Plausibility check: Egyptian state with heavy presence in the Indian Ocean

  • Thread starter Deleted member 67076
  • Start date

Deleted member 67076

Would it be ever plausible to have an Egyptian state, preferably with a POD after 1000 AD to be a major player, perhaps even hegemon, of the Indian Ocean?

If so, what's needed to accomplish this?
 
Effective access to the Indian Ocean, for one thing. Even if you posit the Nile-Red Sea canal being maintained, I think the problem is that the Red Sea isn't a very good base for power projection into the Indian Ocean because any maritime state in Yemen can choke you off. This is why, despite the Red Sea being an important trade route, none of the polities actually bordering it were ever major maritime powers.
 
For this to work you'd need to refocus what it means to be "Egypt", and I'd be worried that cultural momentum would be against it.

They would need to tear the focus of the government off of the Nile. Relocate the capital to the Red Sea, or on the "Pharaohs Canal". Quite literally, building a whole great city to act at the heart of this. This would probably have to happen before 1000 AD IMO, as I don't think that after founding Cairo another new capital would be seen as useful. But I think the rules below stand for both Pharonic and post-1000AD Egypt.

Major Canal that connects the Nile to the Red Sea, and put the new capital on it. Heck, even better, build the canal into part of the cities design, just have the city on one side of the canal so that it can be expanded in time.

That city should then be able to tear focus away from the Med, and onto the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean. Conquer the coasts of the Red Sea, the same type of army that would be able to protect the western desert should be able to aptly defend and conquer the Hedjaz and later Yemen and Axum/Ethiopia.

The only other task you also need is lumber, conquering the Levant would be great for this, but you've got the nasty border in Syria unless you hug the mountains. The wood would be vital for building fleets.

After that, if the Egyptians can build open-ocean ships based in Socotra, they are in a strong position to dominate not only trade into the Red Sea, but past it as well, which means that they can benefit from the trades from East Africa to China as well.

But yeah, Force a change in focus, give them the wood they need, and control the waterways.

I'd personally love to see this with an Ancient Egypt PoD - breaking Egypt away from the Nile wouldn't be easy, but some sort of Ocean God being imported into the Pantheon might help, but then the Egyptians can colonise the Red Sea en-masse, as one division of the Egyptian Empire of "Lower Egypt, Upper Egypt, the Red Sea Provinces and the Levant" - That "Egypt" would probably be able to build and maintain a cultural identity as Egyptian that permanently holds control over trade in that part of the Indian Ocean.
 

Deleted member 97083

The Mamluks of Egypt already had a heavy presence when the Portuguese were exploring and raiding the Indian Ocean, such as in the Battle of Diu (1509).

The Ottomans took up this role after their conquest of Egypt 1516-1517. But considering the Mamluks still controlled large swathes of Ottoman Egypt until Napoleon, they may have continued to play a part in Indian Ocean naval battles even after 1517.
 
Could a longer lived Nubyan Dinasty go south and conquer Ethiopia? Or a stronger Ptolomaic Dynasty expand along the Nile? The (OTL) Somalian coast was quite an important trading place and a source of spices. Control over those resources and having the taxes from the coastal trading cities as important sources of income would go a long way towards incentivicing an Egypt-centered government to intervene in the Indian Oncean.

Politically, however, I think the main obstacle to achieving this is the fact that its simply much easier for an Egyptian power to exert its authority in the Mediterranean and the Levant. Not only that, but the main threats facing Egypt are also all coming from either the Med or the dessert, which means that in this scenario they would have to somehow keep an army ready to defend the Nile valley while at the same time keeping and defending their conquests downstream. None of these make the desired result imposible, but they do seem to make it the path of most resistance.

What you would need is for expansion/power projection in the Med and Levant to be unviable, while also negating any threats possibly coming from there. A Roman-style Mediterranean hegemon seems to me the most likely way to get this, although you would need to figure why they would allow for an independent Egypt. Maybe keep them contained in the Northern Mediterranean coast? Add a weak buffer state in the Levant (think late Seleucid kingdom) and you might have the right conditions.

A very interesting scenario all-around. I hope we can keep the discusion going :)
 
What you would need is for expansion/power projection in the Med and Levant to be unviable, while also negating any threats possibly coming from there. A Roman-style Mediterranean hegemon seems to me the most likely way to get this, although you would need to figure why they would allow for an independent Egypt. Maybe keep them contained in the Northern Mediterranean coast? Add a weak buffer state in the Levant (think late Seleucid kingdom) and you might have the right conditions.

