Were Muhammad Alis external campaigns (in Arabia, the Sudan and Syria) helpful or damaging for Egypts

regional standing at the time?

Mehmet Ali Pasha, (1769 1849) referred to by historians as the founder of modern Egypt during his thirty-five year reign he was able to advance the country through his various public projects and planted the seeds for Egypts emancipation for its current form today. His various conquests throughout Arabia aided in setting him aside from his Ottoman counterparts, as Pasha of Egypt he brought in various state factors which the Ottomans could only dream of bringing in the level which he did - Schools, Hospitals and a modern army flourished during his reign. It must be noted that Mehmet Ali's reign underwent various phases each with unique historical causes, for example during his first two military campaigns, the Hejaz and the Sudan his non Egyptian army was being used consisting mostly of Albanian troops whereas during his later campaigns peasants from rural Egypt had been gathered and trained. Mehmets Ali campaigns constituted a rulers desire at gaining independence from the Ottoman umbrella of control, at which it had been suffering at the hands of for at least 3 centuries. This paper will analyse each of these military campaigns in addition to the reforms introduced at the time and how each one further demonstrated Mehmet Alis and not necessarily Egypts (national or regional) determination to be sovereign and free from outside interference. Al-Rafi a well-known scholar of Egypt stated that, every campaign in which Mehmet Ali entered aided in paving the way for its independence by enhancing its positions amongst other countries. (F. Kahled (1997). All the Pasha's men. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p40) Before answering this question we must ask if we are analysing this region or countries (de facto) will for regional independence through an orientalist European point of view I.e. that there was to be an increase in state functions similar to those of Europe and .an economy of the same level that this was to last. The eighteen hundreds brought about huge advances in the sciences throughout the world, especially in Europe. Legally Mehmet Ali was merely ruling over an Ottoman province as a governor (Pasha) which sent out a conflicting message to Europe and Russia who were increasingly aware of Mehmets personal interests at securing his own state. For instance the first two campaigns were ordered by Mahmud II the Ottoman Sultan at the time who most probably wanted to see Mehmet Ali invest all his resources there, mainly as a pretext to disburden himself from the increasingly powerful ruler. This, in itself showed that even during Mehmets early rule there were those who were fearful of him further increasin g his military might, marking his difference with regard to Egypt and the Ottoman Empire. However Mehmet II dispatched this Hijaz campaign in 1810 against the uprising Wahhabis in Mecca, with his own son Tousson leading the army, he was able to prove his supposed loyalty to the Porte (Ottoman government). This campaign proved successful, not only was he granted the title of Ghazi (warrior) but he

