3 ms·
the ruler was maybe somewhat independent, the nation was not. Romans also considered Herolds to be a just ruler of an "free" Judea as far as they are conceres.
by amitport 1y ago
the ruler was maybe somewhat independent, the nation was not.
Romans also considered Herolds to be a just ruler of an "free" Judea as far as they are conceres. That's how often subjugation works.
- rsynnott 1y agoIt was kind of the opposite, AIUI; the Ottomans claimed that Muhammad Ali was just a regional governor, but the country was de facto independent; the Ottomans had no ability to control it.
- amitport 1y agoHow do you know? It was not free. The people certainly were not free.
- rsynnott 1y ago> The people certainly were not free. Oh, no, definitely not. I mean, it was the early 19th century; not _literally having slaves_ was considered a dangerously radical experiment that even revolutionary France could only half-commit to. Freedom wasn't a big thing in the early 19th century. But Egypt under Muhammad Ali was about as independent as any country was at the time, really. It controlled its own domestic and foreign policy, had its own military, and _invaded its nominal suzerain_, taking Syria off the Ottomans.