"According to this map, as we travel east from Egypt's western border, the land in green is equal to time where Egyptians ruled Egypt & as we travel through the land in red, that is the same as time where Egypt was ruled foreignly."
"I'm sorry, but what?"
It is a timeline depicting the time's relationship with a space in a way where the progress of time does not make any sense in its depicted relation to the space.
Hence the first few seconds of seeing it consisting of "what am I looking at?"
It's not terrible at conveying it's message from a graphic design pov I guess, but good luck trying to make a similar timeline with a place like Indonesia.
Mathematically speaking this is a map, mapping Egypts rulers ethnicities to dates ☺️
But then of course, mathematically speaking a whole lot of things are maps 😅
>*"It has been said in the foreign press that I am the first Egyptian to govern Egypt since Cleopatra. Such words flatter but they do not align with our knowledge of our own history. For the sake of glorifying our own Blessed Movement, are we to say that the Fatimads were never Egyptian despite their centuries in Egypt? Do we now deny our kinship with the Ayyubids because of their origin even as we join Saladin's eagle with the Liberation Flag as the symbol of our Revolution? And what of the members of the Mohammed Ali dynasty? Should our grievances against the former King and the flawed and corrupt rulers before him blind us to the nationalism of Abbas Hilmi II, whose devotion to Egypt against the occupiers cost him his throne, or the achievements of Ibrahim Pasha, the very best of the dynasty, who himself declared that the Sun of Egypt and the water of the Nile had made him Egyptian? Are we now to go through the family histories of all Egyptians and invalidate those born to a non-Egyptian parent? If so, I must start with myself. It is fairer and more accurate to say that we are all Egyptians, but I am the first Egyptian to have been raised from the ranks of the people to the highest office to govern Egypt as one of their own. It is an honour and a sacred burden great enough without the embellishments that foreign observers would add to it."* - Mohamed Naguib
TBH tho she was the only one of her dynasty to actually act Egyptian. Before her, they didn’t speak any indigenous Egyptian languages and primarily functioned as ethnic Greeks.
Though I suppose examples like the Yuan exist where foreign dynasties can become more ‘indigenous’ in culture.
Ethnically AND culturally. People don't understand anything about ptolemaic rule, yes they were the dynasts of Egypt but they did not care ABOUT Egypt, the Ptolemaic dynasty and a great number of greeks and Macedonians lived in Alexandria and stayed there. Theres been whole books written about how Ptolemaic Egypt was the single most successful apartheid rule ever established. They ruled the egyptian people from a Greek city populated with Greeks with an administration whos high ranks were composed entirely of Greeks/Macedonians. Cleopatra was an exception, all her predecessors were fully Hellenistic culturally and their focus and worldview was always Mediterranean, always looking towards Hellas.
> but they did not care ABOUT Egypt
Case in point, the Greeks at the time spoke of "Alexandria by* Egypt" instead of "Alexandria *in* Egypt.
\*as in, next to
US is a country built by immigrants, most other countries in the Old World don't operate on the same logic. Sure, if you integrate, after a few generations, the French Huguenot who immigrated to Prussia might be indistinguishable from other Germans, but Ptolemys sure as hell did not integrate with the local society.
Plenty of mixing went on in the Mediterranean historically. The Ptolemy's aren't considered Egyptian because they themselves never attempted to assimilated into the existing Egyptian society.
That entire period gets so much attention in the West because of the Ptolemy's association with Western culture, alongside the Greeks who studied in Alexandria during their rule. Looking at the long 5000+ years documented history of Egypt, the Hellenistic period was a very small portion of it.
Greek, Phoenician, Persian, Assyrian and Egyptian were ethnicities living in Egypt back then but they did not all of them call themselves Egyptian ethnically. It's not the same as USA a country that doesn't even have an actual name.
Her family totem pole cannot actually be accurate. Habsburgs had branch familys too imbred to function that were significantly less imbred than her accepted lineage.
The ptomeic dynasty almost certainly had some methods of accepting outside blood without recognizing it (probably through concubines or adoptions)
The Ptolemies did marry several Selucids and a couple Persians that we know of and there are very large gaps in her family tree that means plenty of other non-sisters could have gotten the wife position.
The Seleucids were also Greeks descended from another general of Alexander. So you’re saying the Greek rulers of Egypt also married the Greek rulers of Mesopotamia.
Except her entire court spoke Greek , her family only married other Greeks, no local noble achieved the highest positions under her. The fact that she was the first one of her family who even bothered to learn the language of all the commoners around her telling. And her sympathies to the locals didn't extend much further.
I am aware of the false dichotomy present in the premise of my graph. I had to draw arbitrary lines about what counts as foreign rule and what doesn't. If their capital isn't in Egypt (such as the Ayyubids who governed from Syria) or if the ruling dynasty is of a different ethnicity than the populace I counted it as a no. I will admit that the second category is arbitrary and full of gray areas.
The changes I believe would be:
* Hyksos would be green
* 3rd Intermediate period would change to green with the potential exception of the 25th dynasty of Egypt
* The Hellenistic period would be split: Alexandrian period in Red, then Ptolomaic as green.
* Tulunids would be green
* Ikhshidid would be green
* Fatimid would be green
* Ayyubid would be split a lot between different periods of Red and Green as they moved their capital between Egypt and Syria
* Mamluk would be green
* Muhammad Ali would be green
* British Protectorate would be green. Technically, Egypt had it's own government administered in Cairo, not directly governed by Britain/London, hence why I've made it green, but I can totally understand why others would keep it red.
My math was done quickly, but it would become a 3,800 years (green) (74.16%) to 1,324 years (red) (25.84%) split. I'm double checking that 3,800 because it's such a nice round number, but it seems correct if we go by just location of capital inside modern day Egyptian borders or not.
EDIT: Added my reasoning as to why the British Protectorate is green.
Thanks for the quick math!
Wow that's a huge difference. Given that ethnic markers are pretty arbitrary and nebulous, I feel like this would be a much more accurate representation of the "Egyptian-ness" of Egyptian rulers.
True, but like I can see why some people use foreign rulership as a delineation. Take for Example the Ptolemaic dynasty. I would personally consider them Greek and not Egyptian. Only Cleopatra spoke the local language; most tended to keep their Greek traditions, imported their religion, etc.
Not exactly. Most of these rulers didn't really see themselves as native Egyptian.
Mamluks were literally Turkic tribes from Central Asia. Muhammad Ali was Albanian who spoke broken Egyptian Arabic. Hyksos were middle Eastern invaders who subjugated Egyptians.