commenced the first institution of a school complex in his native town of Kevala on the Island of Thasos. Already Mehmet Ali had proved his loyalty to the Porte and enlarged the scope of the state habitually accepted by the Ottomans. (K, Fahmy (2009). Mehmet Ali From Ottoman Governor to Ruler of Egypt. Oxford: Oneworld Publications. 44-48) The second of Mehmets campaigns in contrast to his former expeditions were set in the light of his military expansions at the time, and the reorganisation of his provinces. Still under the Order of the Sultan he embarked on his second conquest with his son Ismail as general - economically Mehmet required more industry and as well as to cleanse his army from untrained soldiers, a larger army. These years mark the beginning of his Sudanese campaign, in the 1820's he dispatched his new army, again al-rafi states that this move directly showed the sultan that he should be regarded as an equal, and was able to act on his own impulses due to his reorganisation of state apparatus and the insertion of his members of his family as well as Europeans into important posts such his son Ismail as general and Siene a former general who had fought with Napoleon. This in turn quite conveniently gave him the army he needed and gold to invest heavily in the army Cairo became an epicentre for arms production. These two military campaigns were essential for Mehmet because in such a short amount of time he was able to increase the national GDP, and attain respect amongst his counterparts, including his European ones.(K, Fahmy (2009). Mehmet Ali From Ottoman Governor to Ruler of Egypt. Oxford: Oneworld Publications. p294 )There is even a case to say that western powers were moved by, Mehmet Ali and Egypt scholarly advancements, which was in contrast to other western colonies was strikingly different such as the veneer of Ottoman imperialism which Egypt had been under for centuries. Thus in the eyes of western powers Mehmet Ali had proved that the region which he governed was beginning to stand up for itself. That is- the Egyptian State, for at that time no Egyptian State in the modern sense existed. Whether the sentiments for a nation state existed at the time is also debatable. Khaled Fahmy from York University backing up what other Egyptian scholars have said, stated that it was the later campaigns which through the conscription into the Army of Egyptian rural society (3% of the population 130,000 troops) and the propagation of each and every one the various institutions at the time which were needed to support the army further unified the country such as the cotton grown at the time which was almost a third of Egypts income at times.(K, Fahmy (2009). Mehmet Ali From Ottoman Governor to Ruler of Egypt. Oxford: Oneworld Publications. P65) These factors are of huge significance, without them there would be no premise for Egyptian people to regard themselves as different to their Ottoman counterparts which they had been living under for the past 3 centuries and it was through this unification of a people in the Second part of Mehmets reign that constituted a premise for nationhood and commenced the true regard by other countries in the region to truly regard Egypt as separate and of its own regional

functions. Evidence of this can be found at the time In 1839, a letter addressed to the 5 powers by Thomas Waghorn a postal pioneer from Britain, titled The Truths about Mehmet Ali, an extract of which states Christian Europe has now undertaken to adjust the differences between Mahoment Ali and the Sultan; or, to speak more properly, between the inhabitants of Egypt, Arabia, and Syria, on the one hand, and those of Turkey and its remaining provinces on the other. (Waghorn, T. (November, 1839). Truths concerning Mahomet Ali, Egypt, Arabia, And Syria; Addressed to the five powers or to their representatives in the contemplated congress p3-23) After the Hijaz and the Sudan campaign, Mehmet had set his eyes on the north including the Mediterranean. The following campaigns in contrast with his former were fought with his newly trained army, and didnt undergo such an immediate success as the others, and led to failure of the realization of Mehmets ambitions, and the failure of his Syrian Campaign in the long run, but ultimately leaving a legacy. With the promise of the Island of Crete by the Sultan he sat about to subdue the Greek rebellion at the time. In 1827 Mehmet was to suffer his greatest Military loss so far. His marvellous fleet was destroyed by the Europeans at Navarino. Mehmet Ali blamed the Porte for signing a truce between the Europeans to accept Greek independence. However this demonstrated three things firstly that Mehmets eminent power had suffered a serious blow and threatened his ruler ship directly, secondly, it showed that European powers were fearful of the Pashas direct intervention and not the Ottomans in such conflicts and therefore were not afraid to retaliate. Thirdly it confirmed that his compliance with the Ottomans yet again had damaged his reputation and further aggravated tensions between the Porte and Mehmet. This was a ciontradictory message Memhet Ali was sending out, he had accepted the obedient position that was expected of him, this would not reoccur. (M. W. Daly (1998). Modern Egypt, from 1517 to the end of the twentieth century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p74-48) His conquest of Syria again with the complementary characteristics of his son Ismail as General manages to conquer the town of Acre in Syria (1831) after two years of battle. His pretext for such an attack was the Abdullah Pasha was letting his Egyptian rebels seek refuge in Syria. The unique historical causes constituting this campaigns failure are set in the economy, the large administration, and Alis increasingly predominant stance in the Maghreb with regard to its counterparts. His conquering of Acre is remarkable seeing that it was here which notably, Bonaparte could no longer advance. However during this period Muhammad experienced an increasingly resentful population in his recently conquered Syrian territories, for example sites of protest had sprouted in certain areas of Syria in 1832. Many already having experienced life under a direct rulership would have seen no difference in Mahmud or Mehmet Ali; and therefore would still see their former ruler as sovereign, resent for Mehmet Ali flourished during this period with people opposed to Ali's employment of European officials into important posts. (Abir, M. (1997 October). Modernisation, Reaction and Muhammas Ali's 'Empire'. Middle Eastern Studies. Vol. 13 (No. 3), p. 295-313).

