Napoleon's Impact On Egypt

Napoleon whilst appearing to conform to some Egyptian practices did introduce European ideology to the Egyptians. In addition to building infrastructure such as watermills that positively impacted the Egyptians. Any improvements that occurred in Egypt however were merely beneficial for Napoleon and subsequently France. These improvements were made to increase profit and productivity for the Empire. France’s invasion of Egypt was not only the first but also the most overt imperial occupation in the modern period of world history, part of a goal to collect an empire (Said, 1978, p. 42.) Events such as plagues that occurred in Alexandria and the anti-French rebellion that happened in Egypt fragmented the façade of liberation. The political and
social changes that occurred positively for an Enlightened Europe took a different turn for the French occupation as they appeared more repressive than the Mamluks. By tradition, the ulama (refers to the religious elite of scholars at the top of the sectarian hierarchy) and the Christian Coptic sect held important positions, but had not pursued any dominance of power with the artisan or the fellahin (Egyptian peasant). Did the three years of French occupation change Egyptian society to the extent that initiated the modern era in Egypt? Though Bonaparte’s campaign did bring some forms of political and cultural liberalism to Egypt it was evident that an “Egypt for Egyptians” had yet to occur, it was a century later when Egypt’s political consciousness produced liberalism in the modern sense.

When the French campaign came to an end in 1801, the Ottoman Government seized control again of Egyptian affairs.
It is important to recognize that the end of the French occupation of 1801 did not constitute a “national liberation” but rather the establishment of Ottoman imperial authority (Coller, 2010). However, this time it was different it appeared that the Ottoman power was not capable of filling the vacuum that was created by the absence of a strong leader as the Ottoman power was deteriorating within the Empire. And Egyptians were still far from conceiving their own project of modernity. However, the Egyptians had a different kind of thinking because of that French ‘other’. Despite rejecting French colonialization a new wave of thinking lurked and evolved that would later serve as a foundation for intellectual and literary modernity. (Salama, 2011). Moreover, due to the deteriorating Ottoman power and the ottoman trend of hierarchy of Western educated middle class professionals, enabled Damascus, Acre and Aleppo to be independently ruled and this pattern of independent ruling evolved like a domino effect and appeared in the province of Egypt in the form of Muhammad
Ali.

Muhammad Ali Pasha (1805-148) was sent to restore Ottoman control over Egypt, but instead took this as an opportunity to gain power for himself. He was perceived by the ulama as a reestablishment of order and peace in Egypt and the return of success after decades of civil conflict and a strong leader defending the populace from exploitation. Ali wiped out the Beys as they were an internal threat that could have potentially challenged his authority and plotted an assassination in 1811, this led to his supremacy. Ali had finally “destroyed the remnants of the system that had provided the dominant class for Egypt for almost seven centuries.” (Philipp & Haarmann, 1998, p.128.) It was a new era with a developing independent Georgian dynasty under the province of Muhammad Ali. Under Ali’s rule there was a form of solidarity in Egypt that was absent for decades. Under his power in Egypt he did things no Ottoman ruler was able to do before, from consolidating the economy of Egypt to gaining considerable amounts of wealth and maintaining the governorship for the longest tenure yet seen. Moreover, he created departments of the navy, agriculture, army, state archives as well as the opening of naval school. These developments led to the creation of educational institutions and overall modernization. Ali’s policy of sending students to study in Europe especially France provided a new and significant dimension to the relationship between the two countries. The process of nation state building under Muhammad Ali and later under Khedive Ismail expanded the links between Egypt and France. Therefore, a new impetus was given to the lost standing relationship between the two countries.

Muhammad Ali resorted to European expertise in order to modernize Egypt; he called upon a French Finance Expert on how to modernize Egypt to gain parity with Europe.
The outcome of which was significant, political, economic and social transformations that created a new cultural relationship between Paris and Cairo woven around the rhetoric of the modern nation-state. Ali’s armies and the Muslim rulers after him created new armies according to the French pattern , though this appears to demonstrate a French inspiration provoked by the French invasion, there is a degree of continuity of the way power was constructed in the military domain, from the last years of the eighteenth century up into the early years of the nineteenth century, demonstrating that the interest in the way European created their armies was an interest that preceded Muhammad Ali. For instance, Ali Bey imported modern weapons and employed Europeans to manage them. Later the Mamluk Beys followed his example; Murad Bey for instance employed Greeks to build up his artillery (Bierman, 2003). Therefore way to modernize the army occurred before Muhammad Ali was in power. Muhammad Ali’s military corps consisted of slaves from Sudan, mamluks, peasants and mercenaries who were trained and organized into regiments along French lines by a former French officer, “Colonel” de Seve (Bierman, 2003). This clearly demonstrates that his actions were a degree of continuity with what came before. As both Peter Gran and Afaf
Lutfi al-sayyid Marsot have convincingly argued, Egypt was engaged in an indigenous process of political and intellectual transformation well before the arrival of the French in 1798(Coller, 2010).

Ultimately and in conclusion, Egypt has always been romanticized in the European eye, prized as a jewel. The declining of Ottoman rule and setbacks such as the black plague that was beneficial for England’s economy created a downfall in Egypt’s progression. Had their not been external factors prevented Egypt to flourish who is to say Egypt would not been modernized pre Napoleon. Though Napoleon’s invasion brought some political and social changes, it failed to liberate Egypt. Egypt began to modernize a century later therefore could have created modern Egypt. Where Napoleon failed Muhammad Ali succeeded and engendered the birth of ‘modern Egypt. The many significant historical changes we observe in the 19th century were indeed a part of long term development, evolving at different speeds, with different levels of intensity at different times. Evolving developments predated the French expedition and indeed continued to grow and expand after (Bierman, 2003).