What if Muhammad Ali of Egypt had more competent successors. Also some questions on the topic.

mad orc

Banned
Ban
What if Muhammad Ali of Egypt had more competent successors ?

Please only answer my questions.

Here are my questions:
1)Would Egypt still fall to European powers ?

2)Would the Sudan develop as a sort of Wild west for such a growing nation(I am a firm believer in the Nazi philosophy that, to be powerful, a nation needs huge wide open lands, the people of those lands should offer no resistance, lebanserum) ?

3)In such a case of Ali having competent successors, what would happen if Germany won WW1 ?

4)What would happen to the Ottoman empire.

And lastly

5)How would him having competent successors change the fact that most Europeans had supported Turkey in the oriental crisis ?
 
Ibrahim Pasha was a more than competent son, but he unfortunately pre-deceased his father. i'm not the most informed on the subject, so you might as well ask someone else.
 
What if Muhammad Ali of Egypt had more competent successors ?

Please only answer my questions.

Here are my questions:
1)Would Egypt still fall to European powers ?

2)Would the Sudan develop as a sort of Wild west for such a growing nation(I am a firm believer in the Nazi philosophy that, to be powerful, a nation needs huge wide open lands, the people of those lands should offer no resistance, lebanserum) ?

3)In such a case of Ali having competent successors, what would happen if Germany won WW1 ?

4)What would happen to the Ottoman empire.

And lastly

5)How would him having competent successors change the fact that most Europeans had supported Turkey in the oriental crisis ?
I will answer the first one :
I think personnally, that altough colonization was due to european technological and logistical advance, it was also out of good political stability and sometimes good fortune, contrary to all their foes (namely China, who if it was met in a good shape, even with only musquets, it could smash the british forces only by numbers), Egypt was nearer to Europe and was experiencing a "rennaissance", so my bet is that if Ibrahim Pasha survives, no Colonization, and it might even get the upper hand on the europeans in ww1, 1 century of independance and modernization would make it a regional power by the 1900, and if all goes good, I think that after world war 2 it will be the leader of the arab world and a serious challenger to europeans (or partner).
 
Last edited:
What if Muhammad Ali of Egypt had more competent successors ?

Please only answer my questions.

Here are my questions:
1)Would Egypt still fall to European powers ?

2)Would the Sudan develop as a sort of Wild west for such a growing nation(I am a firm believer in the Nazi philosophy that, to be powerful, a nation needs huge wide open lands, the people of those lands should offer no resistance, lebanserum) ?

3)In such a case of Ali having competent successors, what would happen if Germany won WW1 ?

4)What would happen to the Ottoman empire.

And lastly

5)How would him having competent successors change the fact that most Europeans had supported Turkey in the oriental crisis ?

While the competence of a ruler is important, it is not the end-all, be-all when it comes to the success or failure of a nation-state. Muhammad Ali was a visionary and a very capable administrator, but one of his strengths was adapting to a more modern (and more European, though only in the sense that European states had taken to it, not that it was inherently European) structure of government. An excellent example of this is Ali's military reforms, inspired both by the Egyptian experience of Napoleonic soldiers and also by Prussian professionalism, putting a greater emphasis on structure and order compared to individual strength or capability, or his weakening of the ulama and the Mamlukes by redirecting waqf profits to state coffers. Long story short, a core aspect of Muhammad Ali's reforms was the creation of a centralized, bureaucratic, modern state, which reduces (but does not eliminate) the value of a highly competent crowned head - compare the effects of Henry V on the English state to Victoria on the British state.

The upshot of all this is that you don't necessarily need another Muhammad Ali - that is, a visionary reformer - to continue his work. Consider the Taisho Emperor of Japan, Meiji's successor - he was not the man his father was, but the rapidly changing Japanese system of government kept up its revolutions and kept European influence at bay. A more successful Muhammad Ali Egypt would require more of a "Zaibatsu" class, perhaps - a wealthy, powerful, western-oriented upper class with a vested interest in both preserving Egyptian autonomy as a state and in preserving the modernizing trends of the government.

