Mehmed Ali’s wars against the Sultan were dynastic, not national

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)

The question of whether the wars that the governor of Egypt waged during the first third of the nineteenth century were dynastic wars of imperialistic expansion or national wars of independence is central to understanding the whole of Mehmed Ali’s career and, indeed, of the history of Egypt during his reign. If, as Toledano argues, Egypt was very much an Ottoman province, ruled by an Ottoman–Egyptian elite, then Marsot’s claim that, unlike contemporary Ottoman notables “who had merely sought quasi-independence for their provinces but were content to remain within the empire, Muhammad Ali sought independence,” has to be qualified. For even if it is granted that Mehmed Ali was seeking to get rid of the “Ottoman yoke” right from the beginning of his career, the question remains as to the nature of this independence. Could it be viewed as similar to the independence sought by the Greeks during their War of Independence when large sections of the population rose against their Ottoman rulers? Or is it more plausible to link Mehmed Ali’s wars, as Shaw does, with a series of internal wars within the Ottoman Empire that were waged by local governors against central government control? If so, Mehmed Ali would appear, like Ali Pasha of Janina, Davud Pasha of Baghdad, or Amir Bashir of Lebanon as a local governor of an Ottoman province who seized the opportunity of the difficulties that the Ottoman Sultan was facing both internally and externally to try and expand his own local dominions. — Khaled Fahmy, All the Pasha_s Men_ Mehmed Ali, his…, 199 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim
• XREF: connects to: Nepotism was essential, not aberrant, in Mehmed Ali’s army; Mehmed Ali’s army was a personal, dynastic force rather than a national one.; Officers in Mehmed Ali’s army behaved as mercenaries loyal to pay, not national identity (+13 more)

Related

• Mehmed Ali’s quest for independence was a dynastic struggle, not nationalist. (similarity 0.96)
• Mehmed Ali’s army was a personal, dynastic force rather than a national one. (similarity 0.93)
• Mehmed Ali and his officials thought of themselves as Ottomans, not Egyptians. (similarity 0.93)
• Mehmed Ali’s rule over Egypt resembled feudal lordship between Sultan and subjects. (similarity 0.91)
• Egyptian historians narrate Mehmed Ali’s career as a teleological quest for independence (similarity 0.91)
• Mehmed Ali sought a personal empire, not Egyptian independence. (similarity 0.90)
• Mehmed Ali’s wars may be internal Ottoman power struggles rather than nationalist bids (similarity 0.90)
• Mehmed Ali’s wars were dynastic struggles within the Ottoman Empire, not nationalist campaigns (similarity 0.89)
• Mehmed Ali’s wars aimed at dynastic ambition, not Egyptian national liberation. (similarity 0.88)
• Muhammad Ali sought Egyptian independence from the Ottomans rather than mere provincial expansion (similarity 0.88)
• Ibrahim Pasha saw his campaigns as fought for his father’s dynasty, not Egypt. (similarity 0.88)
• Muhammad Ali sought independent empire, exceeding prior Ottoman governors’ ambitions. (similarity 0.88)
• Historians portray Mehmed Ali’s reforms as a master-planned modernization with independence aims (similarity 0.87)
• British hostility to Mehmed Ali came from his military expansion, not his domestic reforms. (similarity 0.87)
• Mehmed Ali created a provincial power center rivaling Istanbul itself (similarity 0.86)

Broader Connections

• Mehmed Ali’s quest for independence was a dynastic struggle, not nationalist. #corroborates (0.95)
• Mehmed Ali sought a personal empire, not Egyptian independence. #expands (0.85) — Khaled Fahmy, All the Pasha_s Men_ Mehmed Ali, his…, 1551
• Mehmed Ali’s wars may be internal Ottoman power struggles rather than nationalist bids #corroborates (0.80) — Khaled Fahmy, All the Pasha_s Men_ Mehmed Ali, his…, 199
• Mehmed Ali and his officials thought of themselves as Ottomans, not Egyptians. #expands (0.70)
• Mehmed Ali framed his conquests as Ottoman reform, not rebellion, until 1838 #expands (0.70) — Khaled Fahmy, All the Pasha_s Men_ Mehmed Ali, his…, 261
• Mehmed Ali’s ambivalence toward the Sultan stemmed from his imperial ambitions #expands (0.65)
• Mehmed Ali’s army founded Egyptian nationalism through control practices, not enlightenment. #contradicts (0.60)
• Mehmed Ali’s rule over Egypt resembled feudal lordship between Sultan and subjects. #expands (0.60)
• Mehmed Ali’s ambivalence stemmed from rebellion against the Sultan while seeking his forgiveness #complicates (0.50)
• Mehmed Ali sought Syria and a Sultan’s pardon simultaneously #complicates (0.50)