WI : Eastern Roman Empire centred around the Nile Delta

I'm curious as to how the Eastern Roman Empire would function if instead of being based in a new city at Byzantion, it instead refocused around the Nile Delta and a Pharaohs Canal.

What would it look like? Would there be a new city, and if so, where? What relation would such a city have with existing Nile Delta cities - what impact would this have in the long term?
 
Probably the new city would replace/be built on the site of OTL Alexandria, Damietta or Cairo, as I think they would the the best cities from were to govern the Egyptian lands that are the core of this alternate ERE. The growth of the city would probably be parallel to the growth of OTL's Constantinople. As COnstantinople was the gateway to the Black Sea, an important source of grain, and Egypt already had all the grain it needed, I guess the riches of this new city would come from agriciculture instead of trade and tolls, and I guess this woud impact its desing by making the suburbs way bigger and reducing the size of the core, so to say.

Also, long term, Coptic Christianity may have replaced Orthodox as the official religion of the ERE, maybe Monophisism as preached by Justinian would have a shot, maybe the decline of the empire would occur in a different way, as would the development of its cities, and the core of the empire wouldn't suffer from OTL's lack of access to cheap grain, Egyptian would probably replace greek as the language of the common people and, latter, the administration, OTL's Egypot would be WAYYYYYYY different, with the egyptians seeig themselves as the true heirs of the Roman tradition. Probably Hellenism would have followed a different path than what it did in OTL, we wouldn't speak of Greco-ROman mythology but maybe Egypto-roman one, lots of other stuff too.

Probably we wouldn't see "Basileus" of the Romans, but "Pharaoh" of the Romans as a title.
 
Probably the new city would replace/be built on the site of OTL Alexandria, Damietta or Cairo, as I think they would the the best cities from were to govern the Egyptian lands that are the core of this alternate ERE. The growth of the city would probably be parallel to the growth of OTL's Constantinople. As COnstantinople was the gateway to the Black Sea, an important source of grain, and Egypt already had all the grain it needed, I guess the riches of this new city would come from agriciculture instead of trade and tolls, and I guess this woud impact its desing by making the suburbs way bigger and reducing the size of the core, so to say.

I've personally started to like the site of Zagazig - mainly because of its proximity to a potential reopening of the Pharaohs Canal - allowing the city to both benefit from local agriculture, and be the passage to the Red Sea.

I do like the idea of a more distributed base of power, so rather than the city being the basis of power, it is the collection of the Nile Delta cities, and well positioned forts for guarding the rivers. It is harder to starve out the Nile Delta than Constantinople.

Also, long term, Coptic Christianity may have replaced Orthodox as the official religion of the ERE, maybe Monophisism as preached by Justinian would have a shot, maybe the decline of the empire would occur in a different way, as would the development of its cities, and the core of the empire wouldn't suffer from OTL's lack of access to cheap grain, Egyptian would probably replace greek as the language of the common people and, latter, the administration, OTL's Egypot would be WAYYYYYYY different, with the egyptians seeig themselves as the true heirs of the Roman tradition. Probably Hellenism would have followed a different path than what it did in OTL, we wouldn't speak of Greco-ROman mythology but maybe Egypto-roman one, lots of other stuff too.

Probably we wouldn't see "Basileus" of the Romans, but "Pharaoh" of the Romans as a title.

I'm not sure I agree with the level of impact you seem to think being in Greece had on the Eastern Roman Empire. The East had used Greek as a lingua franca and language of learning for centuries. I don't see Coptic suddenly overwhelming that. It might well become more prominenet, but Greek is already universal for the Eastern Empire.

I do agree with the Egyptians holding a claim to the Roman tradition though - especially with a big old city they can point to. Not sure Pharaoh would be resurrected as a title though. It is distinctly pagan and religious. I can't find the Coptic word for Emperor, but that might emerge as a title - it might be as simple as Melki. (Emperor Basilieous Melki tickles me as a name now).

I think rather than a Greco-Roman, you'd see a Greco-Romano-Coptic culture. Both Roman and Coptic culture has some Greek influence after all, and it'd still be the language of learning.

What do you think of the strategic concerns?
 
What do you think of the strategic concerns?

Well, Africa would be a BIG concern for this new ERE, i think. They would probably establish buffer states both in Lybia and Palestine, as the Sinai and the thin coastal strip that links Cyrenaica and Egypt would be very easy to fortify and defend, and would probably try to expand down the NIle, annexing the various nubian kingdoms and, who knows, incorporating traces of Nubian culture into their Greco-Roman-Egyptian mix. The fleet would be, in my view, prioritized, because protecting the mouth of the Nile from foreign invasion would be a big deal, since the other "ways in" would be probably fortified. If, who knows, an especially ambicious emperor/empress appeared, I think he/she would integrate the buffer states and maybe even parts of the Arabian Peninsula (Hejaz) to expand Egyptian hegemony or direct domination over the Mediterranean and the Red Sea, at the same time tightening the grip over the trade that flows in and between the two. Maybe an early Suez?

