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 liberates, 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 easier to achieve, while the third requires the success of the first two. So, any ideas?

 

[Ricardolindo]

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 liberates, 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 easier to achieve, while the third requires the success of the first two. So, any ideas?

I'm not sure it's possible. The Copts were disarmed and Egypt can't survive with a hostile Southern Levant.

 

[History Learner]

I'm not sure it's possible. The Copts were disarmed and Egypt can't survive with a hostile Southern Levant.

How so about the Levant? I wonder if earlier Crusades or perhaps a Nubian invasion would be sufficient, though; that could help give the leadership and a military basis.

 

[Ricardolindo]

How so about the Levant? I wonder if earlier Crusades or perhaps a Nubian invasion would be sufficient, though; that could help give the leadership and a military basis.

The Nile Delta is not a defensible region. It was historically really hard for a power to hold Egypt without also holding the Southern Levant.

 

[History Learner]

The Nile Delta is not a defensible region. It was historically really hard for a power to hold Egypt without also holding the Southern Levant.

Interesting, I would figure the immense desert between the Nile into the Levant would be a defensive barrier, at least in terms of subjecting enemy armies to severe attrition.

 

[Francisco Cojuanco]

I'm not sure it's possible. The Copts were disarmed and Egypt can't survive with a hostile Southern Levant.

Depends on how long this Coptic polity needs to last. If the Caliphate at the time of a revolt is in some kind of crisis (plausible), they can hold on for at most a decade or two.

However, the main issue may be the pack of political plan. From what is said in OP, the catalyst for the revolt is heavy handed policies towards conversion or Arabization. The risk is that Baghdad or Damascus could break off a significant part of the rebellion by granting concessions, at least temporarily.

 

[Albert the Singularity]

Interesting, I would figure the immense desert between the Nile into the Levant would be a defensive barrier, at least in terms of subjecting enemy armies to severe attrition.

Deserts haven't been very strong, a barrier, throughout the History. Mountains, rough oceans and plateaus like Tibetan Plateau have. The Arab invasions of the Roman Empires (Rashidun and Palmyrene) happened through desert barriers and so did Babylonian/Assyrian conquest of Israel/Judea, Anatolia and Egypt. Not to forget the Central Asian invasions into West and South Asia, like the Scythians, Seljuks, Parthians/Parni, Mongons and the Kushans. Deserts that are dotted with greenery are a pretty weak barrier. And none other than Middle Arabian desert and Middle Sahara meet that category which offer some amount of reliable protection.

 

[Albert the Singularity]

The Nile Delta is not a defensible region. It was historically really hard for a power to hold Egypt without also holding the Southern Levant.

I can stress that. The Copts would be surrounded with enemies or quasi enemies, with either Byzantine and Crusader Christian reconquest in the Middle East, or with the Muslim states.

Coptic Egypt avoiding a conversion to Islam or an ATL Catholic/Orthodox Christianity would need a pretty strong foothold. Maybe a Egyptized Nubia, later conquered and Christianized with a similar-to-OTL Roman Empire can help the best? Unsure, but good for a discussion.

 

[Charles EP M.]

So if I have it right, a Coptic Egypt is definitely possible but a Coptic Egypt as a long-term independent state is far less possible?

 

[Gary Oswald]

So if I have it right, a Coptic Egypt is definitely possible but a Coptic Egypt as a long-term independent state is far less possible?

Egypt was traditionally pretty easy to conquer yeah, it hadn't really ever been an independent state at any point from 1,000 bc to 1950 ad. Ok, thats an exaggeration, it was more often foreign rulers than foreign rule but its not a fortress.

You'd need Egypt to have canny diplomacy, stability, unity and a strong military. I don't think that's impossible but its not a likely result of a national revolt by untrained unorganised civilians against the world's largest empire.

I think you need the caliphate to properly balkanise, revolts everywhere so theres noone strong enough to sweep into Alexandria.

 

[heraclius]

Th best chance for a 'Balkanised' Caliphate - for a while, at least - is after Uthman's assassination in 656, if the stand-off between Mu'awiya in Syria and Ali in Kufa (Iraq) is more long-term and neither can win a battle or be persuaded by mediators to stand down. If the uneasy stand-off and failure of both sides to win a battle decisively in 657-8 continues and Ali is not then assassinated in a mosque during prayers by disgruntled religious radicals in 661 - easy enough if his 'minders' persuade him to have bodyguards around him whenever he is out in public - Ali and his family will continue holding onto Iraq, and Mu'awiya - a better administrator as seen by his successful governorship of Syria and also a good commander against the Byzantines - will hold Syria and Palestine.

