alternatehistory.com

I would probably answer this myself if anyone else asked the question, but hey, I'm interested in the responses of other Byzantinists on here.

Let's say that the ERE enjoys the rule of a competent military Emperor in the 1030s- perhaps Michael IV never gets ill and is just a slightly better monarch all round, or perhaps Basil II has a son, nephew, or son-in-law to succeed him. Anyway, the Emperor is looking at John Tzimiskes style eastern expansion for whatever reason. Couple this with a peaceful Bulgaria, and some sort of stumbling block for the Turks, meaning the Mesopotamian/Iranian region continues to present limited threat to Anatolia and Egypt.

Meanwhile, have the Fatimids themselves continue relatively anti-Christian policies after the death of Caliph al-Hakim, and have Cairo continue to dispute the issue of sovereignty over Aleppo with Constantinople. For good measure, perhaps have some southern Syrian cities openly call for Byzantine assistance against the Fatimids, for whatever reason.

The question is this. In a situation of open warfare between the two states, of an intensity comparable to the Byzantine operations in Bulgaria in the reign of Basil II, who comes out on top? I know little of the Fatimid military forces but I suspect that the armies of Byzantium probably have the edge in combat, while on the other hand nowhere in the Eastern Roman Empire can match the economic prosperity of Egypt.

Thoughts? My rough view is of a probable gradual Byzantine advance over a decade or so, though luck on either side could see significant gains.
Top