Would an Muhammad Ali dominated Ottoman Empire be stronger than OTL's?

[Nassirisimo]

Many historians have often argued that because of the strength of Muhammad Ali's Egypt relative to the Ottomans in the 1820's and 1830's, that an Ottoman Empire dominated by him (or an Empire of his own) would be more vigorous and successful then the one we saw OTL. But is this actually accurate?

On one hand, Muhammad Ali may be able to stem the steady loss of sovereignty that the Ottoman Empire was suffering from due to its military weakness. Although the military weakness became less of an issue from the 1840's onwards (when it was able to give a much better account of itself militarily then it had done before), permanent damage had been done through territorial loss and the capitulations the European powers had grabbed for themselves. Muhammad Ali also managed to develop a relatively successful economy in Egypt based on the sale of cotton.

However, there is also evidence to suggest that he wouldn't be any more successful than the Ottomans were. His unpopular conscription policies in Egypt had driven many Egyptian peasants to mutilate themselves or flee the country. There is also the question of administration. Egypt (and to a lesser extent Syria) is much easier to administrate then the mountainous regions of Anatolia, simply due to the terrain and the spread of population. Although his administration was largely a success in Egypt, there is no guarantee that his methods would work for the whole of the Empire.

Of course, my knowledge is nowhere near complete on the matter, so I thought it would be a good idea to open a discussion here as I'm sure a number of you are more knowledgeable than me on the subject. Thoughts?

 

[LSCatilina]

I would say Muhammad Ali managed to do well in Egypt because Ottoman Empire was in crisis, whatever the man ruling it.

He could manage to make the things slighty less worse, but not making the Empire significantly stronger.

 

[Ridwan Asher]

I think the only way for him to take over Ottoman Empire would've been through civil war, just like he did attempted IOTL. The problems however :

1) Egypt and Syria would probably be the only viable starting point for him. He will run across too many competition in the Balkans.

2) Courting the Sultan in Constantinople would put the Sultan in a very dangerous position, along with the entire empire. Jannisaries will certainly going to rush for his head.

Were he able to pull it off however, Greek independence can be safely prevented, and it will be of immense benefit in the long run.

 

[Tobit]

If Muhammad Ali claims the Ottoman throne, I think he will have to make the same deals with the local notables that the Ottomans did. He really can't copy and paste his taxation reforms onto the whole Ottoman empire, because I think it would immediately throw the nation into chaos. He might be able to reform the military faster than the Ottomans did, but at the same time I think the bloody civil war that brought him into power would basically cancel that out.

I think the Tanzimat reforms that came later were much more comprehensive and came about essentially peacefully.

Not to mention looking at the Wiki page on Muhammad Ali, he left Egypt with debt of 80 million francs.

 

[Hrvatskiwi]

If Muhammad Ali claims the Ottoman throne, I think he will have to make the same deals with the local notables that the Ottomans did. He really can't copy and paste his taxation reforms onto the whole Ottoman empire, because I think it would immediately throw the nation into chaos. He might be able to reform the military faster than the Ottomans did, but at the same time I think the bloody civil war that brought him into power would basically cancel that out.

Muhammad Ali wouldn't claim the Ottoman throne, there is no claim to it. He's an Albanian. He's not even a Turk, let alone of the House of Osman. He would most likely be the Grand Vizier.