Enlightenment and Reason | OOC | Open

[Sarderistan]

U do realize by 1200s most of them are already muslims right? Repelling a Turkish invasion is one; Byzantium may have gotten their nation together again to be a force. But invading an entire Caliphate?

The Ayyubids were weakened without Saladin. It would be easy to use the Syro-Egyptian split as justification for easy war. After all, it was a split between the Romanos IV and John Doukas that lost the Byzantines Manzikert. Tensions in the army camp are deadly!

The point is Syria is even not controlled by Egypt at this time; they had their own city states and Turkic tribes, while Palestine would be in Mamluk suzerainity by the time.

[Nea Byzantia]

Yeah, but do the Mongols still come rolling through? Also, if Byzantium began recovering in the 1200s, couldn't they have seized Egypt from the ailing Ayyubids before the Mamelukes could do anything? Couldn't they have done the same with some regions in Lebanon and Syria?

1st point why the Crusaders lost: they attacked Damascus, an Arabian ally. This prompted all the Levantine city-states and the Atabeg of Mosul to ally against the Christians. The Mongols had struck a blow to the Islamic world, yes, but their reign in Mesopotamia is short, and Egypt is left untouched by them; this IRL-ly gave the chance for Turkic tribes to fill the void and estabilish their own kingdoms. Egypt by this point is still in Ayyubid (Saladin) control and rivalled even Byzantium at Emperor Heraclius' time in population and army, not to mention the Mongols retreating because dynastic conflict.

You can gain Syria and Mesopotamia, and have a hard time converting all the Muslims there plus the Turkic horde that'll begin rebelling, and unless you got a whole Europe at your side you can't pick up Egypt.

We're talking what, mid to late 1200s? And what if the Byzantines played the Muslims against the Crusaders?

[Nea Byzantia]

The Ayyubids were weakened without Saladin. It would be easy to use the Syro-Egyptian split as justification for easy war. After all, it was a split between the Romanos IV and John Doukas that lost the Byzantines Manzikert. Tensions in the army camp are deadly!

The point is Syria is even not controlled by Egypt at this time; they had their own city states and Turkic tribes, while Palestine would be in Mamluk suzerainity by the time.

Were the Mamelukes unpopular in Egypt? And how could Byzantium count on the Copts and other Middle Eastern Christians.

[Sarderistan]

1st point why the Crusaders lost: they attacked Damascus, an Arabian ally. This prompted all the Levantine city-states and the Atabeg of Mosul to ally against the Christians. The Mongols had struck a blow to the Islamic world, yes, but their reign in Mesopotamia is short, and Egypt is left untouched by them; this IRL-ly gave the chance for Turkic tribes to fill the void and estabilish their own kingdoms. Egypt by this point is still in Ayyubid (Saladin) control and rivalled even Byzantium at Emperor Heraclius' time in population and army, not to mention the Mongols retreating because dynastic conflict.

You can gain Syria and Mesopotamia, and have a hard time converting all the Muslims there plus the Turkic horde that'll begin rebelling, and unless you got a whole Europe at your side you can't pick up Egypt.

We're talking what, mid to late 1200s? And what if the Byzantines played the Muslims against the Crusaders?

It would be very hard. You can play the Crusaders against Crusaders and their Arabian allies, but you can't play Muslims and Turks against each other or against the Crusaders, at least that never happened in known history (unless this is Assassins Creed-verse ofc)

[Nea Byzantia]

We're talking what, mid to late 1200s? And what if the Byzantines played the Muslims against the Crusaders?

It would be very hard. You can play the Crusaders against Crusaders and their Arabian allies, but you can't play Muslims and Turks against each other or against the Crusaders, at least that never happened in known history (unless this is Assassins Creed-verse ofc)

Would it be possible for Byzantium to have seized some coastal cities of Syro-Palestine, such as Antioch, Beirut, Acre, and the entirety of Egypt, as opposed to putting strength into seizing Syria, Palestine and Mesopotamia.

