Coptic Revolt founds Christian Kingdom of Egypt

Its hard to estimate the capability of Egypt's population for military service at this point, since only Muslims were allowed to fight under Muslim rule. So, its pretty much an unknown quality.
 
In the millennia or so leading up to the Islamic conquest Egypt had been conquered by the; Persians, Macedonians/Greeks, Romans, Persians and Byzantines. At no time did they appear able to throw off foreign rule. This is what makes me think that Egyptian society isn't suited to making home-grown armies.
 
In the millennia or so leading up to the Islamic conquest Egypt had been conquered by the; Persians, Macedonians/Greeks, Romans, Persians and Byzantines. At no time did they appear able to throw off foreign rule. This is what makes me think that Egyptian society isn't suited to making home-grown armies.

The Pharoahs would argue with that.

I think the problem is that Egyptian society had grown into being a dependent province - the Macedonians/Greeks specifically did not rely on native troops, I doubt the others were much more enthusiastic.

And that's going to lead to a lack of any basis for a military tradition.
 

Sulemain

Banned
There aren't any. "Monophysites" is an inaccurate term coined as an insult by Chalcedonians in the sixth century, but historians tend to use it for matters of convenience. "Miaphysite" is the more PC variant.

Again, I have to say that all these disputes seem really petty and minor to me. I mean, come on! Compared to the differences between, say the Othordox and the Zorostarians in the 6th C, this seems minor.
 
Again, I have to say that all these disputes seem really petty and minor to me. I mean, come on! Compared to the differences between, say the Othordox and the Zorostarians in the 6th C, this seems minor.

It reminds me of all the different Atheist factions in that one South Park episode
 
Again, I have to say that all these disputes seem really petty and minor to me. I mean, come on! Compared to the differences between, say the Othordox and the Zorostarians in the 6th C, this seems minor.

To the modern mind? Yeah, these disputes are pretty minor. But to the mind set of that era? Oh god, no, this was a huge deal. Remember; one of the reasons the Arabs conquered Egypt so easily in the first place, was because the local monophite population considered it better to love under them, then the heretical Greeks. There is the old adage that you always hate a heretic more than a infidel; because the heretic ahould know better (and because they could be any one of you ...).

Now, by the time of this hypothetical successful revolt, the chances are good that enoigh time has passes, and the Byzantines might be willing to support their Christian brothers, but I find it very difficult to believe that any Coptic leader is going to want to see the Empire come marching back in to to rule over them. We are going to see an independent Coptic state or nothing.
 

Sulemain

Banned
Another thing to consider is that the reforms the Byzantium Empire underwent (the Theme system, etc) meant that it now had a government fit for size, and that the local religous leaders were much more important.

I can see this "Egyptian Pharoncy" opting for closer ties with the African Christian states.

It's all very "Peoples Liberation Front of Judea", isn't it?
 
To the modern mind? Yeah, these disputes are pretty minor. But to the mind set of that era? Oh god, no, this was a huge deal. Remember; one of the reasons the Arabs conquered Egypt so easily in the first place, was because the local monophite population considered it better to love under them, then the heretical Greeks. There is the old adage that you always hate a heretic more than a infidel; because the heretic ahould know better (and because they could be any one of you ...).

To the modern mind?

We do all realize that, despite some efforts to the contrary, there are still plenty of Miaphysites in Egypt, Ethiopia, and Armenia (among other areas), and they're pretty prickly about their doctrine and independence.

And, while the Arians pretty much were wiped out, there are plenty of similar churches in existence these days. Also pretty prickly.

To consider these differences to be petty isn't all that different from considering the differences between Christianity and Islam petty.
 
Remember; one of the reasons the Arabs conquered Egypt so easily in the first place, was because the local monophite population considered it better to love under them, then the heretical Greeks. There is the old adage that you always hate a heretic more than a infidel; because the heretic ahould know better (and because they could be any one of you ...).

I'm not sure that's true at all. The reason the Arabs conquered Egypt so easily was because the main Army of the East was largely withdrawn to Anatolia after the 630s, and had never been reconstituted in force anyway, rather than any desire for Coptic "liberation" at Arab hands. Don't forget, after all, that conquered Christians of the seventh and eighth centuries saw Muslims as Christian heretics (see John of Damascus), and outright denial of Christ's divinity was about as far from the Monophysite position as it was possible to get.
 
Top