What would a post-Byzantine Coptic state look like?

[Ran Exilis]

Occasionally, the idea of an independant Coptic state pops up in debates around here.

However, one thing I've been wondering is; exactly what would such a Coptic state look like?

If a successful Coptic rebellion would overthrow Byzantine or Umayyad rule, then what kind of government would these victorious Coptic rebels create? - a kingdom, or perhaps a republic?

And what would the ruling elite of such a Coptic state be like? - would it primarily consist of wealth and/or land owning families?

And what kind of role would the Patriarch of Alexandria play in this independant Coptic state?

And what would the society of an independant Coptic Egypt be like?

I know next to nothing about Coptic society during the late Byzantine/early Islamic age, so any information about this is more than welcome.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

It would probably be almost identical to Byzantine Egypt.

Occasionally, the idea of an independant Coptic state pops up in debates around here.

However, one thing I've been wondering is; exactly what would such a Coptic state look like?

If a successful Coptic rebellion would overthrow Byzantine or Umayyad rule, then what kind of government would these victorious Coptic rebels create? - a kingdom, or perhaps a republic?

And what would the ruling elite of such a Coptic state be like? - would it primarily consist of wealth and/or land owning families?

And what kind of role would the Patriarch of Alexandria play in this independant Coptic state?

And what would the society of an independant Coptic Egypt be like?

I know next to nothing about Coptic society during the late Byzantine/early Islamic age, so any information about this is more than welcome.

 

[Hapsburg]

Here's an interesting idea: what if the Patriarch of Alexandria, seeing the trends in other European nations in the 800s and such, what with Charles of France being crowned Roman emperor by the pope, and the Byzantine Emperors having a similar relationship with the Patriarch of Constantinople for a while, does something similar to the strongest Coptic warlord in the region post-rebellion.
But instead of crowning him Emperor of the Romans or some title like that, this warlord or military figure is invested the title of Pharaoh, as a continuation of the Egyptian kingdom of antiquity in a Christian manner, so as to form a Royal temporal sword to the Coptic spiritual shield. It'd likely end up being similar if not identical in administrative style to the Byzantine realm.

 

[carlton_bach]

I don't see it. Pharaoh is an unequivocally bad thing in the Bible. The most likely thing is going to be a straightforward king either created by acclamation (rebel leader) or created by the patriarch. This would work in the context of the Mediterranean world - the Byzantines and caliphs have precedent for dealing with a hostile king - and allow continuity in administrative structures, which is a good thing.

Now, Egypt is always a bit different, but for a study of how post-Byzantine kingdoms can come into being I'd look at Southern Italy, the Balkans and the Crimea. Usually, the administrative base is taken over (no matter how little sense it makes), but a new command structure overlaid.