But doing this, having the front-line army on the shifting Byzantine frontier in Cilicia/ Armenia in his hands, and having to keep up the 'jihad' and build a fleet to satisfy expansionist officers and tribal leaders plus their loot-hungry men means that governing Egypt too is an extra burden. If we get a Coptic revolt at this stage, in the early-mid 660s, it might just succeed if it is led by capable and popular figures - though the attitude of the Coptic Church is unlikely to be too sympathetic to linking up to the Byzantines , their formerly persecuting overlords in the 630s after Heraclius' reoccupation of Egypt in 629-30. (Arguably the brutal suppression of opponents of Heraclius' religious policies for an Orthodox/ Monophysite religious compromise by Praefect Cyrus in the 630s plus heavy taxes to pay for a rebuilt army caused the Copts to 'sit on their hands' as the Arabs invaded in 640-1 in the first place.) Nor did the Byz naval reoccupation of Alexandria in 646 last for long, which argues for a mixture of 'overstretch' by the Byz expedition plus little local Coptic help. Also, we have to remember that until his assassination in 668 the Emperor Constans, Heraclius' under-rated and capable grandson,was annoying Orthodox and Monophysite opinion alike with his own new religious 'compromise ' doctrine, the 'Typos', so the Copts probably would not welcome any help from him though he probably had a reasonably-sized fleet operating in the early-mid 660s from his then base in Sicily - and in 662-3 he had his hands full using his army to defeat the local Lombards in southern Italy and force their leader Grimoald of Benevento into vassalage. (In 663 Constans was the last 'Roman' Emperor to visit Rome - a fact largely forgotten by Western historians who assume Roman imperial interest in Rome ended with Justinian and no Emperor was physically in Rome after the Western Empire ended in 476.)

A mixture of a long-standing stalemate between Ali and Mu'awiya and Constans' assassination in 668, after which his less controversial son Constantine IV (born 652 so inexperienced) was religiously orthodox and not involve din persecution, could aid a local Coptic revolt - if the Moslem, basically Arabian tribal, army operating in modern Libya since its conquest in 647 could be defeated (by the Byz army stationed in Sicily after the post-Constans' assas revolt by a pretender there was put down by Constantine IV in 669?). If the Byz navy had not been so heavily defeated by Mu'awiya's new fleet off modern southern Turkey at the 'Battle of the Masts' in 655 but it still had control of the regional seas, and M is too busy with Ali and with the Coptic revolt to attack the NW of Anatolia near Constantinople by land in 669 and by sea in ?674, then the Byz navy could land troops in Alexandria or Pelusium to aid the Copts if (a big 'If') they can come to terms on no Byz imposition of orthodoxy in an 'allied' or 'semi-autonomous' Egypt. But sooner or later the Moslems are going to reunite, at least if Mu'awiya is still around to d 680 as in OTL (his son Yazid was less dynamic and was disliked by Moslem hard-liners as owing his throne to nepotism not his Islamic credentials or moral worth). This may not be to the 680s or 690s, perhaps under Abd-al-Malik as in OTL or under the dynasty of Ali (perhaps his charismatic son Hussein, k 680 by Yazid's men in OTL); but then they are likely to try to regain Egypt. And is the autocratic and mercurial if talented emperor Justinian II capable of reining in his despotic tendencies enough to keep the Copts from deserting? Or has his OTl alliance with the minority Christian community in Lebanon (Mardaites) secured him the ports there plus Antioch so he can keep the Moslems back in Syria and protect Egypt?

 

[History Learner]

New PoD I hadn't thought of before, but the Mongols win at Ain Jalut in 1261. Not only was Egypt still majority Coptic, but Kitbuqa was a Nestorian Christian interested in forming ties with the local Co-Religionists, and Hulagu overall was very friendly to Christians; his mother Sorghaghtani and his favorite wife, Doquz Khatun, were also Christians. Should the Mongols crush the Mamelukes, it seems likely Cairo would become their capitol and Pro-Christian policies their default. Long term, it seems likely the Mongols themselves would convert to the local Coptic faith, and we'd get a Coptic Egypt with a Mongol Dynasty gone native.