WI: Egypt Remains Majority Coptic

[Curious_Wanderer]

Background Info:

Before the Muslim Conquest of Egypt (639-646) by the Rashidun Caliphate, the Copts made up the majority of Egypt since the 3rd century. After the conquest took place, the Arabs settled in Egypt bringing along the religion of Islam with them. The Copts faced persecution and discrimination under the caliphate. The jizya tax and the dhimmi status were implemented on them. Today Egypt is an Islamic Arab country with the Copts making up 5-20% of the population in Egypt but remains the largest religious minority in the Middle East and North Africa.

Links to the articles:

Copts - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Arab conquest of Egypt - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

But what if the conquest of Egypt were prevented by the Byzantine Empire (A.K.A. the Eastern Roman Empire)?

How would a Coptic majority Egypt affect TTL?

(Feel free to call me out for any mistakes I made)

 

[Gloss]

Can Egypt even remain Byzantine long-term with the Levant being under Arab control?

 

[Curious_Wanderer]

Can Egypt even remain Byzantine long-term with the Levant being under Arab control?

Not long term but maybe for a few more years if they didn't have to fight a devastating war against the Persians. In OTL, the Muslims were a force to reckoned with conquering the Levant, Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Persia.

 

[ASUKIRIK]

Have the Bashmurian Revolt succeeded and the Copts, already thinking themselves as both opressed by the Hellenes and the Muslims, started the 36th Dynasty of Pharaonic Egypt (the Ptolemaics are the 33rd, Roman Emperors as 34th, Muslim Rulers are the 35th).

Having a Coptic Pharaoh running around could be fun.

 

[Gloss]

Have the Bashmurian Revolt succeeded and the Copts, already thinking themselves as both opressed by the Hellenes and the Muslims, started the 36th Dynasty of Pharaonic Egypt (the Ptolemaics are the 33rd, Roman Emperors as 34th, Muslim Rulers are the 35th).

Having a Coptic Pharaoh running around could be fun.

I'm pretty sure any concept of a potential Pharaonic Egypt wouldn't exist at the time and neither would it exist historiographically.

 

[ASUKIRIK]

I'm pretty sure any concept of a potential Pharaonic Egypt wouldn't exist at the time and neither would it exist historiographically.

Egyptian Hieroglyphs continued to be widely used until 4th century AD and even while Egypt becoming both the center of Hellenism and Christianity, the majority of their population (aka the Machimoi), continues to be rather distinct from Hellenes in general, and remember that even after Christianization, the majority of native Egyptians are rather Miaphysite-majority instead of following the Greco-Roman Orthodoxy, to the point that there is some resistance against the Constantinople-enforced Orthodoxy, even until the eve of Muslim conquest.

If the Native Egyptian rebellion took more into being Egyptian as different from being Hellenes/Romaioi, we could see that their hypothetical ruler might just took the title of Pharaoh/Fir'aun again, and ruling Egypt as a distinctive entity from other surrounding states.

 

[Gloss]

Egyptian Hieroglyphs continued to be widely used until 4th century AD and even while Egypt becoming both the center of Hellenism and Christianity, the majority of their population (aka the Machimoi), continues to be rather distinct from Hellenes in general, and remember that even after Christianization, the majority of native Egyptians are rather Miaphysite-majority instead of following the Greco-Roman Orthodoxy, to the point that there is some resistance against the Constantinople-enforced Orthodoxy, even until the eve of Muslim conquest.

If the Native Egyptian rebellion took more into being Egyptian as different from being Hellenes/Romaioi, we could see that their hypothetical ruler might just took the title of Pharaoh/Fir'aun again, and ruling Egypt as a distinctive entity from other surrounding states.

Citing hierogryphs in the 4th century AD as an actual argument is like saying you could see the return of Sumer in late antiquity, it's just anachronistic.

Yes the Egyptian maintained religious and linguistic differences but they were completely different from 6th century BCE Egypt and AFAIK had little memory of pre-Macedonian times and most likely most of it through the bible and by the time of the Muslim conquest, their identity centered around Christianity and for them Macedonian rule is probably the remotest past, not the New Kingdom period or the late period.

The rule of cool doesn't apply to AH in terms of what is plausible or not. The rulers would probably just call themselves Basileus or Rex if the former is still too pompous and pretentension to the general Roman imperium.

 

[Clandango]

Borders will be an issue, though I suppose so long as Copts popular the Delta, better parts of the Nile, plus Alexandria they should be demographically secure. Need some buffer zones to prevent invasion. I am thinking them being plurality Coptic might work best, but... Hmmm, how open would they be to other Christian groups? Nestorians, Jacobites, Armenians, Greeks, and so many groups with the words Orthodox and Oriental somewhere in them. I should see about finding a copy of the book Lost Christianity again. It tells about the fates of various Christian groups in Asia and Africa that vanished or shrunk significantly and explains the backgrounds of them. Now though, would the Byzantines try and enforce Greek/Roman culture over the area and make changes to the church hierarchy and such? Or would the Patriarch of Alexandria have secure influence over Egypt? Come to think of it, North Africa and West Africa will probably not have as much Muslim influence there, be it by trade or conquest. Also means the local Christians in Spain will not end up either conquered by Muslims or enslaved alongside the Muslims when Catholics came in from the north.

 

[Arkenfolm]

The rule of cool doesn't apply to AH in terms of what is plausible or not. The rulers would probably just call themselves Basileus or Rex if the former is still too pompous and pretentension to the general Roman imperium.

Yes and no. Basileus and Rex are translated in Coptic as Perro or Erro (ⲡⲣ̅ⲣⲟ) which comes from the same Ancient Egyptian source as Pharaoh, so even though Greek would likely be the language of government since the upper class speaks it and the middle class is mostly fluent in it, when the ruler is speaking Coptic or Copts are speaking about their ruler they would indeed call him a Pharaoh. Of course, to other rulers he would never be considered a Pharaoh or a continuation of Ancient Egyptian civilisation, nor be perceived as such by his own people. Potential later nationalism not withstanding of course.

 

[GuildedAgeNostalgia]

If Egypt remains Byzantine, do they try to retake the Levant? Does some form of Crusades still happen?

 

[Curious_Wanderer]

If Egypt remains Byzantine, do they try to retake the Levant? Does some form of Crusades still happen?

They would've try again a few years later as in OTL Abu Bakr ordered Khalid ibn al-Walid to take the Levant. The Rashidun Caliphate already established a stronghold in Mesopotamia (modern-day Iraq) but Khalid chose not to attack the ERE from there as they had soldiers stationed in Northern Syria nor the Daumat ul Jandal route because it was a long route. Instead he chose the short route to the Syrian Desert.

(Click on number 4 on the content list.)

Muslim conquest of the Levant - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

But how can the ERE protect Egypt? They can try to double up the number of soldiers in the city of Suez and reinforcements will come from the navy.

 

[Tupiniquim]

You have to avoid the last byzantine-sassanid war (602-628) and you won't see a weakened Byzantine Empire. Besides that, make the byzantines to resist the arabic conquests (since you're made the last byzantine-sassanid war to not exist, this is much easier than OTL).
To avoid future coptic revolts and maybe an egyptian independence, have an emperor to start a religious tolerance policy inside the empire (that would be easier too, because the byzantines don't want to lose of their richest provinces).

Eventually the lombards will try to take the rest of Italy, I think the best bet is to let them to take it, but keep Sicily and North Africa as parts of the empire to project power in the western mediterranean.

 

[Wendell]

Yarmouk could go differently and/or Roman/Sassanian wars could be different.