WI Alexandria is the capital of the eastern Roman empire?

What if Constantine decided to make Alexandria the capital of the eastern Roman empire, instead of Byzantium.
How would this effect the barbarian invasion, if the eastern areas of Greece and Anatolia were less well defended it might draw of some of the invaders and help the western Roman empire? Also how would this effect the Arabic invasion of Egypt in the 7th century, if Egypt can hold could we see a totally christian Africa?
 
What if Constantine decided to make Alexandria the capital of the eastern Roman empire, instead of Byzantium.
How would this effect the barbarian invasion, if the eastern areas of Greece and Anatolia were less well defended it might draw of some of the invaders and help the western Roman empire? Also how would this effect the Arabic invasion of Egypt in the 7th century, if Egypt can hold could we see a totally christian Africa?

Why would Constantine pick Alexandria over Byzantium?

And the defense of Greece and Anatolia wasn't dependent on the location of the capital - the Balkans (including much of Greece) were swarmed over anyway, f'instance.

As for the Arabic invasion, this has some pretty massive butterflies on whether or not that occurs.
 
Why would Constantine pick Alexandria over Byzantium?

That's the question that must be answered.

Alexandria was a fine port - the first real one Egypt possessed after three millennia of recorded history. (The Pharaohs were not a nautically minded bunch of fellows.) But as a port, it really only served Egypt. And like its country, it was fairly isolated. It was far removed from the most threatened frontiers (the Persian frontier, the Danube), and removed from the new center of gravity of the empire in Greece, Anatolia, and the Levant.

The precedent of an administrative division of the empire had been set by Diocletian. And Diocletian had already hit on the same answer for his eastern capital (Nicomedia) as Constantine would: a metropolis near or on the Straits. It was near the center of the the eastern center of economic gravity, it was close to he key frontiers, and it was on major water and land trade routes.

For Constantine to choose Egypt some fairly massive changes would be needed - something that would make the region of the straits unsafe or impossible. But if that were the case, it would seem more likely that Constantine would default back to Italy, or, possibly, his old power base in Gaul.
 
And for on the straits, it's hard not to see Byzantium as perfectly located defensively. Nicomedia is more already there, but it's a lesser location.
 
Alexandria did have the advantage of being an important and prestigious capital.
As much of the Roman power remained in Rome and Rome relied on Egyptian wheat imports, control of Alexandria gave one indirect control over Rome.
As for trade I'd don't know that much about it but I would imaging that most of it would be carried out by sea, which Alexandria is well positioned to control and Byzantium is too war north.
Regarding is distance from threatened frontiers, I would have thought that that would be a good thing.
Finally Alexandria is the final resting place of Alexander the Great. Throughout history leaders, particularly military leaders of worshiped Alexander. If Constantine starts to do that he might put his capital in Alexandria no matter how little sense it made.
 
It would make the Byzantines perhaps a little more sensitive to a growing muslim force in Arabia given the proximity to Arabia.
 
Alexandria did have the advantage of being an important and prestigious capital.
As much of the Roman power remained in Rome and Rome relied on Egyptian wheat imports, control of Alexandria gave one indirect control over Rome.
As for trade I'd don't know that much about it but I would imaging that most of it would be carried out by sea, which Alexandria is well positioned to control and Byzantium is too war north.
Regarding is distance from threatened frontiers, I would have thought that that would be a good thing.
Finally Alexandria is the final resting place of Alexander the Great. Throughout history leaders, particularly military leaders of worshiped Alexander. If Constantine starts to do that he might put his capital in Alexandria no matter how little sense it made.

Alexandria is only well positioned to control trade from and to Egypt. Byzantium meanwhile is at the center between Europe and Asia.

And you want the capital to be somewhere where information on threats to the empire can be sent readily, so being too far from the frontier has consequences.
 
Alexandria is only well positioned to control trade from and to Egypt. Byzantium meanwhile is at the center between Europe and Asia.
I thought that most trade from Asia to Europe would go to Antioch or somewhere similar along the Levant coast and would be shipped to Europe from there. South of Byzantium.

And you want the capital to be somewhere where information on threats to the empire can be sent readily, so being too far from the frontier has consequences.
Wouldn't threats to the empire be dealt with by generals with armies near the frontiers. The army wouldn't be garrisoned in the capital and the emperor wouldn't lead an army except in the case of civil war. There would be the disadvantage in that a rebellion or minor incursion might be over before the capital hears about it. However that must be contrasted with the fact that empires often fall when their capital is sacked and Alexandria is in a very safe location.
 
