Byzantine Egypt

[HueyLong]

WI the Eastern Roman Empire was centered, from its formation, on Egypt and Alexandria, not Anatolia and Constantinople?

It would make logical sense. Alexandria was bigger at the time, and Egypt was always held as a major segment of Rome. It has a good position on the Mediterranean, and can more easily defend the Levant. Egypt was more profitable, too.

 

[ninebucks]

WI the Eastern Roman Empire was centered, from its formation, on Egypt and Alexandria, not Anatolia and Constantinople?

It would make logical sense. Alexandria was bigger at the time, and Egypt was always held as a major segment of Rome. It has a good position on the Mediterranean, and can more easily defend the Levant. Egypt was more profitable, too.

I think the creation of East Rome has to be taken into account in relation to Constantine's personality. In many respects he moved the capital to the Bosphorous because it wasn't a very good place to centre an empire, something to do with proving himself worthy. That and his Grecophilia, there were many reasons why he built Constantinople where he did, it's just that not a lot of those reasons would be considered very good by a strategist.

But I agree, Roma in Aegyptum would be much more protectable and survivable than Rome in Asium. But you would have to butterfly away Constantine to get a survivable Byzantium, which is paradoxical, as it is not even clear that any other Emperor would have even moved the capital, not until the Sacks get bad that is.

 

[Nicole]

Constantinople was a great place to put an Imperial capital- the source of Imperial soldiers was Anatolia, so it kept a close eye there, and it is a great defensible position.

 

[stevep]

Constantinople was a great place to put an Imperial capital- the source of Imperial soldiers was Anatolia, so it kept a close eye there, and it is a great defensible position.

I agree. It controls access between the Black Sea and Med, for both trade and invading barbarians. Similarly by land between Asia and Europe. Egypt was rich but so was Syria and to a lesser degree Greece and Asia Minor. Also the great threats at the time were in the Balkans and from Persia. The emperor needed to be near enough to respond to attacks from either direction.

Furthermore I get the general impression that while Egypt was very rich it was a small Greek/foreign elite and the external empire that controlled the wealth of the region and the Egyptian population, largely reduced to peasantry, had very little power and influence.

I do remember reading that there was talk of an earlier division between two sons of the current emperor - forget exactly when. It was envisaged that the one who got the east would rule from either Alexandria or Antioch. However before this got very far the younger son, who would have been the eastern ruler, had a fatal illness. [One of the standard cases of metal poisoning that was so common at the time, an excess of iron in the torso]. However I think this was as near as anything that might have made Alexandria an imperial capital.

Most of the time Rome kept a very tight grip on Egypt simply because it was potentially so wealthy and powerful. Believe Augustus forbad senator's from visiting the province and made sure it was under imperial rather than senatorial rule.

Steve

 

[Tom Veil]

Well, there are good reasons for either location, but taking the WI of this thread and running with it, for me the big question is:

Would Alexandria as Capital have defended itself better than OTL Egypt? Would Byzantium as Ordinary City have defended itself signficantly worse than OTL Constantinople?

Assuming only small butterflies, the great enemies would be the same: first Muhammed's Arabs, then whichever warrior states emerged (like the Mongol, Seljuk, and Ottoman warriors) from Central Asia.

I would propose two possibilities for a big divergence:
(1) a Great Wall across the Sinai to block Eastern invaders in the event that the Levant is overrun. Call it Emperor Leo's Wall. This Wall might encourage the Empire to later abandon the Levant when it falls upon hard times, but could prevent the overrunning of Egypt by Islamic warriors.
(2) the development of a Red Sea Navy Classis, to protect from very clever Eastern invaders, guard against and trade with Nubians and Ethiopians, and trade with Indians behind Persia's back. The Red Sea Navy might encourage the Eastern Empire to dabble in taking over the Arabian Peninsula. In fact, they might have to crucify a certain Muhammed for proclaiming himself King of the Arabs.

 

[David S Poepoe]

(2) the development of a Red Sea Navy Classis, to protect from very clever Eastern invaders, guard against and trade with Nubians and Ethiopians, and trade with Indians behind Persia's back. The Red Sea Navy might encourage the Eastern Empire to dabble in taking over the Arabian Peninsula. In fact, they might have to crucify a certain Muhammed for proclaiming himself King of the Arabs.

Actually one should not forget the possibility that the close proximity of 'Byzantine' Alexandria could butterfly away Muhammed. He could have become a Saint of the Eastern Church.

