Talk:Khedivate of Egypt

Quick review
Please expand the intro to at least a paragraph to contain possibly all the information in the infobox (removing or reducing the size of the infobox considerably would be an improvement). Also the article is mainly about the history of that time and the events that took place. Why isn't there information on the economy (currency and so on) or the various projects that were done during that time in its own section?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

"Treaty of 1841"
What is meant by "as a result of the Treaty of 1841"? If that refers to the London Straits Convention of 1841, then the result would be indirect, surely? Moonraker2 (talk) 01:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed merger
I've removed the merge tags to Khedive and Ottoman Egypt on WP:SNOW grounds, but having discovered the rather more substantial article at History of Egypt under the Muhammad Ali dynasty I've suggested a merge with that. Le Deluge (talk) 20:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Khedivate of Egypt is not at all the same as Khedive, and the Khedivate is plainly a notable subject. Moonraker2 (talk) 00:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Moonraker2. Le Deluge (talk) 12:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed merger with History of Egypt under the Muhammad Ali dynasty

 * support a merger, but I would like this article to remain somewhat intact. Perhaps merging all sections except "Sanctioned Khedival Rule" would make sense, as this is an important period in Egyptian history and should have an article devoted to it.DCI2026 (talk) 01:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't want to eliminate this article, but it's more just a question of rejigging things, some bits of history are being duplicated in 3-4 articles. The post-1867 khedivate is a very "clean" break, and it makes sense for all the post-1867 stuff to end up here, it's just a question of how we organise the various articles relating to Muhammed Ali in particular (and then there's the messy question of how we label 1848-67). I have a feeling the way to go may be to consolidate all the pre-1848 material into one, and then use that as a starting point for daughter articles on his social reforms, military campaigns and so on - there's a vast amount to cover there, much more than one article's worth.  Since this goes way beyond this article, I've started a centralised discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ottoman Empire, and invited discussion from WP Egypt as well, I propose further discussion continues over there. Le Deluge (talk) 10:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * tend to Oppose - there is no need to merge those, but perhaps we can rename the "history under Muhammad Ali dynasty" to "History of Khiedevate of Egypt".Greyshark09 (talk) 16:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. If a merger, it should be reversed and the history article's content transferred here, not that this article be terminated and transferred there. It's about the state and what concerns it, not about the Muhammad Ali dynasty. Making a difference can be hard since there will be obvious overlaps, hence, if a merger it should be into this article and the remnants from the History article be put in some background section. //Gotipe (talk) 20:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

"Unsanctioned khedival rule (1827-1867)"
Not sure about this as a section heading, Wikipedia should probably follow a source like the The Cambridge History of Egypt which makes no mention of MA explicitly claiming to be khedive although obviously he was effectively autonomous after the Ottoman fleet was lost in 1827. With most of the Cambridge History of Egypt being available on Google Books, there's no excuse for lack of references, and for not filling out sections on MA's reforms of the military, medical education etc....  Le Deluge (talk) 12:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Why was the pretence of Ottoman Suzereinty kept up and why was it so common?
Whilst I recognise, of course, that the Khedivate of Egypt was to all intents and purposes independent, nonetheless it still recognised Ottoman suzerainy and paid tribute. I've noticed his was quite a widespread phenomenom with the territories agitating for freedom from Ottoman Domination: with Serbia and Romania having tributary status until 1878, Bulgaria until 1908, and Egypt and Sudan were technically parts of the Ottoman Empire until 1914, and Cyprus and Bosnia were de jure Ottoman Provinces until 1914 and 1908 respectively, despite their de facto control by Britain and Austria, respectively, not to mention places like the Cretan State and the Principality of Samos.

What I'm wondering is, why was this done, and why was it so widespread? Why was de facto control of these places preferred to de jure annexation, which would have happened in most other situations. Why was there so much trouble taken to not only accomodate the Ottoman Sultan, but to seemingly not offend him?JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 21:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * My opinion is that the Great Powers were determined to maintain the status quo and protect their economic interests in the Ottoman Empire. In their minds, a weak but whole Porte was better than an empire shattered into pieces. As Muhammad Ali Pasha learned, going against the status quo brought the intervention of the West and reversed all his gains. Greece was an exception, but that may be due to protection from Britain if memory serves me right. 210.186.196.34 (talk) 09:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Khedivate of Egypt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110711164043/http://www.heritage-history.com/www/heritage.php?R_menu=OFF&Dir=wars&FileName=wars_soudan.php to http://www.heritage-history.com/www/heritage.php?R_menu=OFF&Dir=wars&FileName=wars_soudan.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Was Khedivate of Egypt really a huge empire ?
I have problem with the part that says this.

"The Khedivate of Egypt had also expanded to control present-day Sudan, South Sudan, Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, southern Turkey, and northwestern Saudi Arabia.[4][5]"

The map of the Khedivate of Egypt doesn't show it and the sources in both of those links are in Arabic.

( Happy New Years anyway )- Vamlos (talk) 23:25, 31 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree. It is one thing to send an army thru a foreign soil, it is another thing to rule and control. Same way Napoleon landed in Egypt and fought successful battles with Memluks, ventured up to Jaffe even, but never really controlled or ruled the place. Murat (talk) 14:44, 1 April 2023 (UTC)