Arab Conquest of Egypt

[el t]

WI: The Byzantines were better organized and defeat the invading Arabs in Egypt. Actually their army was larger. Would the Arabs try again, or would their western expansion be halted? How would this affect the subsequent development of their empires (both Byzantine and Islamic?

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

WI: The Byzantines were better organized and defeat the invading Arabs in Egypt. Actually their army was larger. Would the Arabs try again, or would their western expansion be halted? How would this affect the subsequent development of their empires (both Byzantine and Islamic?

Funny, that's a really good question that I don't think we've ever really explored.

If the Arabs had been stopped at Egypt, you could argue that this would allow a Byzantine counter-offensive, but the problem is that Egypt is physically separated from the rest of the empire and there are serious religious problems between Alexandria and Constantinople.

My feeling is that Egypt would split off and become independent. What the implication are for the rest of North Africa is hard to determine, but it I would guess Cyrenaica would go with Egypt and the rest would be swallowed up by Western powers.

The Caliphate would not have the resources it had in OTL and could end up fizzling out, but by the attack on Egypt it's probably too late for the Empire to get Syria back.

 

[rcduggan]

Funny, that's a really good question that I don't think we've ever really explored.

If the Arabs had been stopped at Egypt, you could argue that this would allow a Byzantine counter-offensive, but the problem is that Egypt is physically separated from the rest of the empire and there are serious religious problems between Alexandria and Constantinople.

My feeling is that Egypt would split off and become independent. What the implication are for the rest of North Africa is hard to determine, but it I would guess Cyrenaica would go with Egypt and the rest would be swallowed up by Western powers.

The Caliphate would not have the resources it had in OTL and could end up fizzling out, but by the attack on Egypt it's probably too late for the Empire to get Syria back.

if Egypt broke off from the Byzantines, would the Arabs try to invade again ITTL?

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

if Egypt broke off from the Byzantines, would the Arabs try to invade again ITTL?

That depends on how badly they failed and how many other problems they have - but I would think so. It's too rich to just ignore.

 

[Toadstool]

This is interesting, on the timelines and scenarios there is "Ancient Egypt survives until the present day" which contains a section where the Arabs invade Egypt in this timeline as it did in OTL and the Egyptians beat back the Arab advance several times. Of course, Egypt is an independent country as it never fell until Ptolemaic control so it never became Roman and as a result it would be different in a Byzantine controlled Egypt. It ends up with Mecca being completely burnt to the ground a couple of centuries later with Egypt and the Romans (the Western Europe has managed to survive in this TL too) manipulating the Muslim factions in the Middle East into endless conflict with each other. This results in no dominant Caliphate and a Muslim world probably only a third of the size it was in OTL.

But of course in a Byzantine Egypt, it would be different. From my understanding, the Byzantines were far more defensive than offensive, with their only real offensive conquests in the reclamation of lost regions or against forces which were an extreme threat. Egypt was a major source of grain for the Byzantines and they would have sacrifices Syria to consolidate control over Egypt and Anatolia if they needed to.

So in this timeline, it's possible the Byzantines in Egypt (providing they maintain loyalty to Constantinople) would try and push in to reclaim control of Palestine or even possibly an attempted invasion of Arabia via the Red Sea in order to severely undermine Muslim efforts (a possible attempted invasion of Mecca or Medina.) Whether it is Byzantine Egypt which eventually disappears either by independence or the successive Muslim attacks or the Caliphs who disappear by Muslims turned inwards by very inflamed infighting in Arabia would be anyone's guess.

 

[Jaded_Railman]

My feeling is that Egypt would split off and become independent. What the implication are for the rest of North Africa is hard to determine, but it I would guess Cyrenaica would go with Egypt and the rest would be swallowed up by Western powers.

The Caliphate would not have the resources it had in OTL and could end up fizzling out, but by the attack on Egypt it's probably too late for the Empire to get Syria back.

They could very well try, but it'd be a hell of a thing. Heraklios was actually still Emperor at the time Egypt was going, and if he dies while maintaining Egypt (the loss of which devastated the urban fabric of the rest of the Empire) there will still be the succession crisis that followed. Having Egypt won't prevent Constantine from dieing of tuberculoses.

Once Constans gains the throne, however (if he does, who knows what butterflies Egypt could have in the frankly Byzantine court politics of Martina and her son), things can settle down. The 640's occupation of Alexandria well proves the Byzantines at the time could still project power well enough to attack the Arabs in their new conquests, so it's completely possible that a gradual reconquest of the Levantine coast could begin.

This does, of course, depend on an able Emperor hitting the throne before the window of opportunity disappears. The Arabs aren't going to lose once and go away, but keep trying until they get what they want.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

But the Arab conquest of Egypt was almost an accident, and it gave them the resources to create a real empire. Without it they may have just fizzled.

A Byzantine Egypt would just be a remote province and would likely be lost before long. But an independent Egypt will be a lot stronger militarily and politically. Without the various doctrinal conflicts that destroyed Egyptian morale and unity, it would be a more durable polity.

They could very well try, but it'd be a hell of a thing. Heraklios was actually still Emperor at the time Egypt was going, and if he dies while maintaining Egypt (the loss of which devastated the urban fabric of the rest of the Empire) there will still be the succession crisis that followed. Having Egypt won't prevent Constantine from dieing of tuberculoses.

Once Constans gains the throne, however (if he does, who knows what butterflies Egypt could have in the frankly Byzantine court politics of Martina and her son), things can settle down. The 640's occupation of Alexandria well proves the Byzantines at the time could still project power well enough to attack the Arabs in their new conquests, so it's completely possible that a gradual reconquest of the Levantine coast could begin.