 

[Wendell]

What if the Eastern Empire ends up much stronger in Egypt, holding Egypt, Anatolia, and the Levant as a result of this, might Islam move east and not west if it even still arises?

What ramifications will an Egypt-based Roman Empire have for Christianity?

 

[Midgard]

The thing is, one of the characteristics of late antique Roman Empire was the tradition of soldier-Emperors, starting with Aurelian, going all the way to Theodosius. Such a ruler had to be close to where the action was likely to be - hence Diocletian's capital in Nicomedia, and Constantine's in Byzantium. Alexandria is too far from any major center of action, meaning that any successful general would be more likely to proclaim himself Emperor, and actually have a chance of keeping a large domain. So, I can see Alexandria a Roman capital if either there is a greater threat from Arabia or Africa, or if division of the Empire is into more parts than two. Alternatively, division amongst Maurice's sons (which Maurice had plans of, but never got to due to being overthrown) can work - one gets Italy and Sicily as a reborn "Western Empire", one gets Greece, Balkans, and Anatolia, another one gets Egypt and North Africa.

Since this is right before the rise of Islam, Muhammad would not be butterflied away, and given Maurice's good relations with Khusru II of Persia, probably no devastating Roman-Persian war of OTL. This means that Arab invasion, if it comes, will be likely stillborn, and Islam would be contained early. Where that leads to is anyone's guess, simply because at that point, many different factors are still unknowns. Can the Western Empire retake all of Italy from the Lombards? Will there still be a Persian war in a generation after this one? Will the presence of concentrated Roman power in Egypt preclude unification of Arabia, and result in Muhammad being defeated before he can become a pan-Arab ruler? Too many variables to be able to say with certainty, although one can speculate.

 

[Smaug]

I agree. It controls access between the Black Sea and Med, for both trade and invading barbarians. Similarly by land between Asia and Europe. Egypt was rich but so was Syria and to a lesser degree Greece and Asia Minor. Also the great threats at the time were in the Balkans and from Persia. The emperor needed to be near enough to respond to attacks from either direction.

Furthermore I get the general impression that while Egypt was very rich it was a small Greek/foreign elite and the external empire that controlled the wealth of the region and the Egyptian population, largely reduced to peasantry, had very little power and influence.

I do remember reading that there was talk of an earlier division between two sons of the current emperor - forget exactly when. It was envisaged that the one who got the east would rule from either Alexandria or Antioch. However before this got very far the younger son, who would have been the eastern ruler, had a fatal illness. [One of the standard cases of metal poisoning that was so common at the time, an excess of iron in the torso]. However I think this was as near as anything that might have made Alexandria an imperial capital.

Most of the time Rome kept a very tight grip on Egypt simply because it was potentially so wealthy and powerful. Believe Augustus forbad senator's from visiting the province and made sure it was under imperial rather than senatorial rule.

Steve

I agree that Constantinople is a great location militarily and economically. No matter what happens, a great city will be built there. I'm just speculating to a point, but wasn't the "Silk Road" the primary means of trade between the Orient and Europe at this time? Couple this with trade of the Rus and even far northern Scandinavians, and the Bosphorous is an extremely strategic site.

On the other side of things, if Egypt were to experience some sort of Revival, this trade might very well come over the Indian Ocean, via the Red Sea, making Egypt the logical trans-shipment point until a route is found around Africa.

In a way ideally, the Capital might have moved when sea power arose, possibly preventing or at least delaying the Voyages of Discovery. Perhaps the Byzantines are forced to move at precisely the right time, when the steppes of Russia had little to offer due to nomadic tribes preying on caravans. Instead they gravitate to Egypt, and start to build up an Indian Ocean Navy, to facillitate thier place as the middle men between Asia and Europe.

Just a thought.

 

[HueyLong]

Constantinople wasn't all that close to any action. It was shielded by Anatolia and the Caucasus from any serious threats, at least at first. It wasn't positioned there to fight the tribes of Southern Europe, who weren't all that rambunctious until later. It was positioned to replace besieged Rome, to move out of the realm of war.

The Silk Road as we know it was not yet functional. Roman silks and spices came through Persia or the Red Sea trade, not through the steppes of Russia. The Black Sea trade was centered on furs, slaves and Crimean grain. Egypt had far more trade flowing through it at the time.

Greece was one of the areas which showed support for the Pagan Licinius. Perhaps we could have this dissuade Constantine, and instead have him choose Egypt, at that time the center of Christian activities in the East.

