History Learner
Well-known member
What defines a Roman?
AHC: Coptic (Christian) Egypt
- Thread starter History Learner
- Start date
What defines a Roman?
Buba
A total creep
Greek or Roman or Marsupial or whatever does not matter - as pointed out by @stevep
One Land, One King, One God
almost unevitably leads to persecution of "heretics".
And Abrahamic religions have a tendency for hair splitting and focusing on trivial issues - crossing oneself with two or three fingers, whether ritual impurity flows upstream or not, etc.
And murdering one another over such minutiae.
The superiority of the Follow the Gourd over Hold Up the Sandal ...
And once the Sandalites beat the Gourdians, they will kill one another over whther it is a Shoe or a Sandal - both sides hating on the followers of the Footwear compromise ...
One Land, One King, One God
almost unevitably leads to persecution of "heretics".
And Abrahamic religions have a tendency for hair splitting and focusing on trivial issues - crossing oneself with two or three fingers, whether ritual impurity flows upstream or not, etc.
And murdering one another over such minutiae.
The superiority of the Follow the Gourd over Hold Up the Sandal ...
And once the Sandalites beat the Gourdians, they will kill one another over whther it is a Shoe or a Sandal - both sides hating on the followers of the Footwear compromise ...
Last edited:
Agent23
Ни шагу назад!
Not exactly, they used the Greek language but a lot of them weren't from Greece or its pre-Rome colonies proper.
They also used a lot of the Roman organization, with a senate and the like, and they called themselves Romans and saw themselves as the last remnant of the Roman empire, parts of which they tried to reconquer on multiple occasions.
Well, here's one attempt to do this:
Romanland — Harvard University Press
A leading historian argues that in the empire we know as Byzantium, the Greek-speaking population was actually Roman, and scholars have deliberately mislabeled their ethnicity for the past two centuries for political reasons.Was there ever such a thing as Byzantium? Certainly no emperor ever...
In this context, an "actual Roman" would mean someone who was descended from the people who lived in Rome back when it was just a little city-state, before it started to gobble up the rest of Italy and then Europe.
As distinct from being a "Roman" in the sense of having Roman Citizenship.
The Apostle Paul in the 1st Century AD, for example, could legitimately call himself a "Roman" in the sense that he had the legal status of being a citizen.
But this did not make him an ethnic Latin, and no one would have thought it did.
The point is that while much of coastal Europe got "Romanized", the original Romans actually died out.
As a Protestant, this all sounds alien to me.
I think some other factor beside being "Abrahamic" was involved. Reading the history of some of the doctrine-based violence in the Greek-speaking half of the late Roman Empire, I remember thinking "Sheesh, they were behaving like people from the freaking Middle-East."
Then I realized that actually... they were people in the Middle-East.
Buba
A total creep
Read up on the history of Protestantism. Heretic- and witch-burning and persecution of Kaffliks and wrong kind of Protestants are very well represented.
Monoteism and only one way route to salvation leads to such sectarian violence.
Agent23
Ни шагу назад!
Yes, it is a purely made up name to designate them in modern historiography, since Eastern Roman Empire is both a mouthful and makes westerners wince.Well, here's one attempt to do this:
Romanland — Harvard University Press
A leading historian argues that in the empire we know as Byzantium, the Greek-speaking population was actually Roman, and scholars have deliberately mislabeled their ethnicity for the past two centuries for political reasons.Was there ever such a thing as Byzantium? Certainly no emperor ever...www.hup.harvard.edu
it comes from the name of an earlier Greek settlement on the Bosporus, called Byzantium, which ultimately got gobbled up by the newly-created city of Constantinopol after the Tetrarchy and the West-East split.
No it doesn't.
What does is the mindset of "we are the people who speak for God, everyone must listen to us or else."
The medieval Papacy being the poster-boy for the warlike frame of mind you complain of.
Most of those ancient disputes weren't really about which belief or practice was the right one. They were about who got to say which belief or practice was the right one.
Just like protestant wars later.
Difference is - orthodox said that ERE emperor knew which practice is good,West said that pope knew,and protestants said that every ruler is mini super pope.Well,they said that once,now everybody could create his own sect.
Wonderful, isn't it?
Now when the Reverend Megabucks preaches that everyone must donate lots of money to his "ministry", you can switch off the TV, and not have to worry that he might send people with guns around to force you to pay.
I like it that way.
Because if any one mortal man is put in the position of having unquestionable authority in matters of religious doctrine, sooner or later that guy is going to start playing "point deer, make horse" with the meaning of Scripture.
Well,in that case Jesus made mistake giving keys to Kingdom to Peter.Made sure to told HIM so,when you meet.
Is there that much difference? They argued about technicalities. Does it matter whether that was because they believed them or because they used them to increase their power and influence. Either way people brutalized and murdered other people, often in large numbers. Whether they were moronic fanatics or evil power-mongers those people were still dead. To me actions speak louder than words.
Plus as others have pointed out many early Protestants were just as bad and some of those in places like N Ireland and the Boers of S Africa don't exactly have a decent reputation in recent decades either.
The saving grace for the Protestants is probably that because they were so decentalised in their power structure that ultimately enough of them said fuck this stupidity and lets live and let live. Which gave then an early advantage in the modern industrial area, coupled with the so called 'Protestant work effort' as they prioritized a personal connection with God over working through a large institution and hence a personal motive for good works.It is Evangelion,not lie.Jesus never said that HE is GOD- but he say,that he gave keys to Kingdom to Peter.If you deny that,you could deny everything in Bible,too.
It is not important what you belive,but if Jesus is God ,or not.
If he is not God,you are right.If HE is,they you meet HIM no matter what you want.
Back to topic - if you want Coptic Egypt,you need somebody with good army helping them.Maybe Sudan christian kingdoms during one of their uprisings?
History Learner
Well-known member
New PoD I hadn't thought of, 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.
Seems like it was a huge mistake for the Mongols not to force a battle at Ain Jalut much earlier, back when they could still sustain an extremely massive army in the region, no?
And with that,sudan kingdoms would remain christian,too.
I don't know how long they had before lack of forage forced them to withdraw most of their forces eastwards to Iraq and Iran. Plus of course if most of their forces were still present the Mamluks wouldn't have attacked. The Mongols would have been forces to march south, secure Palestine, which might have meant some more battles both with local Muslims and the crusaders and then cross the Sinai desert. Which given how long the Mongol supply lines were already may be too big a challenge for them.
If the historical battle goes the other way - say Kitbuqa is a bit wiser and/or luckier - then the forces involved were pretty small, only about 5,000 a side I think - but from a book I read a long time ago the Muslim morale was rather low before the battle as the Mongols looked unstoppable. In this case then an invasion in 1262 with a markedly larger force might well have been successful.
One problem of course was that Hulagu was already having to look over his shoulder at the Golden Horde as Berke, who was a devout Muslim had taken control of it in 1257 and was bitterly hostile to Hulagu's Ilkhanate after the destruction of the Caliphate at Baghdad and the threat he posed to other Muslim states in Syria and Egypt, OTL started a war with the Ilkhanates in 1262 so without differences here I'm not sure how big a window there is for the Ilkhanates to take Egypt.
While they were still a substantial minority I thought the Coptics had been supplanted as the majority by the Muslims in Egypt a century or two before this date but could be wrong.