Mehmet Ali attacks Algiers for France

According to 'Russian Seapower and the Eastern Question 1827-41' by John C K Daly, in 1830 France first approached Egypt about lanching the attack on Algiers whilst France provided naval and logistical support. Mehmet Ali thought better of the idea, intending instead to make a go of his ambitions for the Syrian pashaliks, and reckoning he could make some gains anyway from a purely French attack on Algiers - e.g. it would give him an excuse to rebuild his fortifications and expand his fleet without alarming anyone.

But what if Mehmet Ali took up the French offer ? Egypt had an excellent fleet backed by a very good arsenal and a competently handled treasury, they had good army commanders, and in recent years had also carried out an amphibious attack I think against Tunis.

Grey Wolf

Egypt had an excellent fleet backed by a very good arsenal and a competently handled treasury, they had good army commanders, and in recent years had also carried out an amphibious attack I think against Tunis.

Click to expand...

If so, how did Egypt's navy prove so incompetent in the battle at Navarino in the Greek War of Independence? Egypt's ideas of being an international naval power ended up on the bottom of Navarino Bay and stayed there.

Anthony Appleyard said:

If so, how did Egypt's navy prove so incompetent in the battle at Navarino in the Greek War of Independence? Egypt's ideas of being an international naval power ended up on the bottom of Navarino Bay and stayed there.

Click to expand...

INCOMPETENT?!? How about outnumbered and outgunned beyond belief? Navarino was the entire naval establishment of the Western World against Egypt.

I would really, really have to think about this one.

I suspect that it may have been beyond the capabilities of Mehmet Ali to hold Algiers, and the notables of the region would certainly stringently resist central Egyptian authority. I suspect that higher taxes and interference from Cairo would lead to revolts, and prompt him to either return it to a status similar to its previous, or hand it over to the Ottomans, depending on the time. If early, the French may even invade anyway.

Grey Wolf said:

According to 'Russian Seapower and the Eastern Question 1827-41' by John C K Daly, in 1830 France first approached Egypt about lanching the attack on Algiers whilst France provided naval and logistical support. Mehmet Ali thought better of the idea, intending instead to make a go of his ambitions for the Syrian pashaliks, and reckoning he could make some gains anyway from a purely French attack on Algiers - e.g. it would give him an excuse to rebuild his fortifications and expand his fleet without alarming anyone.

But what if Mehmet Ali took up the French offer ? Egypt had an excellent fleet backed by a very good arsenal and a competently handled treasury, they had good army commanders, and in recent years had also carried out an amphibious attack I think against Tunis.

Grey Wolf

Click to expand...

Anthony Appleyard said:

If so, how did Egypt's navy prove so incompetent in the battle at Navarino in the Greek War of Independence? Egypt's ideas of being an international naval power ended up on the bottom of Navarino Bay and stayed there.

Click to expand...

I guess you don't know the history of the 1830s. You won't be alone there, but its not at all as you think it is. In c1831 Egypt completed THREE 100 gun ships of the line, and several other three-decker line of battle ships, building them herself at the arsenal of Alexandria and coppering their bottoms.

For Mehmet the actual losses at Navarino weren't devastating because he had more ships than he sent there. In addition he got several ships back after the battle. And he was building new ones, and crewing them competently

Grey Wolf

Abdul Hadi Pasha said:

INCOMPETENT?!? How about outnumbered and outgunned beyond belief? Navarino was the entire naval establishment of the Western World against Egypt.

Click to expand...

They were outgunned by a bit, but not outnumbered. 7 battleships, 10 frigates, 4 brigs, 2 schooners, 1 cutter for the Allied navy vs. 3 battleships, 17 frigates, 30 corvettes, 28 brigs, 5 schooners, 5 or 6 fireships.

Had it been a battle outside of a harbor, and a competently led battle of manuever, the Allies should have lost it. Numbers do tell.

Kadyet said:

They were outgunned by a bit, but not outnumbered. 7 battleships, 10 frigates, 4 brigs, 2 schooners, 1 cutter for the Allied navy vs. 3 battleships, 17 frigates, 30 corvettes, 28 brigs, 5 schooners, 5 or 6 fireships.

