The Syrian wars were inter-Ottoman civil strife rather than wars of independence.

Evidence

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

• XREF: connects to: Religious framing could not motivate Egyptian troops fighting the Ottoman sultan in Syria; Ibrahim saw the Syrian war as a dynastic family struggle, not a national one; Mehmed Ali’s wars may be internal Ottoman power struggles rather than nationalist bids — Khaled Fahmy, All the Pasha_s Men_ Mehmed Ali, his…, 199 (+2 more)

Related

• Ibrahim saw the Syrian war as a dynastic family struggle, not a national one (similarity 0.89)
• Mehmed Ali’s wars may be internal Ottoman power struggles rather than nationalist bids (similarity 0.87)
• Ibrahim Pasha saw his campaigns as fought for his father’s dynasty, not Egypt. (similarity 0.86)
• Mehmed Ali’s wars against the Sultan were dynastic, not national (similarity 0.85)
• Mehmed Ali’s quest for independence was a dynastic struggle, not nationalist. (similarity 0.84)
• Mehmed Ali and his officials thought of themselves as Ottomans, not Egyptians. (similarity 0.84)
• Mehmed Ali’s wars were dynastic struggles within the Ottoman Empire, not nationalist campaigns (similarity 0.83)
• Egyptian historians narrate Mehmed Ali’s career as a teleological quest for independence (similarity 0.82)
• Mehmed Ali’s Syria invasion combined sincere reformism with insoluble Ottoman loyalty tensions (similarity 0.82)
• Religious framing could not motivate Egyptian troops fighting the Ottoman sultan in Syria (similarity 0.81)
• Mehmed Ali’s wars aimed at dynastic ambition, not Egyptian national liberation. (similarity 0.81)
• Historians portray Mehmed Ali’s reforms as a master-planned modernization with independence aims (similarity 0.80)
• Mehmed Ali’s Syrian campaign ran from 1831 to 1840. (similarity 0.79)
• Mehmed Ali’s ambivalence stemmed from rebellion against the Sultan while seeking his forgiveness (similarity 0.79)
• Growing ambition clashed with Mehmed Ali’s Ottoman identity and religious scruples (similarity 0.79)

Broader Connections

• Mehmed Ali’s wars may be internal Ottoman power struggles rather than nationalist bids #corroborates (0.85) — Khaled Fahmy, All the Pasha_s Men_ Mehmed Ali, his…, 199
• Mehmed Ali’s wars against the Sultan were dynastic, not national #corroborates (0.80)
• Mehmed Ali hoped to gain Syria while remaining a pardoned Ottoman vassal #qualifies (0.60)