Too add to this, the Egyptian economy suffered a huge blow when through the British Balta Liman (1938) commercial treaty between Great Britain and the Porte forcing of Ali to dismantle the monopolist policies he was pursuing as he had done with cotton, the British were now able to buy directly of farmers and not from the government. Not only were there outside constraints on Egypt regionally, the cost of his final Military Campaign in Syria did not pay for its self, out of 67 primary schools which had been built only 44 were left after. Due to the large scope of his state his tightly woven Elite was being to voice for more control of their subjective areas, to overcome this obstacle Mehmet Attempted to overhaul his provinces dividing them into 7 separate states and delegating power to his officials, however all important decisions still had to be passed by Mehmet. These unfortunate events proved to Mehmet Ali that he could no longer meddle with such a large territory. Pressure from all sides was mounting on him, and he managed to secure his families hereditary rule of Egypt ending in his returning of these territories (Syria, Arabia) with the convention of London (1840). In the light of these factors Egypt had significantly been reduced in all areas of State functions including its Army and Education System, for Egypt as a regional force had attempted to add to its belly the territories of Syria and Arabia which consequently failed, although the institution which emerged during these years cannot be dismissed as not having contributed to the spirit hood of what could constitute a premise for a nationhood. (Kahled, F (2009). Mehmet Ali From Ottoman Governor to Ruler of Egypt. Oxford: Oneworld Publications. p89)

In conclusion, we can say that Egypt never achieved full nationhood in the modern sense because Muhammad Ali was never fully capable of emancipating Egypt out of the Ottoman yoke completely; however during his reign de facto there were striking differences between the provinces of Egypt and the Porte. The unprecedented rise in military technology during Mehmet Alis reign had not yet been accomplished by the Ottomans; his introduction of Jamal Cotton had never been envisaged by the Ottomans either. The striking difference between the former and latter campaigns are that the premise for an Egyptian state was formed during these former years, the newly conscripted Egyptian soldiers knew they were fighting for something not Ottoman, Egypt had not only just come out of French rule less than a centuary prior it had also been used as a dumping ground by the Romans and did have a slightly more unique territorial history than other parts of Arabia with a history dating back the Pharos. So with the proto-nationalist sentiments being founded and a modernisation of a country of which at the time of Mehmet Alis death many important factors had remained, showed other reagons that it was not merely Europe who could have superiority.

Pretty much muhhmad was bossing it , then English people got scared loosing oney, tings closing, whos fault britian france Russia ottoman empire, why be harsh on old muhhamd? , things were never to be the same again un till one would arue abdul nassar in 1952 Lord Palmerston wrote about Mohammed Ali in 1833. His real design is to establish an Arabian kingdom including all the countries in which Arabic is the language, (George Antonius, The Arab Awakening, L., Hamilton, p. 31)

References Abir, M. (1997 October). Modernisation, Reaction and Muhammas Ali's 'Empire'. Middle Eastern Studies. Vol. 13 (No. 3) Daly M. W. (1998). Modern Egypt, from 1517 to the end of the twentieth century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kahled, F (2009). Mehmet Ali From Ottoman Governor to Ruler of Egypt. Oxford: Oneworld Publications. Kahled F. (1997). All the Pasha's men. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Waghorn, T . (1839, November). Truths concerning Mahomet Ali, Egypt, Arabia, And Syria; Addressed to the five powers or to their representatives in the contemplated congress.

Robert Hunter, F (1805-1879). EGYPT, UNDER THE KHEDIVES. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.