[Sarderistan]

The point is Syria is even not controlled by Egypt at this time; they had their own city states and Turkic tribes, while Palestine would be in Mamluk suzerainity by the time.

Were the Mamelukes unpopular in Egypt? And how could Byzantium count on the Copts and other Middle Eastern Christians.

Yes, but they are Muslim. Religion is a key important factor here. Middle Eastern Christians (Nestorians, Miaphysite, Armenian Christian, Orthodox) and Copts are a minority by this time, very small but significantly heard of. You can maybe have your allies sabotage city defenses, camp, etc, but key defenses and positions would still be at Muslim hands. And we're talking Egypt here: from Alexandria to Aswan. You're going to have a real hard time.

[Nea Byzantia]

Were the Mamelukes unpopular in Egypt? And how could Byzantium count on the Copts and other Middle Eastern Christians.

Yes, but they are Muslim. Religion is a key important factor here. Middle Eastern Christians (Nestorians, Miaphysite, Armenian Christian, Orthodox) and Copts are a minority by this time, very small but significantly heard of. You can maybe have your allies sabotage city defenses, camp, etc, but key defenses and positions would still be at Muslim hands. And we're talking Egypt here: from Alexandria to Aswan. You're going to have a real hard time.

What if its Lower Egypt, Alexandria to Cairo, everything south of that being Muslim; perhaps the Byzantines expelled all the Muslims from Lower Egypt, and all the Egyptian Christians fled there, so you have a sort of segregation that occurs?

[Sarderistan]

It would be very hard. You can play the Crusaders against Crusaders and their Arabian allies, but you can't play Muslims and Turks against each other or against the Crusaders, at least that never happened in known history (unless this is Assassins Creed-verse ofc)

Would it be possible for Byzantium to have seized some coastal cities of Syro-Palestine, such as Antioch, Beirut, Acre, and the entirety of Egypt, as opposed to putting strength into seizing Syria, Palestine and Mesopotamia.

As I said earlier: Byzantium annexing Syria and Mesopotamia may be viable, but Palestine is under Egyptian suzerainity and you'll have rough skrimishes for centuries, not to mention the Lebanese Mountains, the Tigris and Euphrates sources, the Syrian desert, Mamluks holding Golan Heights, etc and etc. And don't even start an amphibious landing. A medieval French king tried it and it was a total failure, as I remember.

[Nea Byzantia]

Would it be possible for Byzantium to have seized some coastal cities of Syro-Palestine, such as Antioch, Beirut, Acre, and the entirety of Egypt, as opposed to putting strength into seizing Syria, Palestine and Mesopotamia.

As I said earlier: Byzantium annexing Syria and Mesopotamia may be viable, but Palestine is under Egyptian suzerainity and you'll have rough skrimishes for centuries, not to mention the Lebanese Mountains, the Tigris and Euphrates sources, the Syrian desert, Mamluks holding Golan Heights, etc and etc. And don't even start an amphibious landing. A medieval French king tried it and it was a total failure, as I remember.

Like in the case of Egypt, what if we're just talking about ports like Antioch, Acre and Beirut, and maybe the same sort of thing occurs, with the Christians fleeing into Byzantine occupied cities, and the Muslims fleeing or being expelled to the interior? This would've happened in the 1200s and 1300s...its been a few centuries by now, so things would've solidified, and maybe even trade has resumed?

[Sarderistan]

Yes, but they are Muslim. Religion is a key important factor here. Middle Eastern Christians (Nestorians, Miaphysite, Armenian Christian, Orthodox) and Copts are a minority by this time, very small but significantly heard of. You can maybe have your allies sabotage city defenses, camp, etc, but key defenses and positions would still be at Muslim hands. And we're talking Egypt here: from Alexandria to Aswan. You're going to have a real hard time.

What if its Lower Egypt, Alexandria to Cairo, everything south of that being Muslim; perhaps the Byzantines expelled all the Muslims from Lower Egypt, and all the Egyptian Christians fled there, so you have a sort of segregation that occurs?

prob is the main fortifications is in Lower Egypt. Alexandria, Cairo, Sinai, the bulwark of Ayyubid and Mamluk forces are stationed there.

