Why was Egypt never relevant again after they gained their independence back from Rome?

Copts still sometimes speak Egyptian, and it's the language of their liturgy.

You can't answer a 'why' question with 'yes/no' you mong.

>directly

What is indirect about it? They retain knowledge of a language rarely if ever spoken outside of Egypt and practice a version of Christianity established in Egypt in the 4th century.

The Copt doesn't have cultural memory about being Kangs 'n Shiet in the past. What in their culture is about being Christian, which is legacy of Roman rule.

There is no living culture with a memory that long. Society changes, but links and throw backs to the past can persist.

>Why was Egypt never relevant again after they gained their independence back from Rome?

>I
>S
>L
>A
>M

The Egyptian people weren't independent from the time the Persians invaded them until the time the British left, maybe that one time under the mamluks but I'm not enough of an expert to decide that.
There are two reasons Egypt hasn't become and probably won't become in the near future as relevant as it once was. The first is the desertification of North Africa, the negative effects of that are easily understood.
The second is Islam. One of the problems Egypt is having is that eventhough the economy is growing rather well, Egypt's population grows just as fast, and Egypt isn't really developing a middle class. The population growth can partly be ascribed to Islam. The political situation is Egypt is the same that can be seen all over the Muslim world, with the recent exception of Tunisia(please show us there's hope for the middle east), there's dictatorship. Maybe someone who knows more about the middle east may have another explanation why there's barely any stable democracy within the Muslim world, but to me it seems Islam is the problem. Even Turkey, once the hope that a Muslim country could secularize and westernize, is now becoming an authoritarian Islamic hellhole once again.

Fatimids and Mamluks were pretty relevant.

Why bring up democracy at all? It has nothing to do with the prosperity of the country.

Democracy is smoke and mirrors that function effectively only when there is an illusion of accountability. Institutions like courts and separation of powers accomplish this in the West because we've been at the democracy experiment so long.

But as we witness every single time democracy is forced upon a new country, it fails because there is no semblance of legitimacy for the people to blind themselves with.

Better a stable dictator with good intentions as ruler then a rotten democracy ripe for exploitation foreign and domestic.

What do you mean by relevant?

The thing about stable dictators with good intentions is, there aren't many of them.
I also didn't imply forcing democracy upon other nations, Tunisia achieved it at least for the moment on its own.
Dictatorships generally don't help economies, since they're usually marked by a lot of militarism, corruption and a lot of personal expenses of the dictator and other high ranking government officials.

How is murica top tier? mongols expanded way faster, owned more land and lasted around the same time.

British empire way better than French pre WWII, French Neapolitan empire big but as short lived as mongols, and USA.

And what Athens empire?

Ottoman Empire was also the boss from 1300->1800 Kicked that Venetian republics ass anyway. your meme table is very flawed.

>And what Athens empire?

Delian league was an Athenian thalassocracy.

Muslim religion isn't the problem, Ottomans had a great thing going, and for a really long time. Problem is the constant conflict perpetuated by USA and SU from the early 50s. For a long time neither country really cared who was in power as long as the people in power continued to support their interest. This lead to a lot of shit blokes gaining power, such as the US backed Saddam Hussain and the Russian backed dude in Syria.

Now and for legitimate reasons (Drones Strikes, constant manipulation), there are a lot of "Donald Trumps" of Islam walking around who get a lot of political backing for saying "FUCK OFF WESTERNERS"

>Delian league

They held less land than current day Greece. How is this a top tier empire?

>owned more land

Apparently owning a huge chunks of nothing counts as a success now? This isn't a Paradox game and chances are you're a Russian, a Chink or an Arab.

Ottoman Empire had nothing going for it. Didn't industrialize, didn't colonialize, didn't improve the daily life of peasants.

By every measure they were a stagnant and weak for most of their existence, which was comparatively short lived to begin with.

When the entire world progresses and a region dominated by a single religion stagnats for nearly a millennium and a half, you have to start wondering why,user.

>Ottoman empire

Yeah fuck off with your goatfuckery, Abdul.

The Delian league destroyed the Persian's Mediterranean fleet and sacked cities under Persian control for decades.

They forced the submission of dozens of polises and had exclusive control of all black sea grain.

Small though they were, they were an empire. And the very first attempted in Greece that we have evidence for.

Multiculturalism already did its damage.

Yet yhe British destroyed the French and Spanish Fleets in the early 1800s in the battle of Trafalgar and ruled most oceans for the next 100 years, yet is not God tier? pfft bad tier list makes no sense.

By this standard Vikings were greater than Charlemagne.

Im not arguing anything about the British, just discussing Athens as an empire. They controlled the majority of Greek states, two seas, and kept Persia at bay for decades.

Are they the most amazing empire maybe not. But their accomplishments given the circumstances / period are impressive.

These are only two top tier empires, Persia and Rome. The rest is laughable by comparison.

Stop

>Egypt gained independence from Christian Byzantium by being conquered by Muslims

>Ottomans had a great thing going, and for a really long time

It was never great to begin with. They were on relatively equal footing with Europe up until the 16th century, after which they declined into a stagnant backwater.

>Mamluk State
Ayyubid Empire was pretty cool and Egypt centric

>this is what /pol/ believes

There was an user saying that next time you guys were going to say that the ottoman empire was stagnant from the start it seems he was right.