SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Cedrus / 2026 / Cilt: 14

Railway as Border Technology: The Khedivial Line and Ottoman–British Rivalry in the Eastern Mediterranean

Sınır Teknolojisi Olarak Demiryolu: Hidiviye Hattı ve Doğu Akdeniz'de Osmanlı–Britanya Rekabeti

Recep Kürekli(NEVSEHIR UNIVERSITY, FACULTY OF EDUCATION)0000-0002-8513-8433
Journal
Cedrus
Pages
1–23
Publication Date
2026-05-12
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

By illustrating how infrastructure inextricably bound sovereignty, commerce, and strategy, this research contributes a systematic, document-based operational history and recasts the line as a critical nexus of late Ottoman-British rivalry and Mediterranean border governance.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:TThis article examines the Khedivial (Abbas Hilmi II) Railway from Alexandria toward Tripoli on the basis of British archival materials, adopting a historical and international-relations analytical framework.
📊
Key Findings & Data:It reconstructs the technical and operational anatomy of the line, demonstrating how design choices determined performance and cost parameters.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:By illustrating how infrastructure inextricably bound sovereignty, commerce, and strategy, this research contributes a systematic, document-based operational history and recasts the line as a critical nexus of late Ottoman-British rivalry and Mediterranean border governance.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Hidiviye Hattı · Hattı • Daʾire-i Hassa · Mısır Demiryolları

Abstract

TThis article examines the Khedivial (Abbas Hilmi II) Railway from Alexandria toward Tripoli on the basis of British archival materials, adopting a historical and international-relations analytical framework. It reconstructs the technical and operational anatomy of the line, demonstrating how design choices determined performance and cost parameters. Set within the security economy of the pre-1914 Eastern Mediterranean, the railway is interpreted as a border technology along the Egypt–Cyrenaica corridor: it advanced toward Sollum while articulating with caravan routes, seasonal fairs, and barley shipments, yet operated under British surveillance, Ottoman military sensitivities, and Italian concessionary ambitions. The study further situates the project within Egypt's broader railway development following the 1854 Alexandria–Cairo line (the first operational railway in the Middle East) and its subsequent extension toward Suez, clarifying how a khedivial private line both complemented and diverged from State Railways by projecting authority into the western desert corridor. By illustrating how infrastructure inextricably bound sovereignty, commerce, and strategy, this research contributes a systematic, document-based operational history and recasts the line as a critical nexus of late Ottoman-British rivalry and Mediterranean border governance.

Özet

Bu makale, İskenderiye'den Trablusgarp yönüne uzanan Hidiviye (II. Abbas Hilmi) Demiryolu'nu Britanya arşiv belgelerine dayanarak tarihsel uluslararası ilişkiler analitik çerçevesinde incelemektedir. Hattın teknik ve işletme anatomisini yeniden inşa ederek tasarım tercihlerinin performans ve maliyet parametreleri üzerindeki belirleyici etkisini ortaya koymaktadır. 1914 öncesi Doğu Akdeniz'in güvenlik ekonomisi bağlamında demiryolu, Mısır – Sirenaika koridorunda bir sınır teknolojisi olarak yorumlanmaktadır: hat Sollum'a doğru ilerlerken kervan güzergâhları, mevsimlik panayırlar ve arpa sevkiyatlarıyla eklemlenmektedir; ancak Britanya gözetimi, Osmanlı askerî hassasiyetleri ve İtalyan imtiyaz emelleri altında işlemektedir. Çalışma ayrıca projeyi, 1854 tarihli İskenderiye – Kahire hattından (Ortadoğu'nun ilk işletmeye alınan demiryolu) ve ardından Süveyş yönündeki genişleme sürecinde Mısır demiryolu gelişimi içinde konumlandırarak, hidivliğe bağlı özel bir hattın Batı çölü koridoruna otorite projeksiyonu yoluyla Devlet Demiryolları'nı nasıl hem tamamladığını hem de ondan ayrıştığını açıklığa kavuşturmaktadır. Altyapının egemenlik, ticaret ve stratejiyi ayrılmaz biçimde birbirine bağladığını gösteren bu araştırma, belgelere dayalı sistematik bir işletme tarihi sunarak söz konusu hattı, geç Osmanlı dönemi Osmanlı–Britanya rekabetinin ve Akdeniz sınır yönetişiminin kritik bir düğüm noktası olarak yeniden konumlandırmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Kürekli, R. (2026). Railway as Border Technology: The Khedivial Line and Ottoman–British Rivalry in the Eastern Mediterranean. Cedrus, Cilt: 14, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20012771

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (54)

