AHC: Coptic (Christian) Egypt

[History Learner]

The Bashmurian Revolts were a serious of uprisings by the native Coptic Christians of Egypt against the ruling Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphates from the 700s until 832. After having initially welcomed the Arabs as liberators, due to Imperial Byzantine prosecution of their Miaphysite faith, by the 700s conversion and Arabization efforts by the Caliphates provoked the Coptic majority to start rising up against them. The last revolt, of 831 to 832, is described thusly:

The temporary success of this rebellion did not achieve any amelioration of the conditions that had made the Bashmurites revolt. Some of them were deported to Iraq; others were sent to Syria and were sold as slaves in Damascus. The army destroyed and burned the entire area to wipe out all possibility of further revolts.

Thus ended the last revolt of the Copts in Egypt. Without any real political plan or any national leadership, without any organized armed force, and in the face of a strong, experienced army, these spasmodic revolts were an indication of desperate courage. Not only did they achieve nothing but they drained the force and pride of the Copts. Nonetheless, these revolts are important for Coptic history, as they shed light on the character of the Coptic masses.

As noted above, this was the last serious revolt by the Copts and over the following centuries their population entered serious decline, with Egypt ultimately becoming majority Islamic sometime around the year 1000 A.D. although some argue it was still majority Christian as late as the Crusades. With all that said, how exactly can we get a successful Bashmurian Revolt, resulting in an independent and Christian Egypt? The failures of the revolt(s) are listed as:

1. Absence of a real political plan;
2. Absence of a national leadership;
3. Absence of an organized Coptic armed force.

The first two should, in theory, be easy to achieve, while the third requires the success of the first two. So, any ideas?

 

[S'task]

So, I think you might actually have to address an underlying issue in Coptic Christianity that is one of the reasons it lacked leadership: it had an obsession with the "lone monastic" tradition with the ideal faithful being a person who goes out and sits on a pillar. This is one of the reasons for it's lack of leadership, as I understand it, it was less organized or centralized as the Roman or Greek Orthodox Churches.

I might be overthinking this though. The clearest thing that this rebellion needed was an actual obvious leader, someone charismatic enough and forward thinking enough to address issues one and two. Issue three, well, that can be dealt with once you've gotten the first two issues out of the way.

Where that leader comes from is up in the air. Someone who is a Copt is ideal, as they'd know the land and people the best, but you could potentially use an outside agent, someone from outside the region who wants to prop up a Christian kingdom in Egypt. The most immediate people I can see benefitting from a renewed Christian controlled Egypt would be the in serious decline Kingdom of Aksum to the south. The issue there is that, well, there's in serious decline, which means they don't have the resources to support a Coptic revolt, even if it would have benefited them by reopening trade routes.

The other options were, of course, the Byzantine Empire seeking to regain control of Egypt as part of the Empire, but that runs into the problems of ancient enmities and lack of Coptic trust in them, plus logistically they are quite far from them.

 

[stevep]

I do recall reading of an invasion of upper Egypt by one of the Nubian kingdoms, then still Christian, in the 1st few centuries after the Arab conquest. Not sure if something like that had happened at the same time as such a revolt in the delta might have prompted a more successful revolution. Think there were some religious differences between the Coptics and the Nubians but possibly a suitable intelligent Nubia leader might have planed to ally with such rebels and possibly also others in the south to secure a successful Egyptian Coptic Egypt simply as a buffer between his own lands and the main Islamic pact.

The other issue might be of course the sheer power of the caliphate coupled with the importance to it of Egypt - in terms of population, wealth and geographical position - which means any Muslim caliph will have a strong incentive to suppress such a rebellion. As such possibly a revolt when the Caliphate is in some disorder, with again a good leader for the rebels and/or outside aid might have more success. Given the historical hostility between the Miaphysite and Orthodox faiths this is unlikely to be Byzantium unless you get an emperor who is strong enough to provide aid but also far sighted enough to realise that trying to 'restore' Byzantium rule, let alone Orthodox Christianity is a no go option.

As HL says and from the links he gives part of the problem was that while the rebels knew they wanted a change in their situation they seem to have no clear idea of how to achieve that. I.e. driving the Muslims - or at least the Arabs from Egypt totally, setting up an alternative political structure and plan for the country etc. Instead it seems more "we're had enough and we're fighting" but with no clear ides of what their final aim was. Although possibly this might be because we have only limited and possibly bias details on the rebels and their actions and aims.

