Ethiopia and the rest of Christendom

[Emperor CJ]

So for some time I've found the Ethiopian Empire and its Solomonic dynasty. This is the sole African nation to become and remain Christian up till the present day and the only "native" nation to defeat a colonial power. However, thanks to the fall of Egypt to Islam in the early 7th century and the eventual fall of the Ethiopian ports to the Ottoman Empire, communication between this nation and the rest of Christendom. So my question/idea is this; what if Ethiopia (including the predecessor Kingdoms) remained in close contact with the rest of Christendom, in both Europe and the Byzantine Empire.

What role could Ethiopia play in the great challenges of Christendom with close relations with the rest of the Christian world? An Ethiopian invasion of Egypt during the Crusades? Support for the Crusader states and later Byzantium against the Turks? Early racial equality/tolerance? Marriage alliances with Europe? A role in the Renaissance and reformation? Basically what would the long term affects of Ethiopia having a major role in the history of Christendom?

 

[LSCatilina]

You did have, scarce, contact with the rest of Christiendom IOTL trough Nubian Christian kingdoms, or direct contact at Jerusalem. (Interestingly contacts with Ethiopia grew while Latin States were diseappearing : you may even had Europeans being present in the region by the XIVth century, or Ethiopians funding monasteries in Italy in the same period)

Not much went from it, though : too far and with too different interests to have a real geopolitical base for an alliance or anything strong politically-wise, moreso than Makuria or Alwa that had more of a direct relationship with Egypt.

One of the reason of this lack of real contact is actually Arabo-Egyptian presence : Read Sea and Nile being "off limits", whoever ruled Cairo had a monopole on Nilothic/African Horn influence. It's not about political stability (Nubian Kingdoms did relatively well) but sheer geography matters.

A direct contact with Christiendom, at least Latin and probably Greek as well, implies no Arabo-Islamic Egypt and for Crusader period, a conquest of the region : I don't need to point that's insanely hard to get for this latter situation. (And frankly, both Nubians and Abyssinians wouldn't have much motivation acting against Arabs, safe a real political collapse of the formers, as it happened with the end of Fatimid Caliphate).

 

[Riain]

I've wondered about a Negusa Negast doing a Crusade to the Holy Land while it was in Frankish hands, that would be interesting.

 

[Emperor CJ]

You did have, scarce, contact with the rest of Christiendom IOTL trough Nubian Christian kingdoms, or direct contact at Jerusalem. (Interestingly contacts with Ethiopia grew while Latin States were diseappearing : you may even had Europeans being present in the region by the XIVth century, or Ethiopians funding monasteries in Italy in the same period)

Not much went from it, though : too far and with too different interests to have a real geopolitical base for an alliance or anything strong politically-wise, moreso than Makuria or Alwa that had more of a direct relationship with Egypt.

One of the reason of this lack of real contact is actually Arabo-Egyptian presence : Read Sea and Nile being "off limits", whoever ruled Cairo had a monopole on Nilothic/African Horn influence. It's not about political stability (Nubian Kingdoms did relatively well) but sheer geography matters.

A direct contact with Christiendom, at least Latin and probably Greek as well, implies no Arabo-Islamic Egypt and for Crusader period, a conquest of the region : I don't need to point that's insanely hard to get for this latter situation. (And frankly, both Nubians and Abyssinians wouldn't have much motivation acting against Arabs, safe a real political collapse of the formers, as it happened with the end of Fatimid Caliphate).

So basically it would be highly difficult to pull off. I was mainly thinking of getting the Nubian Kingdoms and Ethiopia to act as a back door to attack Egypt, but it appears such an idea is unlikely. Maybe the Fatimid collapse more devastating, a true implosion (ie civil war) rather than being replaced by Saladin.

Or have Egypt remain Christian, which implies that either A. Byzantium manages to keep Egypt or B. a local Egyptian ruler (either a local noble or Governor) rebels and makes Egypt an independent state after repelling the Muslims. This scenario, an independent, Christian Egypt, Nubian Kingdoms and Ethiopia, could be very interesting.

I've wondered about a Negusa Negast doing a Crusade to the Holy Land while it was in Frankish hands, that would be interesting.

Would be pretty cool. After all, considering the Solomonic dynasty's claims to be the descendents of Solomon and the Queen of Sheba, they would have a legitimate, if distant, claim to Jerusalem and the Holy Land. Of course, how that would be governed is very difficult to even consider.

