Arab Conquest of Egypt
- Thread starter el t
- Start date
yourworstnightmare
Banned
How? With Egypt isolated from the rest of the Empire? With a Egyptian population not pleased with Byzantine rule? It seems a little too late to save Roman Egypt.
Delvestius
Banned
In the event of an Arab defeat, this is the most likely occurance. Maybe it would be a Greek vassal for a bit, but I can't imagine for too long.
I do not think that an independent Egypt will happen any time soon. if the Arabs are defeated then that will boost the empire. They will consolidate and try for Syria again. I think people overestimate the ability of many in the empire to want independence. what many wanted was the central gov in there quarter.
Delvestius
Banned
There Arabs were the type of "situational" force that was galvanized by faith. Numbers were not on their side until they secured Syria and Mesopotamia. If they get smashed once, real good, any comeback would surely be a ghost of its former potential. The result would probably be a Greek-Persian grab bag of the area, allowing the Egyptians time to develop in light of recent events.
I still think that they would have little problems holding Egypt for the forcible future. Egypt gets independence or more likely support a rival clement in return for special rights. It would take an almighty Fup for an independent Egypt. I think they need to stop putting religious leaders as it governors, and they also need to elevate it to its own prefect. Some kind of guarantied religious accommodation was badly needed for the empire.
It was easier and faster to travel or communicate between Constantinople and Alexandria by sea than by land.
And that's how the grain shipments arrived.
The real vulnerability wouldn't be for an isolated Byzantine Egypt. It would be an for an Arab-controlled Levant, squeezed between a Byzantine Anatolia and a Byzantine Egypt.
The Monophysite restiveness was certainly an issue, but to date, it had not led to any notable revolt displacing Byzantine/Roman rule. It's too easy to read back native Christian docility to Arab conquest of Egypt as a resistance to Byzantine rule that was never really there before the conquest. They may not have been entirely happy with rule from Constantinople, but they hadn't led the province to revolt in any substantive way even during the Empire's most perilous days (the Persian Wars, etc.).
I'm not sure. Unlike the Byzantines, the Arabs aren't in a state of disarray and exhaustion.
That's what's going to make this hard, I think.
Wouldn't the Byzantines eventually re-organize and counter attack or defend what is left?
"Eventually" is too slow, or this wouldn't be a what if.
The Byzantines need to be in a position to do that instead of exhaustion and disarray to hold Egypt.
If they got beaten by the Byzantines, they very well could collapse into disarray.
And if wishes were horses . . .
How are the Byzantines beating them in the first place here?
Heraclius leading them after a victorious Yarmouk River perhaps? Might be too late actually.
"The Byzantines manage to re-group after the loss of Syria and defeat the Muslim invaders of Egypt."
I am literate, thank you. I asked how.
It's not like the Byzantines regrouping is something you could do by snapping your fingers.
At the battle of Heliopolis, where 15k Arabs fought 20k Romans, someone other than Theodor leads the Romans. He inspires morale in his men, puts up propper scouts, interprets Amr's intentions correctly and defeats the Arab contingents in detail via sheer force of numbers before these have a chance to coordinate. (luckily killing off Amr during the opening stages might also help)
There, great man theory at its finest.
IMHO, this post wins the thread as by far the most sensible and reasonable account of how things were in Late Antique Egypt. Nice work, Athelstane.
I'd be suspicious of those numbers. 20,000 men is described in the Strategikon as being an exceptionally large Roman army of the period, and this is just a few years after Heraclius had basically been forced to rely on Turkish intervention because his own field armies were so badly mangled. I would guess that 20,000 men was not far off the combined total of the entire Anatolikon Theme (the Greek name for the army of the Magister Militum per Oriens) in the 640s. And, don't forget, this is after the defeat at Yarmouk and loss of all Syria.
I would guess that Roman numbers defending Egypt were probably well under 10,000 men in total. In the circumstances, the Arabs could quite comfortably have had numerical superiority, or at least parity, which means a POD of a single battle might be somewhat difficult to do. A victory of any sort, though, will be helpful to the Roman cause. That said, the temporary reconquest of Alexandria in 645 didn't really do very much in the great scheme of things.