Of course, the Japan analogy can't be taken too far, and while Egypt's proximity to Europe is part of that, the Suez Canal is, too. An exceptionally skilled diplomat as Prime Minister would be required to not make the Suez Canal a far too tempting prize for ambitious European nations to try and make Egypt a client of theirs.

To answer your questions directly, however

1) There are far too many variables here to make a full decision, mainly because a more competent successor does not eliminate the reasons a European nations would want to occupy Egypt, nor does a single man make enough of a difference to the institutional strength of a nation to decisively stop any foreign threats. However, an Egyptian state which transforms into a modern nation-state between the 1850s and 1870s could hypothetically remain independent and uncolonized. Could is the operant word here.

2) This depends heavily on the Egyptian policy towards Sudan and the Sudanese people, since (much like the Wild West of the United States or anywhere that the Nazis thought they could implement lebanserum - also, just a tip, maybe don't out-and-out say you agree with Nazi philosophies) there are people living there with thousands of years of their own history, culture, and livelihoods. You could get anything in an Egyptian Sudan from a sort of Anglo-Scottish relationship where the Sudanese aren't too fond of playing second fiddle to the Egyptians but also have substantial feelings of connection, both economic and cultural, to an American West situation where the native inhabitants are driven out, killed, and forcibly "converted" to "Egyptian culture" while prime territories are set aside for Egyptian settlers. This would also serve to make Egypt rather vulnerable to European powers, who could very easily play Egyptian expansion into Sudan as an example of the myth of "Oriental Despotism" and use that as a convenient casus belli for more imperial expansion in the region, just as the British in OTL did in "restoring the Khedive's power in Sudan" when they occupied it for themselves. Of course, should such a thing happen, I'm certain TTL's Edward Said would have some choice things to say about it.

3) Assuming WWI even happened as it did OTL (which it likely wouldn't, especially given how a strong, independent Egypt would impact Britain's relationship with the Raj, and thus their relations with Russia, France, China, and Japan), and assuming that Egypt was either actively supporting Germany or neutral (which is likely, since Perfidious Albion is likely to alienate the Egyptians in their quest for easier access to India than any other European powers), one can assume that Egypt might continue on as a semi-European industrial power, up until decolonization starts and they're put in the uncomfortable position of being an African power with African colonies in the form of Sudan.

4) There are many possibilities of what may happen to the Ottomans. One shouldn't put all their stock in the decline thesis and claim that the Ottomans are doomed, but the diplomatic repercussions of Egypt's independence could be interesting. Egypt would be coming into its own right in the height of the Concert of Europe's grand counterrevolutionary phase, and any shift in the balance of power would be keenly felt by Europeans. At worst for the Ottomans is a total occupation and division of the Empire between the various European powers - one can imagine Austro-Hungarian Bosnia and Bulgaria, a German prince as King of Greece in Constantinople, Russian Anatolia, and British and French mandates in Syria, Lebanon, and Arabia. However, such a total collapse of the Ottoman Empire would be ignoring the fact that this was still an intercontinental empire capable of projecting power across thousands of miles and undergoing its own period of modernization. An interesting result could be a diplomatic revolution surrounding India, in which the British Russophobia of the 1860s and 1870s translated into an Turcophilia, thus resulting in further deterioration of Anglo-Russian relations, and the potential scuttling of the Grand Entente (such an anti-Egyptian attitude may also result in the British looking at the American Civil War a bit differently). This could result in a totally different map of European alliances come the turn of the 20th century, hence my doubt that WWI would happen in exactly the same manner.