 

[Youngmarshall]

I've wondered about a Negusa Negast doing a Crusade to the Holy Land while it was in Frankish hands, that would be interesting.

Didn't Marco Polo write about ethiopian bishops arriving at jerusalem while he was there?

 

[LSCatilina]

Maybe the Fatimid collapse more devastating, a true implosion (ie civil war) rather than being replaced by Saladin.

From what I understood Nubian (essentialy Makurian) attacks on Egypt were made in retiliation of attacks caused by shifts of power there. A really implosive situation in Egypt may cause enough trouble to see local warlords trying something similar, but Nubians have enough interest having a stable Egypt I wouldn't see them deplete all their ressources going into a real Reconquista-equivalent; while a chaotic situation wouldn't really help having direct connection with Latin or Greek Christiendom.

Of course, at some point, someone is bound to unify Egypt, and at short term. I don't think that Crusaders would be the obvious choice, so either Syrian or Egyptian (or even an Ifriqiyan power pulling a Fatimid...) may be more likely.

Or have Egypt remain Christian, which implies that either A. Byzantium manages to keep Egypt

Then, giving the historical relative disinterest of Byzantium of the region, something akin to a de facto alliance, with imperial power trying to monopolize religious connections (which may have been a reason why Orthodoxy seems to have been institutionalised in Makuria, maybe Alodia, up to the VIIth in spite of Monophysite important presence).

From that, you may indeed build a gradual more interconnected Eastern Africa Christianity, which would still be in a long-term prospective, without much political focus (I may miss factors making Romans being more interested on the region, that said).

or B. a local Egyptian ruler (either a local noble or Governor) rebels and makes Egypt an independent state after repelling the Muslims.

Well, it means that at this point, Nubia probably definitely went Monophysist and with more clearly defined relationship with Egypt, which may makes them less than happy with a Coptic Egypt

Assuming Coptic ruling elite would have gone this way : IOTL, the only exemple I can think of about return to Christianism from converted peoples are in Xth century Al-Andalus, and that's more due to a specific social (ethnic differentialism being particularly important) and geopolitical (search for support from Northern Christian kingdoms).

It's not obvious you would have such in Egypt, and Nubians wouldn't be really interested to support such revolts,if the historical good relations they had with Islamic Egypt is a good sign, would it be only in the name of stability.

You'd really need, IMO, a caricaturaly agressiv(including religiously) and expansionist Egypt to ruin this situation.
Basically al-Hakim-on-steroids line of kings.

 

[Emperor CJ]

From what I understood Nubian (essentialy Makurian) attacks on Egypt were made in retiliation of attacks caused by shifts of power there. A really implosive situation in Egypt may cause enough trouble to see local warlords trying something similar, but Nubians have enough interest having a stable Egypt I wouldn't see them deplete all their ressources going into a real Reconquista-equivalent; while a chaotic situation wouldn't really help having direct connection with Latin or Greek Christiendom.

Of course, at some point, someone is bound to unify Egypt, and at short term. I don't think that Crusaders would be the obvious choice, so either Syrian or Egyptian (or even an Ifriqiyan power pulling a Fatimid...) may be more likely.


Then, giving the historical relative disinterest of Byzantium of the region, something akin to a de facto alliance, with imperial power trying to monopolize religious connections (which may have been a reason why Orthodoxy seems to have been institutionalised in Makuria, maybe Alodia, up to the VIIth in spite of Monophysite important presence).

From that, you may indeed build a gradual more interconnected Eastern Africa Christianity, which would still be in a long-term prospective, without much political focus (I may miss factors making Romans being more interested on the region, that said).


Well, it means that at this point, Nubia probably definitely went Monophysist and with more clearly defined relationship with Egypt, which may makes them less than happy with a Coptic Egypt

Assuming Coptic ruling elite would have gone this way : IOTL, the only exemple I can think of about return to Christianism from converted peoples are in Xth century Al-Andalus, and that's more due to a specific social (ethnic differentialism being particularly important) and geopolitical (search for support from Northern Christian kingdoms).

It's not obvious you would have such in Egypt, and Nubians wouldn't be really interested to support such revolts,if the historical good relations they had with Islamic Egypt is a good sign, would it be only in the name of stability.

