Giorgios: True enough. The main thing that strikes me is that other than the ornery individuals or fanatical ones, most people just didn't make a whole lot of it. Whereas for instance Protestantism and Catholicism - either those are far more numerous, or the average person isn't as "meh, whatever.", or both.

I suppose part of it is the Romanness thing. The idea of being a Roman subject/citizen was more a part of one's higher (nonlocal) identity than what side of increasingly nitpicking Christological arguments one's priest was on.
 
Please do some reading about actual history from an actual book, and learn to format your writing.

ok sorry.
But it seems as if you dislike osstrogorsky causse in his book history of a byzantine state this was his view. However I think you are right about it not being the egyption people oppressed but their was a major rift beetween the orthdox and coptic churches at the time.

Also in your opinion what was the reason then for the arabs to successfully win over the populace of egypt surely cyrus had a role to play in it. Also some copts beg to disagree i guess:http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/642Egypt-conq2.asp Though it is a bit biased I guess this one too will find a less biased source:http://www.copticchurch.net/topics/thecopticchurch/arab_conquest_of_egypt.pdf Sorry for not having many book sources right now to put up Heres a book i read recently by butler:http://books.google.com/books?id=O3-yWUIs7TkC

http://www.historytoday.com/eamonn-gearon/arab-invasions-first-islamic-empire and this though i agree the accounts are dubious
 
Last edited:
Top