 

[ATP]

Aksum could do nothing,but if 3 christian kingdoms in Sudan joined forces,they could made it.Byzantine - out of question.Western Europe - the same.
So,if we have brilliant ruler in Sudan who manage to unite their forces in attacking arab,he could win and become pharaoh.

 

[Atarlost]

Could a disaster befalling the Caliphate make success possible without requiring a change in the international political situation? Something like a plague spread through the Haj.

 

[ATP]

Could a disaster befalling the Caliphate make success possible without requiring a change in the international political situation? Something like a plague spread through the Haj.

Yes,it could.But you need at least 30% of mortality,and before last fighting Kopts was crushed.And those Kopts need quickly made alliance with Sudan christan kingdoms after that.

 

[History Learner]

A later PoD, which I was reminded of in a recent thread, would be the 4th Crusade working or, possibly even better, a Mongol victory at Ain Jalut. Kitbuqa and Doquz Khatun's Christianity and influence over Hulagu could see the Mongols consolidate their rule over Egypt by tying themselves to the possibly still majority Coptic population.

 

[WolfBear]

The Bashmurian Revolts were a serious of uprisings by the native Coptic Christians of Egypt against the ruling Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphates from the 700s until 832. After having initially welcomed the Arabs as liberators, due to Imperial Byzantine prosecution of their Miaphysite faith, by the 700s conversion and Arabization efforts by the Caliphates provoked the Coptic majority to start rising up against them. The last revolt, of 831 to 832, is described thusly:



As noted above, this was the last serious revolt by the Copts and over the following centuries their population entered serious decline, with Egypt ultimately becoming majority Islamic sometime around the year 1000 A.D. although some argue it was still majority Christian as late as the Crusades. With all that said, how exactly can we get a successful Bashmurian Revolt, resulting in an independent and Christian Egypt? The failures of the revolt(s) are listed as:

1. Absence of a real political plan;
2. Absence of a national leadership;
3. Absence of an organized Coptic armed force.

The first two should, in theory, be easy to achieve, while the third requires the success of the first two. So, any ideas?

A Byzantine naval invasion of Egypt at the same time that the Copts would have rebelled could have significantly helped matters, but I fear that the Byzantines simply lacked the kind of excess naval strength that would have actually been necessary for this. Unless it would have been something that could have been a joint project of the Byzantine Empire and Holy Roman Empire. Now that would be interesting, though I don't actually know just how plausible it would have been.

 

[History Learner]

A Byzantine naval invasion of Egypt at the same time that the Copts would have rebelled could have significantly helped matters, but I fear that the Byzantines simply lacked the kind of excess naval strength that would have actually been necessary for this. Unless it would have been something that could have been a joint project of the Byzantine Empire and Holy Roman Empire. Now that would be interesting, though I don't actually know just how plausible it would have been.

HRE didn't exist at this time, but a Byzantine naval invasion as a means of conquest certainly existed later on. In 1169 a joint venture was conducted by the Byzantines and Crusader states, which featured 200+ Byzantine warships, including ~60 specially built transports which brought with them heavy cavalry. The Crusader host was led by the King of Jerusalem, Amalric I, and the intention was to split Egypt with Manuel Komnenos; the former getting the interior and the latter taking the coastal areas,

 

[Buba]

How about two other PODs:
- Sassanid Governor of Egypt, backed by Coptic locals, refuses Shahrbaraz's order to turn over the province to the Romans. He then successfuly fights off the ERE and continues to resist up to Yarmuk, afterward alternatively resisting Arab invasions and allying with Arabs against ERE (or ERE against Arabs);
or
- Egypt revolts immediately after Yarmuk and the Egyptian Peoples Popular Progressive National Liberation Front fights off ERE and Arabs both.

In both cases Egypt benefits from ERE vs Arab conflict, switching sides as appropriate to prevent either from being able to focus on it.

 

[Agent23]

Here is an alternate idea, a situation where the Byzantines are not such jerks that they lose most of the middle east.

 

[Buba]

Here is an alternate idea, a situation where the Byzantines are not such jerks that they lose most of the middle east.

You hit enter too soon?
I no can see anything besides the quoted text ...

 

[Agent23]

You hit enter too soon?
I no can see anything besides the quoted text ...

Umm, whaat.

 

[Buba]

So

a situation where the Byzantines are not such jerks that they lose most of the middle east.

is your entire idea for a Coptic Egypt?