I thought that most trade from Asia to Europe would go to Antioch or somewhere similar along the Levant coast and would be shipped to Europe from there. South of Byzantium.

Wouldn't threats to the empire be dealt with by generals with armies near the frontiers. The army wouldn't be garrisoned in the capital and the emperor wouldn't lead an army except in the case of civil war. There would be the disadvantage in that a rebellion or minor incursion might be over before the capital hears about it. However that must be contrasted with the fact that empires often fall when their capital is sacked and Alexandria is in a very safe location.

1) I'll just answer with a map: http://www.archeurope.com/index.php?page=trade-routes-to-the-east

2) So is Byzantion. And the idea of "the Eeperor wouldn't lead the army except in the case of civil war" . . . this is the Roman Empire (Although the Romans aren't unique in this regard). Most successful and several unsuccessful emperors lead the army in person.

And the Emperor still needs to know about threats to the Empire, so he knows what's going on and how to respond.
 
Antioch

So what about Antioch? The best location to be near the persian frontier, which is much more dangerous than the tribes behind the Danube.
 
So what about Antioch? The best location to be near the persian frontier, which is much more dangerous than the tribes behind the Danube.

Which is why the western barbarians overran half the empire, and Persia failed to conquer any substantial portion of Imperial territories (outside the Last War)?

The Empire needs to keep an eye on both.

And Antioch might be too close to the frontier.

I'm not saying Antioch couldn't be picked, or Alexandria - just that I think Byzantium was the best option.
 
One thing that wasn't mentioned so far is that the process of hellenization of Egypt would be stronger than irl. How stronger is much more difficult to answer but it wouldn't be odd to see some 4,5 cent. later every major city beside Alexandria in the lower Egypt and the Nile Delta filled to the roof with "Greeks".
 
One thing that wasn't mentioned so far is that the process of hellenization of Egypt would be stronger than irl. How stronger is much more difficult to answer but it wouldn't be odd to see some 4,5 cent. later every major city beside Alexandria in the lower Egypt and the Nile Delta filled to the roof with "Greeks".

Why would it be more Hellenized?

It's more likely that the capital will influence the empire than vice-versa.
 
Another point that hasn't been mentioned yet is proximity to the army's main recruiting areas. Neither Egyptians nor Arabs were "classically" regarded as very good raw material for troops...
 
I'd think you would probally need Rome stretchinng down the Red Sea for that, maybe with an early Suez canal/rebuild of the old Nile branch canal.
Even there its not a sure thing.
The point of Constantinople was to be a new capital, Byzantion was nothing major so it could be written over, already having Alexandria as a major city sort of spoils Consstantine's wanting to build a legacy.
 
One thing that wasn't mentioned so far is that the process of hellenization of Egypt would be stronger than irl. How stronger is much more difficult to answer but it wouldn't be odd to see some 4,5 cent. later every major city beside Alexandria in the lower Egypt and the Nile Delta filled to the roof with "Greeks".

Not likely. From our resident Copt aficionado, the Egyptiots (including Hellenized Egyptians) only made up at most a third of the population, concentrated in the Delta. I doubt that the rest of the country would assimilate.
 
Which is why the western barbarians overran half the empire, and Persia failed to conquer any substantial portion of Imperial territories (outside the Last War)?

The Empire needs to keep an eye on both.

And Antioch might be too close to the frontier.

I'm not saying Antioch couldn't be picked, or Alexandria - just that I think Byzantium was the best option.

1.The situation in the WRE is completally different to the situation in the ERE, but i refuse do discuss this now.

2.Why? the ERE doesn't hold this much of territory in Europe, only the Balkan, which isn't worth fighting for (compared to the rich privinces Syria and Egypt)

3.In the last war agianst Persia Heraclius left Constantinople just because the Persians were threatening the city directally. While the Persians were overrunning Syria and Egypt, neither Heraclius nor his predecessors did do something noteworthy against it. If Antioch was the capital the emperors have to react earlier.
 
1.The situation in the WRE is completally different to the situation in the ERE, but i refuse do discuss this now.

2.Why? the ERE doesn't hold this much of territory in Europe, only the Balkan, which isn't worth fighting for (compared to the rich privinces Syria and Egypt)

3.In the last war agianst Persia Heraclius left Constantinople just because the Persians were threatening the city directally. While the Persians were overrunning Syria and Egypt, neither Heraclius nor his predecessors did do something noteworthy against it. If Antioch was the capital the emperors have to react earlier.

1) The problem is that as of Constantine, the concept of "the WRE" as a separate polity doesn't exist.

2) See above.

3) If Antioch was the capital, it would likely have been taken in the Last War, with unpleasant consequences.
 
Top