WI Vandals or Goths kept marching and took Egypt from the ERE – could they pull it off?

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
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?
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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
 

Deleted member 67076

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.
 
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.
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.

pWsoOq6.png
 
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.
They have one.
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.
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.

I wonder how an invasion after the Battle of Cape Bon would have turned out.
 
If the vandals take Egypt from Africa,would they be able to keep all their conquest, or would be to extended and forced to leave Africa behind? In my opinion there are not enough vandals to the rule the entire north african coast,so what would happen to Carthage and to the WRE in general?
 
I would dispute this. Do you mean to say Egypt was more important than Anatolia?
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 front
 
I would dispute this. Do you mean to say Egypt was more important than Anatolia?

I mean that, as an individual single province, Egypt contributed more grain and taxes to the empire than any other. Anatolia was never a single province, so on an individual basis, Egypt holds more raw value
 
Yes.An army marches on food and pay.

This may be a status of things, but does not speak to potentials or possibilities. Egypt is certainly not superior to Anatolia in total respect. Especially considering the inability to effectively defend Egypt with its flat plains and lack of defensive boundaries except the desert, which as time moves, is less and less of an issue. Anatolia on the other hand, is not infinitely inferior to Egypt in foodstuff production and yet has several benefits in a geopolitical sense. To make the discussion more robust, let us formulate this as such in a series of cost and benefits, wherein we compare the two in terms of how much value each holds in the geopolitical struggle that is to always be discussed. + pros, - cons

Egypt:
+Massive metropolis in Alexandria.
+Fairly large population though static in growth.
+Nile river offers connection to most major cities and to the Mediterranean
+Food production, though seemingly still static. The status of Egyptian food production and population is a story of declining relevance, it would be critically surpassed by many areas, such as Gaul and during the Islamic period, had less importance than Iraq and other lands in terms of agricultural production and urbanization (not sure on numbers exactly of course).

-Flat surface, little in the way of natural defenses except desert that can be surpassed by either a skilled march or by naval movement.
-Large source of civil disorder
-Low numbers of available troops and mercenary and lack of military prowess as a collective populace
-Has no other groups of people or tribal entities that impose a form of defense to conquest

Anatolia:
+Potential to be a bastion of agricultural production, on par with Egypt and far greater levels of arable land than Egypt. In 1950, the level of arable land in Turkey stood at 34% of arable land whereas Egypt stood at around 3%, Iraq as well in the same decade recorded 12% arable land far out pacing Egypt.
+Presence of other tribes and peoples who offer a natural barrier to invasion, whilst not adversely affecting development and internal stabiltiy.
+Extremely defensible, far more so than any other section of the Byzantine Empire, except Constantinople.
+Much larger number of recruits for war than Egypt or Syria

-Less urban, though this is not negative, Constantinople dominates the western section and the east and central posses Amorium; this lower urbanization is not negative at all imo regardless.
-Not as clearly defined in transportation
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
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?
 
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?
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.
An enviable position so i don't think they would be willing to move again if they don't have any necessity (like being pushed by others tribes). The best candidates in my opinion would be either the Suebi or a roman comeback. The last one would be really interesting as it could effectively allow the survival of both empires, both reduced in the size but still powerful.
A vandal egypt could mean that the Monophysite church could replace the Arian church as the distinctive element of the vandals from the rest of the romans outside Egypt.
 
Top