ERE reconquers Egypt in 646 AD?

[Vinization]

Four years after the fall of Alexandria to the Arab troops led by Amr ibn al-A'as, the young emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire, Constans II made an attempt to recapture the rich province of Egypt, which grew the grain that fed the population of Constantinople. The expedition, led by an officer named Manuel, recaptured Alexandria before suffering a defeat near the small fortified town of Nikiou in the following year. Soon Alexandria was evacuated, and the loss of Egypt became permanent.

But what if Manuel won that battle? Would he be able to besiege and recapture important fortresses like Babylon and Pelusium, or would the Byzantines only manage to consolidate their control over Alexandria?

What would Constans do if Egypt was reconquered? Would he still focus on Italy and attack the Lombards on Benevento, or would he instead try to expel the Arabs from Syria and Palestine?

Most importantly, what would be the effects of such a loss on the Caliphate? The conquest of North Africa and Al-Andalus would obviously be butteflied away, so could they focus more on the east instead, pushing much deeper into India than they did historically (the Sindh and the Punjab), perhaps reaching Bengal?

Also, Amr supported Muawiyah (who became the first caliph of the Umayyad dynasty) against caliph Ali in the First Fitna. Should he be either dead or with much less power and prestige than IOTL (he was governor of Egypt), could we see an Alid caliphate emerging instead of the Umayyad one?

 

[Silver01]

its not imposible you can have manuel win Battle of Nikiou khalid was dead by this time so its not like he comes and reverts it automactly , there is also the option of using the byzantine navy this 10 years before the battles of the mast so the byzantine navy has not been destroyed .
Muawiyah would go to the ofensive
the problem for the romans if alexandria had a sizable greek population the futher south its more coptic.
i think the norther coast would be rome while the rest of egypt is islamic , now whether or not it survives it depends even if in the long run it does not and say Muawiyah attacks or builds his navy circa 650 or now that he does not have egypt 660s and defeats the romans these 20 years can change a lot say they conquer late it migth overtert the 20 years anarchy

if the First Fitna still occurs and Muawiyah has not deal it with roman egypt it migth mean that no uyamed dynasty forms as he migth loose
the romans could also take advantage i mean in the otl during this time constantine IV landed a small force syria causing the local chirstians to rebel and that scared Muawiyah enough that he payed constantine for a peace.

 

[Nivek]

But what if Manuel won that battle? Would he be able to besiege and recapture important fortresses like Babylon and Pelusium, or would the Byzantines only manage to consolidate their control over Alexandria?

Would be just a temporal victory, they could just get kicked out to the sea the next wave will come soon post first fitna.

 

[Silver01]

Would be just a temporal victory, they could just get kicked out to the sea the next wave will come soon post first fitna.

well a lot could happen in those years like i said constantine when he won against Muawiyah in constantinple and landed a small force Muawiyah agreed to a peace that would give him 50 slaves 50 horses and 3000 lbs of gold to keep a peace and reliquish some agean islands he just captured in this timeline Muawiyah would be facing instead of a small force a byzantine egypt coast and constans 2 could try something during the first fitna making Muawiyah have to pay more tribute or more
this has huge ramifications since with out all of egytp with more byzantine men etc , he could loose the the first fitna meaning no umayed dynasty
also Muawiyah constructed the navy in both syria and egypt now he is more limited
wich could mean if it happens an alterntive battle of the mast could be a defeat
any way i also dont think the roman reconquest would survive but it would slow down the muslims to the point that the conquest of north africa migth be averted , no 20 years anarchy and no siege of constantinople etc meaning that i see a more east oriented caliphate.

 

[Vinization]

So it seems the best bet for the ERE is for it to not lose Egypt in the first place, which means a victory at the Battle of Heliopolis. The other points still stand, though, since the Sassanids were basically a zombie at this point.

 

[Dominic]

Egypt is difficult to defend from the east, and there would be a rather enthusiastic push from the Muslims to retake it. It's not implausible for a temporary Roman restoration in Egypt, but so long as the Levant is in Islamic hands it's hard to see it remaining Roman for long.

 

[Silver01]

So it seems the best bet for the ERE is for it to not lose Egypt in the first place, which means a victory at the Battle of Heliopolis. The other points still stand, though, since the Sassanids were basically a zombie at this point.

i mean this pod does make a future reconquest of egypt easier as it slows down the caliphate in its best years.

 

[Vinization]

Restarting this thread because I watched a Kings and Generals video regarding Nikiou recently.

Assuming the Byzantines score a decisive victory and reconquer all of Egypt by the end of 646 AD, how would the Caliphate's internal politics be affected? Could Uthman be assassinated earlier? If so, would Ali's accession still be challenged by Mu'awiya?

 

[TiberiusCaesar]

Four years after the fall of Alexandria to the Arab troops led by Amr ibn al-A'as, the young emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire, Constans II made an attempt to recapture the rich province of Egypt, which grew the grain that fed the population of Constantinople. The expedition, led by an officer named Manuel, recaptured Alexandria before suffering a defeat near the small fortified town of Nikiou in the following year. Soon Alexandria was evacuated, and the loss of Egypt became permanent.

