Deleted member 67076
Not you know, the fact they ruled Egypt since Octavian all the way to the Rashidun? That's a good 600 years man.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.
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?I am particularly wary of the big purple blob, and a long story of conquest is not an ATL, it is an AAR![]()
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 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);
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)- the difficulty to project power this far (Latin Europe, at a time of demographic expansion, only could grab a few pieces of Syria,
Why are you basing ease of expansion thanks to ethnicity? The Entire Delta can be secured pretty easily.this is why I assume only Alexandria, with its partly Greek/Italian population and defensible location),
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.- more pressing problems closer to home, such as the Balkans, the maritime Italians (prob. called Lombards),
The Romans can secure hegemony and control over the southern part of Italy and thus keep their flank secure.
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.and the eternal enemy in Persia.
Only the Safavids were able to regain Persia's borders after the initial Islamic expansion.
OTL with the Fatimids. But then they ended and a new dynasty took its place.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),
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.
What timeline are you from? When was this?and I think the three-way match makes for an interesting Middle-East (and, in some way, a replay of what happened in Antiquity).
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.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)
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.
You don't need to Hellenize things to keep them.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).