[Nea Byzantia]

What if its Lower Egypt, Alexandria to Cairo, everything south of that being Muslim; perhaps the Byzantines expelled all the Muslims from Lower Egypt, and all the Egyptian Christians fled there, so you have a sort of segregation that occurs?

prob is the main fortifications is in Lower Egypt. Alexandria, Cairo, Sinai, the bulwark of Ayyubid and Mamluk forces are stationed there.

Yeah, but the Copts and others could help with that...maybe the Mamluks and others retreat to Upper Egypt, around Aswan, etc?

[Sarderistan]

As I said earlier: Byzantium annexing Syria and Mesopotamia may be viable, but Palestine is under Egyptian suzerainity and you'll have rough skrimishes for centuries, not to mention the Lebanese Mountains, the Tigris and Euphrates sources, the Syrian desert, Mamluks holding Golan Heights, etc and etc. And don't even start an amphibious landing. A medieval French king tried it and it was a total failure, as I remember.

Like in the case of Egypt, what if we're just talking about ports like Antioch, Acre and Beirut, and maybe the same sort of thing occurs, with the Christians fleeing into Byzantine occupied cities, and the Muslims fleeing or being expelled to the interior? This would've happened in the 1200s and 1300s...its been a few centuries by now, so things would've solidified, and maybe even trade has resumed?

Reasonable... but only if your campaign is based on land force mainly and following the coast. Which is not viable with Egypt, which had a sizeable navy by itself and great coastal cities with fortress at every inch, Alexandria for example. While it may grant you the Palestine and its coastal cities, the only way to take Egypt is by ground support.

[Sarderistan]

prob is the main fortifications is in Lower Egypt. Alexandria, Cairo, Sinai, the bulwark of Ayyubid and Mamluk forces are stationed there.

Yeah, but the Copts and others could help with that...maybe the Mamluks and others retreat to Upper Egypt, around Aswan, etc?

The copts are already a very small minority at the time, and they had their own branch of Christianity, their Patriarch, their culture. I think they won't risk being caught conspiring with Byzantium and having rootred all by the Mamluks.

[Nea Byzantia]

Like in the case of Egypt, what if we're just talking about ports like Antioch, Acre and Beirut, and maybe the same sort of thing occurs, with the Christians fleeing into Byzantine occupied cities, and the Muslims fleeing or being expelled to the interior? This would've happened in the 1200s and 1300s...its been a few centuries by now, so things would've solidified, and maybe even trade has resumed?

Reasonable... but only if your campaign is based on land force mainly and following the coast. Which is not viable with Egypt, which had a sizeable navy by itself and great coastal cities with fortress at every inch, Alexandria for example. While it may grant you the Palestine and its coastal cities, the only way to take Egypt is by ground support.

But that's doable, no? Especially if you include the Egyptian Christians...There were few, but not THAT few.

[Sarderistan]

Reasonable... but only if your campaign is based on land force mainly and following the coast. Which is not viable with Egypt, which had a sizeable navy by itself and great coastal cities with fortress at every inch, Alexandria for example. While it may grant you the Palestine and its coastal cities, the only way to take Egypt is by ground support.

But that's doable, no? Especially if you include the Egyptian Christians...There were few, but not THAT few.

My previous answer sums this up

[Nea Byzantia]

But that's doable, no? Especially if you include the Egyptian Christians...There were few, but not THAT few.

My previous answer sums this up

Even if its at the end of the Ayyubid Dynasty and Egypt is on the verge of chaos and revolution?

[Krugmar]

Were the Mamelukes unpopular in Egypt? And how could Byzantium count on the Copts and other Middle Eastern Christians.