I like the idea of a wall across the Sinai- although it would support the abandonment of the Levant, logically, it could also be seen as a last bulwark against any potential invaders.

The effects of a large, stable and prosperous Christian power on Eastern Africa would be quite interesting. Might Ethiopia prosper a bit more, much as the Rus did in OTL?

If this Byzantine Empire could corner the Red Sea trade, the entire Middle East wouldn't bloom as it did in OTL. Its decline after the age of Discovery could very well come even earlier.

 

[Sargon]

There were at least two occasions that I can think of OTL that relocating the capital of the Empire was considered.

Emperor Heraclius, due to the dire straits the Empire was in at the time of his accession, seriously considered moving the capital to his old home base of Carthage, however, the people and senate in Constantinople implored him not to do it, and he decided not to, but warned the people that they would have to make big sacrifices for him in return, in terms of the price to be paid in fighting the Persians and Arabs later on.

Emperor Constans II actually did relocate to Syracuse in Sicily in 663, and for all practical purposes, it was the capital, although it did not officially have that status. Reasons for going there were that he was not that popular in Constantinople, and he also wished to deal with matters in North Africa. However, rumours that he was intending to make it the official capital most probably led to his assassination in 668.

So, given these examples, it is certainly plausible that there could be a capital in Egypt if one juggles events a little (rescuing Emperor comes from Egypt instead of Carthage for example, and decides to shift the capital there for military purposes).


Sargon

A Timeline of mine: The Roman Emperor Who Lost His Nose

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

WI the Eastern Roman Empire was centered, from its formation, on Egypt and Alexandria, not Anatolia and Constantinople?

It would make logical sense. Alexandria was bigger at the time, and Egypt was always held as a major segment of Rome. It has a good position on the Mediterranean, and can more easily defend the Levant. Egypt was more profitable, too.

If this had been done the Byzantine Empire would have been perhaps a 1,000 years earlier than it was. It was the impregnable position of Constantinople and it's ability to shield the bureacracy that ran the empire (and its tax system) that allowed such incredible Byzantine resilience. If you consider that Heraclius controlled at his nadir little more than the capital but managed to get it all back, imagine if the capital had been someplace indefensible like Alexandria.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Constantinople wasn't all that close to any action.

That is incorrect. Constantinople was perfectly placed to take advantage of trade routes and protect against hordes from Asia and what was later Russia. It is the best spot on the entire planet for an imperial capital and I don't think it's even a slight exaggeration to say that.

 

[HueyLong]

That is incorrect. Constantinople was perfectly placed to take advantage of trade routes and protect against hordes from Asia and what was later Russia. It is the best spot on the entire planet for an imperial capital and I don't think it's even a slight exaggeration to say that.

Yes, it is an exaggeration. As a city state, yes, its perfect, but as the center of a cohesive empire? Not a chance. The fact that they continually lost their territories is proof of that.

While Alexandria is less defensible on its own, (note that is OTL Alexandria, which didn't have all the constructive projects that OTL Constantinople had. TTL Alexandria could easily be a veritable fortress. It is a port on the Mediterranean, and is shielded by local terrain.) Egypt is far more defensible as a whole from any foreign threats.

No possible way that a Byzantine Egypt would fall in 1453.

 

[xchen08]

Yes, it is an exaggeration. As a city state, yes, its perfect, but as the center of a cohesive empire? Not a chance. The fact that they continually lost their territories is proof of that.

While Alexandria is less defensible on its own, (note that is OTL Alexandria, which didn't have all the constructive projects that OTL Constantinople had. TTL Alexandria could easily be a veritable fortress. It is a port on the Mediterranean, and is shielded by local terrain.) Egypt is far more defensible as a whole from any foreign threats.

No possible way that a Byzantine Egypt would fall in 1453.

Alexandria is certainly less defensible than Constantinople which is surrounded on three sides by water. Any defensive projects to make Alexandria more defensible would have to be more extensive than equivilent projects at Constantinople. I think the defensive difference between Egypt and the Balkans/Anatolia is that it can be lost in a single battle. Control of the Nile means control of Egypt, losing the Nile means loss of Egypt. An Egypt based empire certainly won't suffer from the slow but steady territorial loss that the Byzantines suffered from, but they will instead either keep it all, or lose it all at once.

 

[Sargon]

Yes, it is an exaggeration. As a city state, yes, its perfect, but as the center of a cohesive empire? Not a chance. The fact that they continually lost their territories is proof of that.