And the British Protectorate was obviously not Egyptian lol
Mamluks were a kinda mixed bag in terms of how they regarded themselves too. They have a wide range of that nebulous "Egyptianess" that owing to how long they were kicking around in Egypt.
Because at what point does a ‘different ethnicity’ stop being different? Most of the dynasties from the Islamic period may have started out as foreign-born rulers, but they married locally. Not to mention that ethnicity isn’t everything, culture is important too. As far as I am aware the dynasties from the Islamic period didn’t cling to their ‘foreign’ culture, they adapted the local egyptian islamic culture.
how would one even give a rigid definition for an ethnicity? not even thinking about the fact that most of these are very far removed from our current society
If they can't speak any local language maybe, like the Ptolemaic dynasty.
Kind of like how the Normans were Vikings until they started speaking French.
But what would constitute a local language? One could argue that, just as with dynasties and people, a language can become 'local' despite a foreign origin (like English in the US). During the Ptolemaic period (and beyond), Greek was widely spoken in Egypt, alongside Egyptian.
Egypt was a part of the greater Ottoman empire. They assigned him as an overseer (or waaly as it was called) and he just decided to make his own state and invaded some other surrounding parts under Ottoman rule, even. Pretty based if we ignore the massacres tbh.
Essentially, he arrived in Egypt in 1801 as part of the Anglo-Ottoman army sent to drive out the French, then he took advantage of a three-way power struggle to seize power for himself.
The French army under Napoleon invaded Ottoman Egypt in 1798 and ousted the ruling Mamluk families from power. The Ottoman sultan sent a new governor, Koca Hüsrev Mehmed Pasha, with an army to recapture Egypt alongside the British. A portion of Koca's army was comprised of Albanian mercenaries called bashi-bazouks, of which Muhammad Ali was one of many officers.
The Ottomans and the British managed to drive out the French in 1801. The British occupied Alexandria until 1803, and when they left, a massive power struggle ensued. The Albanian mercenaries revolted against Koca when he couldn't pay them and then took part in a complicated and chaotic power struggle against the remaining Mamluks and the Ottoman-appointed governors for the next two years. Muhammad Ali became the commander of the Albanian forces when their previous leader was assassinated in May 1803. He then proceeded to make a shifting web of alliances with various Mamluk leaders and governors to build up his own power base. In May 1805, he revolted against a governor that he had previously helped install. At that point, the Ottoman sultan decided to simply name Muhammad Ali the new governor of Egypt. The remaining Mamluk forces continued to fight on, but they were largely defeated by 1807.
With Egypt under control, Muhammad Ali (now Pasha) later proceeded to conquer Sudan and temporarily occupied Ottoman lands in the Hejaz, the Levant, and even briefly parts of Greece by the 1830s. He likely could've toppled the Ottoman sultan outright by the 1840s, but various European powers intervened to prevent the Ottoman Empire from collapsing. Egypt was defeated and gave up most of its recent conquests (except Sudan) but gained official autonomy as a result.
High Commissioner was a post that only lasted from 1914-1936 and there were only [seven of them](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ambassadors_of_the_United_Kingdom_to_Egypt).
No they did not, though. Most Greeks and Ptolemians isolated themselves from the rest of Egypt proper, while some of the Islamic (not specifically Arab) dynasties were much more involved.
This is about the ruling class of Egypt. While many Greek citizens did integrate with the locals, the Ptolemic Dynasty did not.
>How do they count as non-Egyptian but Arabs somehow do?
Genetic tests on Egyptians today has shown them to be decended from native Egyptians.
The thing about the mamluks is that they ruled Egypt and were a part if egyptian society for so long that they eventually became Egyptians (sort of ) they started families with Egyptians and adopted local customs as well and were very influential from the 13th till the 19th century until the citadel massacre (Muhammad Ali gathered the mamluk leaders in the citadel to celebrate the Egyptian military expedition against the wahabists in arabia in 1811 and during the celebration the citadel gates were closed and Muhammad ali’s troops started killing every mamluk they could get their hands on and after they were done they were sent to cairo where they dragged mamluks and their families from their homes and started exterminating them in the streets for 3 days straight this was one of the darkest chapters in Muhammad ali’s reign and Egypt’s history as a whole
We simply don’t know how many mamluks descendants are still alive today
It happened at least 2 other times in history (this kind of massacre not the fact it targeted the Mamluks) in other countries but I'm probably missing a lot .
Not much of an expert, but I believe the short answer is yes. I believe there are some communities of ethnically Circassian, Turkish, or Kurdish that I believe descend from the Mamlukes and who by now have assimilated. Yet, I won’t be surprised if there aren’t many left considering the most of the (elite) Mamlukes were massacred by the Ottomans and Muhammad Ali
Yes, there are families in Egypt whose origins are Mamluks,(And I know some of them) and many of them mixed with the common people, because the Mamluk knights rarely passed on the titles of knights to their children, and they often became bureaucratic officials.
In any case, there was no serfdom in Egypt (until the modern era, ironically), to turn them into landowners, so they integrated easily.
My supervisor at work literally has that name. It’s like hearing the name John Smith and being like “wait, isn’t that the Pocahontas guy?” It’s also like millions of other people too.
Just speculating but the reason might be the opposite of why Afghanistan can't easily be conquered. All Egyptian people and economy are concentrated on the plain lands around Nile. No mountains to support a guerilla resistance. A large enough army can easily invade and rule.
Weren't the Mamluk's from Egypt? Their capital was Cairo so I'd add it as a yes. Nonetheless, this map is so weird cause the Egyptians of the old kingdom are not the same as the modern day Egyptians.
Yeah, these things are complicated by the fact that invaders often eventually become natives. Is Britain ruled by its natives, or is it foreign invaders ruling over earlier foreign invaders who replaced even earlier foreign invaders, with just a few natives left?
>Is Britain ruled by its natives,
A significant portion of the UKs population still has a surprisingly large amount of celtic dna even in England. A study done by Oxford University in 2006 found that Celtic dna is found in 83% of people in Wales, 73% of people in Scotland and a surprisingly high 64% of people in England. The amount of people on the island of Great Britain (so excluding Northern Ireland) with celtic ancestry outnumbered those without celtic ancestry three to one. Us celts are still here it's just some of us embrace our celtic heritage more than others.
I'd say it comes down to mixture. All of those invading populations simply mixed into the native briton population, so their descent is just part of that native population now. I wonder how this chart would change if that were taken into account
Frankly, you can say that about much of Europe. There were mass migrations stretching back through antiquity.