Also, I must agree and disagree with Greek mantaining its predominance. Maybe, at the start, we would see an upper class of Greek/Latin-speaking aristocrats, the Emperor amongst them, and after a while, an especially progressive EMperor would declare the egyptian probably spoken by the common classes to be the official language.

ALso, I think the ERE would be a more centralized entity. The struture of power in Egypt along the centuries always encouraged a centralized administration, I think.
 

PhilippeO

Banned
Antioch might develop as bigger city since it would dominate Anatolia in addition to Syria. Thessalonica would have same fate as it dominate Thrace, Balkan and Greece.

a secure supply of grain might weaken both Navy and Empire since Emperor could be secure in Egypt while other part of Empire in trouble.

Nubia, Arabia and Libya might replace Thrace and Isauria as source of soldiers.
 
First off, this is a VERY plausible option.

Not sure about distributed capital, that sounds too rational, the traditions and trends of that time favoured a dichotomy between very widely distributed, localised power (feudalism) and focalisation around the monarch and court. But Alexandria would sure have made for a huuuge capital.

Also, an Egypt-based ERE, if still emerging in the 4th century, would not necessarily be monophysite. Apollinaris and Eutyches weren`t exactly from Egypt, and a lot of the reasons why a a Coptic Church came into being as monophysite was because of the politically relevant geographical distance of Alexandria and its Patriarchate to the new political centre of a Chalcedonian ERE. With the centre in Alexandria, it´s just as likely that Egypt sticks with the same official doctrine as OTL while heterodoxies take root somewhere else.

As for strategic focuses, apart securing the Levante, Cilicia, the Cyrenaica, Africa and their respective desert or mountain hinterlands, (as well as Cyprus, Crete etc.), some degree of priority might be placed on the Red Sea and on a trade with India that bypasses the Sassanids. An Egypt-based empire can feed and defend itself, but if it wants to thrive politically and excel economically, it must rule the waves, and not just of the inland seas (mediterranean and black), but also the wide Indian Ocean; make converts there, establish new outposts, spread the gospel and the fame of the Imperator Basileous Melki among the black Africans and the Southern Indians etc. Southern Arabia would be an important bone of contention with the Sassanids, which would still be the no. 1 rival.

The post-Merotic kingdoms would also be really important, or maybe they wouldn`t even disintegrate.

All of this is rather bad news for the Roman- and Greek-speaking Danube and Balkans, though.
 
I'm curious as to how the Eastern Roman Empire would function if instead of being based in a new city at Byzantion, it instead refocused around the Nile Delta and a Pharaohs Canal.
Poorly.
The imperial court was set in Byzantium (rebuilt and rebranded as New Rome) because it was close to the main military fronts of the Empire (namely Illyricum and Syria, which were pressured by Barbarians and Persians). It wasn't the only city with these benefits, and other imperial courts and capital were set depending on the contemporary threats and the ability to dispatch directives and resources (Milan, Ravenna, Triers, Paris, Arles, Nicomedia, Sirmium, etc.), but Constantinople really enjoyed a strategical-political emplacement that fit imperial needs.
Nicomedia was, admittedly, another good choice, but the Nile's Delta was too far from the Danubian front to be really plausible as a late imperial capital, and too vulnerable to the Persian pressure (note that Constantinople played the role of a strong strategical lock, preventing raiders to cross to Asia, ITTL, not so much).

Such an Egyptian Roman State, furthermore, would deprive the other(s) from necessary fiscal revenues, meaning at least a significant vulnerability of whoever controls the Roman State in Eastern Europe, while Roman Egypt would be more dependent on military support from these northern regions.
 
If there was a concerted threat to Egypt that would outshine the others, especially the Persian one, like the unification of all kingdoms south of it or in Arabia, a migration of some warlike Somali, Swahili, Abyssinian or Nubian tribe to the north, or a simultaneous attack and conquest of the remaining territories that makes Egypt the sole possession of Rome in the East intact. I can see an Egyptian Constantinople rising in such conditions, but never as the capital of the ERE. At most, it would be the capital of a Despotate/Pharaoh-nate of Egypt, who styles itself as the true successor of Rome in the East. ALready getting ideas for a timeline!
 
Top