I'm not sure that population is an issue though, even if apparently Egypt lacks marginal land, with the right political conditions, early mechanization and public works, it can easily more than double its population within a generation or two.
Which states had the most potential had they retained their independence?
- Thread starter CaliGuy
- Start date
I'm not sure that population is an issue though, even if apparently Egypt lacks marginal land, with the right political conditions, early mechanization and public works, it can easily more than double its population within a generation or two.
It wasn't. Egypt was essentially seen as independent by most European powers, and Mehmet Ali Pasha was able to connect his legitimacy to the Ottomans despite not coming from Egypt at all. Declaring himself Sultan would have major issues with legitimacy, and I can imagine an earlier equivalent of the nativist Urabi Revolt.
Now, if the Ottomans collapse, the Khedive will have to proclaim themself Sultan (maybe if he still has Hejaz, even Caliph), but by that point, the dynasty is likely assimilated entirely into Egyptian culture
Egypt couldn't have pulled a Meiji for the simple reason that there was no coal to use. Light industry could be built, but not hard industry, so to speak. I'd say that avoiding the reactionary Abbas I may be enough for a lightly industrialized Egypt that is the most modern part of the Middle East.
If the cause of reform isn't reversed by Abbas I, Ismail the Magnificent may be able to balance the budget even with some costly wars (less would be best, of course, so he should avoid Ethiopia). The result is a modernized Egypt, and an Ismail who is truly Magnificent!
All backed by American men and guns. They would have been kept to the Neuces if not for the U.S. army invading Mexico.though having Texas at their original, treaty borders would have made a decently compact state.
They did do some colonialism in Africa. Wish I had that excellent Cambridge historical atlas showing it.. But yes, they moved into extending their influence to Darfuf, the areas of South Sudan, and of course working at Sudan itself, plus getting ports in Eritrea and what the Italians would later grap in Somalia. I know that those in control of Egypt switched at times between Shia and Sunni, but I wonder if there is a way for... Yah, probably very unlikely they would get along with the Ibadi of Muscat and Oman, wouldn't they? Still, if they make some connection with them, or take their mantle, then there is the lucrative Indian Ocean trade. Imagine Egypt stretching over both shores of the Red Sea and reaching along the coast of the Horn until getting to Mozambique. Would require them to look less at rivers and more at seashores and open oceans, though.
I disagree with you here. The Egyptians have been ruled by a Circassian/Turkish elite for centuries by then, the only issue that I can see is the Ottoman sultan being the Caliph, but if Mehmet Ali controls the local elite, the army and manages to sustain foreign support I just can't see Egyptian peasants rising up for the Ottoman Caliph during the early 1800's.
Now, as for the unfair trade treaty between the Ottomans and the UK, I don't actually remember where I read it, so I googled it and found this:
If Mehmet Ali manages to get a separate deal with the Brits (probably by flirting with the French and fooling both powers) he can develop a strong monopoly over textiles, create a reasonably industrialized nation that can finance the Suez Canal and agricultural mechanization and wait until hydropower becomes a thing (I'm thinking of early Aswan), avoiding the lack of coal issue.
And the disastrous Ethiopia war. Let's never forget that. I doubt they'll ever be able to get to the Horn of Africa without plunging the treasury into debt, considering the Ethiopian war costed Egypt its independence.
You're drastically underestimating the legitimacy of the Ottoman Sultan. There's a very good reason none of the independent Ottoman beys and pashas, even the North African beys who openly practiced piracy against Ottoman ships, proclaimed their independence, and that is because proclaiming independence would undermine their position a lot.
Not the early 1800s, but the mid-1800s, is what I'm talking about. I certainly don't think that some general trying to overthrow the Turkish elite is implausible, considering that Urabi tried it and Nasser successfully did it. Even if this nativist revolt fails, it'll weaken Egypt's position and hurt it. I really don't see Egypt even trying to declare independence due to that legitimacy issue.
Mehmet Ali Pasha isn't enough to get Egypt industrial by himself. He needs better successors, or at least non-reactionary ones. Again, the reactionary Abbas I needs to go, and Ismail the Magnificent should have a better position in passing his own important reforms while still balancing the budget.
And early Aswan isn't very plausible IMO.
WI the Western powers don't try to intervene during the Oriental Crisis? In your opinion, what would happen when the Egyptian Army reaches Istanbul?
True, but as soon as the monopolies start to pay, further development of the industry is the obvious choice of a ruler.
I wouldn't say as early as, let's say, the 1870's. Given that hydropower isn't necessarily new and Egypt is pretty familiar with autocracy and megaprojects, I'd say that the construction of the Aswan Dam between the 1900's and 1910's is not impossible (the Hoover Dam itself is from the 1930's).
Mehmet Ali Pasha proclaims himself Mehmed V, Kayser-i-Rum, Khalifah, etc., eliminates or imprisons Mahmud II and his sons, and marries an Ottoman princess just to make himself more legitimate. Many beys and pashas refuse to accept him as ruler because the Sublime Porte is synonymous with the Ottoman dynasty, and "Mehmed V" probably eliminates these rebellious beys and pashas though some get away. "Mehmed V" will try his very hardest to seem like an Ottoman ruler, if an enormously dynamic one, and the result is that this "Alawid Empire" wouldn't really be an Egyptian state at all, but another Ottoman state, headquartered in the Balkans.