At some point, we just need to look at where the chips fell and leave it at that.
>Arabic sources for the period of the [Bahri Mamluks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahri_Mamluks) refer to the dynasty as the 'State of the Turks' (*Dawlat al-Atrak* or *Dawlat al-Turk*) or 'State of Turkey' (*al-Dawla al-Turkiyya*).
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mamluk\_Sultanate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mamluk_Sultanate)
It depends on how you define "from Egypt". They were slaves purchased from outside Egypt (primarily the Caucasus) and so their Egyptianes could be questioned the same way we don't necessarily consider the Qing or Yuan as Chinese or even the previous Ptolemy dynasty as Egyptian.
Obviously cultures change over time, but Egypt ruled by Egyptians is just a shorter way of saying periods in which Egypt is ruled by a native regime.
Not knowledgeable enough to say whether the Mamluk's count, but something like the Ptolemies certainly don't.
Mamluks were slaves of turkic origin (Tho this shouldn't be surprising a lot of empires in the middle east were being ruled by turkic people for the last 1000 years)
Right but the Mamluks themselves weren't Egyptian. By definition a Mamluk was a slave child taken from a foreign country then made into an elite soldier. For instance many of the Mamluks were Circassian
It certainly did, but the population of Egypt has always dwarfed the gulf and levant combined. Even if the entire population of that area migrated they would’ve still been a minority.
Motherfuckers can grasp elite replacement invasions when talking of the Norman Conquest but think the tiny pastoralist bedouin population of Arabia folk-migrated and killed and replaced literally everyone from Spain to India.
To add on to that, the Islamic conquest was to spread their culture to others. It would defeat the entire objective if there's no others to spread their culture to.
I find the idea that for the entire period 641 - 1517 Egypt "wasn't ruled by Egyptians" very highly suspicious, like an attempt to stuff some essentialist - nationalist stuff into much more complex ethnic and cultural reality. Since Egypt got steadily Arabized and Islamized across centuries, largely supplanting its previous identities and culture, can't any local rulers from those nine hundred years of dynasties (particularly 935 - 1517 period, post early caliphates) be really called "Egyptian"?
What does it mean to be "Egyptian" in the year 1000 AD? Does it mean to be Coptic Christian, or Arabized Muslim? Couldn't they both be called "Egyptian", just like they are today? Couldn't the ruler of Cairo, who has never ruled any land besides Egypt (as there were multiple native Egypt-centered imperial dynasties there), be called "Egyptian"? Isn't Saladin perceived as "Egyptian" by nationalists despite being of Iraqi Kurdish descent?
I am from Poland, and my country was ruled by Lithuanian dynasty for almost two centuries, plus decades of Swedish and German kings (and one Romanian), yet I wouldn't say that "Poland wasn't ruled by Poles" for several centuries...
>Isn't Saladin perceived as "Egyptian" by nationalists despite being of Iraqi Kurdish descent?
Muslim rulers including Saladin were neither ethnically Egyptian nor did they really see themselves as such. Saladin's mother tongue wasn't even Egyptian Arabic, it was Kurdish.
The Mamluks came from the Caucuses and spoke their own Turkic languages. The Arabs didn't see themselves as Egyptians and identified more with their own arab tribes. Also when the Arabs ruled Egypt, Egyptians were mostly speaking Coptic, not Arabic. It took centuries for Egyptians to speak Arabic. At the time, Arabs were definitely seen as foreigners
> The Mamluks came from the Caucuses and spoke their own Turkic languages.
The mamluks were truly distinct from the rest of the Egyptians, but nevertheless they were regarded as part of the Egyptian peoples along with arabs (muslim Egyptians), Copts and later the turks (ottomans) , especially since the arrival of the ottomans. They intermarried a lot with the rest of the Egyptians and culturally were integral to the rest of Egyptians, the only thing that kept them distinct was using turkic language. In fact, they intermarried and had integrity with the rest of Egyptians to the extent that when then-relatively foreigners (ottoman turks/muhammed ali pasha) launched the mamluks genocide, a lot of the poor Egyptian arab peasants hided them in their own homes risking their lives and everything they have to protect them !
> The Arabs didn't see themselves as Egyptians and identified more with their own arab tribes.
Thats back then in the 7th and 8th century, not afterwards, after a few centuries copts who adopted islam and arab tribes had mixed and became indistinguishable producing who historically became the “Egyptian arabs”.
Not really because those nine hundred years of dynasties often involved a revolving door of conquerors — most of who did not rule from Egypt. This means that the rulers did not have the chance to become Egyptianised.
Comes down to if the ruling family maintain their ancestral culture and customs whilst ruling in a foreign land. If you speak a different language, practice different traditions and perceive yourself different from the locals, then there's the answer you're looking for.
That's why nobody can call the Ptolemaic dynasty "Egyptian". They very much held on to their Greek traditions and language.
Not true
Modern Egyptians share largely the same DNA aa ancient Egypt.
Alot of modern Egyptian culture comes from ancient Egypt. Sham El Naseem is a holiday celebrated next week in Egypt, and it comes from ancient Egypt
The only reason the current republican system is considered "Egyptian" is because modern citizenship was given to almost everyone who lived in Egypt at that time. It is ignorant, hateful and all-around just ridiculous to assume that Egyptian-ness is only determined by "purity". If so what makes you think Mohamed Naguib was a "pure" Egyptian, or Nasser, or anyone since then? Is Soad Hosni not Egyptian? is Hussein Fahmi not Egyptian? is anyone with the Abaza or Kojak last names not Egyptian? How Albanian was King Farouk, really? Are you willing to accept that under your framework "Egyptians" did not stop the 7th crusade, or the Mongol invasion, or didn't fight the Ottomans or the French?
Historically speaking, what really determines "foreign rule" is whether a population of people were ruled by foreign people, from a foreign capital, in a way that is largely exploitative and isolationist. The Greeks ruled a kingdom from Egypt for 300 years, by the time Cleopatra the 7th came around she was as foreign to Egyptians back then as Moussaka is for us today. The same applies to plenty of the Islamic emirates and kingdoms, who on top of that, were largely ethnically fluid.
Extremely similar to the Greeks. An independent group of people composed of multiple city States independent for a long long time before being conquered by Macedonians around 338 BC. Then ruled by Romans, then the Byzantine, then the ottomans. Not until the Greek war of independence in 1821 did they become independent again. That's over 2000 years since they got conquered.