Had it been a battle outside of a harbor, and a competently led battle of manuever, the Allies should have lost it. Numbers do tell.

Click to expand...

Numbers don't tell anything. They never did during warfare in the Age of Sail. What level of training are we considering the Egyptians have?

How exactly was Egypt to attack Algeirs (besides naval forcs)? Did they guard/occupy/govern/etc Libya and Tunisia 'on behalf of' Constantinople? Besides the fact that they governed don't know too much about what was going on in this are

As far as I understand the plan, it was for a landing around Algiers, like the French made. Don't forget that OTL France was operating far from its bases when it did this. As a parallel you could also look at Mehmet's navy's attack on Acre in 1831.

As for 'level of training' I really don't know how to quantify this. As far as I understand it it was pretty good. The officers included a lot of Europeans, also rather curiously a load of Greek mercenaries. The rank and file were drafted.

Grey Wolf

While Mehmet Ali's name is spelled lots of different ways, it definitely has the two parts to it. In other words, neither Mehmet nor Ali are a surname or middle name, it's more or less a compound given name. "Mehmet Ali" would be the modern Turkish spelling; as he was Turkish, "Mehmet" is more appropriate than "Mohammed" or "Muhammed", but in the context of the time, I prefer "Mehmed Ali".

Anyway, I would probably say the quality of Egyptian crews were inferior in experience and motivation to most Western crews, and the Ottoman crews much worse than that, as they were having to abandon Greek sailors as a mainstay due to the Greek Revolt.

Abdul Hadi Pasha said:

Anyway, I would probably say the quality of Egyptian crews were inferior in experience and motivation to most Western crews, and the Ottoman crews much worse than that, as they were having to abandon Greek sailors as a mainstay due to the Greek Revolt.

Click to expand...

Just read a report from 1832 which I'll quote when I remember where I put the book before I had a couple houirs sleep this evening. Its from a British captain comparing the two, and he certainly says some nice things about the Egyptians

Grey Wolf

The book was in the bathroom. I quote :-

Captain Maunsell of the HMS Alfred-50 had been cruising the Egyptian and Syrian coasts since June, observing both fleets

Turks...
"very indifferently handled, numerously but very badly manned, and I understand have never exercised their guns with powder, certainly not once during the time we have been with them"

Egyptians...
"better handled and manned, and the crews well-trained to their guns, and altho' inferior in numbers, would I am confident, beat the Turkish fleet...the extraordinary activity in the Dock Yard at Alexandria is such that it is necessary to witness it in order to give credit to it"

This is 1832

Grey Wolf

very interesting ATL idea and story....

one suggestion though..... a french suez canal perhaps?

Straha said:

very interesting ATL idea and story....

one suggestion though..... a french suez canal perhaps?

Click to expand...

Do ya know, apart from the fact that it was French, but got usurped by Britain, its a good point

What would be the longer-term effects of such a close Franco-Egyptian enterprise ?

To my mind one controlling factor is whether Charles X still falls. OTL Louis Philippe felt honour-bound to continue with the conquest of Algiers, but he may feel far less bothered to continue to support an ally who is 'only' African. He could well leave Egypt in the lurch.

Even if not, what would happen if Mehmet Ali overthrows the Dey ? Would he install Ibrahim there ? That's not impossible, but Ibrahim was his best general as well as his son. He did have a good few sons though, so maybe another one. All that, though, gets into the question of Islamic succession laws.

OTL after France took Algiers other parts of the land continued to hold out - a large force in the West under a new leader, and the beyliks in the East. There is the possibility for a splintering of the deylik (word ?), with Algiers and its hinterland going to Mehmet Ali, and the West and East to their own successor states.

The longer term effect of this will depend on how the Egyptian regime in Algiers itself plays out. If it establishes a successful stable government then its a far different matter than if it doesn't.

In addition, would Mehmet Ali later turn back to his Syrian dreams ? On a practical level the forests of Lebanon are pretty damn useful for his fleet, and Alexandria is tooled up to build first rate ships of the line

Grey Wolf

the french might be a stronger power than OTL... no idea what coujld happen with THAT..