Britain opposed Ali because his expansion risked Russian interference in its Asian possessions

Evidence

Like St. John’s book, this study has tried to avoid the trap of writing Egypt’s history in the first half of the nineteenth century as if it were Mehmed Ali’s biography. Ideally it would have been better to avoid referring to him altogether, but that would have given a version of Egypt’s history as incomplete as a history of Germany in the 1930s without mention of Hitler. Instead, this book, by concentrating on his army, the key institution around which all his reforms were centered, challenged the nationalist version of Egyptian history that sees in Mehmed Ali a proto-nationalist leader. It argued that the Pasha did not aim to achieve independence for “Egypt,” but intended to carve out a small empire for himself and for his children after him. It also argued that Great Britain, who is usually taken to have opposed Mehmed Ali ferociously and to have “prevented Egypt from reaping the fruits of her military victories” was not antagonistic to the Pasha’s “reform” policies in Egypt, but was against his empire-building efforts that she saw as challenging and endangering her own possessions in Asia. — Khaled Fahmy, All the Pasha_s Men_ Mehmed Ali, his…, 1686 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Fear of Russian influence, not trade loss, drove Palmerston against Mehmed Ali; Britain defended Ottoman integrity chiefly to block Russian expansion; Fear of Russian expansion, not lost Mediterranean markets, drove Palmerston’s opposition to Mehmed Ali — Khaled Fahmy, All the Pasha_s Men_ Mehmed Ali, his…, 1569 (+5 more)

Related

• Britain defended Ottoman integrity chiefly to block Russian expansion (similarity 0.95)
• Britain opposed Mehmed Ali over his Ottoman expansion, not his industries (similarity 0.95)
• Mehmed Ali mistakenly believed his expansion could shield British India from Russia (similarity 0.93)
• British hostility to Mehmed Ali came from his military expansion, not his domestic reforms. (similarity 0.92)
• Britain opposed Mehmed Ali because his expansion threatened British India and Istanbul influence (similarity 0.91)
• Fear of Russian expansion, not lost Mediterranean markets, drove Palmerston’s opposition to Mehmed Ali (similarity 0.88)
• Fear of Russian influence, not trade loss, drove Palmerston against Mehmed Ali (similarity 0.88)
• British hostility targeted Mehmed Ali’s expansion, not his industrialization or trade (similarity 0.88)
• Mehmed Ali’s expansion policy cost him essential British support (similarity 0.86)
• Mehmed Ali’s expansion beyond Egypt forfeited the British protection he depended on (similarity 0.86)
• Fear of Russian expansion toward India, not lost markets, drove Palmerston’s opposition. (similarity 0.85)
• Palmerston opposed Arab independence only because it would dismember Turkey. (similarity 0.85)
• Mehmed Ali and Ibrahim deliberately obstructed British Euphrates expedition requests in 1835 (similarity 0.84)
• British hostility targeted the Pasha’s imperial expansion, not his industrialization (similarity 0.83)
• Britain held Turkey to be the buffer protecting India from Russia. (similarity 0.82)

Broader Connections

• British hostility to Mehmed Ali came from his military expansion, not his domestic reforms. #corroborates (0.80)
• Britain opposed Mehmed Ali over his Ottoman expansion, not his industries #corroborates (0.70) — Khaled Fahmy, All the Pasha_s Men_ Mehmed Ali, his…, 1686