WI the Byzantine empire focused on conquering Egypt instead of Anatolia

Oh I see but just think Nestorian Turks destroying the heathens of
Abbasids do you think an alliance beetween them and Byzzies is possible.

It's not impossible, but I think it's unlikely. If the Byzantines are under sustained Arab attack, then they'll pay anyone to attack the Arabs from the rear, but a long term alliance is implausible, given the distances involved. And even if the distances are closed somehow, by time Nestorian Turks reach the Byzantine frontiers in Syria and Armenia, they'll be seen as every bit as much as a heathen menace to the Empire as the Abbasids ever were.
 
It's not impossible, but I think it's unlikely. If the Byzantines are under sustained Arab attack, then they'll pay anyone to attack the Arabs from the rear, but a long term alliance is implausible, given the distances involved. And even if the distances are closed somehow, by time Nestorian Turks reach the Byzantine frontiers in Syria and Armenia, they'll be seen as every bit as much as a heathen menace to the Empire as the Abbasids ever were.

I see, well I guess this was a pretty stupid thread, BG could you have a mod lock this thread.
 
The Byzantine were forced to stay in Anatolia, too strategical for protect Costantinople. If maybe, even in a case of victorious battle in Manzikert (anyway, are there Byzantine TL with POD reversal Manzikert?), the ERE didn't manage to advance however in Middle East (but however it secured Anatolia), in that case an invasion of the Egyptian Delta... Not all of Egypt, but Alexandria and Damietta could be take...
 
anyway, are there Byzantine TL with POD reversal Manzikert?QUOTE]

Yes, mine. Which, incidentally, features a conquest of Egypt, but this only happens after Egypt is so badly damaged by a brutal Mongol invasion and occupation that the Romans are able to sweep in as liberators and pick up the pieces with minimal resistance.
 
Egypt was Muslim and Coptic at the time; outright enemy, and heretic which is worse, Anatolia was Orthodox so could fit into the empire easily enough. Also Anatolia traditionaly produced doughty military recruits for both the Byz and later the Turks, which I don't think Egypt ever did for anybody.
 
Egypt.

Not very practical and logistically difficult. The Copts would certainly not welcome the Byzantines back and the Muslim population would be even worse.
 
Not very practical and logistically difficult. The Copts would certainly not welcome the Byzantines back and the Muslim population would be even worse.

Well, the Copts certainly won't overthrow the Muslims, but they also don't know anything about the Byzantines either.

Besides not really having the capability to move and supply these troops by sea, it's not a reasonable expansion zone. Northern Syria was taken to protect Anatolia, which was the main source of Byzantine manpower.
 
Yes, mine. Which, incidentally, features a conquest of Egypt, but this only happens after Egypt is so badly damaged by a brutal Mongol invasion and occupation that the Romans are able to sweep in as liberators and pick up the pieces with minimal resistance.
And there was still a major rebellion in 1296 :p.

Egypt would be hard to conquer. Like someone earlier said, Alexadria and Damietta could be conquered, but they would not last much time. I've in mind something like Sicily's reconquest attempt by Empress Zoe. In order to conquer Egypt, there must be at least a proper land connection. Manuel I Komnenos (1143-1180) was allied with Jerusalem and tried to invade Egypt. Needless to say, he failed. Maybe a reconquest attempt when there was political instability, e.g. Fatimids --> Ayyubids? If we could a avoid the Angelus Dynasty we could see that happen, with a strong Emperor (like Béla III of Hungary ;)).
 
Top