You'd really need, IMO, a caricaturaly agressiv(including religiously) and expansionist Egypt to ruin this situation.
Basically al-Hakim-on-steroids line of kings.

For an implosion I was thinking of having the Byzantine/Crusader alliance of Manuel I's time invade during the collapse. If not totally successful I think they could grab a few choice territories (Sinai for a border and the lands around Alexandria for a new Principality). If a crusader/byzantine state is set up in all of/parts of Egypt, it would lead to direct communication with the Nubians and Ethiopians. Of course long term such a state could only succeed if they manage to co-op the Coptic and other Egyptian Christians, who were still a sizable part of the populace. Without that, Crusader Egypt would fall with the rest of the Crusader states.


As for the Roman Egypt idea, I'll admit I don't know much about the Islamic conquest of that territory, other than basic info I mean. If the Empire was so uninterested in protecting its move valuable province (after all Egypt was still the breadbasket of the Empire, sending regular grain fleets to Constantinople), an independent Egypt might be best. I know that Patriarch Cyrus of Alexandria was Governor of Egypt twice in the 630s and 640s, so could he or someone close to him become a breakaway ruler?

Really what would be needed though would be a popular and militarily successful ruler to rise up and manage to defeat the invading Muslims in a decisive battle, big enough to make the Muslims reconsider the conquest for the time being. I'm not sure who would be a candidate to pull off such a feat. Not to mention that the Coptic Church would have to reconcile with the Monothelitists, which I admit I'm not sure if such a thing is a feasible idea or not.

But, assuming someone is able to pull this off and create a Christian Kingdom of Egypt, this would be a major game changer, not only in contacts between Nubia, Ethiopia and the west, but also in the spread of Islam. Assuming that Egypt can become a bastion of Christendom, similar to the Byzantine Empire's role in Asia minor and the Balkans, then the Muslim advance would be stopped at the Sinai. This means that North Africa, Spain and potentially Sicily, remain in Christian hands, limiting the Muslims to the Levant, Mesopotamia and the former Persian Empire.

A Christian western Mediterranean, along with a Kingdom of Egypt, could be a very interesting premise, don't you think?

 

[LSCatilina]

For an implosion I was thinking of having the Byzantine/Crusader alliance of Manuel I's time invade during the collapse.

It had really few chances to work out, would it be (but there's other reasons) due to the unwillingness of Yerosolemite nobility to really undergo such campaign.

If the Empire was so uninterested in protecting its move valuable province (after all Egypt was still the breadbasket of the Empire, sending regular grain fleets to Constantinople)

I think you misread me : I didn't said Romans were uninterested on Egypt, I said they were uninterested on the region the thread is about : Ethiopia and Nubia.

so could he or someone close to him become a breakaway ruler?

Without Islamic conquests? Not much chances : opposition in eastern provinces, based on religious differences, is often exagerated out of proportion.

Geography of monophysism get quickly stabilized : coptic Egypt is mainly monophysist with only the urban and hellenized minority supporting Chalcedone; Palestine is chalcedonian since Jerusalem beng raised as a patriarchate, not without violent conflicts in the Vth; syriac provinces are mainly monophysist but not crushingly so at the contrary of Egypt with a similar distinction between urban, hellenized and chalcedonian population, and rural arameans and monophysit populations.

At first the monophysist resistance is tied to theological tradition and tensions due to the rise of the Patriarchate of Constantinople before Antioch and Alexandria; Cyril is perfectly Greek, Severus of Antioch as other monophysist authors only write in Greek. All feel themselves "Romans", subjects of the Christian Empire and obviously hope turn this empire to the true faith.

One shouldn't then interpret monophysist movement as a simplist religious transposition of a struggle whom true nature would be political or social

It may appear later, arguably, but wasn't bound to evolve trough regionalism or "independentism".

But religious opposition being parallel with the one between hellenized, coptic and aramean population; capital and provinces, that an early national identity and religious identification of an ethny slowly begins to appear [in the VIIth century]

A Christian western Mediterranean, along with a Kingdom of Egypt, could be a very interesting premise, don't you think?

Certainly, but it would rather be a relatively far consequences of a PoD, IMO, rather than being an ATL early development, meaning that a connection with Ethiopia/Nubia would be a secondary tought there, as it was historically in spite having a direct contiguity with Romania for centuries.