A very interesting scenario all-around. I hope we can keep the discusion going :)

I think the best proposition would be a Philip of Macedon lives timeline, where instead of conquering all of Persia, he shatters Persian power, taking Anatolia, and perhaps making a play for Mesopotamia, choosing to ally with an ambitious Egyptian ruler who takes the Levant and Egypt. This alliance both makes Egypt and the Hellenic Empire secure, whilst limiting the realistic Mediterranean expansion of the Egyptians. Going west to North Africa exposes Egypt to Carthage and Rome, who don't really have an interest to go East (until that end of the Med is conquered), at which point Macedonia is a closer target for Rome, and Carthage wouldn't be inclined to expand that way (without a personality change).

Which leaves the Red Sea and Arabia as the best routes for Egyptian energies.
 
Although it's veering towards a geological POD, hence ASB, the Nile Flood used to regularly rise high enough to feed Fayum depression to West of the Valley. Google searches show the ancient lake there used to be much, MUCH bigger than as currently fed by canal. Similarly, if there was a seasonal channel to the East, it would extend Pharaonic interest and influence towards the Red Sea...
 
As pointed, the Ottomans had a major presence in the XVIth century by virtue of their hold on Egypt.

They took Yemen after a bit and were a massive adversary to the Portuguese through hard power and expert use of soft power
 
I think the best proposition would be a Philip of Macedon lives timeline, where instead of conquering all of Persia, he shatters Persian power, taking Anatolia, and perhaps making a play for Mesopotamia, choosing to ally with an ambitious Egyptian ruler who takes the Levant and Egypt. This alliance both makes Egypt and the Hellenic Empire secure, whilst limiting the realistic Mediterranean expansion of the Egyptians. Going west to North Africa exposes Egypt to Carthage and Rome, who don't really have an interest to go East (until that end of the Med is conquered), at which point Macedonia is a closer target for Rome, and Carthage wouldn't be inclined to expand that way (without a personality change).

Which leaves the Red Sea and Arabia as the best routes for Egyptian energies.

Im afraid you are off by 150 years or so. By the time of Philip of Macedon, Rome was no where near the Mediterranian hyperpower they would become by the time of the Ptolemies, who were practically their loose vassals. At this point the romans don't even control the whole of Italy, and, most importantly, havent even got anything resembling a war navy; and they wont get one until the First Punic war. Carthage also has a very loose hold of Southern Hispania, and I have no doubts at all that an Egypt that holds the entirity of the Phoenician homelands (including an un-sacked Tyre) and the Levant can most definately take Carthage head-on in a dispute for maritime supremacy in the West Mediterranean, and win without too much effort.

Also, getting off topic, but truly conquering Mesopotamia and keeping it under Greek control while the Persian empire still exists is borderline imposible: even if weakened, it still controls the population center of the Indus valley and the Persian core. The reason for this is that Mesopotamia was conformed of many, many very independent-minded city states that had been aforded a special treatment by the emperor in order to remain loyal. Where I'm going with this is that conquering Mesopotamia while there is still a viable alternative to your rule is as much a political task as it is a military one (here is where Trajan would fail centuries later), which means that Phillip would have to either:

a) Move his capital to the east, with the understanding thet there would be continuous rebellions and uprisings, as well as a population and political climate that is receptive to Achaemenid invasion/reconquest. This would mean that practically all of this "hellenic empire"'s energies would be focused on defending their eastern border, which also means a decrease in the prosperity of the region, as the Zagros border is quite a porous one and the cities and countryside can expect to be pillaged evrytime there is a war or just for raiding's sake. The conflicts would eventually result in the greeks losing control of mesopotamia or finally deciding to end the Persians for good.

b) Give the region even more liberties than the Persians did, effectively reducing its tax income. This would however, allow the empire to focus on other places, like placing the entirety of Anatolia and Greece under their control and maybe even starting their own bid for domination of the colonies in the Northern coast of the mediterranian (which might eventually even put them at odds with Egypt). But at this point the Med region isn't reall that rich, so if they want to avoid conflict that might not really be woth it or destroying their alliance with Egypt, then the only other place to expand to is... to the east.

