Wank Coptic Egypt with a POD 600 AD

I have some ideas on this myself. First avoid the weakening of the Byzantine Empire before the Arabs attacked the empire. In order to do this, Maurice would have to keep the throne and Phocas would not be able to come to power. Hence one would avoid the Byzantine-Sassanid wars that weakened both the empires. Egypt would then secede at some time after the Arabs attempt to conquer Syria had been crushed. Probably the best would be that also the Sassanids survived, as a surviving Sassanid Empire would probably be less dangerous than a Persia dominated by the Arabs (as they had a new ideology - Islam - that would unite them). I would assume that even if the Byzantine Empire managed to keep the Arabs out of Syria, the different religious views of the areas of the empire would lead to attempts to break away. If so, what would be the most optimistic, but not ASB, scenario for Egypt?
 
No Islam does the trick

IIRC it has been argued that the expansion was not only a result of the new religion, but also because of overpopulation. If this is correct, there might still have been an Arab attempt to conquer Syria, although they would not have the religious motivation. Still, even if Muhammad had created the new religion, if the Byzantine and Sassanid empires had not been so weakened by wars, the Arabs could have been stopped. They came at a time when both empires were quite weak.
 
No Islam, so the Arabs still expand due to population pressures but the expansion is in successive, disparate, disjointed waves of tribal confederations in divergent directions (like the Germanic and Slavic migrations) rather than a united ideological effort. The different Arab tribes convert to the local religion of the areas they settle/conquer. Even if Egypt is conquered, the Arab conquerors will be likely to convert to the Coptic Church. Then get Egypt under this Coptic Arab dynasty to secede from the Byzantines, and expand across North Africa, down the Nile and along the Red Sea coast into East Africa, and into the Levant and Arabia itself.
 
So, what do you think? Would the Byzantine Empire have lost areas like Egypt and Syria even if they had been able to stop the Arab conquests? If so, would it have happened as a result of those areas splitting away and forming its own, new empires (or possibly a united Syro-Egyptian empire)?
 
No Islam, so the Arabs still expand due to population pressures but the expansion is in successive, disparate, disjointed waves of tribal confederations in divergent directions (like the Germanic and Slavic migrations) rather than a united ideological effort. The different Arab tribes convert to the local religion of the areas they settle/conquer. Even if Egypt is conquered, the Arab conquerors will be likely to convert to the Coptic Church. Then get Egypt under this Coptic Arab dynasty to secede from the Byzantines, and expand across North Africa, down the Nile and along the Red Sea coast into East Africa, and into the Levant and Arabia itself.
In this case, would they tempted to conquer Iberia as well?
 
I'd love to see the Egyptians take over African Horn,North Africa and even Levant. If the Byzantines hadn't persecuted the Copts, maybe it would happen. Maybe they need to foster strong alliances with Ethiopia,Libya,Syria and other powers of the region bringing them into a Union strong enough to fend off the Arabs. Similar to Poland-Lithuania and Austria-Hungary of later times.
 
No Islam, so the Arabs still expand due to population pressures but the expansion is in successive, disparate, disjointed waves of tribal confederations in divergent directions (like the Germanic and Slavic migrations) rather than a united ideological effort. The different Arab tribes convert to the local religion of the areas they settle/conquer. Even if Egypt is conquered, the Arab conquerors will be likely to convert to the Coptic Church. Then get Egypt under this Coptic Arab dynasty to secede from the Byzantines, and expand across North Africa, down the Nile and along the Red Sea coast into East Africa, and into the Levant and Arabia itself.

The African Horn probably isn't doable, but Egypt + Nubia definitely. Not sure how much they'd go into the rest of North Africa--Cyrenaica is the only part Egypt could really "claim", and beyond there you either have to cross the Gulf of Syrte (infamous for horrible sailing conditions) or cross on land (very difficult route with little water and many bandits), making it not a natural path of expansion (not immediately). The Levant is pretty obviously where their ambitions lie, between the religious conflicts, and the fact that Egyptian states from Ancient Egypt onwards have always had a keen interest in intervention there.

I'd love to see the Egyptians take over African Horn,North Africa and even Levant. If the Byzantines hadn't persecuted the Copts, maybe it would happen. Maybe they need to foster strong alliances with Ethiopia,Libya,Syria and other powers of the region bringing them into a Union strong enough to fend off the Arabs. Similar to Poland-Lithuania and Austria-Hungary of later times.

What Libya? Any North African breakaway power will be anti-Coptic as it will either be a Greek puppet state, Roman Catholic, or its own heresy. Syria is more likely to be a foe than a friend--also possibly the issue of religion once again (which church are the Syrians following?). Egypt has always either fought with Syria or tried to rule Syria. It's a natural geopolitical rivalry. Ethiopia, yeah, could be an ally, as long as Ethiopia doesn't ever try and intervene in Nubia. Even without Islam, if the Byzantines and Persia couldn't defeat the Arabs, I doubt a bunch of recently formed successor states could.
 
To cut it short, the Copts as a cultural group after the Islamic invasion is in my opinion far too weak to have a state of merit. In regards to its relation to Byzantium, I can speak slightly on then, but differ for now to someone more knowledgable.
 
No Islam, so the Arabs still expand due to population pressures but the expansion is in successive, disparate, disjointed waves of tribal confederations in divergent directions (like the Germanic and Slavic migrations) rather than a united ideological effort. The different Arab tribes convert to the local religion of the areas they settle/conquer. Even if Egypt is conquered, the Arab conquerors will be likely to convert to the Coptic Church. Then get Egypt under this Coptic Arab dynasty to secede from the Byzantines, and expand across North Africa, down the Nile and along the Red Sea coast into East Africa, and into the Levant and Arabia itself.

To cut it short, the Copts as a cultural group after the Islamic invasion is in my opinion far too weak to have a state of merit. In regards to its relation to Byzantium, I can speak slightly on then, but differ for now to someone more knowledgable.

With a POD around 600, the Arab conquest could be avoided. Even if Islam is not butterflied away, a Byzantine victory at Yarmouk (and at later battles with the Arabs) could possibly stop the Arab conquests (at least if they also lose against the Sassanids). Of course, the problem is that if Egypt seceded at a later stage, this would make an Arab conquest easier. Possibly Cregan´s suggestion, where Islam is butterflied away and where the Arabs expand in different directions would make for a more realistic scenario of an independent Coptic Egypt.
 
Could there be a Coptic rebellion after the Muslim conquest? IIRC Copts weren't used in the army, but maybe in some ATL the ruler of Egypt is going through a particularly sticky patch and decides that he needs every man he can get, and that the extra manpower he'd get by enrolling Copts in the army is worth the risk of them rebelling. Then it turns out he's miscalculated, his government is overthrown and Egypt is finally in Coptic hands.
 
Top