But what if Manuel won that battle? Would he be able to besiege and recapture important fortresses like Babylon and Pelusium, or would the Byzantines only manage to consolidate their control over Alexandria?

What would Constans do if Egypt was reconquered? Would he still focus on Italy and attack the Lombards on Benevento, or would he instead try to expel the Arabs from Syria and Palestine?

Most importantly, what would be the effects of such a loss on the Caliphate? The conquest of North Africa and Al-Andalus would obviously be butteflied away, so could they focus more on the east instead, pushing much deeper into India than they did historically (the Sindh and the Punjab), perhaps reaching Bengal?

Also, Amr supported Muawiyah (who became the first caliph of the Umayyad dynasty) against caliph Ali in the First Fitna. Should he be either dead or with much less power and prestige than IOTL (he was governor of Egypt), could we see an Alid caliphate emerging instead of the Umayyad one?

Next move would be Syria. The troops from Egypt can move to Palestine while Constans II* advances from the North.

If the Arabs are ousted from the Levant rapidly, Italy is the next target. If it lasts too long the Romans will not move on the Lombards.

Edit: Heraclius changed to Constans II

 

[Vinization]

Next move would be Syria. The troops from Egypt can move to Palestine while Heraclius advances from the North.

Just a nitpick, but Heraclius was already dead by then. The emperor at the time of Nikiou was Constans II, who was too young to be anything other than an observer in military campaigns.

 

[TiberiusCaesar]

Just a nitpick, but Heraclius was already dead by then. The emperor at the time of Nikiou was Constans II, who was too young to be anything other than an observer in military campaigns.

My bad, I got confused

 

[Silver01]

Restarting this thread because I watched a Kings and Generals video regarding Nikiou recently.

Assuming the Byzantines score a decisive victory and reconquer all of Egypt by the end of 646 AD, how would the Caliphate's internal politics be affected? Could Uthman be assassinated earlier? If so, would Ali's accession still be challenged by Mu'awiya?

the caliph would sent more forces to egypt asap , a conquest would also most likely mean gregory doesnt revolt as one of the reasons for the revolt is crushed which means a more stable north africa , armenia would be less secure for the arabs attacking the levant migth be plasuible but i think its far more likely the muslims attack Egypt first.

 

[klauslimbek]

Restarting this thread because I watched a Kings and Generals video regarding Nikiou recently.

Assuming the Byzantines score a decisive victory and reconquer all of Egypt by the end of 646 AD, how would the Caliphate's internal politics be affected? Could Uthman be assassinated earlier? If so, would Ali's accession still be challenged by Mu'awiya?

All of Egypt, would be difficult, unless the Byzantines finally tone down they’re hate for heresy - one of the major reasons for the Arab advance was how disaffected huge parts of the Christian population were with Constantinopel. For if not, the Byzantines could only count on lacklustre support from the Egyptians, meaning that an enormous invasion would be able to reconquer Egypt after much difficulty. But with the support of the Egyptians, this would be much harder, they new the seasons and crossings of the the Nile like the back of their hand. Egypt is actually quite hard to conquer, due to seasonal floods and logistics, if the Egyptians resist the Arabs, then I think the invasion would fail. Any invasion of Egypt is completely reliant on momentum, if you don’t gain control of a coastal city on the Nile, your expedition would fail, this was shown expertly time and time again during the Diadochi period, where both Perdiccas and Antigonos were repelled, however only Antigonos realised in time that the momentum was not with him. The most common conquests of Egypt are by crushing their armies in the field, meaning that they can’t guard the Nile crossings with maximum efficiency.
This would not mean the Arab conquests would stop however, they would expand eastwards and northwards, maybe converting parts of the turcic steppe, much earlier. However this could also have the downside of keeping the Caliphate post first fitna, united for quite a bit longer, if it’s dominance wasn’t complete the Byzantines, would likely prove a severe thorn in their sides. The Byzantines under Justinian II would likely try a recon quest of the Levant, I doubt it would succeed, but recovering Gaza and Antioch wouldn’t be out of the question.
And like others have mentioned their wouldn’t have been a twenty years anarchy or it would at least be delayed for half a century, as with the Heraclian dynasty scoring several small victories and regaining territory in the Mediterranean piece by piece, any usurping of the dynasty would for the moment, be close to suicidal. However when ever the Heraclid dynasty would die out, I can’t imagine there wouldn’t be civil war, as whatever underlying problems that would have bubbled under their reign would explode, maybe around 760-780, the dynasty was plagued mostly by bad health, with only Constans and Justinian seeming to not be all that sickly. So probably the son or grandson of Justinian II, would fail to produce an heir or would die early leaving a regency.

 

[Silver01]

ll of Egypt, would be difficult, unless the Byzantines finally tone down they’re hate for heresy - one of the major reasons for the Arab advance was how disaffected huge parts of the Christian population were with Constantinopel.

this is mostly a myth the coptic orthodox split was not nearly as bad that it helped the arabs in any significant way but the arabs would thorw their forces to re conquer Egypt again , which delays things in the north not accelerate them imo