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.