Mehmed Ali’s rule over Egypt resembled feudal lordship between Sultan and subjects.

Evidence

It would be erroneous therefore to argue that when the Pasha decided to officially ask for independence from the Ottoman Empire in May 1838 he was acting on behalf of the Egyptian population and expressing their sentiments, sentiments that made them see themselves as different and distinct from other subjects of the Ottoman Sultan. What prompted the Pasha to make this bold move, rather, was his desire to secure his efforts in Egypt to his family and his sons after him. As John Campbell, the British Consul-General in 1838, said “he cannot… ever permit all [the] establishments [that he founded in Egypt over thirty years] to revert to the Porte and be lost at his death, and that he should have the pang of feeling that all his labours should merely have been for the Porte which would allow them to go to ruin, whilst his own family and children would be exposed to want and perhaps even to be put to death.” These were the reasons he put to the British government for his asking for independence from the Ottoman Empire. There is nothing here or elsewhere in the contemporary documents to show that he had any illusions about the nature of his struggle with the Sultan. That struggle was a dynastic one and it was conceived of as such by him and his contemporaries. — Khaled Fahmy, All the Pasha_s Men_ Mehmed Ali, his…, 1551 (#expands, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Mehmed Ali’s wars against the Sultan were dynastic, not national; Mehmed Ali governed Egypt as a personal fief under a feudal overlord relationship — Khaled Fahmy, All the Pasha_s Men_ Mehmed Ali, his…, 1550; Mehmed Ali’s Egyptian administration was interventionist and unprecedented in the Ottoman Empire. (+4 more)

Related

• Mehmed Ali governed Egypt as a personal fief under a feudal overlord relationship (similarity 0.94)
• Mehmed Ali’s wars against the Sultan were dynastic, not national (similarity 0.91)
• Mehmed Ali’s army was a personal, dynastic force rather than a national one. (similarity 0.90)
• Mehmed Ali’s quest for independence was a dynastic struggle, not nationalist. (similarity 0.88)
• Muhammad Ali sought independent empire, exceeding prior Ottoman governors’ ambitions. (similarity 0.88)
• Mehmed Ali and his officials thought of themselves as Ottomans, not Egyptians. (similarity 0.87)
• Mehmed Ali operated as a feudal lord toward both Sultan and fellahin (similarity 0.87)
• Mehmed Ali created a provincial power center rivaling Istanbul itself (similarity 0.86)
• Mehmed Ali sought a personal empire, not Egyptian independence. (similarity 0.86)
• Mehmed Ali’s ambivalence stemmed from rebellion against the Sultan while seeking his forgiveness (similarity 0.86)
• Egyptian historians narrate Mehmed Ali’s career as a teleological quest for independence (similarity 0.86)
• Muhammad Ali sought Egyptian independence from the Ottomans rather than mere provincial expansion (similarity 0.85)
• Mehmed Ali sought hereditary personal rule, not national independence for Egypt (similarity 0.85)
• Historians portray Mehmed Ali’s reforms as a master-planned modernization with independence aims (similarity 0.83)
• Ibrahim Pasha saw his campaigns as fought for his father’s dynasty, not Egypt. (similarity 0.83)

Broader Connections

• Mehmed Ali’s ambivalence toward the Sultan stemmed from his imperial ambitions #expands (0.50)
• Mehmed Ali sought a personal empire, not Egyptian independence. #expands (0.50) — Khaled Fahmy, All the Pasha_s Men_ Mehmed Ali, his…, 1551
• Mehmed Ali’s army was a personal, dynastic force rather than a national one. #corroborates (0.45)
• Mehmed Ali’s ambivalence stemmed from rebellion against the Sultan while seeking his forgiveness #expands (0.40)