This does, of course, depend on an able Emperor hitting the throne before the window of opportunity disappears. The Arabs aren't going to lose once and go away, but keep trying until they get what they want.

 

[Jaded_Railman]

But the Arab conquest of Egypt was almost an accident, and it gave them the resources to create a real empire. Without it they may have just fizzled.

A Byzantine Egypt would just be a remote province and would likely be lost before long. But an independent Egypt will be a lot stronger militarily and politically. Without the various doctrinal conflicts that destroyed Egyptian morale and unity, it would be a more durable polity.

Just a remote province?

Byzantine Egypt was one of the most important parts of the Empire. In fact, the urbanized, advanced, and densely populated regions of Asia Minor and the Balkans depended upon Egypt. Without Egypt, the Empire was hardly an empire on the same scale anymore, and all the Emperors knew this.

It wouldn't be just another province, it would continue to be the province.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Just a remote province?

Byzantine Egypt was one of the most important parts of the Empire. In fact, the urbanized, advanced, and densely populated regions of Asia Minor and the Balkans depended upon Egypt. Without Egypt, the Empire was hardly an empire on the same scale anymore, and all the Emperors knew this.

It wouldn't be just another province, it would continue to be the province.

A place is always stronger when it's the center of a state. It retains all its resources instead of sending them to the metropolis, and it can pursue policies in its own interest, and organize its economy for military purposes rather than as a resource cow for the empire.

The places you mentioned depended on Egypt until it was gone, then they depended on somewhere else.

My point wasn't that Egypt was an insignificant place, it was that it would be in a much better position to defend itself if independent, and much more motivated to do so. This is especially true of Byzantine Egypt, which was harshly treated by the Byzantine clergy for its "heresies".

I'm not sure this is arguable considering the total lack of support Constantinople gave Egypt, or how little effort the Egyptians put into resisting the Caliphate, which didn't seem that bad an alternative to Roman rule.

 

[Jaded_Railman]

Well it seems we don't entirely disagree, but as I said if Constantinople can manage to keep Egypt out of Arab hands its not just going to give it up to the monophystites, heresy or no heresy.

The places you mentioned depended on Egypt until it was gone, then they depended on somewhere else.

Well that's the thing; they didn't. They simply collapsed and the empire suffered an economic catastrophe of a crisis that lasted on-and-off for the next century and a half. The polity which emerged was recognizable as a distant cousin of the old, but not much more.

Between the loss of Egypt and the plagues the ERE's population simply...disappeared.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

That wasn't because of the loss of Egypt, it was because the empire was relentlessly hammered by an enemy with 10 times its power and revenue. Nobody starved, it just used Crimean grain instead - and had already made changes in its supplies before Islam because Egypt had been lost to Persia.

I'm not arguing that Egypt wasn't a serious loss, but I don't think the empire can hold it, at least not with the Caliphate in charge of everything in between Anatolia and Egypt. Most Egyptians considered Constantinople enemy #1, not the Arabs. Independent it had a chance. The Arabs took it with a teeny little army - that wouldn't have been possible if the Egyptians had resisted in any way, and the Arabs were at quite a loss as to what to do themselves since it hadn't occurred to them that they could just walk in and take over.

The empire changed into it's "cousin" because a) it had been hit by a 2 year famine followed by b) the Black Death with killed a third to half of the population followed by c) a 20 year war with Persia and the Avars followed by d) the emergence of Islam and the resultant 200-year body slam that entailed. The empire was forced to reorganize into the Thematic military state in order to survive. There should be a pre-a) that it had been wracked by centuries of heresies and their incredibly violent suppression.

After losing Egypt to Persia and after all the doctrinal disputes, Constantinople was essentially a hostile occupying regime. Under those circumstances Egypt was a strategic liability, not an asset. Over time maybe it could have become an integral part of the empire again, but not after the emergence of Islam.

Well it seems we don't entirely disagree, but as I said if Constantinople can manage to keep Egypt out of Arab hands its not just going to give it up to the monophystites, heresy or no heresy.




Well that's the thing; they didn't. They simply collapsed and the empire suffered an economic catastrophe of a crisis that lasted on-and-off for the next century and a half. The polity which emerged was recognizable as a distant cousin of the old, but not much more.

Between the loss of Egypt and the plagues the ERE's population simply...disappeared.

 

[Geordie]

Sorry, i don't know a lot about Byzantine Eypt, but would independence see a Coptic state on the Nile? Or is monophysisism (is this even a word?) a separate entity?

Geordie

 

[htgriffin]

Interesting....

Consider for a moment the idea of a Monophystite/Coptic civilization dominating NE Africa, a quasi Latinized Berber state or five developing in the Maghreb and forging OTL's TransSaharan links, and a Caliphate that is either far more Persian (getting luckier in Persia) or ends up confined to the Fertile Crecent.

I agree that barring a massive revision of Constantinople's administration Egypt is going to be lost to one thing or another, either revolutionaries rising up in alliance with the Arabs or an Exarch deciding to stop even giving lip service to the Chalcedonians as he openly converts.

 

[Ran Exilis]

Sorry, i don't know a lot about Byzantine Eypt, but would independence see a Coptic state on the Nile?

Quite propably - the overwhelming majority of the Egyptian population was Coptic at this point.

Or is monophysisism (is this even a word?) a separate entity?

The Copts are often considered to be monophysites, even though their Christology is technically miaphysite and not monophysite.