AHC: How can Mohanmed Ali take over (most of) the Ottoman Empire?

Socrates

How can Mohammed Ali of Egypt take over most of the Ottoman Empire and be seen universally to have inherited the Caliphate? What would be the process for lands being transferred? How could religious allegiance be switched?
 

desmirelle

An ottoman is a low, backless, armless, stool, upholstered and used as a foot rest and often hinged for storing things within. There's also a heavy fabric used mostly for coats.
 

Imperial Inkstand-filler

Muhammad Ali Pasha actually did come remarkably close to controlling the Ottoman Empire IOTL - in 1812 his forces captured the Hedjaz, and in the 1830s he had an army that was literally at Constantinople's doorstep, without any meaningful military obstacles. The whole situation was defused by European brokers at the Convention of Kuthaya, where Muhammad Ali Pasha was pretty clearly gunning for an independent state. Egypt's military was such that there wasn't really a way the Ottoman Porte could push him out of the territories he occupied.

Perhaps having some situation in which Muhammad Ali Pasha is in a better position at the Convention, even by delaying it until after Constantinople falls. Create an independent Egyptian state controlling Egypt, Sudan, the Hedjaz, Syria and Palestine, and Crete (all of which were under Egyptian administration), and you have the most meaningfully powerful state in the Near East at the time already, with the Ottomans only clinging to Turkey and Thrace.
 

Socrates

Thanks Imperial. I was wondering whether somehow dropping British support for the Porte, or even them switching sides, could also have the same effect. Perhaps if the Brits and French decide that Ali is more likely to maintain a bulwark versus Russia than the House of Osman?

The next question is how he or his successors can go further and take the Maghreb, Iraq and Anatolia? And, more importantly, get global acceptance as Caliph?
 

Imperial Inkstand-filler

I'm doubting the likelihood of the British switching sides. Muhammad Ali Pasha was a major figure in fighting the Greek Rebellion in the 1820s, which put him at odds with the British, and any way you slice it, a divided Ottoman Empire is far less likely to be an effective bulwark against Russia.

One idea I do find very interesting is having this play into the Great Game - in the 1830s Russophobia in Britain was just starting to take root, and the fear that a Russian army could march from Constantinople to British India was real (for some reason). A forced brokerage of the Convention in which Muhammad Ali Pasha gets his independent state could lead to, a few years down the road, Russian intervention in the rump Ottoman Empire over persecuting Christians or some other convenient casus belli. Set up a Russian puppet state astride the Sea of Marmara (I'm imagining a ruling class of Russian immigrants mixed with Pontic and Asian Greeks), and suddenly the whole situation becomes very frightening to the British, who would likely draw Greece closer into their fold.

But back to Muhammad Ali Pasha, expansion is limited to a specific window. Once it becomes clear that the Ottoman Empire is up for division among European powers, it's a race against time for Pasha. The Maghreb would be a natural expansion, but I'm not sure he could beat the French there, and the same goes for the Russians in Anatolia and the British-backed Persians in Iraq. He could certainly gain some traction in any of these locations, but all would be contested.

In reality, I think Muhammad Ali Pasha would be more likely to follow a European-style nation-state model for his Egypt. He was typically very European-minded (his armies were successful against the Porte's due to his relentless German-inspired drilling techniques), and his empire would primarily be composed of what we think of as the "Arab World" (minus the Maghreb and parts of Arabia). Attempting to forge a singular Arab-Egyptian identity for his new nation state (with colonies in Crete and Sudan) would be the model I'd likely think to see Muhammad Ali Pasha take, as opposed to attempting to conquer and hold the whole of the Ottoman Empire and get recognized as Caliph.
 

Socrates

Yes. I think that is more plausible. However, what would be required to be recognised as Caliph? Would he have to get the Ottomans to hand over the relics of Mohammed (therefore requiring an utter military victory first)? At that point, do other parts of the empire swear allegiance?
 

Imperial Inkstand-filler

Socrates said:
Yes. I think that is more plausible. However, what would be required to be recognised as Caliph? Would he have to get the Ottomans to hand over the relics of Mohammed (therefore requiring an utter military victory first)? At that point, do other parts of the empire swear allegiance?
Click to expand...

Theoretically, Sunnis only need to be elected Caliph by the faithful to claim that position. So an independent Egypt controlling the Hedjaz could quite easily claim the title by virtue of being the protector of the holy cities of Mecca and Medina.

I really doubt other areas of the Empire would swear allegiance to Muhammad Ali Pasha or any other Egyptian Caliph simply by virtue of being Caliph. By the 1700s, the only practical use of the title was to counter Russian claims of protecting the Orthodox Christians in the Ottoman Empire by crafting a reciprocal claim of protecting Muslims in the Russian Empire. Since the British Empire did use the Ottoman Caliphs to issue statements to the Muslims of India OTL, I suppose the British may support a friendly Egyptian state claiming the title, but again, the practical effects of this wouldn't really translate to gains on the ground for the Egyptians.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top