Not enough Coptic Egyptian Timelines
- Thread starter Grouchio
- Start date
Probably because the Copts were pretty much doomed in any scenario. No Islamic conquests means continued Byzantine rule or otherwise Persian rule, either of which will eventually dilute the Egyptian population with their own and Hellenize/Persianize the Copts. If the Arabs do conquer Egypt, it either becomes Arab (as with OTL), gets reconquered by the Greeks (and then Hellenized) or it is taken by a crusader force and Latinized.
Best case scenario for the Copts, they remain a significant minority or a small majority population if the Byzantine rule survives.
The reason there aren't many TLs is because of the butterflies. People prefer TLs that have butterflies, but not so many that it leaves holes and makes everything seem almost ASB the further down the line you go. 650 AD is a long time ago for a POD, and that's the latest POD for a Coptic survival.
Best case scenario for the Copts, they remain a significant minority or a small majority population if the Byzantine rule survives.
The reason there aren't many TLs is because of the butterflies. People prefer TLs that have butterflies, but not so many that it leaves holes and makes everything seem almost ASB the further down the line you go. 650 AD is a long time ago for a POD, and that's the latest POD for a Coptic survival.
I don't think 650AD is too far back, FWIW. In any event, wouldn't having the Mamluks be butterflied (thus removing the major active cause of Coptic cultural decline) suffice for having at least a greater Copt presence in Egyptian society, if not the majority? Or perhaps have it so a separate sect of Islam a la the Sunni-Shi'ite split establish itself in Egypt (one of the big reasons IIRC why Iran maintained its own tongue and distinct identity in spite of being Islamicised).
I think you might be a bit mistaken, since the Safavids were the dynasty that converted Iran to Shi'a Islam in the 1500s, 800 years after the Islamic conquest. The reason Iran maintained its mother tongue is because Persia was the most populated part of the Caliphate and Persian was seen as the language of science, math and learning. On top of that, later caliphates like the Abassids adopted much of Persian culture and architecture.
I feel the same way about African Romance. At least Copts exist in a lot of other timelines.
It would have probably faded away anyway, a bit like Dalmato-Romance. Even in the Vth century, St. Augustine pretty much needed a translator to address people.
Not that I disagree with your general point at all, but couldn't earlier dynasties and situation be accounted as well, at least furnishing a base for a more important conversion?
As in rejection of Umayyads in Mesopotamia, Buyids, etc.
I concede that Sunni/Shi'a division wasn't that clear until the XIIth century (and mostly because of the appearance of a Shi'a Caliphate), something that probably helped much.
I did my dissertation on late antique Egypt, so I'd be interested in such a timeline.
That said... "Coptic" as a term is somewhat misunderstood. No "Copts" actually called themselves that in late antiquity, as the term "Qubt" is an Arabic contraction of the Greek "AiGYPTos". The educated Egyptian elite, while they certainly spoke Coptic, were very much an integrated part of the broader Roman world, and their interests were closely tied up with those of Constantinople, even with the religious differences that undeniably existed.
For a TL with an independent Christian Egypt, I'm convinced that the link with Constantinople and the Roman world needs to be actively severed by an outside force, be it Arabs or Iranians: and it needs to stay severed for several generations. I think it's very, very unlikely that a spontaneous "organic" nationalist uprising against continued Roman rule would ever occur. In this period, such a thing needs the active support or at minimum the toleration of the major elites, and there's no evidence from the sixth century texts I looked at that this would be at all forthcoming.
That said... "Coptic" as a term is somewhat misunderstood. No "Copts" actually called themselves that in late antiquity, as the term "Qubt" is an Arabic contraction of the Greek "AiGYPTos". The educated Egyptian elite, while they certainly spoke Coptic, were very much an integrated part of the broader Roman world, and their interests were closely tied up with those of Constantinople, even with the religious differences that undeniably existed.
For a TL with an independent Christian Egypt, I'm convinced that the link with Constantinople and the Roman world needs to be actively severed by an outside force, be it Arabs or Iranians: and it needs to stay severed for several generations. I think it's very, very unlikely that a spontaneous "organic" nationalist uprising against continued Roman rule would ever occur. In this period, such a thing needs the active support or at minimum the toleration of the major elites, and there's no evidence from the sixth century texts I looked at that this would be at all forthcoming.
I'd say a good possibility would be a Crusader state established in Egypt, where the Crusaders make accommodations with the Copts.
Not such a bad idea! I think where it perhaps falls down is that the language of serious administration was always Greek in late antiquity, although Egyptian was used for in some low-level provincial administration and legal cases. In Iran, Middle Persian was the language of state, I believe, so it's more easy to have it survive.
Weren't there still some African Romance speakers around during the 1146-1160 Norman campaigns in Africa?
No problem.
Well, Copts in my scenario were somehow prominent, defending the southern borders, sometimes serving in lower-level administration, especially in Upper Egypt or even tutoring the royal princes in Cairo, but still discriminated at times.
Last edited:
Weren't there still some African Romance speakers around during the 1146-1160 Norman campaigns in Africa?
It's more guesstimated than certain : some texts talk about Latin Arabs helping Normans, but it could mean as well Christian Arabs.
Even if it survived this far, it's most certainly a small minority : Dalmato-Roman survived up to XIXth while never really flourishing.
I dunno, I think a surviving Persian rule would help the Copts. The Persians let them keep their language, their church (the Coptic Orthodox was in process of reunion with Constantinople and the Persian then Muslim rule put the kibosh on this), and a measure of self-government. Perhaps if Heraclius didn't come on the scene and Persia confirmed its rule over the East, they may have been able to hold back the Muslim tide and keep them bottled in Arabia, perhaps crossing the Red Sea and going to Africa first.