Yes, but they are Muslim. Religion is a key important factor here. Middle Eastern Christians (Nestorians, Miaphysite, Armenian Christian, Orthodox) and Copts are a minority by this time, very small but significantly heard of. You can maybe have your allies sabotage city defenses, camp, etc, but key defenses and positions would still be at Muslim hands. And we're talking Egypt here: from Alexandria to Aswan. You're going to have a real hard time.

The question of when the Copts became a minority in Egypt is difficult, as is the question of when Christian populations in the Middle East began to shrink compared to Muslim populations. The best estimates I've heard vary from region to region, but for modern-day Iraq (mostly in the north) it was Timur/Tamerlane who reduced the Christian population substantially, while in Egypt it wasn't until the Mamluks that the Muslim population likely became a majority. In Syria and most of the Levant the Christian population remained substantial until the early modern period.

On the question of the Eastern Romes reconquering or partially reconquering lost lands, it in my mind depends on where. The coastal cities of the Levant are definitely doable, Egypt likely less so. It's worth noting that the Christians of the Middle East and Egypt were more often than not non-Orthodox and some still bore a hostility to the uniformity that had attempted to have been imposed upon them by successive Eastern emperors before the Muslim conquests. Any conquest of Egypt would create a three tiered strata, similar to that of the Crusader states: the foreign Greek Orthodox 'overlords', the native Christian population, and the native Muslim population.

[Nea Byzantia]

Yes, but they are Muslim. Religion is a key important factor here. Middle Eastern Christians (Nestorians, Miaphysite, Armenian Christian, Orthodox) and Copts are a minority by this time, very small but significantly heard of. You can maybe have your allies sabotage city defenses, camp, etc, but key defenses and positions would still be at Muslim hands. And we're talking Egypt here: from Alexandria to Aswan. You're going to have a real hard time.

The question of when the Copts became a minority in Egypt is difficult, as is the question of when Christian populations in the Middle East began to shrink compared to Muslim populations. The best estimates I've heard vary from region to region, but for modern-day Iraq (mostly in the north) it was Timur/Tamerlane who reduced the Christian population substantially, while in Egypt it wasn't until the Mamluks that the Muslim population likely became a majority. In Syria and most of the Levant the Christian population remained substantial until the early modern period.

On the question of the Eastern Romes reconquering or partially reconquering lost lands, it in my mind depends on where. The coastal cities of the Levant are definitely doable, Egypt likely less so. It's worth noting that the Christians of the Middle East and Egypt were more often than not non-Orthodox and some still bore a hostility to the uniformity that had attempted to have been imposed upon them by successive Eastern emperors before the Muslim conquests. Any conquest of Egypt would create a three tiered strata, similar to that of the Crusader states: the foreign Greek Orthodox 'overlords', the native Christian population, and the native Muslim population.

Unless another Ecumenical Council was called to heal the Schism between the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox, then its two-tiered: Christian and Muslim.

[Sarderistan]

My previous answer sums this up

Even if its at the end of the Ayyubid Dynasty and Egypt is on the verge of chaos and revolution?

Yes, even in that. By the mid-1200s the population of Egypt is mostly Muslim, and they do not generally saw the Byzantines as acceptable.

Yes, but they are Muslim. Religion is a key important factor here. Middle Eastern Christians (Nestorians, Miaphysite, Armenian Christian, Orthodox) and Copts are a minority by this time, very small but significantly heard of. You can maybe have your allies sabotage city defenses, camp, etc, but key defenses and positions would still be at Muslim hands. And we're talking Egypt here: from Alexandria to Aswan. You're going to have a real hard time.

The question of when the Copts became a minority in Egypt is difficult, as is the question of when Christian populations in the Middle East began to shrink compared to Muslim populations. The best estimates I've heard vary from region to region, but for modern-day Iraq (mostly in the north) it was Timur/Tamerlane who reduced the Christian population substantially, while in Egypt it wasn't until the Mamluks that the Muslim population likely became a majority. In Syria and most of the Levant the Christian population remained substantial until the early modern period.

