Despite being occupied by Britain in 1882, Egypt was still legally part of the Ottoman Empire until 1914, and the Ottomans had more influence there than is generally realized. Why? Why was it necessary to maintain this arrangement, rather than just proclaim Egypt independent and a British protectorate? While there is no reason why a Muslim ruler could aspire to becoming an independent monarch, there are lots of reasons why an Ottoman governor cannot. Egypt was NOT a vassal, it was a PROVINCE. There is a big difference. The relationship between the two was not loose like that between the Ottomans and Tunis, or the Principalities. The evolution of Egyptian autonomy was a process that took 100 years, and didn't really accellerate until the 1870s, due to the crises the Ottomans were facing at the time, primarily financial.
There is a difference between reclaiming Algiers or Tunis, which are far from the Ottoman center, and which had never been under direct rule, to Syria, which is adjacent to the Ottoman core and HAD been an integral part of the empire, moreover had no other potential government, and was still a part of the empire.
I do not at all think MA's rule was weak, quite to the contrary, it was very, very strong. I am saying the ECONOMIC basis for his domain was very fragile, and he was horribly overextended.
I am not suggesting that universal primary education was necessary, but Egypt was beginning with zero - it's hard to expect illiterate peasants to be able to operate an industrial infrastructure suddenly created, and in fact, Mehmed Ali himself conceded his industrial policies were a total failure.
As for the economic troubles of the late 1830s, they were not just due to a fall in cotton prices, it was a general economic collapse. While lenders going bankrupt may very well obviate the need to repay them, it also eliminates your ability to make up budget shortfalls, meaning you can't pay your troops, administrators, and foreign advisors, nor subsidize your factories, buy arms, etc. Also, as they were merchant houses, not just banks, not only are you drying up your only source of capital, but you are losing the outlet for sale of your products, to generate your revenues. Again, the Ottomans are more economically resilient due to a much, much greater economic diversity.
I also said I though Egypt was probably too much for the Ottomans to swallow in the 1840s. I do not think Syria was, however - as it was Syria was largely beyond central control when MA moved in, yet the Ottomans reestablished central power over the entirety of the Balkans, Anatolia, Syria, Mesopotamia, Arabia, the Persian Gulf, and Yemen, all within two decades. THAT is resilient. While not strong enough to reclaim territories lost to EUROPEAN powers, they certainly were strong enough to reclaim them from MUSLIM powers, particularly those that were merely autonomous parts of the Ottoman Empire. I think you greatly underestimate the depth, effectiveness, and purpose of 19th c Ottoman reform - from having to devote the entire resources of the empire to defeating one little pasha in Albania in the 1820s they went to being able to hold their own against RUSSIA in the Crimean War and in 1877 (Serbia and Rumania being required to tip the balance). As opposed to Egyptian reform, which was entirely for the personal ambition of Mehmed Ali, not the strengthening of the State.
I am saying that the economic difficulties faced by MA were independent of his military success. He was not occupying economically productive areas; the Hejaz was always a large drain on Ottoman resources, the Sudan did not produce a surplus, ever, even under British rule (until the 1920s), and Syria did not begin to economically develop until after the period in question. British intervention did not just force Mehmed Ali to back away from his gains, it also forced the Sultan to grant Mehmed Ali LEGAL, DYNASTIC control over Egypt, which would not have occurred otherwise, and would have expired upon his death. He was simply expending enormous sums to hold territories that did not even come close to paying for themselves - it is not a stretch to say that this couldn't continue indefinitely! And all contemporary accounts of the condition of Egypt agree that it was miserable.
In any case, none of this invalidates your TL in the slightest - I'm just saying that MA's overextension would eventually have caused his failure. If anything it presents interesting alternatives to what happened in OTL - it could lead to different powers having control of Egypt, greater French control of the Ottoman economy, even French protectorate over Syria. It also gives latitude for the expansion of one of your favorite evil empires, Russia; if Britain is too preoccupied to help, the Sultan will turn to Russia, as he did in 1833. That could lead just about anywhere!
In any TL I have worked on with greater Ottoman success, it is always generated by retention of the Balkan provinces lost in 1878, which immensely increase the revenues of the empire while not materially increasing its expenditures, as the same number of troops were required to garrison the remnant after Berlin as had been the case before. In the case of MA, Egypt was his only productive province, albeit a fairly rich one, at least by Ottoman standards.
Grey Wolf said:
I don't know how to respond to this. I'm beginning to find History depressing. One set of facts counters another set of facts. Both sets of facts seem not to allow for the interpretation that is the natural result from reading the other. It begins to make no sense at all.
As to my poor attempts to find a timeline that might survive more than a week, I don't know if you have factored in any butterflies at all, as much as I don't really like that term. The statements that Mohammed Ali's rule was inherently weak seem to ignore, or I suppose push aside, the fact that during the 1830s his rule prospered DESPITE British actions in the early 1830s, and despite being contrained in the later 1830s by a British-led coalition. If instead of malign British influence we replace it with initially mild friendship from the French ?
I honestly haven't a clue about most things. What caused the downturn in cotton prices at the end of the 1830s ? Is this something still in play ? On the other hand, surely one's lenders going bust helps in that you don't have to pay them back !
I don't know any country in this period that had even general primary education, Britain was moving that way with education reform acts but I rather doubt that it was universal primary education that had much to do with the industrial revolution in most countries. Russia, for example, funded its naval expansion and modernisation with scholarships for a couple of DOZEN promising students in imperial establishments.
I do think you have a tendency to have Ottoman resilience, as in survival, turn into Ottoman reclamation of lost glories. They never got Algiers back. They never reclaimed any lands lost to the various European states. Why should they come back to reclaim Egypt and its outlying provinces if they are lost ?
I am also somewhat dubious of the idea that an Islamic vassal of the sultan cannot dream of being an independent monarch. The Sultan although Caliph does not have effective or any rule over a vast number of Islamic nations. He may have a degree of theoretical influence, but he does not have a way to exercise it. I feel that you are colouring the independence argument with implications that are unnecessary to it. Practically, Mohammed Ali could not care less whether the Ottoman sultan remains theoretically his overlord on religious and traditional bases. He is looking for EFFECTIVE and LONG-LASTING independence of action, a hereditary principle for Egypt, freedom to act as he wishes.
How a MORE successful Egypt should collapse in 1840 is complete befuddlement to me. An Egypt hemmed in by Great Power politics, forced out of Syria etc, survived. Why should a more successful one which has crushes the rebellion and beaten off Ottoman forces collapse ?
Grey Wolf