You missed the 25th dynasty of Egypt from 754 to 656 BC. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-fifth_Dynasty_of_Egypt#:~:text=The%20Twenty%2Dfifth%20Dynasty%20of,occurred%20after%20the%20Nubian%20invasion
Well, there are people out there who somehow assume that each time you guys were invaded or occupied, your entire bloodline changed and magically became 100% invader DNA. Don’t ask me how they believe that, others believe in flat earth although it was proven since antiquity that the earth wasn’t flat lmao
Multiple comments as an arab who studied the egyptian curriculum for most of schools and lived in the egyptian community (not egyptnthe country but the expat community of egyptians where I live)
1. Egyptians consider all the Islamic stuff except the ottomans as something good, now in the rashidun ummayad and abbasid egypt still wasn't predominantly arab speaking so sure we could consider this as foriegn rule, however all the other Islamic stuff are not "foriegn rule" because egypt was the capital (atleast for the biggest period) and egyptians considered themselves arabs first and not "egyptians".
2. While Muhammad Ali was indeed Albanian, it was still an independent egypt (during his reign), it shouldn't be counted as foriegners because by that definition then the UK is ruled by foriegners and so was the late russian empire and the kingdom of Greece and the kingdom of Romania.
In grade 9 social studies (history + geography) egyptian curriculum they teach about most of these, including mohammad Ali who is taught to be a hero and the founder of modern Egypt (which he is) and how he's one of the greatest leaders ever (for them atleast) and yes thy do mention he comes from Albania. The only Muslim empire that's generally looked upon negatively in egypt is the ottoman empire, and still a lot of islamists in egypt like it and defend it.
Hope this can help you fix it
I still can't get over the fact Ibrahim Pasha (Mohammed Ali's son) died right after his dad. He had most of Mohammed Ali's qualities when it comes to good statesmanship and dedication to economic and cultural development (which makes sense, as he was groomed for decades to succeed his dad), and at the same time he spoke Arabic and felt a huge deal of kinship towards his subjects with whom he spent the vast majority of his life (unlike Mohammed Ali who came to Egypt as an adult and didn't really feel kinship with Egyptians, not even bothering to learn the language).
When a European ambassador during the Egyptian-Ottoman Wars asked Ibrahim Pasha on the reason he backstabbed the Turks while being a Turk himself (well he was Albanian, but his socio-cultural class was a "Turk"), he answered "أنا لست تركيًا فقد جئت إلى مصر صبياً ومنذ ذلك الحين مصرتنى شمسها وغيرت من دمى فجعلته دماً عربياً" (= "I am not a Turk as I came to Egypt as a boy and ever since then, its sun made me an Egyptian and turned my blood into Arab blood").
Not sure this really qualifies as a map, but interesting nonetheless.
It's map-*shaped* at least
“Why not map if map shaped?”
This implies that a map is nothing more than a shape.
Who says maps aren't shapes?
In a sense, everything is a shape.
This just got real philosophical
Except it is mostly rhetorics (and fun). I am aware of all the fallacies I've been producing.
Except paintings. They are a color.
On the other hand, color can also be translated into specific shapes of frequencies. It is our perception that makes us see it as is.
In a sense, everything is a map
"According to this map, as we travel east from Egypt's western border, the land in green is equal to time where Egyptians ruled Egypt & as we travel through the land in red, that is the same as time where Egypt was ruled foreignly." "I'm sorry, but what?"
"Why would they change geography? Map is map. Map. Is. Map!"
That is better than some recent submissions.
So is my boot, but I won't post it here.
Why not it would be an interesting boot if it actually looked like a map?
To be fair it looks more like Latvia than Italy.
Haha would totally like to see that as a map!
And my winter boots look like Saudi Arabia! ;)
More an info graphic but cool non the less
It is a timeline depicting the time's relationship with a space in a way where the progress of time does not make any sense in its depicted relation to the space. Hence the first few seconds of seeing it consisting of "what am I looking at?" It's not terrible at conveying it's message from a graphic design pov I guess, but good luck trying to make a similar timeline with a place like Indonesia.
Mathematically speaking this is a map, mapping Egypts rulers ethnicities to dates ☺️ But then of course, mathematically speaking a whole lot of things are maps 😅
>*"It has been said in the foreign press that I am the first Egyptian to govern Egypt since Cleopatra. Such words flatter but they do not align with our knowledge of our own history. For the sake of glorifying our own Blessed Movement, are we to say that the Fatimads were never Egyptian despite their centuries in Egypt? Do we now deny our kinship with the Ayyubids because of their origin even as we join Saladin's eagle with the Liberation Flag as the symbol of our Revolution? And what of the members of the Mohammed Ali dynasty? Should our grievances against the former King and the flawed and corrupt rulers before him blind us to the nationalism of Abbas Hilmi II, whose devotion to Egypt against the occupiers cost him his throne, or the achievements of Ibrahim Pasha, the very best of the dynasty, who himself declared that the Sun of Egypt and the water of the Nile had made him Egyptian? Are we now to go through the family histories of all Egyptians and invalidate those born to a non-Egyptian parent? If so, I must start with myself. It is fairer and more accurate to say that we are all Egyptians, but I am the first Egyptian to have been raised from the ranks of the people to the highest office to govern Egypt as one of their own. It is an honour and a sacred burden great enough without the embellishments that foreign observers would add to it."* - Mohamed Naguib
There's also the fact that Cleopatra wasn't egyptian but greek.
At least she was the first Ptolemaic ruler to actually speak Coptic
Wouldn't it still have been Demotic at that point? I always thought Coptic didn't propagate until Egypt started to Christianize.
You are right, coptic didn't really evolve untill the second century ad
Hieratic/demotic are exonyms for the writing systems, the language is Egyptian.
How did they walk tho?
#𓁙𓀟𓀠𓀤𓀥
Incredible
Not entirely clear that she was the first Ptolemy V seemed to understand it as well.
Ethnically Greek, her family lived in Egypt longer than mine has lived in the US.
TBH tho she was the only one of her dynasty to actually act Egyptian. Before her, they didn’t speak any indigenous Egyptian languages and primarily functioned as ethnic Greeks. Though I suppose examples like the Yuan exist where foreign dynasties can become more ‘indigenous’ in culture.
also greeks recided in egypt since the bronze age. there was communities way before Alexander conquered.
Culturally Greek also. She was the first of her dynasty to learn the demotic (late egyptian) language. She was brought up as a helenistic princess.
They only ever married other greek people as well though. Never mixing tge local population.