Within the Ottoman Empire, Egypt's modernization could very well spark a more intense modernizing trend within the Ottoman domains. Returning to the Japan comparison, this could turn out as poorly as Chinese attempts to modernize in the late 1800s, sparking conflict between conservative traditionalists and modernizing reformers, but it could also turn the Ottomans into a leaner, more competent imperial structure, especially if a European power (likely the British) decided that it was in their best interest to prop up the Ottomans as a modern power in the region to check British rivals in St. Petersburg and British opponents in Cairo. Of course, given the nature of later 19th century modernization, this might end poorly for many ethnic and cultural minorities in the Ottoman Empire, but the same is true in a modernizing Egypt.

In short, while I'm not sure that framing the question as simply "what if Muhammad Ali's successor was more competent?" is precisely the best way to go about forming a modernized Egyptian state, I do think the underlying issue of such a state would have profound impacts on the history of the late 19th and early 20th century and many of the adjacent empires, nations, and peoples.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
What if Muhammad Ali of Egypt had more competent successors ?

Please only answer my questions.

Here are my questions:
1)Would Egypt still fall to European powers ?

2)Would the Sudan develop as a sort of Wild west for such a growing nation(I am a firm believer in the Nazi philosophy that, to be powerful, a nation needs huge wide open lands, the people of those lands should offer no resistance, lebanserum) ?

3)In such a case of Ali having competent successors, what would happen if Germany won WW1 ?

4)What would happen to the Ottoman empire.

And lastly

5)How would him having competent successors change the fact that most Europeans had supported Turkey in the oriental crisis ?
What.

THE.

F###!!

Did I just read? A firm believer in the Nazi philosophy of Lebanserum? HUH?

Well, this one is pretty easy. Being a Firm Believer in mass murder and ethnic cleansing (i.e. the Nazi philosophy of lebanserum) is a direct violation of Board Policy and one of the Eight Ways to Crash Land (arguably two of them).

We divorce you.

To Coventry with you.
 
As an offhand comment, that is unusual. I didn't even notice that when I first read the OP, defence of Naziism is not what you expect on a pre-1900 Egypt scenario. Somebody else's problem field I guess.
 
I like this premise for a TL, but, seriously, Nazi philosophy? They could at least have worded it in a way that doesn't EXPLICITLY STATE THAT THEY AGREE WITH THE NAZIS!

If Ali had better successors, the plan to expand around all of the Nile`s tributaries might go better. OTL Ali's descendants had some level of control over Djibouti, parts of Eritrea and Somalia. They might keep it TTL, they would likely be unable to control Ethiopia, but might make it a protectorate/tributary state. Egypt may also end up exerting influence over Aden before Britain gets the chance (though they might lose it later).

Egypt would, instead of, as Ali had wanted, replacing the ottomans, end up slowly gaining greater autonomy within the empire. Since british de-facto colonization of Egypt was basically a direct outcome of Ali's successors' incompetence, they would likely remain more or less independent, but with some European influence. Some spheres of Influence may be created like in Persia, but it is more likely that Europeans would demand or pay for some sort of "free zones" around the isthmus of Suez (where a canal would still likely be built due to its perfect position for Europeans to avoid the trip around Africa) and around the Mandab strait. Egypt would not be a dying power like the Ottomans, and competent rulers would likely modernize it, making Egypt something of a Middle eastern Japan, though with greater European influence due to greater proximity tp and Strategic significance for Europe.

Most of Europe would still see Turkey as the rightful ruler of Egypt for the time being. The fact that European countries supported the ottomans would likely be ignored, as Egypt would grow as part of the Ottoman empire for a while.

Egypt would likely split off from the empire at a later point, and some European powers, eager to gain more influence over the region would help, while others, hoping to befriend Turkey, would support the ottomans. The British might support either side, the French would likely support Turkey, and the Russians would probably support Egypt to weaken their main rival in the Balkans. If it successfully split off, Egypt would probably take Libya before Italy got the chance, but it might be early enough for Italy to beat France to Tunisia, which the Really wanted.

North Sudan would be an extension of Egypt, while south Sudan and areas along the white Nile may be attractive to settlers. A "wild west" situation is unlikely.

