Goals for a Byzantine Gunpowder Empire

Deleted member 67076

Legitimism does not grant feasibility. This is why I invoked Alexander the Great, as he is the single person on which Constantinople's claim on Egypt is based.
Not you know, the fact they ruled Egypt since Octavian all the way to the Rashidun? That's a good 600 years man.

I am particularly wary of the big purple blob, and a long story of conquest is not an ATL, it is an AAR :)
Than explain Austria, Britain, the old school Roman Empire, the Mongols, the Spanish, the US, etc. There are so many other states that are nothing but long stories of conquest, why are the Romans different?

The Greeks being Christians does not grant them an automatic victory against all the populations of the Middle-East. There are at least three concrete factors against a Rhoman invasion of Egypt:
- the demographics (Egypt is quite a big piece to chew in the Middle-Ages, and a victorious Rhomaia has a fair bit of internal expansion to do first);
Doable. The various Caliphates absorbed Egypt without to much trouble and up until the 1300s Egypt wasn't even plurality Muslim and the Romans can push down the Levant in many cases.

- the difficulty to project power this far (Latin Europe, at a time of demographic expansion, only could grab a few pieces of Syria,
Latin Europe's power base was far away, did not properly reinforce their troops, was highly prone to infighting and often had severe logistical issues. The Romans will not have (the infighting partially but it sure as hell won't be on the same scale as Western Europe)

this is why I assume only Alexandria, with its partly Greek/Italian population and defensible location),
Why are you basing ease of expansion thanks to ethnicity? The Entire Delta can be secured pretty easily.

- more pressing problems closer to home, such as the Balkans, the maritime Italians (prob. called Lombards),
Venice, Pisa, Ancona, Amalfi and Genoa generally didn't like war, the northern Lombards were quickly gone after 800, the Sicilians can be dealt with and the Papal states have absolutely no reason to invade nor can they.

The Romans can secure hegemony and control over the southern part of Italy and thus keep their flank secure.

and the eternal enemy in Persia.
Which did not border the Romans from 632-1070 AD. Most of the time the Persians were busy trying to stay stable, much less expand and actively threaten Rome.

Only the Safavids were able to regain Persia's borders after the initial Islamic expansion.

For all these reasons, Egypt actually makes a good ally for the Rhomans (this could even be one of their very few long-term friends, and Alexandria could be a grant as a trading post - gained by expelling the Venetians),
OTL with the Fatimids. But then they ended and a new dynasty took its place.

That said, later on during the Age of Exploration not having clear access to the Indian Ocean will not help the Romans. Egypt (or at least the Sinai) will eventually become a target. Its too damn useful.

Giving Alexandria is like the US giving up San Francisco. It won't happen willingly.

and I think the three-way match makes for an interesting Middle-East (and, in some way, a replay of what happened in Antiquity).
What timeline are you from? When was this?

Now central Anatolia could of course re-hellenize in a relatively short time, but probably not Armenia (it did not from ca. -300 to 1071 after all, and it makes an awesome ally and buffer state)
Armenia doesn't have to Hellenize for it to be a good province. The Armenian population was already well accented into Byzantine society and generally didn't revolt.

That said, Armenia is also good to have because it gives a very good defensive frontier from incursions east. And no, Armenia wasn't the best ally to have, as the 500s and late 900s would prove.

or Syria (only partially hellenized in classical times, and the Turks did not have that big an impact IOTL - admittedly, they were more focused on the Balkans).
You don't need to Hellenize things to keep them.
 
Hm?:confused: They don't need to copy the Ottomans in what they do.

Erm, parts of Italy? Socotra? The Maldives? Parts of India and or Sri Lanka? Bits and peaces of Indonesia and or the Swahili coast?

Wait, why on Earth would the Romans want the Hedjaz?

I'm not sure I follow. If you posit byzantine expansion into the Indian Ocean, won't they be grabbing Socotra, the Maldives, etc? It seems to me that they will be copying the Ottomans. And I don't think the Byzantines would just abandon Sicily, but maybe I am wrong.

The 1300s around the time of Adronicus II and III. The Middle Classes pushed for a greater emphasis on trading instead of land and there were powerful people arguing for a need to copy what Venice and Genoa were doing, most prominent of which was Alexios Apokaukos. Unfortunately, the Byzantine Civil War of 1341-47 put an end to that because the state was too poor to afford a navy.

Hrm. I've actually been reading Cambridge's History of the Byzantien Economy, which makes an interesting argument for the 11th or 12th centuries as being the time when traders became prominent in the Empire. I think that might be more relevant than the 14th century, when Byzantiium was a shadow of its former self. But maybe...

Not nice per say, but less hostile. More willing to negotiate and not having to resort to proxies such as the Republic of Ragusa and Venice. In which you'd see regular trade with Russia, Hungary, Georgia, Poland and the like instead of non stop hostilities. These can be a vital source of income.

But you're ignoring why there were proxies. It wasn't that the Islamic World set forth a pillar of fire, only allowing the Venetians to pass. The French and English traded with the Ottomans in teh Early modern Era, for instance. It was just that the Italians had a valuable position as middle-men.

By the same token, if htere is more trade with some neighbors, others will be more hostile. The Crimean Khanate is unlikely to obey a Christian lord, for instance.


Huh? No. I said there'd be more trade because the empire can shift more resources into trading with India instead of having to defend against 3 fronts like the Ottomans. The Portuguese were assholes to everyone.