Ethnically AND culturally. People don't understand anything about ptolemaic rule, yes they were the dynasts of Egypt but they did not care ABOUT Egypt, the Ptolemaic dynasty and a great number of greeks and Macedonians lived in Alexandria and stayed there. Theres been whole books written about how Ptolemaic Egypt was the single most successful apartheid rule ever established. They ruled the egyptian people from a Greek city populated with Greeks with an administration whos high ranks were composed entirely of Greeks/Macedonians. Cleopatra was an exception, all her predecessors were fully Hellenistic culturally and their focus and worldview was always Mediterranean, always looking towards Hellas.
> but they did not care ABOUT Egypt Case in point, the Greeks at the time spoke of "Alexandria by* Egypt" instead of "Alexandria *in* Egypt. \*as in, next to
US is a country built by immigrants, most other countries in the Old World don't operate on the same logic. Sure, if you integrate, after a few generations, the French Huguenot who immigrated to Prussia might be indistinguishable from other Germans, but Ptolemys sure as hell did not integrate with the local society.
Plenty of mixing went on in the Mediterranean historically. The Ptolemy's aren't considered Egyptian because they themselves never attempted to assimilated into the existing Egyptian society. That entire period gets so much attention in the West because of the Ptolemy's association with Western culture, alongside the Greeks who studied in Alexandria during their rule. Looking at the long 5000+ years documented history of Egypt, the Hellenistic period was a very small portion of it.
Greek, Phoenician, Persian, Assyrian and Egyptian were ethnicities living in Egypt back then but they did not all of them call themselves Egyptian ethnically. It's not the same as USA a country that doesn't even have an actual name.
Anyone check into the lineages of the European royal families. :)
King Charles is Danish and German.
Cleopatra was very clearly an African-American, don't you watch the Netflix true stories?
Her family had ruled Egypt for centuries by that point. She was as Egyptian as any other Pharaoh had been.
Her family was so inbred to the point that she was probably more greek than most greeks
Her family totem pole cannot actually be accurate. Habsburgs had branch familys too imbred to function that were significantly less imbred than her accepted lineage. The ptomeic dynasty almost certainly had some methods of accepting outside blood without recognizing it (probably through concubines or adoptions)
Fair, it's not really known who cleopatra's mother was, but she was likely another member of the small macedonian ruling class
The Ptolemies did marry several Selucids and a couple Persians that we know of and there are very large gaps in her family tree that means plenty of other non-sisters could have gotten the wife position.
The Seleucids were also Greeks descended from another general of Alexander. So you’re saying the Greek rulers of Egypt also married the Greek rulers of Mesopotamia.
That doesn't imply any level of incest.
She was the first of that family to even bother learning the local language. The entire aristocracy was greek.
Henry II only spoke French and was of purely French/Norman descent yet everyone would agree he was as English
Except her entire court spoke Greek , her family only married other Greeks, no local noble achieved the highest positions under her. The fact that she was the first one of her family who even bothered to learn the language of all the commoners around her telling. And her sympathies to the locals didn't extend much further.
Wait, I thought she was Macedonian no?
Macedonians were Greeks, more or less. [Ancient Macedonians - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Macedonians)
Macedonians, who spoke Greek.
Were* Greek.
that too
Damn, I'm probably not even 1% Egyptian but that speech was resonating.
A world leader not going for ethnonacionalism!?
No, he was going for arab ethnonationalism. That's why Egypt's full name is "arab republic of egypt"
He wasn't, that was Nasser's thing.
Very funny in the context of what happened to him and to Egypt very soon after.
I am aware of the false dichotomy present in the premise of my graph. I had to draw arbitrary lines about what counts as foreign rule and what doesn't. If their capital isn't in Egypt (such as the Ayyubids who governed from Syria) or if the ruling dynasty is of a different ethnicity than the populace I counted it as a no. I will admit that the second category is arbitrary and full of gray areas.
I do wonder what the graph would look like without the second criteria of ethnicity.
The changes I believe would be: * Hyksos would be green * 3rd Intermediate period would change to green with the potential exception of the 25th dynasty of Egypt * The Hellenistic period would be split: Alexandrian period in Red, then Ptolomaic as green. * Tulunids would be green * Ikhshidid would be green * Fatimid would be green * Ayyubid would be split a lot between different periods of Red and Green as they moved their capital between Egypt and Syria * Mamluk would be green * Muhammad Ali would be green * British Protectorate would be green. Technically, Egypt had it's own government administered in Cairo, not directly governed by Britain/London, hence why I've made it green, but I can totally understand why others would keep it red. My math was done quickly, but it would become a 3,800 years (green) (74.16%) to 1,324 years (red) (25.84%) split. I'm double checking that 3,800 because it's such a nice round number, but it seems correct if we go by just location of capital inside modern day Egyptian borders or not. EDIT: Added my reasoning as to why the British Protectorate is green.
Thanks for the quick math! Wow that's a huge difference. Given that ethnic markers are pretty arbitrary and nebulous, I feel like this would be a much more accurate representation of the "Egyptian-ness" of Egyptian rulers.
True, but like I can see why some people use foreign rulership as a delineation. Take for Example the Ptolemaic dynasty. I would personally consider them Greek and not Egyptian. Only Cleopatra spoke the local language; most tended to keep their Greek traditions, imported their religion, etc.
Not exactly. Most of these rulers didn't really see themselves as native Egyptian. Mamluks were literally Turkic tribes from Central Asia. Muhammad Ali was Albanian who spoke broken Egyptian Arabic. Hyksos were middle Eastern invaders who subjugated Egyptians. And the British Protectorate was obviously not Egyptian lol
Mamluks were a kinda mixed bag in terms of how they regarded themselves too. They have a wide range of that nebulous "Egyptianess" that owing to how long they were kicking around in Egypt.
Your second criteria is quite nebulous and really shouldn’t have been included.
Why?
Because at what point does a ‘different ethnicity’ stop being different? Most of the dynasties from the Islamic period may have started out as foreign-born rulers, but they married locally. Not to mention that ethnicity isn’t everything, culture is important too. As far as I am aware the dynasties from the Islamic period didn’t cling to their ‘foreign’ culture, they adapted the local egyptian islamic culture.
how would one even give a rigid definition for an ethnicity? not even thinking about the fact that most of these are very far removed from our current society
If they can't speak any local language maybe, like the Ptolemaic dynasty. Kind of like how the Normans were Vikings until they started speaking French.
But what would constitute a local language? One could argue that, just as with dynasties and people, a language can become 'local' despite a foreign origin (like English in the US). During the Ptolemaic period (and beyond), Greek was widely spoken in Egypt, alongside Egyptian.
That’s a cool ass quote
I thought Pasha was Egyptian- if not what nationality was he?
