What happens to Algeria w/o the French invasion in 1830?

In our TL, French King Charles X invaded Algeria (Algiers) shortly before he was overthrown. After his overthrow, the Algerian expedition was so popular that the new French King Louis Philippe continued it in spite of the fact that he was personally opposed to it.

Anyway, what if Charles X gets overthrown before he is able to give the order to invade Algeria? (Or, alternatively, you could have him delay this order until he gets overthrown, after which point he'll obviously lack the ability to issue such an order.) What would happen to Algeria in this scenario?

I strongly doubt that Louis Philippe would have been willing to invade Algeria without Charles actually laying the groundwork for this. Thus, how does Algeria fare if the French are not there starting from 1830?
 
It would end up as a protectorate of France similar to Morocco and Tunisia

I disagree, at least that this is inevitable. An overthrow of Charles earlier on, especially one in which the army isent off in Algeria, is liable to go far less smoothly than the July Revolution of our timeline. Even assuming the same good throws of the dice by the rebels and idiocy on the part of the Royalists in Paris, Charles having a full army to bring in or run to means he's liable to fight... which will turn the coup into a civil war the thin layer of the Paris bougious is bound to lose. So, longer Bourbon Restoration; brutal crackdowns in the monarchy's favor and disempowerment of the upper-middle class included,.
 
I disagree, at least that this is inevitable. An overthrow of Charles earlier on, especially one in which the army isent off in Algeria, is liable to go far less smoothly than the July Revolution of our timeline. Even assuming the same good throws of the dice by the rebels and idiocy on the part of the Royalists in Paris, Charles having a full army to bring in or run to means he's liable to fight... which will turn the coup into a civil war the thin layer of the Paris bougious is bound to lose. So, longer Bourbon Restoration; brutal crackdowns in the monarchy's favor and disempowerment of the upper-middle class included,.
Do you mean "especially one in which the army isn't sent off in Algeria"?
 
I was talking about during the scramble for Africa

Except with a weaker/internally distracted France Muhammad Ali's Egypt has no backers in the looming Oriental Crisis, which is liable to cause the events to tilt in the Ottoman's directions and thus head off the real start of the Ottoman decline; especially in the South. And given even IOTL they were already making strides to consolidating their North African vassals (Tripolitania, for one), the region won't be on the menu
 
Except with a weaker/internally distracted France Muhammad Ali's Egypt has no backers in the looming Oriental Crisis, which is liable to cause the events to tilt in the Ottoman's directions and thus head off the real start of the Ottoman decline; especially in the South. And given even IOTL they were already making strides to consolidating their North African vassals (Tripolitania, for one), the region won't be on the menu
By South, do you mean North Africa?
 
Except with a weaker/internally distracted France Muhammad Ali's Egypt has no backers in the looming Oriental Crisis, which is liable to cause the events to tilt in the Ottoman's directions and thus head off the real start of the Ottoman decline; especially in the South. And given even IOTL they were already making strides to consolidating their North African vassals (Tripolitania, for one), the region won't be on the menu
Without French backing, Muhammad Ali is likely to accept the Convention of London which would give him the southern Levant in addition to Egypt and Sudan
 
Without French backing, Muhammad Ali is likely to accept the Convention of London which would give him the southern Levant in addition to Egypt and Sudan

You assume without French patronage there's a motivation to offer the Egyptians such generious terms at all.

OK.

Also, can you please respond to my post #9 here? I'm seeking to clarify something that you wrote in a previous post of yours.

Of course I said isn't
 
You assume without French patronage there's a motivation to offer the Egyptians such generious terms at all.

Of course I said isn't
OK.

Also, I didn't realize that Charles X's overthrow was such a close call. Indeed, it looks like Louis Philippe strongly benefited from the fact that the ruler of Algiers was so provocative that he triggered a French invasion. :)
 
You assume without French patronage there's a motivation to offer the Egyptians such generious terms at all.
The European powers also didn't want a too strong ottoman empire. It's one thing to push him out of the Levant. It's another to entirely remove him from power .
 
OK.

Also, I didn't realize that Charles X's overthrow was such a close call. Indeed, it looks like Louis Philippe strongly benefited from the fact that the ruler of Algiers was so provocative that he triggered a French invasion. :)

Louis Philippe actually got more shanghied onto the throne than actively tried to seize it; though he did indeed benefit from Charles' stubborn absolutism and attempt to use the war as an excuse to wrestle more power from his government. That lead to the situation being forced to simmer until the question of franchise reforms/Charles' attempt to consolidate power backfiring by matching the voting list to the jury duty list (thus de facto making the former a public record and so preventing his appointed ministries from surpressing the opposition vote) organized the opposition. A longer lasting revolution, rather than the effective palace coup of the Glorious Days, would be liable to slip towards real Republicanism as it expanded (the fear of which was one of the reasons Louis was so quick to accept the throne so as to head off such a possability)

The European powers also didn't want a too strong ottoman empire. It's one thing to push him out of the Levant. It's another to entirely remove him from power .

Indeed. Which is why they're likely to let him keep Egypt. However, his position on the ground is that much weaker and the Ottomans that much stronger, and he's going to have to play a game of appeasing/sucking up to Constantinople rather than opposing them in order to expand his power and get more leeway and support for expansion south. At least from where I stand, Egypt in this scenario effectively becomes an active Ottoman ally rather than functionally independent state
 
The European powers also didn't want a too strong ottoman empire. It's one thing to push him out of the Levant. It's another to entirely remove him from power .

It is the 1830s. After the Russo-Turkish war of 28-29 there is no interest to weaken the Ottomans further as the GP thought it was already too weak which was true. Hence the British and later Russia tried to preserve it.

OTL Mehmed Ali had to give up his Levantine conquests. Without France, Mehmed Ali is in even more trouble. There is no chance the Russians or British will allow Mehmed Ali's rule outside Egypt just because France does not back them.
 
It would end up as a protectorate of France similar to Morocco and Tunisia

Depends on... Tunisia and Morocco became puppets as the French were already in Algeria. If nothing happens until 1878 and much of OTL happens the same it might be a possibility that Italy ends up with Tunisia as a protectorate while the French end up with Algiers only.

And that is a big IF. No invasion means no July revolution means no Napoleon III rule which also means no Crimean War and thus possibly no Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878. There might be the almost same things as OTL but that would be limited.
 
Top