So, I suspect it wouldn't be an Egyptian state, though Europeans would improperly call it "Egypt" much like they improperly called the Ottoman Empire "Turkey". Arabs would play major roles in the empire, but then again, they played major roles in the Ottoman Empire as well.
I think you're overestimating Mehmet Ali, if he thought that he could take the Porte to himself he wouldn't stop with the menace of foreign intervention in Egypt. As far as I know Ali just wanted to overthrow the current Sultan and secure his and his son's rule over Egypt and Syria.
I know this is probably going to be seen as cheating, since this is from before 1815, but it doesn't involve a state formed as a result of the Napoleonic Wars. And those that have seen my posts before can probably guess what country I'm going to mention.
That's right, it's Revolutionary Serbia, from the First Serbian Uprising. Lasting from 1804 to 1813, the Serbs had managed to establish a de facto independent state with a government and a parliament! The oft-mentioned Ičko's Peace, had it not been rejected by the Serbs in the end, resulting in them being used as cannon fodder by the Russians, would've technically made them an autonomous tributary state to the Ottomans, forced to pay a yearly tax, but would afford them in most other matters independence. The damaging invasion the lands of the revolutionary republic received courtesy of the Ottomans with the OTL end of the Uprising is avoided, and you'd have a large group of veterans who could've protected the new state, especially if Selim III/Mustafa IV/Mahmud II attempted something whilst in the midst of the Russo-Turkish War of the time.
Whether or not there is any definite potential, I'm not exactly sure. Their position would be limiting in some aspects, sure, but in some ways it could become a regional player and a beacon of hope and revolution to the rest of the Balkans, though that all depends if the subsequent Sultans had learnt anything from the Uprising. That's not even mentioning what could've developed within the republic itself.
That's right, it's Revolutionary Serbia, from the First Serbian Uprising. Lasting from 1804 to 1813, the Serbs had managed to establish a de facto independent state with a government and a parliament! The oft-mentioned Ičko's Peace, had it not been rejected by the Serbs in the end, resulting in them being used as cannon fodder by the Russians, would've technically made them an autonomous tributary state to the Ottomans, forced to pay a yearly tax, but would afford them in most other matters independence. The damaging invasion the lands of the revolutionary republic received courtesy of the Ottomans with the OTL end of the Uprising is avoided, and you'd have a large group of veterans who could've protected the new state, especially if Selim III/Mustafa IV/Mahmud II attempted something whilst in the midst of the Russo-Turkish War of the time.
Whether or not there is any definite potential, I'm not exactly sure. Their position would be limiting in some aspects, sure, but in some ways it could become a regional player and a beacon of hope and revolution to the rest of the Balkans, though that all depends if the subsequent Sultans had learnt anything from the Uprising. That's not even mentioning what could've developed within the republic itself.
I'm not sure he even had a goal in mind. I think he just wanted as much territory as possible. If he was able to conquer Konstantiniyye, suddenly, it means that he can now conquer all of the Ottoman Empire. He would at least try to bring the elites of Konstantiniyye to his side.
This is probably a controversial choice for a number of reasons but I think Scotland could have been an independent and regionally successful nation. Had the Darien project been successful (without Spanish and English sabotage) and if Scotland had created a colony in the Americas then possibly it may of remained independent?
Eventually a union may have occurred anyway and war with England was probably inevitable (considering their turbulent past) at some point which could have led to annexation or union also.
But that's my choice, Scotland.
Eventually a union may have occurred anyway and war with England was probably inevitable (considering their turbulent past) at some point which could have led to annexation or union also.
But that's my choice, Scotland.
Darien scheme failed because they picked an utterly horrible location for it. The best result is it wouldn't have failed so utterly. Contesting the fur trade or making a colony elsewhere places them at risk of either the English, the French, or both.
Remaining independent is the best result within reason. And they have no regional competitors besides Britain (very dominant, can't beat them) and Denmark-Norway (probably better off than Scotland, but they're largely competing in different spheres)
Um, Britain = England + Scotland not England alone.
Since Darien occurred under a personal union of the two and its failure lead to political union then success will delay that.
I suspect however that politicians union is inevitable considering the strength of England. Considering Ireland also one might see an overall political union of all the British Kingdoms at the same time.
I often entertained the idea of an Ethiopia/Abyssinia that somehow managed to secure the Horn of Africa properly and tap into trade in the Arabian Sea and Indian Ocean and modernize with Portuguese help. If they lay the foundation of a modern, centralized state, the room to grow is enormous. Of course, this needs some friendly Europeans who see them as a stable point in the region that helps trade.
Current opinion differs from this particular view I feel it is far more nuanced than just the location which is not as all bad as some have reported especially in the relatively recent BBC documentary. The intervention of Spanish and English sabotage was probably crucial in it's failure.
Bavaria certainly could have done a Belgium, just look at how many of the German Empire companies come from there
No, debt is the main problem
Said was implementing all of these things, using loans, but eventually he couldn't repay what he owed.
Egypt needs to keep the lands which bring it money, and to develop income-generating industries in the others.
In theory Mexico could do something about California, it was in essence a question of central resources and will. They were able to fight back there in 1846 until the Mormon Brigade came, so it's not outside the realm of the possible for the central government to properly impose what we would recognise as control.
IIRC Anson Jones offered "recognition o independence guaranteed by third powers" in the plebiscite but it lost to annexation by the USA. But Britain and I think France were working hard to forge a solution that would see Texas's independence recognised by Mexico on this basis. The borders, those would be a different matter