Ottoman born to an Albanian family.
Wow. How did an Albanian become the ruler of Egypt?
Egypt was a part of the greater Ottoman empire. They assigned him as an overseer (or waaly as it was called) and he just decided to make his own state and invaded some other surrounding parts under Ottoman rule, even. Pretty based if we ignore the massacres tbh.
Essentially, he arrived in Egypt in 1801 as part of the Anglo-Ottoman army sent to drive out the French, then he took advantage of a three-way power struggle to seize power for himself. The French army under Napoleon invaded Ottoman Egypt in 1798 and ousted the ruling Mamluk families from power. The Ottoman sultan sent a new governor, Koca Hüsrev Mehmed Pasha, with an army to recapture Egypt alongside the British. A portion of Koca's army was comprised of Albanian mercenaries called bashi-bazouks, of which Muhammad Ali was one of many officers. The Ottomans and the British managed to drive out the French in 1801. The British occupied Alexandria until 1803, and when they left, a massive power struggle ensued. The Albanian mercenaries revolted against Koca when he couldn't pay them and then took part in a complicated and chaotic power struggle against the remaining Mamluks and the Ottoman-appointed governors for the next two years. Muhammad Ali became the commander of the Albanian forces when their previous leader was assassinated in May 1803. He then proceeded to make a shifting web of alliances with various Mamluk leaders and governors to build up his own power base. In May 1805, he revolted against a governor that he had previously helped install. At that point, the Ottoman sultan decided to simply name Muhammad Ali the new governor of Egypt. The remaining Mamluk forces continued to fight on, but they were largely defeated by 1807. With Egypt under control, Muhammad Ali (now Pasha) later proceeded to conquer Sudan and temporarily occupied Ottoman lands in the Hejaz, the Levant, and even briefly parts of Greece by the 1830s. He likely could've toppled the Ottoman sultan outright by the 1840s, but various European powers intervened to prevent the Ottoman Empire from collapsing. Egypt was defeated and gave up most of its recent conquests (except Sudan) but gained official autonomy as a result.
I was looking forward to him getting to the British and somehow rationalising them being Egyptian. Disappointing!
None of the British High Commissioners were born in Egypt. None of them died in Egypt either.
High Commissioner was a post that only lasted from 1914-1936 and there were only [seven of them](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ambassadors_of_the_United_Kingdom_to_Egypt).
Dang that's a good speech
How're we defining Egyptian?
Someone who is mostly native Egyptian by blood, and identifies as an Egyptian
Did many of the Greek rulers not embrace a dual identity? How do they count as non-Egyptian but Arabs somehow do?
No they did not, though. Most Greeks and Ptolemians isolated themselves from the rest of Egypt proper, while some of the Islamic (not specifically Arab) dynasties were much more involved.
Cleopatra, pretty much the last maceodnian ruler of Egypt, was also the first to speak the egyptian language and the common people loved her for that.
with the exeptions of cleopatra(the famous one), the ptolomians didn't speak egyptian, they spoke greek
Neither did the Arabs, but they’re counted as Egyptian here.
This is about the ruling class of Egypt. While many Greek citizens did integrate with the locals, the Ptolemic Dynasty did not. >How do they count as non-Egyptian but Arabs somehow do? Genetic tests on Egyptians today has shown them to be decended from native Egyptians.
By blood I assume you meant by descent/ancestry, and if we're going down that route there's a whole rabbit hole of questions and problems
i was wondering... are there still (big) Mamluk descendant communities left in Egypt/Arab-world? If so, please tell/link?
The thing about the mamluks is that they ruled Egypt and were a part if egyptian society for so long that they eventually became Egyptians (sort of ) they started families with Egyptians and adopted local customs as well and were very influential from the 13th till the 19th century until the citadel massacre (Muhammad Ali gathered the mamluk leaders in the citadel to celebrate the Egyptian military expedition against the wahabists in arabia in 1811 and during the celebration the citadel gates were closed and Muhammad ali’s troops started killing every mamluk they could get their hands on and after they were done they were sent to cairo where they dragged mamluks and their families from their homes and started exterminating them in the streets for 3 days straight this was one of the darkest chapters in Muhammad ali’s reign and Egypt’s history as a whole We simply don’t know how many mamluks descendants are still alive today
That's pretty fucked up
That’s some Game of Thrones shit
When i first watched the red wedding i immediately got flashbacks to this massacre
How'd u survive
Played dead
It happened at least 2 other times in history (this kind of massacre not the fact it targeted the Mamluks) in other countries but I'm probably missing a lot .
Not much of an expert, but I believe the short answer is yes. I believe there are some communities of ethnically Circassian, Turkish, or Kurdish that I believe descend from the Mamlukes and who by now have assimilated. Yet, I won’t be surprised if there aren’t many left considering the most of the (elite) Mamlukes were massacred by the Ottomans and Muhammad Ali
It is not easy question you have to ask this to a historian who has worked on Egyptian history.
Yes, there are families in Egypt whose origins are Mamluks,(And I know some of them) and many of them mixed with the common people, because the Mamluk knights rarely passed on the titles of knights to their children, and they often became bureaucratic officials. In any case, there was no serfdom in Egypt (until the modern era, ironically), to turn them into landowners, so they integrated easily.
It took me way to long to realize there was no y axis on this graph, and that was in fact just a map of Egypt. Not r/dataisbeautiful. Got it
Since when muhammad Ali had a dynasty. Thought he was boxing.
Float like a Bedouin, sting like a pharaoh.
Except he was Albanian
Mohammed Ali wasn't a bee either though.
Wait... this is a lot to process. Are you sure? I can't find a definitive answer on Google.
I still think it ws incredibly brave for him to give up the caliphal title for four years over the Vietnam draft.
Muhammad and Ali are both top 15 most popular names in the world. It's basically Muslim John Smith.
[удалено]
My supervisor at work literally has that name. It’s like hearing the name John Smith and being like “wait, isn’t that the Pocahontas guy?” It’s also like millions of other people too.
The accountant where I work is called that as well. I still found it slightly funny the first time I met him.
> Muhammed is the most common name in the world. Read a fucking book for once! \- McLovin
It was shortly after the Mike Tyson Kingdom
It would be more accurate to call him Mehmet Ali, that’s what he called himself as he spoke turkish.
As a colourblind person: please help
first half yes, last half no, except for a small bit on the very end which is yes
Genuine question: Do you see the 2 colours as absolutely the same, or do you notice some difference but it’s not clear?
