WI the Ottomans take over Suez in the second war with Egypt?
The ottoman empire fought two wars against Mohammed Ali Egypt, in the first they lost control over the levant, the borders looked like this after it's conclusion:
But in 1840 the ottomans striked back and took all the Egyptian levant except for the Sinai Peninsula
And so they were reduced to these borders until Egypt became a british colony in 1881:
This post is asking what would have happened if the ottomans continued marching and took over the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, instead of stopping at Palestine
It will not butterfly the Suez Canal away. But lets say The Ottomans still lose WWI and their Middle Eastern regions this could end up with Egypt not getting control over the Suez Canal like in 1956. So no Suez crisis for you mister Nasser
Here lie a billion butterflies.It will not butterfly the Suez Canal away. But lets say The Ottomans still lose WWI and their Middle Eastern regions this could end up with Egypt not getting control over the Suez Canal like in 1956. So no Suez crisis for you mister Nasser
Seriously though an Ottoman Suez would be really interesting, especially since maybe they could avoid going bankrupt and losing their shares. On the other hand itbwoukd be much more difficult to build without using the corvee labour of thousands of Egyptian fellahin, I doubt Palestine is populated enough to provide similar manpower.
What will all this mean for rump Egypt?
That's just one part of the story, the Britons and their friends did far more to win against Egypt then the Ottomans did. Will it have been only for the Ottomans the Egyptians would have likely ended the war in Istanbul.
Now, Great-Britain did this mainly because she was concerned with the power vacuum in the straits that would have been caused by a collapse of the Turks and how Russia could take advantage. She didn't need to go beyond the OTL peace term to secure the situation of the Ottomans without it, in fact she even offered to Mehmet-Ali of Egypt to keep a good chunk of the Levant for the rest of his life if he surrendered before a certain date, witch he didn't do.
Mehmet-Ali was friend with France and hurting him more then necessary would have been counterproductive for the Britons, hence why they stayed the hand of the Turks, who had no choice but to live with that in the situation.
All in all, to get the results you want you need to change the political circumstances surrounding the region a good while before 1840. One thing is sure, tough, I really don't see London accepting that anyone but her end up in charge of the canal due to its strategic importance in the route to India. Considering how the Ottomans where pretty much dependent on diplomatic protection from Britain to prevent Russia to march all over them I really don't see how they could oppose the desire of London in the matter.
Last edited:
...and the reason the Ottomans were so dependent on Britain goes back to the Napoleonic Wars. Assuming a France that remains at peace in 1802, the Ottomans would both avoid the reactionary coup that set back reform by 40 years, and be able to balance a much stronger France against Britain. Selim III would be able to take advantage of the power vacuum caused by Napoleons invasion of Egypt and reassert control instead of having to let Mehmet Ali solidify his hold. I see the Ottomans reasserting control before 1811 given the importance of the region. The entire geopolitical situation caused by the NW was exceedingly terrible for the Ottomans.
They tried to oppose Egypt building it and failed. London didn't want a Suez canal at all initially. Maybe they could have more easily lobbied against it with the Ottomans, but it is not a given.
On one hand the Ottomans where allot more powerfull then post Mehmet-Ali Egypt ever was but on the other they don't need Britain protection as urgently then the Ottomans. It can go either way but I would wager on no changes (tough the political circumstances surrounding this scenario still don't make much sense IMO).
You still have a Russia gunning for the straits and the Ottomans in not shape to oppose them alone, tough, even if they would be comparatively far stronger. The Ottomans descent into the status of sick man of Europe truly started with Catherine the Great curbstomping them some decades before that.
Putting aside that the Ottomans almost won against Russia in 1877-78 OTL despite undergoing terrible disasters throughout the 19th century, the circumstances that would allow Russia to war against the Ottomans wouldn't exist in this ATL. Then there's the impact the absence of the Holy Alliance would have on the Habsburgs (geopolitically aligned with the Ottomans after the 18th century) as well as a smaller and much weaker Prussia.
The Ottomans did reach the nadir of their power by the time of Catherine but the "sick man" stuff is bull. It implies that the Ottomans were just sitting around decaying with no agency. There was an active,vigorous reform movement in the Empire during the 19th century (technically starting after the annexation of the Crimea actually) that had excellent results, only to be brought down by terrible luck (like the Napoleonic Wars).
Last edited: