How viable is a Byzantine Levant without Egypt?

So let's assume that the Byzantines are able to re-conquer the Levant around about the OTL Crusade period. They do not however regain Egyty. How well can the Byzantines hold the region and would holding the Levant do much to improve the Byzantine's ability to hold out against their neighbours?

fasquardon
 

GdwnsnHo

Banned
Depends oddly enough, on the state of Egypt. If Egypt is part of a Greater Arabia, or Ayyubid state, then the Levant is vulnerable.

If Egypt is independent, then apart from the question "Why not conquer Egypt" then the Levant is more secure.

I think the prospects by and large are good, but ideally the Romans need to be active in preventing any other polity becoming too powerful near the Levant.

(Which, in my mind, always leads to conquering Egypt and Mesopotamia, at least as client states).

The additional wealth the Levant provides will be useful, but not as useful as controlling access to the Red Sea. They have control over the Persian silk road which is great however - but the long borders of the Levant make it difficult to defend.

TL;DR Depends on the surroundings, the more fractured their opposition the better - so the best scenario IMO that meets your conditions, is a v.difficult war, that exhausts both the Romans, and a single great king in the Middle east, whose death leads to a massive period of civil unrest and independence movements, shattering the Romans opponents, whilst they are unable to take advantage of the circumstances.

Personally, I like the idea of the enemies of the Empire split between a strong Egypt, a strong Mesopotamia, a strong Iran, and strong Arabia. None can risk invading the other without someone else intervening, and many have economic reasons to co-operate.
 
Well, the Levant was quite rich anyway, and getting it back is only likely to help the Byzantines, although I would say that getting back Anatolia is going to be necessary to hold it securely. TBH in such a scenario I'd be more worried about the Egyptians -- Byzantium isn't likely to rest content with the Levant, and with the resources of Greece, Anatolia and Syria behind them, they could well manage to take over Egypt as well.
 

Deleted member 67076

It really depends on whats going on in Eastern Anatolia. Romanian holdings in the Levant is exposed if the border doesn't look like back in the 400s.
 
It really depends on whats going on in Eastern Anatolia. Romanian holdings in the Levant is exposed if the border doesn't look like back in the 400s.
Nah byzzies should focus on keeping borders with turk secure not anatolia. Rather establish client states in the levant and egypt if possible. Adding even more rich cities is not going to help byzantium which was already experience rapid economic growth that was putting strain on the beurocrcy. Better to keep stable borders and tributary vassals than actual rule over regions that by that point have been muslim and difficult to integrate. Depends though on POD then the answer could change.
 
Nah byzzies should focus on keeping borders with turk secure not anatolia. Rather establish client states in the levant and egypt if possible. Adding even more rich cities is not going to help byzantium which was already experience rapid economic growth that was putting strain on the beurocrcy. Better to keep stable borders and tributary vassals than actual rule over regions that by that point have been muslim and difficult to integrate. Depends though on POD then the answer could change.

Would you care to elaborate on the bolded bit? I don't think I've seen anybody claim that economic growth would be bad for an empire before.
 
Would you care to elaborate on the bolded bit? I don't think I've seen anybody claim that economic growth would be bad for an empire before.
transcation cost theory hre is a good paper by knight from the lse.
http://www.lse.ac.uk/economicHistory/workingPapers/2014/WP187.pdf
It isnt that economic growth per say is bad just too much in a pre industrial society. What is needed is economic growth per year that is matched by an equivelent growth in beurocracy and adminstration.
 
Top