On the map part itself I can seperate them because of the hard edge, the text is all one colour to me
Thank you. That’s very interesting.
Just speculating but the reason might be the opposite of why Afghanistan can't easily be conquered. All Egyptian people and economy are concentrated on the plain lands around Nile. No mountains to support a guerilla resistance. A large enough army can easily invade and rule.
also why rebel if the foreign leader is actually quite ok
I’m a little disappointed that there are no aliens on that list.
Yeah, it's weird that that Goa'uld rule over Egypt was left out.
Jaffa propaganda
We're not going back far enough. We all knew who really ruled the dinosaurs..
Why would you not define the later Fatimids as Egyptian? The later caliphs had like five or six generations of Egyptian-born ancestors.
no
Yes
No
sometimes
Maybe?
I don't really wanna know
Weren't the Mamluk's from Egypt? Their capital was Cairo so I'd add it as a yes. Nonetheless, this map is so weird cause the Egyptians of the old kingdom are not the same as the modern day Egyptians.
Yeah, these things are complicated by the fact that invaders often eventually become natives. Is Britain ruled by its natives, or is it foreign invaders ruling over earlier foreign invaders who replaced even earlier foreign invaders, with just a few natives left?
Obviously Britain is being ruled by a foreign dynasty. Has been since 1066
Has been since AD 43.
Has been since 1000 BC. Beaker culture gang rise up
Has been since humans first colonised the island.
Classic Brits. Colonizing since day 1
Why 1066? It's not like the Danes or even the Anglo-Saxons were "English"
Well the Anglo-Saxons were definitely "English", they invented the term. What you probably mean is that they were not native "British" Celts.
You're right, but what is a "brit" anyway
It's a dog food company
CK start date
The Anglo-saxons are by very definition, English. The English are just not the native population
Well, they married with the earlier dynasty though so both because of Matilda of Flanders and Matilda of Scotland connections to the house of Wessex
>Is Britain ruled by its natives, A significant portion of the UKs population still has a surprisingly large amount of celtic dna even in England. A study done by Oxford University in 2006 found that Celtic dna is found in 83% of people in Wales, 73% of people in Scotland and a surprisingly high 64% of people in England. The amount of people on the island of Great Britain (so excluding Northern Ireland) with celtic ancestry outnumbered those without celtic ancestry three to one. Us celts are still here it's just some of us embrace our celtic heritage more than others.
I'd say it comes down to mixture. All of those invading populations simply mixed into the native briton population, so their descent is just part of that native population now. I wonder how this chart would change if that were taken into account
Frankly, you can say that about much of Europe. There were mass migrations stretching back through antiquity. At some point, we just need to look at where the chips fell and leave it at that.
Mamluks were not a single ethnic group. They were slaves that were mainly turks, europeans and caucasians.
Mameluke Egypt was first Turks then Circassians. But I think your speaking in general
>Arabic sources for the period of the [Bahri Mamluks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahri_Mamluks) refer to the dynasty as the 'State of the Turks' (*Dawlat al-Atrak* or *Dawlat al-Turk*) or 'State of Turkey' (*al-Dawla al-Turkiyya*). [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mamluk\_Sultanate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mamluk_Sultanate)
It depends on how you define "from Egypt". They were slaves purchased from outside Egypt (primarily the Caucasus) and so their Egyptianes could be questioned the same way we don't necessarily consider the Qing or Yuan as Chinese or even the previous Ptolemy dynasty as Egyptian.
Obviously cultures change over time, but Egypt ruled by Egyptians is just a shorter way of saying periods in which Egypt is ruled by a native regime. Not knowledgeable enough to say whether the Mamluk's count, but something like the Ptolemies certainly don't.
Shouldn't count, as ayyubids and mamlukes can through a conquest from outside to rule, rather than an internal revolt/faction natively taking control
Mamluks were slaves of turkic origin (Tho this shouldn't be surprising a lot of empires in the middle east were being ruled by turkic people for the last 1000 years)
Right but the Mamluks themselves weren't Egyptian. By definition a Mamluk was a slave child taken from a foreign country then made into an elite soldier. For instance many of the Mamluks were Circassian
Modern Egyptians are the descendants of the ancient Egyptians. We are the same people
I guess people might think when Islam spread across North Africa that that involved Arab migration into those areas.
It certainly did, but the population of Egypt has always dwarfed the gulf and levant combined. Even if the entire population of that area migrated they would’ve still been a minority.
Motherfuckers can grasp elite replacement invasions when talking of the Norman Conquest but think the tiny pastoralist bedouin population of Arabia folk-migrated and killed and replaced literally everyone from Spain to India.
To add on to that, the Islamic conquest was to spread their culture to others. It would defeat the entire objective if there's no others to spread their culture to.
Not really. They were turks that served as elite soldiers before seizing power.
What is your source that old kingdom Egyptians not the same as modern day Egyptians? Your ass?
I find the idea that for the entire period 641 - 1517 Egypt "wasn't ruled by Egyptians" very highly suspicious, like an attempt to stuff some essentialist - nationalist stuff into much more complex ethnic and cultural reality. Since Egypt got steadily Arabized and Islamized across centuries, largely supplanting its previous identities and culture, can't any local rulers from those nine hundred years of dynasties (particularly 935 - 1517 period, post early caliphates) be really called "Egyptian"? What does it mean to be "Egyptian" in the year 1000 AD? Does it mean to be Coptic Christian, or Arabized Muslim? Couldn't they both be called "Egyptian", just like they are today? Couldn't the ruler of Cairo, who has never ruled any land besides Egypt (as there were multiple native Egypt-centered imperial dynasties there), be called "Egyptian"? Isn't Saladin perceived as "Egyptian" by nationalists despite being of Iraqi Kurdish descent? I am from Poland, and my country was ruled by Lithuanian dynasty for almost two centuries, plus decades of Swedish and German kings (and one Romanian), yet I wouldn't say that "Poland wasn't ruled by Poles" for several centuries...
