I don't know where to begin to personally answer your questions. I've always wondered why the Byzantine Church did not use Coptic or Syriac for their Alexandrian and Antiochian Churches? I would suppose the RC Church is at least evangelically smart enough to use the language of the culture rather than make Egyptian Latin Churches.
So did Constantinople have some sort of ego as to effect all the churches of the empire as much as Rome did? Personally, I'd probably say yes. It shows later that Rome and Constantinople always struggled to be the higher see of honor in the Christian world. It is sad however, in my opinion, that we completely forget yet another area of the Christian world, outside the Byzantine and Roman empires, i.e. the Persian empire and the churches of the Far Oriente, which is basically either extinct or in very small numbers today.
I believe one basic mistake of the Church was to define the Church within emperical grounds. For one thing, I don't like the fact that the old flag of the empire was a two-headed eagle, one head for the Church and one for the government. To me, this unites religion and government, not seperating the two. Christ makes Himself very clear how His kingdom is not of this world, and that we should render to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's. While we do our Christian duties as good citizens of the government, to respect them as we respect the Church, we are first Christians, second cosmopolitans.
I wish if the Church caught herself quick before getting Emperors sucked into Church affairs. It would have probably kept us far from schism. While Orthodoxy may pride herself as upholding the true faith, tragedy is, she mixed faith with politics, and thus we have our schisms.
What would be the standard today be by its liturgical and administrative praxis (and to be honest what would the Pharisaical outward approach of doing business in the Church be like)?
This is a great question, rather gutsy. It is rather important that one should ask the second part of your question, i.e. the Pharisaical approach. For by answering this, we will know what not to do.
I believe that the Church needs piety and humility today more than anything else in the world. If Christ Himself is pious and humble by giving His apostles authority to bind and loose, how much more pious and humble should we be to accept this sort of responsibility? We say we are "humbled" and yet we end up arrogant. If we can go back to the times of the Apostles themselves, who even had no problem when ministering to different groups in one city as to achieve maximum effort to bring the gospel to people's own language, and not to be above another apostle, then all our problems can be easily solved.
We should never forget that we are not the Church of Leo or the Church of Dioscorus. We are the Church of Christ. We have come not only to serve our own, but our neighbors. We are not Coptic, Syriac, Indian, Greek, Russian, or Latin, we are Orthodox. We must hate one another and love Christ. We must hate our Holy Fathers and serve Christ alone. I must hate and deny myself, and follow the Orthodox faith of Christ. The Pharisaical approach is to say that we follow Moses. The humble approach, the approach taken by St. Paul is that we follow the spirit of the Law, the Logos Christ.
In the history of Alexandria Would it have been possible to have one successions of bishops had the Greeks and Copts segregated culturally (which is clearly evident in the City today)? Would the languages of Greek and Coptic be used in the liturgy simultaneously? would the title patriarch be next to the Pope's title?
Even in our Coptic liturgy, most of the liturgy is not Coptic, but actually Greek! A lot of the Greek was being adopted into the Church (for example, we say "Xristos anesti", not "Piekhristos aftonf", "Kyrie Elayson" not "Efnoti nai nan"). I believe yes, it would have been one bishop for both Greeks and Egyptians. We already call our own Pope, Pope and Patriach and Archbishop of the great city of Alexandria, the See of St. Mark. To have one bishop serving both the Greeks and the Copts won't change this title.
Onto Americas jurisdictional unity, Would the adherents of a Coptic and Antiochian Archdioceses have changed drastically had the immigrants been more open to pan-orthodoxy which culturally would have made them more Western (like the Antiochian Archdiocese) towards the non-Orthodox relations in evangelism?
That I do not know. Assuming a united Orthodox Church, imaginatively, and assuming the answer I gave you concerning the non-Pharasiacal approach, wouldn't it be nice to find that all the heirarchs in America submit to one another rather than holding on to one's own leadership? In our Coptic liturgies, certain prayers start with the Priest praying "Pray," and if another priest is present, he adds "and bless," to which the other priest replies humbly "You bless." Wouldn't it be nice if bishops come together and just decide who will lead with a humble heart wishing only for unity and not for personal preservation of leadership? And wouldn't it be great if, like the Apostles, we would in fact reach out to the different cultures in America with their own expression of Orthodoxy for evangelical purposes?