Marsot, in contrast, does not see that Mehmed Ali was blindly driven toward expansion, and argues that his expansionary policy could best be understood in economic terms. "The value of conquest [did not lie] in conquest itself. It was always posited in terms of what conquest could add to Egypt's financial situation . . . Expansion was economic planning carried out by other means." This argument, however, raises more questions than it seeks to answer. Although it is true that the economic growth that Egypt witnessed during Mehmed Ali's reign required finding markets, the Egyptian market, as Marsot herself states, was far from saturated. That there were economic benefits to be gained by military expansion does not necessarily mean that these economic benefits were the reason behind such expansion.

QUESTION: A methodologically important point: post hoc economic benefits don't establish causal intentions. Worth pressing further on what evidence would actually distinguish motive from outcome. Builds on: "Historians debate whether Mehmed Ali's wars sought independence or imperial expansion."

Khaled Fahmy, All the Pasha_s Men_ Mehmed…, loc. 200