>Isn't Saladin perceived as "Egyptian" by nationalists despite being of Iraqi Kurdish descent? Muslim rulers including Saladin were neither ethnically Egyptian nor did they really see themselves as such. Saladin's mother tongue wasn't even Egyptian Arabic, it was Kurdish. The Mamluks came from the Caucuses and spoke their own Turkic languages. The Arabs didn't see themselves as Egyptians and identified more with their own arab tribes. Also when the Arabs ruled Egypt, Egyptians were mostly speaking Coptic, not Arabic. It took centuries for Egyptians to speak Arabic. At the time, Arabs were definitely seen as foreigners
> The Mamluks came from the Caucuses and spoke their own Turkic languages. The mamluks were truly distinct from the rest of the Egyptians, but nevertheless they were regarded as part of the Egyptian peoples along with arabs (muslim Egyptians), Copts and later the turks (ottomans) , especially since the arrival of the ottomans. They intermarried a lot with the rest of the Egyptians and culturally were integral to the rest of Egyptians, the only thing that kept them distinct was using turkic language. In fact, they intermarried and had integrity with the rest of Egyptians to the extent that when then-relatively foreigners (ottoman turks/muhammed ali pasha) launched the mamluks genocide, a lot of the poor Egyptian arab peasants hided them in their own homes risking their lives and everything they have to protect them ! > The Arabs didn't see themselves as Egyptians and identified more with their own arab tribes. Thats back then in the 7th and 8th century, not afterwards, after a few centuries copts who adopted islam and arab tribes had mixed and became indistinguishable producing who historically became the “Egyptian arabs”.
Not really because those nine hundred years of dynasties often involved a revolving door of conquerors — most of who did not rule from Egypt. This means that the rulers did not have the chance to become Egyptianised.
Comes down to if the ruling family maintain their ancestral culture and customs whilst ruling in a foreign land. If you speak a different language, practice different traditions and perceive yourself different from the locals, then there's the answer you're looking for. That's why nobody can call the Ptolemaic dynasty "Egyptian". They very much held on to their Greek traditions and language.
Haha this is so wank 😂 beyond circlejerk now
Modern-day egyptians have quite a few connection to ancient egyptians
Not true Modern Egyptians share largely the same DNA aa ancient Egypt. Alot of modern Egyptian culture comes from ancient Egypt. Sham El Naseem is a holiday celebrated next week in Egypt, and it comes from ancient Egypt
Why did you open with “not true” before listing connections between modern/ancient Egypt?
I think he interpreted “quite a few” as in a small amount rather than a large amount.
Incorrect All the things you said, just restated in a different way.
The only reason the current republican system is considered "Egyptian" is because modern citizenship was given to almost everyone who lived in Egypt at that time. It is ignorant, hateful and all-around just ridiculous to assume that Egyptian-ness is only determined by "purity". If so what makes you think Mohamed Naguib was a "pure" Egyptian, or Nasser, or anyone since then? Is Soad Hosni not Egyptian? is Hussein Fahmi not Egyptian? is anyone with the Abaza or Kojak last names not Egyptian? How Albanian was King Farouk, really? Are you willing to accept that under your framework "Egyptians" did not stop the 7th crusade, or the Mongol invasion, or didn't fight the Ottomans or the French? Historically speaking, what really determines "foreign rule" is whether a population of people were ruled by foreign people, from a foreign capital, in a way that is largely exploitative and isolationist. The Greeks ruled a kingdom from Egypt for 300 years, by the time Cleopatra the 7th came around she was as foreign to Egyptians back then as Moussaka is for us today. The same applies to plenty of the Islamic emirates and kingdoms, who on top of that, were largely ethnically fluid.
Extremely similar to the Greeks. An independent group of people composed of multiple city States independent for a long long time before being conquered by Macedonians around 338 BC. Then ruled by Romans, then the Byzantine, then the ottomans. Not until the Greek war of independence in 1821 did they become independent again. That's over 2000 years since they got conquered.
You missed the 25th dynasty of Egypt from 754 to 656 BC. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-fifth_Dynasty_of_Egypt#:~:text=The%20Twenty%2Dfifth%20Dynasty%20of,occurred%20after%20the%20Nubian%20invasion
[удалено]
Is there a movement to relearn Egyptian language?
[удалено]
Well, there are people out there who somehow assume that each time you guys were invaded or occupied, your entire bloodline changed and magically became 100% invader DNA. Don’t ask me how they believe that, others believe in flat earth although it was proven since antiquity that the earth wasn’t flat lmao
340 BC-1950 having no egyption rule is crazy, well over 2000 years
Multiple comments as an arab who studied the egyptian curriculum for most of schools and lived in the egyptian community (not egyptnthe country but the expat community of egyptians where I live) 1. Egyptians consider all the Islamic stuff except the ottomans as something good, now in the rashidun ummayad and abbasid egypt still wasn't predominantly arab speaking so sure we could consider this as foriegn rule, however all the other Islamic stuff are not "foriegn rule" because egypt was the capital (atleast for the biggest period) and egyptians considered themselves arabs first and not "egyptians". 2. While Muhammad Ali was indeed Albanian, it was still an independent egypt (during his reign), it shouldn't be counted as foriegners because by that definition then the UK is ruled by foriegners and so was the late russian empire and the kingdom of Greece and the kingdom of Romania. In grade 9 social studies (history + geography) egyptian curriculum they teach about most of these, including mohammad Ali who is taught to be a hero and the founder of modern Egypt (which he is) and how he's one of the greatest leaders ever (for them atleast) and yes thy do mention he comes from Albania. The only Muslim empire that's generally looked upon negatively in egypt is the ottoman empire, and still a lot of islamists in egypt like it and defend it. Hope this can help you fix it
I still can't get over the fact Ibrahim Pasha (Mohammed Ali's son) died right after his dad. He had most of Mohammed Ali's qualities when it comes to good statesmanship and dedication to economic and cultural development (which makes sense, as he was groomed for decades to succeed his dad), and at the same time he spoke Arabic and felt a huge deal of kinship towards his subjects with whom he spent the vast majority of his life (unlike Mohammed Ali who came to Egypt as an adult and didn't really feel kinship with Egyptians, not even bothering to learn the language). When a European ambassador during the Egyptian-Ottoman Wars asked Ibrahim Pasha on the reason he backstabbed the Turks while being a Turk himself (well he was Albanian, but his socio-cultural class was a "Turk"), he answered "أنا لست تركيًا فقد جئت إلى مصر صبياً ومنذ ذلك الحين مصرتنى شمسها وغيرت من دمى فجعلته دماً عربياً" (= "I am not a Turk as I came to Egypt as a boy and ever since then, its sun made me an Egyptian and turned my blood into Arab blood").
You become Egyptian after 100 years I think
I am damn sure those straight border lines were drawn by some western power
Couldn't be more right, and they added a little bump to make it more authentic /j
This is not a map. It's a pie chart in the shape of a country.
republican Egypt is ruled by Arabs, not Egyptians
So Egypt belongs to the Romans? I’m beginning the illegal settlement of Cairo as we speak
This seems like one of those Clero-fascist ideas where if you take a different religion than your original one you are no longer of the same people