I'm kind of confused. Which fronts are quiet for the Byzantines that weren't for the Turks?


- the demographics (Egypt is quite a big piece to chew in the Middle-Ages, and a victorious Rhomaia has a fair bit of internal expansion to do first);

This is partly why I'm a bit skeptical, BTW. The Islamic states have to sit back passively and wait to get eaten. The Mamelukes even in OTL rose in revolt against the Ottomans after the conquest; would the Egyptian elite throw their weight behind it? If the alternative is being ruled by a foreign infidel? (I have a vision of an Egyptian Joan of Arc reminding everyone that the Quran says there shall beno Qaysar, nor King of Kings...)

- the difficulty to project power this far (Latin Europe, at a time of demographic expansion, only could grab a few pieces of Syria, this is why I assume only Alexandria, with its partly Greek/Italian population and defensible location)

Well, here I am less worried. After all, Constantinople is just as far away from Egypt as Istanbul was...

Now central Anatolia could of course re-hellenize in a relatively short time, but probably not Armenia (it did not from ca. -300 to 1071 after all, and it makes an awesome ally and buffer state) or Syria (only partially hellenized in classical times, and the Turks did not have that big an impact IOTL - admittedly, they were more focused on the Balkans).

Why do they need to re-hellenize (as opposed to rechristianize?)

Doable. The various Caliphates absorbed Egypt without to much trouble and up until the 1300s Egypt wasn't even plurality Muslim and the Romans can push down the Levant in many cases.

I don't doubt you, but do you have a cite for this? This seems remarkably late, given hwo rapidly conversion took place in Spain.

Venice, Pisa, Ancona, Amalfi and Genoa generally didn't like war, the northern Lombards were quickly gone after 800, the Sicilians can be dealt with and the Papal states have absolutely no reason to invade nor can they.

I think this is a stretch. The Venetians and Genoese went to war at the drop of a hat, no?

Anyway, I'm finding this to be a really interesting discussion all around.
 
But remember that it was unconquered between Alexander the Great and Napoleon.

:confused: umm.... No, no it most certainly was not.How do you think it joined Rome in the first place, or became muslim?

I don't understand why there is any debate on this. Assuming a powerful Byzatium, basically their main goal will be Egypt. They have the legitimacy, potential support from the Copts, and the military and economic power to do it.
Now, this doesn't mean they WILL take Egypt. It's just very likely that they will at least try, and will have a good chance of succeeding.

I will ask again, what is the PoD? This is vitally important.
 
But remember that it was unconquered between Alexander the Great and Napoleon.

What?

The Romans, the Sassanids under Khosrau II, the Romans under Heraclius, the Rashidun Caliphate, the Abbasid Caliphate, the Fatamids, nearly by the Crusaders, the Ayyubids, and the Ottomans all conquered Egypt between Alexander the Great and Napoleon. Not to mention the innumerable civil wars of basically all of the above powers. So hardly unconquered.
 
It's worth noting that Egypt had a huge Christian population within the time frame discussed in the OP.
 
Though not an Orthodox population. Most of the Egyptian Christians were Copts and they historically were quite badly treated by the Byzantine hierarchy.
 
:confused: umm.... No, no it most certainly was not.How do you think it joined Rome in the first place, or became muslim?

I don't understand why there is any debate on this. Assuming a powerful Byzatium, basically their main goal will be Egypt. They have the legitimacy, potential support from the Copts, and the military and economic power to do it.
Now, this doesn't mean they WILL take Egypt. It's just very likely that they will at least try, and will have a good chance of succeeding.

I will ask again, what is the PoD? This is vitally important.

What?

The Romans, the Sassanids under Khosrau II, the Romans under Heraclius, the Rashidun Caliphate, the Abbasid Caliphate, the Fatamids, nearly by the Crusaders, the Ayyubids, and the Ottomans all conquered Egypt between Alexander the Great and Napoleon. Not to mention the innumerable civil wars of basically all of the above powers. So hardly unconquered.

That was my sarcastic rebuttal of Circonflexe's bizarre claims, if you missed them.
 
It's worth noting that Egypt had a huge Christian population within the time frame discussed in the OP.

What's everyone's evidence for this? Serious question. Hugh Goddard in A History of Christian-Muslim Relations suggests it was majority Muslim by the 10th century.
 
What's everyone's evidence for this? Serious question. Hugh Goddard in A History of Christian-Muslim Relations suggests it was majority Muslim by the 10th century.

Yeah, I've only heard of Syria possibly having a Christian majority until the 13th century, but everything I've found (admittedly, only online) puts the Muslim majority in Egypt at 1100 at the latest.
 
What's everyone's evidence for this? Serious question. Hugh Goddard in A History of Christian-Muslim Relations suggests it was majority Muslim by the 10th century.

That's my understanding as well. 13 th C. is way past the expiration date of a Coptic majority. However the Copts were and are a significant majority in today's Egypt --10-20 % ( no one really knows, politically it would be explosive to take a census of the Coptic population.
 
That was my sarcastic rebuttal of Circonflexe's bizarre claims, if you missed them.
In print on the internet, no one can see sarcasm.

Apparently most of the readers of this thread took your comments seriously, myself included.

You didn't quote Circonflexe. You didn't use smileys. You didn't do anything else that would let anyone know that you were being sarcastic.
 
Top