While Alexandria is less defensible on its own, (note that is OTL Alexandria, which didn't have all the constructive projects that OTL Constantinople had. TTL Alexandria could easily be a veritable fortress. It is a port on the Mediterranean, and is shielded by local terrain.) Egypt is far more defensible as a whole from any foreign threats.

No possible way that a Byzantine Egypt would fall in 1453.

They did not continually lose their territories. Please explain then all the gains made under the Roman Emperors Nichephorus I Phocas, John I Tzimisces and Basil II.

If Egypt is so much better to defend, then please explain it's rapid fall OTL. IIRC considerable amounts of energy and money were spent on making sure the defences there were first class due to it's importance in terms of grain supply and being the richest province. Considerable efforts were made to retake it too. They really did not wish to lose that province.

Maybe you know something the Roman Emperors, advisors and generals of OTL did not?

This is not to say a continuing Byzantine Empire in Egypt is not plausible. An Emperor relocating his capital there would help, but don't for a minute think that it'll be as impregnable as Constantinople which has perhaps the best natural defences a city could desire.


Sargon

A Timeline of mine: The Roman Emperor Who Lost His Nose

 

[Nymphaion]

How about a byzantine reconquest of egypt, versus otl italian one?
A reconciliation with monophysites, during Justinian's time?

 

[TyranicusMaximus]

How about a byzantine reconquest of egypt, versus otl italian one?
A reconciliation with monophysites, during Justinian's time?

Egypt was a part of the Roman Empire from 30BC to 645AD
Justinian ruled the Roman Empire from 527 to 565 AD

 

[Alexius I Kommenos]

They did not continually lose their territories. Please explain then all the gains made under the Roman Emperors Nichephorus I Phocas, John I Tzimisces and Basil II.

If Egypt is so much better to defend, then please explain it's rapid fall OTL. IIRC considerable amounts of energy and money were spent on making sure the defences there were first class due to it's importance in terms of grain supply and being the richest province. Considerable efforts were made to retake it too. They really did not wish to lose that provinc

Maybe you know something the Roman Emperors, advisors and generals of OTL did not?

This is not to say a continuing Byzantine Empire in Egypt is not plausible. An Emperor relocating his capital there would help, but don't for a minute think that it'll be as impregnable as Constantinople which has per

haps the best natural defences a city could desire


Sargon

A Timeline of mine:
The Roman Emperor Who Lost His Nose

Umm about Egypt is actually quiet a fortfied place and strategically located. all one has to do is make a powerful fortification across the Sinai, I agree constantinople is more Fortified but Egypt is more strategically located. Egypt has easy access to Balkans, Levant, Africa, Italy, and etc.


In otl the reason why Egypt fell so quickly was due to that son of a bitch Cyrus. You see the Copts of Egypt were always brutally persecuted by Eastern
orthodox, The Arabs treated the Copts much more civilly and with respect. Basically the Copts grew fed up with Roman rule and when Levan fell Cyrus made a deal with the Arabs. So think about it Cyrus the relegious head reached that the arabs were much better than the Romans, evidently people agreed. You see the Romans grew furious at Cyrus and did not uphold their bargain, so they betrayed the arabs, Cyrus used this as a political wedge and soon the common man supported the Arabs. In otl the fortress city of Babylon
held out for Months, likewise Alexandria was nearly impentrable only that due to incompetancy by the Byzantine generals it fell, plus The Byzantines had very little garriosons in Egypt so the Arabs with help from the Copts crushed the Byzzies. To make matters worse the Africans under Greogory had created their own exarch and with Heraklius death his son removed all troops from Egypt
and left it at te mercy of ARabs.


In reality Alexandria would make a very good capital, it is also well defensavle and strategically located next to Roman lands. should it recieve fortifications and upgrades like otl Constantinople then it can hold out.



Plus Constantinople held out not only because of Location but it's walls and defensiive features....such as the great cisterns and Aquaducts, Massive Chain, and Nearly unlimited food. Supply.


So IMO Egypt would be a great place to put your capitol.

 

[Codae]

(Part of) what's great about a capital somewhere in the region of Constantinople is that it's within reach of both the Danube frontier and the eastern frontier. Putting the capital in Egypt means a central response can't reach the former quickly, which, though perhaps not a deal-breaker, is a notable disadvantage (if you're worried about Avars, Bulgars, etc.).