A development of Red Sea/Indian Ocean trade could, IMO, have more decisive impact on connection between Christian Egypt and Ethiopia if, for some reasons, the Persian and Arabian trade roads became unusable. If not, then you'd have grounds for a connection as it existed IOTL and making it evolving from there.

 

[GdwnsnHo]

Personally if you want this, a pre-Mohammed PoD is probably best, even if it is very close and the butterflies permit him.

Have Ethiopia become a significant naval player in the Indian Ocean. It could be as simple as using Arabian shipwrights to learn from, combined with Roman shipwrights. (Or more amusingly, getting a shipwright from China/India - but that starts getting silly).

Trade to the Romans is going to be a money spinner - take control of that and Ethiopia can invest in itself and become incredibly strong. Hiring educated Romans that can build Aqueducts, and other engineering projects could really help Ethiopia in the long term.

When Mohammed turns up, and threatens Rome, Ethiopia can provide another front which

a) may deter the invasion full stop. Naval power that can waltz to Mecca? Allied with the Romans? Nightmare.

b) can force the Caliph to split his forces, otherwise they can raid, sack, and generally wreck Arabia. There is almost no scenario where that ends well for Arabia.

Now that is my personal preference.

As or the rest - it entirely depends on how the contact works. Trying to invade Egypt is dicey - Whoever controls it can threaten to kill the Patriarch of Alexandria. But in all situations, Ethiopia opens a new flank, right where any of the opposition powers think they are safest.

 

[TinyTartar]

Calling Italy a colonial "power" is extremely generous.

But anyways, Ethiopia's brand of Christianity was seen as heretical by both the Catholics and the Orthodox, so while contact may have continued (although, I am not sure how, seeing as circumnavigation of Africa at this point is impossible, and the only real contact would be going through the Red Sea to the Sinai ports, making the only true chance for contact during the Crusades), it may not have mattered.

Ethiopia embraced a form of Christianity similar to, but not exactly like, the Coptic Church in Egypt. which was on really bad terms with Constantinople by the time of the Arab Conquest.

 

[Youngmarshall]

Didn't the Byzantines and Ethiopia have vague contact in arabia and yemen pre islam?

They were both seen as protectors of the local Christians there, I believe there were Ethiopian garrisons in otl yemen and Saudi Arabia, and I think there was some evidence of a joint military expedition in the early 500s against jewish warlords.

You could build on that, I guess, in a pre mohammed pod. By extending both Ethiopian and Byzantine power into asia, you have a separate point of contact outside southern Egypt.

 

[DominusNovus]

If you want something involving the Crusades, "just" have one of the campaigns targeting Egypt itself succeed. With a Crusader Egypt, the Red Sea is open, and contact with the Copts (and, by extension, the Ethiopian Church) is increased exponentially.

Ethiopia could serve a role similar to Armenia: a region that, while not part of the Crusades themselves, is usually aligned with the Crusaders and provides some valuable local legitmacy by way of frequent political marriage.

 

[Clarior]

I think a good way to get African Copts relevant is to "force" a Nubian hand in order to reassert the peace in the region that so many of you said they enjoyed with a Muslim Egypt. Perhaps have the Latins treat the Byzantines as an ally rather than heretics, and have a larger focus on destroying the fatimids in Egypt? Honeself I think the more players we can have fighting each other in Egypt the better, so this alliance doesn't even need to stay together the entire time. This may mean less success in the Levant under the all-or-nothing ides that if a Muslim nation stands it will at some point try to reclaim the land.

In response to a greater unity of the Christians perhaps a few massacres of Copts inspires a revolt? Then, multiply the support by having the Catholics and Byzantines clearly intend to convert and change the Copts, and Copts get caught in the fight between the two. Ideally pull the same thing with the muslims; Turn sunnies against shia, Abbasi against Fatimids, and therefore weaken both.

If Egypt were to turn into a meat grinder of Coptic Egyptian vs. Catholics vs. Orthodox vs. Sunni vs. Shia, Makuria might feel tempted to extend it's influence in order to keep peace, using Coptic identity to play themselves as saviors and peace ringers to the Egyptians? Makuria had a lot of Muslims at this point, so maybe this wouldn't be feasible...Or maybe peace could be enforced and the Makurians try to shoot for something resembling secularism, only to ask for Latin and Orthodox help begrudgingly when muslim revolts or invasions begin?