On the question of the Eastern Romes reconquering or partially reconquering lost lands, it in my mind depends on where. The coastal cities of the Levant are definitely doable, Egypt likely less so. It's worth noting that the Christians of the Middle East and Egypt were more often than not non-Orthodox and some still bore a hostility to the uniformity that had attempted to have been imposed upon them by successive Eastern emperors before the Muslim conquests. Any conquest of Egypt would create a three tiered strata, similar to that of the Crusader states: the foreign Greek Orthodox 'overlords', the native Christian population, and the native Muslim population.

My point exactly. Mamluk or Ayyubid, the Egyptian state at that point had a tight control upon the population; most of them already Muslims, albeit with a significant Coptic minority. Byzantine reconquest over the Levant, Palestine, and Mesopotamia may be viable, but do note the Muslim population left behind and ultimately future incursions by Turkic tribes.


And an Ecumenical Council would be very unlikely; the Copts had parted with Constantinople more or less the same way as the Catholic Church did, and Nestorianism was considered heresy even before Chalcedon.

[Nea Byzantia]

Even if its at the end of the Ayyubid Dynasty and Egypt is on the verge of chaos and revolution?

Yes, even in that. By the mid-1200s the population of Egypt is mostly Muslim, and they do not generally saw the Byzantines as acceptable.

The question of when the Copts became a minority in Egypt is difficult, as is the question of when Christian populations in the Middle East began to shrink compared to Muslim populations. The best estimates I've heard vary from region to region, but for modern-day Iraq (mostly in the north) it was Timur/Tamerlane who reduced the Christian population substantially, while in Egypt it wasn't until the Mamluks that the Muslim population likely became a majority. In Syria and most of the Levant the Christian population remained substantial until the early modern period.

On the question of the Eastern Romes reconquering or partially reconquering lost lands, it in my mind depends on where. The coastal cities of the Levant are definitely doable, Egypt likely less so. It's worth noting that the Christians of the Middle East and Egypt were more often than not non-Orthodox and some still bore a hostility to the uniformity that had attempted to have been imposed upon them by successive Eastern emperors before the Muslim conquests. Any conquest of Egypt would create a three tiered strata, similar to that of the Crusader states: the foreign Greek Orthodox 'overlords', the native Christian population, and the native Muslim population.

My point exactly. Mamluk or Ayyubid, the Egyptian state at that point had a tight control upon the population; most of them already Muslims, albeit with a significant Coptic minority. Byzantine reconquest over the Levant, Palestine, and Mesopotamia may be viable, but do note the Muslim population left behind and ultimately future incursions by Turkic tribes.


And an Ecumenical Council would be very unlikely; the Copts had parted with Constantinople more or less the same way as the Catholic Church did, and Nestorianism was considered heresy even before Chalcedon.

Its not about the Nestorians, its about the Oriental Orthodox; which would be the Armenians, Syriacs, Copts, and Ethiopians.

[Krugmar]

-snip-

Unless another Ecumenical Council was called to heal the Schism between the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox, then its two-tiered: Christian and Muslim.

There are some major theological differences between Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian Christian denominations which it's unlikely an Ecumenical Council could heal (given the Ecumenical Councils more often than not solidified schisms rather than healed them).

I'd also point out that in the Crusader States in Tripoli the Maronites (who were in full communion with the Catholic church) still occupied the second tier despite from our point of view being 'fellow Catholics' to the Crusaders, and in Antioch the Greek Orthodox also occupied that rough tier.

My point exactly. Mamluk or Ayyubid, the Egyptian state at that point had a tight control upon the population; most of them already Muslims, albeit with a significant Coptic minority. Byzantine reconquest over the Levant, Palestine, and Mesopotamia may be viable, but do note the Muslim population left behind and ultimately future incursions by Turkic tribes.

Well it's worth noting that until the Mamluks a good portion of the Muslim population was largely urban, excluding the large Bedouin population in western Egypt. Displacing (or the less savoury method of massacring) urban populations is far easier than that of rural populations. I do agree with you though that Egypt would be very tough to conquer, difficult to control and a wonder to defend.