A German victory in WWI is even less likely than OTL, since Egypt would likely side with the Allies if it got involved, having been aided by Russia in splitting off, and both Britain and France having influence in the "Free zones" around the exits/entries to the red sea. If it happened, Egypt would not be happy with it, especially if the Ottomans allied with the central powers.

In WWII, assuming Italy did take Tunisia, Egypt would likely side with the allies due to conflicting territorial claims with Italy, but it would still probably be quite expansionist, hoping to seize Italian colonies, and using the war as an excuse to do so. Egypt could frame itself as not being a "colonial" power (since it isn't European), but rather a "pan Afro-Arabian" power, seeking to liberate its Muslim and Arab brothers from foreign rule, allowing it to keep much of its land for a longer time. The British decision to separate Egypt and Sudan contributed greatly to their postcolonial separation OTL, they are different, but they could reasonably be expected to remain peacefully united (I mean North Sudan here) if Egypt is a major regional power. Libya and Tunisia are hard to predict. South Sudan, Eritrea, and Somaliland would probably break away, and Egyptian influence over Ethiopia and Aden would likely end at the latest after their withdrawal from the Horn of Africa.
 

I had a lot of thoughts about that aside, but "WTF" sums them all up quite nicely.

A German victory in WWI is even less likely than OTL, since Egypt would likely side with the Allies if it got involved, having been aided by Russia in splitting off, and both Britain and France having influence in the "Free zones" around the exits/entries to the red sea. If it happened, Egypt would not be happy with it, especially if the Ottomans allied with the central powers.

Do you think Egypt might try to claim some Ottoman territory after the war?
 
I like this premise for a TL, but, seriously, Nazi philosophy? They could at least have worded it in a way that doesn't EXPLICITLY STATE THAT THEY AGREE WITH THE NAZIS!

If Ali had better successors, the plan to expand around all of the Nile`s tributaries might go better. OTL Ali's descendants had some level of control over Djibouti, parts of Eritrea and Somalia. They might keep it TTL, they would likely be unable to control Ethiopia, but might make it a protectorate/tributary state. Egypt may also end up exerting influence over Aden before Britain gets the chance (though they might lose it later).

Egypt would, instead of, as Ali had wanted, replacing the ottomans, end up slowly gaining greater autonomy within the empire. Since british de-facto colonization of Egypt was basically a direct outcome of Ali's successors' incompetence, they would likely remain more or less independent, but with some European influence. Some spheres of Influence may be created like in Persia, but it is more likely that Europeans would demand or pay for some sort of "free zones" around the isthmus of Suez (where a canal would still likely be built due to its perfect position for Europeans to avoid the trip around Africa) and around the Mandab strait. Egypt would not be a dying power like the Ottomans, and competent rulers would likely modernize it, making Egypt something of a Middle eastern Japan, though with greater European influence due to greater proximity tp and Strategic significance for Europe.

Most of Europe would still see Turkey as the rightful ruler of Egypt for the time being. The fact that European countries supported the ottomans would likely be ignored, as Egypt would grow as part of the Ottoman empire for a while.

Egypt would likely split off from the empire at a later point, and some European powers, eager to gain more influence over the region would help, while others, hoping to befriend Turkey, would support the ottomans. The British might support either side, the French would likely support Turkey, and the Russians would probably support Egypt to weaken their main rival in the Balkans. If it successfully split off, Egypt would probably take Libya before Italy got the chance, but it might be early enough for Italy to beat France to Tunisia, which the Really wanted.

North Sudan would be an extension of Egypt, while south Sudan and areas along the white Nile may be attractive to settlers. A "wild west" situation is unlikely.

A German victory in WWI is even less likely than OTL, since Egypt would likely side with the Allies if it got involved, having been aided by Russia in splitting off, and both Britain and France having influence in the "Free zones" around the exits/entries to the red sea. If it happened, Egypt would not be happy with it, especially if the Ottomans allied with the central powers.

