Byzantine Egypt

Could the Arab conquest of Egypt have been prevented or delayed. WI: The initial invasion failed, with the Byzantine army actually defeating the Arabs. Would the Arabs later return, possibly the result of native Egyptian treachery? Or would a defeat cause them to turn eastward?
 
Could the Arab conquest of Egypt have been prevented or delayed. WI: The initial invasion failed, with the Byzantine army actually defeating the Arabs. Would the Arabs later return, possibly the result of native Egyptian treachery? Or would a defeat cause them to turn eastward?

Yes, if the Romans win at Yarmouk, there's a very good chance of succesfully repelling the Muslims from Palestine and Egypt for a while. However, by the mid seventh century, Egypt was growing tired of direct rule from Constantinople, due to religious differences and the general lack of tolerance at the time; I'd argue that Egypt would eventually throw off Roman control completely, unless the religious policy of Constantinople is radically rethought.
 
The better way to have a Byzantine Egypt isn't to delete Yarmuk.
It's more plausible to have a byzantine reconquest, while Constantinopolis profites to Crusades disorder, to regain Alexandria, as a base of Egyptian operations.

By the way, reconquest could be begins from
-Carthago, that Byzance nevers loose
-Or, OTL Byzantine possessions
 
Well, speaking in a tolerant manner, Muslims might be able to learn to accept the Christian presence in Egypt at the very least, and they might decide to turn West, seeing Hindu paganism as a much greater evil?
 
Yes, if the Romans win at Yarmouk, there's a very good chance of succesfully repelling the Muslims from Palestine and Egypt for a while. However, by the mid seventh century, Egypt was growing tired of direct rule from Constantinople, due to religious differences and the general lack of tolerance at the time; I'd argue that Egypt would eventually throw off Roman control completely, unless the religious policy of Constantinople is radically rethought.

It HAD been radically rethought. One of the most tragic things about the Arab invasions happening when they did is that Heraclius had negotiated a relatively agreeable compromise between the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Alexandria, monoenergism. While it's unlikely the stable situation would have held forever, it would have represented a third way that later emperors could have latched on to.

The main problem is that, if the Romans won at Yarmuk, it wouldn't have stopped the Arabs. They would have kept coming, and Byzantium was in a weak position at this point.
 
The Arab numbers wherent so big you know. Also the Byzantines who where supposed to defend Alexandria surrendered... they could have hold the city and nearby territories for 8 years! I think that is time enough for the Emperor to send a relief force. Then punch back the Arabs.
 
The better way to have a Byzantine Egypt isn't to delete Yarmuk.
It's more plausible to have a byzantine reconquest, while Constantinopolis profites to Crusades disorder, to regain Alexandria, as a base of Egyptian operations.

By the way, reconquest could be begins from
-Carthago, that Byzance nevers loose
-Or, OTL Byzantine possessions

That doesn't make much sense to me. It would be much better for the Byzantines to defeat the Muslims at Yarmuk than to have Egypt conquered and then have to reconquer it, especially with no land connection.

If Egypt falls, the rest of North Africa is in a very tenuous position, and Carthage is not really much of a base of operations for the recovery of Egypt - it's too far, and is not the rich area it once was.
 
If Egypt falls, the rest of North Africa is in a very tenuous position, and Carthage is not really much of a base of operations for the recovery of Egypt - it's too far, and is not the rich area it once was.

Agreed. Carthage is far away, vulnerable to overland attack, and not particularly well-off anymore.

It may have been the Arab invasions that finally destroyed what was left of the economy and ecology of the area that once allowed it to be prosperous, but even before then the process was well advanced.
 
Well, speaking in a tolerant manner, Muslims might be able to learn to accept the Christian presence in Egypt at the very least, and they might decide to turn West, seeing Hindu paganism as a much greater evil?

Islamic expansion was largely opportunistic, and occurred because of momentary Roman and Persian weakness. They would have had little chance of making any headway against India in this period - I don't even know how they'd get there.
 
Islamic expansion was largely opportunistic, and occurred because of momentary Roman and Persian weakness. They would have had little chance of making any headway against India in this period - I don't even know how they'd get there.

Well, for starters they'd need to go through Persia, and to do that they'd need to deal with the Romans. So, as per OTL?
 
From what I know about Byzantine history, they were losing to Arabs/Muslims because of their internal instability, rather than because of the Arab military competence.

Byzantines (/East Romans) could have stopped them if they had got their act together and focused on defending their borders rather than on internal squabbles over absurd theological differences. They were wasting their energy and resources on internal power struggles in the time they needed to fight the external enemies. It's tragic, really, that the whole Middle East was turned into such a mess because of the Byzantine incompetence and neglect.

Anyway, if the Byzantines had somehow defeated the Arabs and kept them out of their territories, they'd probably turn East, conquer the remnants of Persia and some territories in Central Asia.

After that it would be the same old story: East Roman Empire fighting endless wars with now-Muslim Persia. Islam would have never spread to North Africa or Anatolia, Western Europe would remain a cultural backwater for much longer period of time (no ancient/classical knowledge transmited via Islamic learning), Spain would look entirely different etc.

Muslims would not have controlled most trade routes, so it's a distict possibility that the European Age of Discovery, which was originally driven by the need to find alternative trade routes to India, would have been delayed.
 
Hmm, but what immediate butterflies might this have for the rest of the 7th century? Would Greek still be made the official language of the Empire (What was the exact year of the change again?)? Would the Arabs simply give up on taking the west, preferring to go for easy pickings or would they constantly launch new invasion attempts?

Also, what effects might this have on other invasions of the period? Assuming their migration itself isn't butterflied away, can the Empire hope to stop the Bulgars from flooding into the Balkans?
 
Top