I think the hardest part of making this work is Makuria, and the entire thing requires the dominoes to get set up perfectly in line, with competent leaders on any side (except Makuria) meeting an early end and enough of a warming of relations between Rome and Constantinople for better cooperation while being poor enough to still fall apart in Egypt.

The specifics of this probably aren't quite elegant or accurate the way Ive presented them, but I still think the general idea would hold true; if the need and want for peace in Egypt is what prevents Nubia from invading, turn Egypt on its head in any and every way possible and give the Nubians the motivation to assert authority. I don't think they even need to hold onto it, Egypt becoming Christian dominated even for a reletively short period could facilitate contact down the Coptic coast through Egypt to Byzatinium, Italy, Spain, etc and ensure that, even if Muslim hegemony returns over Egypt, stronger connections are built between the Christians. Sure there's some bad blood, but after the war Rome and Constantinople I think would put Coptic reconciliation at the top of its list a) To maintain Muslim losses b) to maintain trade c) To find converts(cementation of a+b) and d) to prevent the other from reconciling with it first. It would actually play itself like Egypt in the Cold War; accept aid for the least cost while playing the two rivals against each other.

 

[Clarior]

As or the rest - it entirely depends on how the contact works. Trying to invade Egypt is dicey - Whoever controls it can threaten to kill the Patriarch of Alexandria. But in all situations, Ethiopia opens a new flank, right where any of the opposition powers think they are safest.

Actually, I like the idea of him dying during a war such as I suggested, with greater Greek-Latin cooperation I'm the beginning. The Patriarch is found dead after Crusaders take Alexandria and EVERYONE blames EVERYONE while at the same time denying it. Catholics blame Muslims at first, but rumors spread that it was a Catholic who resents the Pentarchy not being under Rome, and that escalates into Greek-Latin conflict as the two blame each other AND the muslims. Meanwhile, the shia (Fatimids Egypt) blame the Sunni for killing him, the rumor being that they choose killing an infidel leader over keeping the Copts pacified. Then the Copts revolt, seeing that all of their options for rulers post war have none of their intentions at heart, and the Nubians and Ethiopians may feel motivated to intervene. Then there's the question as to whether whatever force the "combined" Copts create would look and function like.

 

[Noblesse Oblige]

Actually, I like the idea of him dying during a war such as I suggested, with greater Greek-Latin cooperation I'm the beginning. The Patriarch is found dead after Crusaders take Alexandria and EVERYONE blames EVERYONE while at the same time denying it. Catholics blame Muslims at first, but rumors spread that it was a Catholic who resents the Pentarchy not being under Rome, and that escalates into Greek-Latin conflict as the two blame each other AND the muslims. Meanwhile, the shia (Fatimids Egypt) blame the Sunni for killing him, the rumor being that they choose killing an infidel leader over keeping the Copts pacified. Then the Copts revolt, seeing that all of their options for rulers post war have none of their intentions at heart, and the Nubians and Ethiopians may feel motivated to intervene. Then there's the question as to whether whatever force the "combined" Copts create would look and function like.

Sounds like enough of a clusterfuck for that to work...Here's the problem though...Ethiopia doesn't have control of the coast.

 

[GdwnsnHo]

Ethiopia could serve a role similar to Armenia: a region that, while not prt of the Crusades themselves, is usually aligned with the Crusaders and provides some valuable local legitmacy by way of frequent political marriage.

I love this idea. Partially because Solomonid Germany sounds like a fantastic circumstance.

 

[DominusNovus]

I love this idea. Partially because Solomonid Germany sounds like a fantastic circumstance.

Sounds fun, but we never got any Rubenids on European thrones.

 

[Clarior]

Sounds like enough of a clusterfuck for that to work...Here's the problem though...Ethiopia doesn't have control of the coast.

But if Coptic Nubians are on board do the Ethiopians necassary need the coast at this time? They could make agreements with Alodia and Makuria to send troops and supplies through their territory.

 

[Noblesse Oblige]

Oh well in that case, you have the pieces in place...even if the plausibility behind it is...not as flawless as one could get.

 

[DominusNovus]

Here's something to pinder: In a scenario in which the Crusaders take Egypt and re-establish relations with Ethiopia, how might the communal ties with the Copts develope for the Catholics? Before we jump on the "they'd burn the heretics," remember that the Latins were perfectly capable of maitaining civil relations with the Armenians and Maronites.