If so, could they go further and break off Syria? Or hurt the ERE enough to encourage Persian predation in Syria and Palestine, maybe in Asia Minor?
Yeah, they would be passing through the toughest and most heavily guarded parts of the Roman Empire. I do think the Vandals might have been able to take Egypt by sea but it would be an incredible gamble that requires an ongoing Persian invasion.No, Syria had about a quarter of the Roman army stationed there. The Goths would be in super unfamiliar terrain as well and its much harder for them to live off the land. If anything pressing into Asia proper means they'd get slaughtered by Roman heavy cavalry since the Romans don't have to worry about pulling troops away from the frontlines.
They have one.If we take the verb "marching" literally...
It'd be difficult, and the barbarians would need a substantial navy. Marching from Carthage to Egypt, an army of that period would face many difficulties, mainly in keeping its supplies and fighting off or dissuading potential Berber rebels. Resting stations would be a bit scarce.
On the other hand, reaching Egypt from Syria is a quicker and easier endeavour. Syria is much more able to sustain an army than Libya. Therefore, i think that any barbarian invasion force with its eyes set on Egypt would need to invade the eastern, not western, Roman empire.
That’s assuming that the Sassanids weren’t busy with the Hephthalites or that there’s no concurrent invasion by tribes in the Danube region.No, Syria had about a quarter of the Roman army stationed there. The Goths would be in super unfamiliar terrain as well and its much harder for them to live off the land. If anything pressing into Asia proper means they'd get slaughtered by Roman heavy cavalry since the Romans don't have to worry about pulling troops away from the frontlines.
Since Egypt was easily the most wealthy/important province of the empire, I imagine that the ERE would send the largest portion of their military to fight the invasion, so its doubtful
In my opinion,prior to the arab invasion, the value of Anatolia was totally marginal compared to Syria or Egypt. This doesn't mean that the Romans can neglect the eastern/anatolian front, because this would put Constantinople in danger. The persians (or an alternate enemy) could easily threaten the heart of the empire, this mean that the romans can't send a "large portion of their military" south without risking to compromise another frontI would dispute this. Do you mean to say Egypt was more important than Anatolia?
Yes.An army marches on food and pay.I would dispute this. Do you mean to say Egypt was more important than Anatolia?
I would dispute this. Do you mean to say Egypt was more important than Anatolia?
Yes.An army marches on food and pay.
In this period we are talking about however,Egypt is more important.Snip
It depends on the year of the egyptian invasion, but it seems to me that by this time the visigoths were stably settled in Aquitania while being the dominant power in Gaul and Hispania.I guess regardless of which region is more important, the key threshold questions are: Can the Vandals take Egypt in the first place, probably by seaborne invasion? Can they hold it as long as they held their African imperium? Or perhaps longer? If the Vandals are able to get established in Egypt, does it consume their manpower to the point that it creates opportunities for Goths in Africa at Carthage and points west?