So as you can see, both roads wield you a high probability of conflict with the remnants of the Achaemenids. Were a conquest of Persia to happen, then the empire would become more and more streched, and who knows whether Greece would really stay loyal to and united under the Macedonians without the charisma of Alexander a true Son of all the Hellenes.
 
Im afraid you are off by 150 years or so. By the time of Philip of Macedon, Rome was no where near the Mediterranian hyperpower they would become by the time of the Ptolemies, who were practically their loose vassals. At this point the romans don't even control the whole of Italy, and, most importantly, havent even got anything resembling a war navy; and they wont get one until the First Punic war. Carthage also has a very loose hold of Southern Hispania, and I have no doubts at all that an Egypt that holds the entirity of the Phoenician homelands (including an un-sacked Tyre) and the Levant can most definately take Carthage head-on in a dispute for maritime supremacy in the West Mediterranean, and win without too much effort.

I was thinking of long-term time scales here, I'm well aware of the history. I was making long-term geopolitical claims. Whilst Egypt can control the seas, without control over Sicily they'd be very exposed in trying to control the region. I wouldn't expect Egypt to realistically take, hold, and operate around Sicily, simply because the enemies that would eventually be able to threaten them (namely an Italian or African state) can invade almost before Egypt would know to send reinforcements.

Also, getting off topic, but truly conquering Mesopotamia and keeping it under Greek control while the Persian empire still exists is borderline imposible: even if weakened, it still controls the population center of the Indus valley and the Persian core. The reason for this is that Mesopotamia was conformed of many, many very independent-minded city states that had been aforded a special treatment by the emperor in order to remain loyal. Where I'm going with this is that conquering Mesopotamia while there is still a viable alternative to your rule is as much a political task as it is a military one (here is where Trajan would fail centuries later), which means that Phillip would have to either:

a) Move his capital to the east, with the understanding thet there would be continuous rebellions and uprisings, as well as a population and political climate that is receptive to Achaemenid invasion/reconquest. This would mean that practically all of this "hellenic empire"'s energies would be focused on defending their eastern border, which also means a decrease in the prosperity of the region, as the Zagros border is quite a porous one and the cities and countryside can expect to be pillaged evrytime there is a war or just for raiding's sake. The conflicts would eventually result in the greeks losing control of mesopotamia or finally deciding to end the Persians for good.

b) Give the region even more liberties than the Persians did, effectively reducing its tax income. This would however, allow the empire to focus on other places, like placing the entirety of Anatolia and Greece under their control and maybe even starting their own bid for domination of the colonies in the Northern coast of the mediterranian (which might eventually even put them at odds with Egypt). But at this point the Med region isn't reall that rich, so if they want to avoid conflict that might not really be woth it or destroying their alliance with Egypt, then the only other place to expand to is... to the east.

So as you can see, both roads wield you a high probability of conflict with the remnants of the Achaemenids. Were a conquest of Persia to happen, then the empire would become more and more streched, and who knows whether Greece would really stay loyal to and united under the Macedonians without the charisma of Alexander a true Son of all the Hellenes.

I did say a play for it, I don't actually think success is in any way guaranteed. You're right that taking Mesopotamia and holding it are two very different conversations, it would almost certainly rely on Philips invasion taking out the Achaemenids - which his son was able to do quite well. Unseating the Persian Emperors could well leave the Iranian Plateau (and thus the Persian Empire) in chaos, or at least spending decades trying to resolve power disputes. If that happens, taking Mesopotamia is much more viable.

In contrast, if the Achaemenids do come back (or the power struggle reverses quickly), then the alliance between the Hellenic and Egyptian Empires becomes more existential, to protect against Persia. This is true if Mesopotamia falls or not - a Hellenic Empire extended around Egypt needs Egypt on side to secure overland supply line options, and Egypt would enjoy the Hellenic Empire in Mesopotamia as a shield. If Mesopotamia isn't there, both are directly vulnerable.

Also, if Mesopotamia does fall into Hellenic hands - all those colonies and troops that would have been pushed out to all corners of Alexanders Empire would be able to settle Mesopotamia densely, dragging them into control. If there is a large Macedonian presence in Mesopotamia, then those settlements will be more interested in being loyal to their fellow Greeks - and keeping Mesopotamia in line.

Does this mean that we don't see an "Eternal War"? Of course not, but that very aspect is what makes a war between Egypt and Macedon impractical and unpalatable to both sides.
 
Top