The Ibrahim Pasha I'm talking about is this guy,the son of Muhammad Ali, first ruler of an independent Egypt. However, there doesn't seem to be much on the type of policies he would've favored had he lived.
In fact, most things I can find online quote the Wikipedia article and say "his health was ruined" and he acted as regent for his father until his own death.
His father seems to have-outwardly at least-regarded him as a species of capable (even if only as someone who wouldn't challenge the men Muhammad Ali had put in place). When hearing of his son's death, he reportedly looked at his grandson and said "Allah have mercy on these poor children". Although whether this was because he feared the instability thay would follow-Ibrahim at least had proven himself as a soldier and could (probably) count on military support. Not to mention that a secret Treaty Muhammad had reached with the Ottomans acknowledged Ibrahim as his successor but made no such guarantees for a grandsons/other sons, so was he concerned that the Ottomans would reneg on their recognition of Egypt's independence and there would either be a war or his grandchildren would be beholden to the whim of London and Paris instead of Istanbul?
How would the reign of Ibrahim I have differed from that of Abbas I? Would Ibrahim have followed the warlike policies of his father? Or been more interested in consolidation and state strengthening? The regime (Ibrahim-Abbas-Ismail) is shown as indulgent and indolent by later histories but was thus just criticism by the pro-British king of Egypt to distance himself from his pro-French and pro-Central Powers predecessors? In short, if Ibrahim were to avoid his health problems and survive another ten years (he was already in his late fifties in 1848), how would the fate of Egypt differ from OTL?
In fact, most things I can find online quote the Wikipedia article and say "his health was ruined" and he acted as regent for his father until his own death.
His father seems to have-outwardly at least-regarded him as a species of capable (even if only as someone who wouldn't challenge the men Muhammad Ali had put in place). When hearing of his son's death, he reportedly looked at his grandson and said "Allah have mercy on these poor children". Although whether this was because he feared the instability thay would follow-Ibrahim at least had proven himself as a soldier and could (probably) count on military support. Not to mention that a secret Treaty Muhammad had reached with the Ottomans acknowledged Ibrahim as his successor but made no such guarantees for a grandsons/other sons, so was he concerned that the Ottomans would reneg on their recognition of Egypt's independence and there would either be a war or his grandchildren would be beholden to the whim of London and Paris instead of Istanbul?
How would the reign of Ibrahim I have differed from that of Abbas I? Would Ibrahim have followed the warlike policies of his father? Or been more interested in consolidation and state strengthening? The regime (Ibrahim-Abbas-Ismail) is shown as indulgent and indolent by later histories but was thus just criticism by the pro-British king of Egypt to distance himself from his pro-French and pro-Central Powers predecessors? In short, if Ibrahim were to avoid his health problems and survive another ten years (he was already in his late fifties in 1848), how would the fate of Egypt differ from OTL?