  1. Abou-Hodeib T. 2007, “Quarantine and Trade: The Case of Beirut, 1831–1840”. International Journal of Maritime History 19/2, 223–44.
  2. Ahmed H. A. A, 1967, Caravan Trade and Routes in the Northern Sudan in the 19th Century: A Study in Historical Geography. Unpublished Master Thesis, Durham University. Durham.
  3. Alff K. 2018, “Levantine Joint-Stock Companies, Trans-Mediterranean Partnerships, and Nineteenth-Century Capitalist Development”. Comparative Studies in Society and History 60/1, 150–77.
  4. Alghafal S. 2021, A Bridgehead to Africa: German Interest in the Ottoman Province of Tripoli (Libya) 1884–1918. ZMO-Studien 39. Berlin – Boston.
  5. Andic F. M., & Andic S. 2014, Reforming Ottoman Governance: Success, Failure and the Path to Decline. New Jersey.
  6. Ardeleanu C. 2024, Steamboat Modernity: Travel, Transport, and Social Transformation on the Lower Danube, 1830–1860. Budapest.
  7. Bilmez B. C. 2000, Demiryolundan Petrole Chester Projesi (1908-1923). İstanbul.
  8. Borutta M. & Gekas S. 2012, “A Colonial Sea: The Mediterranean, 1798–1956”. European Review of History: Revue Europeenne d’histoire 19/1, 1–13.
  9. Carminati L. 2023, Seeking Bread and Fortune in Port Said: Labor Migration and the Making of the Suez Canal, 1859–1906. Berkeley.
  10. Chaichian M. A. 1988, “The Effects of World Capitalist Economy on Urbanization in Egypt, 1800-1970”. International Journal of Middle East Studies 20/1, 23–43.
  11. Chircop J. 2018, “Quarantine, Sanitasation, Colonialism and the Construction of the Contagious Arap in the Mediterranean, 1830s-1900”. Eds. J. Chircop & F. J. Matinez, Mediterranean Quarantines, 1750-1914: Space, Identity and Power. Manchester, 199-231.
  12. Christensen P.H. 2017, Germany and the Ottoman Railways: art, empire, and infrastructure. New Haven & London.
  13. Coşar N. & Demirci S. 2009, “Incorporation into the World Economy: From Railways to Highways (1850 - 1950)”. Middle Eastern Studies 45/1, 19–31.
  14. Crouchley A. E. 1938, “The Charter of the Bank of Egypt (19 Vict. - 1856)”. Bulletin de l’institut Égyptien 21/1, 31–41.
  15. Demirci S. & Coşar N. 2021, “Modernisation through Railways: Economic and Social Change in the Ottoman Empire in the Nineteenth Century”. Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies 23/5, 684–694. De Vecchi P. 1912, Italy’s Civilizing Mission in Africa. New York.
  16. Dimitriadis S. 2018, “The Tramway Concession of Jerusalem, 1908–1914: Elite Citizenship, Urban Infrastructure, and the Abortive Modernization of a Late Ottoman City”. Eds. A. Dalachanis & V. Lemire, Ordinary Jerusalem, 1840–1940: Opening New Archives, Revisiting a Global City. Leiden & Boston, 475–489.
  17. Dunn J. P. 2004, Khedive Ismail’s Army. Routledge.
  18. Ekinci İ. 2006, “Osmanlı’da Yabancı Vapur Kumpanyaları ve İmajları Hakkında”. Kebikeç 21, 73-96.
  19. Emini B. 2022, “The Efforts of Ottoman Empire to Build Railways in The Balkans (1855-1913)”. Journal of Balkan Studies 2/1, 50–62.
  20. Endelman J. 2018, “In the Shadow of Empire: States in an Ottoman System”. Social Science History 42/4, 811–34.
  21. Ettouney O. M. 2010, “Railways along the Nile: The Early Years, 1851-1879”. Railroad History 202, 60–69.
  22. Görgen İ. 2022, “Büyük Devletlerin Ortadoğu’da Demiryolu ve Petrol Politikası”. Avrasya İncelemeleri Dergisi / Journal of Eurasian Inquiries 11/2, 161–189.
  23. Gülsoy U. 1994, Hicaz Demiryolu. İstanbul.
  24. Gümüş M. 2011, “1893’ten 1923 Chester Projesi’ne Türk Topraklarında Demiryolu İmtiyaz Mücadeleleri ve Büyük Güçler”. History School 10, 151-194.