In WWII, assuming Italy did take Tunisia, Egypt would likely side with the allies due to conflicting territorial claims with Italy, but it would still probably be quite expansionist, hoping to seize Italian colonies, and using the war as an excuse to do so. Egypt could frame itself as not being a "colonial" power (since it isn't European), but rather a "pan Afro-Arabian" power, seeking to liberate its Muslim and Arab brothers from foreign rule, allowing it to keep much of its land for a longer time. The British decision to separate Egypt and Sudan contributed greatly to their postcolonial separation OTL, they are different, but they could reasonably be expected to remain peacefully united (I mean North Sudan here) if Egypt is a major regional power. Libya and Tunisia are hard to predict. South Sudan, Eritrea, and Somaliland would probably break away, and Egyptian influence over Ethiopia and Aden would likely end at the latest after their withdrawal from the Horn of Africa.
I see It as a more prussian styled conqueror, they could easily take out the Ibn Seoud's. As for colonialism, I don't think egyptians considered themselves different from other arabs or muslims per say, as long as they don't meet persians, the cohabitation will be easy.
 
Do you think Egypt might try to claim some Ottoman territory after the war?

It might try. Maybe the Hejaz or Israel. I doubt that the Egyptians would be allowed, or able to take lands too far from their core. The great powers would still want to take their share of Turkish land. Israel is less likely, due to its significance to Christians in Europe, but the southern part might be given to Egypt. OTL Jordan would go to whoever had Israel. Since Muhammad Ali controlled the Hejaz, the Egyptians might use a (fairly weak) historical precedent to claim it.

The kingdom of the Hejaz and Asir might actually survive as Egyptian protectorates. A protectorate of a well-established regional power would be able to withstand an invasion by primitive desert nomads much better than a newly-established, weak state could fighting alone.

Maybe something like this post-war (other shades of green are in the Egyptian sphere of influence)
[edit:] If I wasn`t so damn busy with actual work and another TL, I would love to do a greater Egypt TL like this

khedivate - post war.jpg
 
Last edited:
It might try. Maybe the Hejaz or Israel. I doubt that the Egyptians would be allowed, or able to take lands too far from their core. The great powers would still want to take their share of Turkish land. Israel is less likely, due to its significance to Christians in Europe, but the southern part might be given to Egypt. OTL Jordan would go to whoever had Israel. Since Muhammad Ali controlled the Hejaz, the Egyptians might use a (fairly weak) historical precedent to claim it.

The kingdom of the Hejaz and Asir might actually survive as Egyptian protectorates. A protectorate of a well-established regional power would be able to withstand an invasion by primitive desert nomads much better than a newly-established, weak state could fighting alone.

Maybe something like this post-war (other shades of green are in the Egyptian sphere of influence)

View attachment 449730
I don't think Turks are just doomed to fall, i think a strong Egypt that grasp the levant would ease the southern front, as Egypt has its own problems and doesn't want anatolia, if they get some defeats it might even result in an earlier ottoman reformation, no ? Ok, then we just say that Ataturk kicks the butt of whoever tries to partition Turkey and call it a day.
 
I don't think Turks are just doomed to fall, i think a strong Egypt that grasp the levant would ease the southern front, as Egypt has its own problems and doesn't want anatolia, if they get some defeats it might even result in an earlier ottoman reformation, no ? Ok, then we just say that Ataturk kicks the butt of whoever tries to partition Turkey and call it a day.

What I (and I think @Mort the Reaper ) mean by Turkish lands is ottoman territory in the middle east after WW1, but you make a fair point about the possibility of earlier reformation. You`ll notice that Anatolia is more or less intact on the map if you look at it. So, yeah, Ataturk probably did kick some butt.
 
What I (and I think @Mort the Reaper ) mean by Turkish lands is ottoman territory in the middle east after WW1, but you make a fair point about the possibility of earlier reformation. You`ll notice that Anatolia is more or less intact on the map if you look at it. So, yeah, Ataturk probably did kick some butt.
Sadly the guy was an idiot, I would have loved what his timeline would have given
 
Top