WI - Coptic Egypt?

What would be needed to make sure that Coptic Christian Egypt survives and remains mostly Coptic up to the modern day? What effects would this have on Northeastern Africa and the Middle East?
 

Philip

Donor
A quick, decisive Sasanian victory in the Byzantine–Sasanian War of 602–628. Heraclius falling off his horse would help.
 
Or have Egypt be able to repel Islamic attack or have the many revolts against them succeed and remember for most of Islamic Egypt history it was ethier majority Coptic or 40/60 split between Coptic and Islam it was until much later that Islam became dominant so all would need is for one of the many revolts to succeed
 

Albert.Nik

Banned
A quick, decisive Sasanian victory in the Byzantine–Sasanian War of 602–628. Heraclius falling off his horse would help.
How does that prevent the Copts from being converted to Zoroastrianism and being Persianized in the coming centuries?
 

Albert.Nik

Banned
Very difficult timeline to achieve until you have a large Coptic Empire or something like a Southern Roman Empire. Whoever ruled would have converted them to their version.
Romans:Orthodox or Catholic Christianity
Persians:Zoroastrianism or a related religion
Muslims:Islam as in OTL.
Without an empire,religions rarely survive in majority.
 
Whoever ruled would have converted them to their version.
Byzantium tried over centuries; it didn't work. Why would whatever other empire be different?

(Besides, I was under the impression Zoroastrianism wasn't an evangelical religion?)
 

Albert.Nik

Banned
Byzantium tried over centuries; it didn't work. Why would whatever other empire be different?

(Besides, I was under the impression Zoroastrianism wasn't an evangelical religion?)
Every state initially resists the religion it was imposed upon. Eventually,it might happen with different strategies. The popular belief of Zoroastrianism not being an evangelical belief is not completely right. Zoroastrians did convert other people in the past. You had Armenian,Kurdish,Afghan,Scythian,Sogdian,Kushan(India) people who were Zoroastrians apart from Parthians or Sassanians and so it isn't an ethnic religion. In India conversion isn't done due to historical reasons. And the rich Egypt would not be let away under any circumstances. They may do a more benign conversion by assimilating them and then today,they wouldn't be that distinct from Persians(Had Sassanid Empire shone only).
 

Albert.Nik

Banned
Sassanid Empire was already falling terribly from within. Even without Arabs,Byzantines would have taken over it anyway.
Edit:Like the WRE in our timeline,Sassanid Empire was fractured by Ethnic tensions too in the end. So just like Odoacer took control without much war in 476 AD,some strong Byzantine King in the successive Macedonian dynasty would do the same to Sassanid Persia.
 
Last edited:
You had Armenian,Kurdish,Afghan,Scythian,Sogdian,Kushan(India) people who were Zoroastrians apart from Parthians or Sassanians and so it isn't an ethnic religion.

The Armenians certainly didn’t leap at the chance to become Zoroastrian, for one; their whole conversion to Christianity was part of an effort to repel Sassanian influence.
 

Philip

Donor
How does that prevent the Copts from being converted to Zoroastrianism and being Persianized in the coming centuries?

The Sasanians actively promoted Miaphysitism in Egypt. If the Sasanians survive long enough and strong enough to prevent Arabic military and political victories, they can later collapse and leave an independent Miaphysite Egypt.

Byzantium tried over centuries; it didn't work. Why would whatever other empire be different?

Before the last Byzantine-Sasanian War, Miaphysitism was on the way out. They had agreed to ordain no more Miaphysite bishops. It was the Sasanians who set up a parallel Miaphysite church in Egypt independent of Constantinople.

Besides, I was under the impression Zoroastrianism wasn't an evangelical religion?

Under the Sasanians it was very much an evangelical religion. The peace treaties following the various Byzantine-Sasanian wars usually included clauses protecting the losing side's corelgionists' rights and preventing forced conversions.
 
I don't think you need to get rid of Roman rule necessarily. Just need to change the aims and faith of the Emperors in Constantinople. For example, if Theodosius II didn't fall off a horse in 450, Pulcheria and Marcian could not reverse the "robber synod" of second Ephesus, and the Council of Chalcedon wouldn't happen as IOTL. I believe some kind of ATL-Chalcedon could solidify a Miaphysite christology and ensure a strong Alexandrian influence on the Church. Though it might be limited to the Eastern half of the Empire, as conflict of some kind with the Bishop of Rome is unavoidable in this scenario.

I think this could do a lot to strengthen the chances of survival of Coptic Christian Egypt.
 
Before the last Byzantine-Sasanian War, Miaphysitism was on the way out. They had agreed to ordain no more Miaphysite bishops. It was the Sasanians who set up a parallel Miaphysite church in Egypt independent of Constantinople.

Where does this come from? Everything I've read and heard is that Miaphysitism was consistently strong in the Fertile Crescent until after the Arab conquests, and that any attempt to change it would inevitably lead to an independent Syria, Palestine and Egypt.
 
Top