 

[Agent23]

So

is your entire idea for a Coptic Egypt?

More like my entire idea for the containment of Islam.
The Byzantines around the time of its original spread were so incompetent and such assholes in places like Palestine that the locals preferred Muslim invaders.

 

[stevep]

More like my entire idea for the containment of Islam.
The Byzantines around the time of its original spread were so incompetent and such assholes in places like Palestine that the locals preferred Muslim invaders.

That was for two basic reasons.
a) Primarily the differences in religion between the dominant Orthodox rulers in Anatolia and the Balkans and the Miaphysitism who were the dominant populations in Egypt and Syria. The persecution of the latter meant that they were actually much better treated, at least in early periods by the Muslims so it wasn't surprising that they preferred Arab to Greek rule.

b) This was compounded by the damage both physical and economic done by the last Sassanid-Byzantine war. This meant that the empire, when it finally regained those provinces and established peace had a lower tax base but still felt the need to maintain a large army, both to secure its long frontiers and control of areas such as Egypt and Syria that would have reason to be unhappy with returned imperial rule. As such taxes were possibly even higher than before Phocas's revolt.

The empire was probably further weakened by emperor Heraclius's attempt at finding a compromise between the two branches of Christianity which while it gained some support of course alienated the hard liners in both camps.

You had a similar thing after the 4th crusade established the Latin Empire and also allowed Venice especially to gain territory in the region. Because of religious differences and persecution - this time of Orthodox by Catholics - again the Ottomans were welcomed by the Greeks because they initially suffered less persecution from them.

 

[Agent23]

That was for two basic reasons.
a) Primarily the differences in religion between the dominant Orthodox rulers in Anatolia and the Balkans and the Miaphysitism who were the dominant populations in Egypt and Syria. The persecution of the latter meant that they were actually much better treated, at least in early periods by the Muslims so it wasn't surprising that they preferred Arab to Greek rule.

b) This was compounded by the damage both physical and economic done by the last Sassanid-Byzantine war. This meant that the empire, when it finally regained those provinces and established peace had a lower tax base but still felt the need to maintain a large army, both to secure its long frontiers and control of areas such as Egypt and Syria that would have reason to be unhappy with returned imperial rule. As such taxes were possibly even higher than before Phocas's revolt.

The empire was probably further weakened by emperor Heraclius's attempt at finding a compromise between the two branches of Christianity which while it gained some support of course alienated the hard liners in both camps.

You had a similar thing after the 4th crusade established the Latin Empire and also allowed Venice especially to gain territory in the region. Because of religious differences and persecution - this time of Orthodox by Catholics - again the Ottomans were welcomed by the Greeks because they initially suffered less persecution from them.

Yeah, but the bottom line is, this wouldn't have happened if the Greeks weren't Greeks.
And yes, I know they called themselves Romans, we used to call them greeks when we wanted to dis them.

 

[stevep]

Yeah, but the bottom line is, this wouldn't have happened if the Greeks weren't Greeks.
And yes, I know they called themselves Romans, we used to call them greeks when we wanted to dis them.

I think the basic issue was religion more than nationality. Christianity - like the other Abrahamic faiths are just too exclusive for willing allowing of different viewpoints.

There is the issue that Egypt had been pretty much a subject nation since ~525BC when the Persians 1st conquered it. They were replaced by the Ptomaines and then the Romans before the Eastern Romans and the country was basically a milch cow and source of grain for whichever was the dominant political polios, whether Rome or Constantinople. However the country never seemed to get a clear national identity developing after that 1st conquest until pretty much the modern era.

 

[WolfBear]

HRE didn't exist at this time, but a Byzantine naval invasion as a means of conquest certainly existed later on. In 1169 a joint venture was conducted by the Byzantines and Crusader states, which featured 200+ Byzantine warships, including ~60 specially built transports which brought with them heavy cavalry. The Crusader host was led by the King of Jerusalem, Amalric I, and the intention was to split Egypt with Manuel Komnenos; the former getting the interior and the latter taking the coastal areas,

One can argue that the HRE was founded in 800:

Holy Roman Empire - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Scottty]

Yeah, but the bottom line is, this wouldn't have happened if the Greeks weren't Greeks.
And yes, I know they called themselves Romans, we used to call them greeks when we wanted to dis them.

They were Greeks.
There weren't any actual Romans left in the world by that stage.