[Nea Byzantia]

Unless another Ecumenical Council was called to heal the Schism between the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox, then its two-tiered: Christian and Muslim.

There are some major theological differences between Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian Christian denominations which it's unlikely an Ecumenical Council could heal (given the Ecumenical Councils more often than not solidified schisms rather than healed them).

I'd also point out that in the Crusader States in Tripoli the Maronites (who were in full communion with the Catholic church) still occupied the second tier despite from our point of view being 'fellow Catholics' to the Crusaders, and in Antioch the Greek Orthodox also occupied that rough tier.

My point exactly. Mamluk or Ayyubid, the Egyptian state at that point had a tight control upon the population; most of them already Muslims, albeit with a significant Coptic minority. Byzantine reconquest over the Levant, Palestine, and Mesopotamia may be viable, but do note the Muslim population left behind and ultimately future incursions by Turkic tribes.

Well it's worth noting that until the Mamluks a good portion of the Muslim population was largely urban, excluding the large Bedouin population in western Egypt. Displacing (or the less savoury method of massacring) urban populations is far easier than that of rural populations. I do agree with you though that Egypt would be very tough to conquer, difficult to control and a wonder to defend.

Even if its just Lower Egypt, and even if all the Muslims were expelled and/or massacred?

[Sarderistan]

Yes, even in that. By the mid-1200s the population of Egypt is mostly Muslim, and they do not generally saw the Byzantines as acceptable.
My point exactly. Mamluk or Ayyubid, the Egyptian state at that point had a tight control upon the population; most of them already Muslims, albeit with a significant Coptic minority. Byzantine reconquest over the Levant, Palestine, and Mesopotamia may be viable, but do note the Muslim population left behind and ultimately future incursions by Turkic tribes.


And an Ecumenical Council would be very unlikely; the Copts had parted with Constantinople more or less the same way as the Catholic Church did, and Nestorianism was considered heresy even before Chalcedon.

Its not about the Nestorians, its about the Oriental Orthodox; which would be the Armenians, Syriacs, Copts, and Ethiopians.

Ethiopia is Coptic and I've explained it earlier, and they are too far away by the way. Armenian Christianity is a separate branch from the Council of Chalcedon (Orthodoxy's original form) while the Syrian Maronites are closer to Rome generally.

Point is, you can have Syria and the Palestine coast all, and maybe Mesopotamia, but Egypt is not possible, unless you have a World War before the Renaissance or else.

[Sarderistan]

There are some major theological differences between Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian Christian denominations which it's unlikely an Ecumenical Council could heal (given the Ecumenical Councils more often than not solidified schisms rather than healed them).

I'd also point out that in the Crusader States in Tripoli the Maronites (who were in full communion with the Catholic church) still occupied the second tier despite from our point of view being 'fellow Catholics' to the Crusaders, and in Antioch the Greek Orthodox also occupied that rough tier.



Well it's worth noting that until the Mamluks a good portion of the Muslim population was largely urban, excluding the large Bedouin population in western Egypt. Displacing (or the less savoury method of massacring) urban populations is far easier than that of rural populations. I do agree with you though that Egypt would be very tough to conquer, difficult to control and a wonder to defend.

Even if its just Lower Egypt, and even if all the Muslims were expelled and/or massacred?

To give a clear saying: straightly impossible to conquer Egypt.

(unless you're Doctor Strange who can whizz portals out of hand)

[Nea Byzantia]

Its not about the Nestorians, its about the Oriental Orthodox; which would be the Armenians, Syriacs, Copts, and Ethiopians.

Ethiopia is Coptic and I've explained it earlier, and they are too far away by the way. Armenian Christianity is a separate branch from the Council of Chalcedon (Orthodoxy's original form) while the Syrian Maronites are closer to Rome generally.

Point is, you can have Syria and the Palestine coast all, and maybe Mesopotamia, but Egypt is not possible, unless you have a World War before the Renaissance or else.

What if its just the Nile Delta region and Alexandria?