  25. Hertner P. 2014, “Investors, Investment Banks, and Governments between Cooperation and Competition. A Short History of the Salonica-Constantinople Railway (1892–1914)”. Eds. H. Bonin & C. Brambilla, Investment Banking History: National and Comparative Issues (19th–21st Centuries). Bruxelles, 83–112.
  26. Kenzari B. 2004, “Lake Tunis, or the Concept of the Third Centre”. Ed. Y. Elsheshtawy, Planning Middle Eastern Cities: An Urban Kaleidoscope in a Globalizing World. London & New York, 114-133.
  27. McClure W. K. 1913, Italy in the North Africa. London.
  28. Öztürk M. 2023, “Hayal ile Gerçek Arasında: Süveyş Kanalına Karşılık Hicaz Demiryolu”. Eds. M. Demiryürek & F. Akın & H. Yazar, Tarih Tasarımları: Prof. Dr. Zeki Arıkan Anısına. İstanbul, 421-437.
  29. Özyüksel M. 2014, The Hejaz Railway and the Ottoman Empire: modernity, industrialisation and ottoman dicline. Library of Ottoman Studies 39. London.
  30. Priest A. 2021, Designs on Empire: America’s Rise to Power in the Age of European Imperialism. New York.
  31. Uygun S. 2018, “Fransız Cyprien Fabre Vapur Kumpanyası (Compagnie Française de Navigation à Vapeur Cyprien Fabre) ve Levant Limanlarındaki Faaliyetleri (1868-1914)”. Vakanüvis-Uluslararası Tarih Araştırmaları Dergisi 3, 412-448.
  32. Uygun S. 2019, “Modern Mısır’ın Doğuşu (Yatırım, Kredi ve İflas Denkleminde) ve Bir Fransız Aktör: Edouard Andre Dervieu”. Studies of the Ottoman Domain 9/17, 85- 123.
  33. Schanz M. 1912, Cotton in Egypt and Anglo-Egyptian Sudan. Manchester.
  34. Schayegh C. 2025, “Emergence of an aero-city: path dependency and ‘internal’ dimensions in Bey/Beirut from the mid-nineteenth to the mid-twentieth centuries”. Urban History, 1–21. doi:10.1017/S0963926825100291
  35. Steevens G. W. 1899, Egypt in 1898. New York.Archival Documents The National Archives in London (TNA). Foreign Office (FO).
  36. FO, 407/106, No. 64, Sir E. Baring to the Marquis of Salisbury, Cairo, March 29,1891.
  37. FO, 407/374, General Considerations Affecting The Defence of Egypt, May 1910.
  38. FO, 633/70, No. 1, Viscount Cromer to the Marquess of Lansdowne, Cairo, March 1, 1901.
  39. FO, 881/5365, Inclosure in No 162, Memorandum on Foreign Employés of the Egyptian Government,1886.
  40. FO, 881/5503, Report on the Egyptian State Railways, by Messrs. Marindin and Farrer, Cairo, July 7,1887.
  41. FO, 881/5548, Inclosure 2 in No 2, Memorandum on the Strategical Considerations involved in the question of Railways in Asia Minor by Captain Leverson R.E., Intelligence Branch, October 13, 1897.
  42. FO, 881/7158, Inclosure in No 128, Extract from Statistical Returns, 1881-1897.
  43. WO, 106/217, From British Agency, Cairo, February 17, 1912.
  44. WO, 106/217, Note by General Manager of Egyptian State Railways to the Ministry of Finance of Egyptian Government, February 1912.
  45. WO, 106/217, Notes on The Daira Khassa Railway, February 1912.
  46. WO, 106/217, Report on The Daira Khassa (or Mariut) Railway by Mr. W. H. Bishop, Agent, Sudan Government Railways, Alexandria, October 1911.
  47. WO, 106/217, No. 40, Sir R. Rodd to Sir Edward Grey, Rome, March 13, 1913.
  48. WO, 106/217, The Daira Khassa (or Mariut) Railway, Alexandria Sheet 1.
  49. WO, 106/217, No. 23, Viscount Kitchener to Sir Edward Grey, Cairo, March 12, 1913.
  50. Presidency of the Republic of Türkiye, Directorate of State Archives (DOSA).
  51. Directorate of State Archives, Ottoman Archives (BOA).
  52. BOA, Y.EE., 117/9, Grand Vizier Ferid Pasha’s Memorandum, 05 Safer 1322 (Hijri) (21 April 1904).
  53. BOA, Y.PRK.ASK., 14/59, A Military Memorandum (Maruzat) Addressed to the Grand Vizierate, 26 Zilkade 1299 (Hijri) (9 October 1882).
  54. BOA, Y.PRK.TKM., 19/29, The Article “The Egyptian Question” Published in the St. Petersburg Newspaper “Novoe Vremya”, 12 Rebiulevvel 1308 (Hijri) (26 October 1890).