Nile Cataracts, a few questions

GdwnsnHo

Banned
With the Ancient Egyptians obvious skill in stonework, would they have been able to clear the Nile Cataracts, and extend the easily traversable length of the Nile?

Other then potential trade benefits, what are the tangible benefits besides increasing 'natural infrastructure'?

Assuming a Pharaoh decides to expand southward by "Opening the Cataracts" what would the southern half of the Egyptian Empire look like? Other than Nubias wealth in gold, and the Kingdoms of the Kush, could the Empire reach as far as Khartoum? Or extend further to the Ethiopian Highlands or the Sudd?

In addition, assuming the success of such micro-canals - what other potential canal-work or similar stonework could this Egypt indulge in?
 
Historically, a number of the cataracts were navigable during flood season, so seasonal trade and transport by river were practical into Kush.
The highlands of Ethiopia are out of the question by reason of distance and terrain.
 
Historically, a number of the cataracts were navigable during flood season, so seasonal trade and transport by river were practical into Kush.
The highlands of Ethiopia are out of the question by reason of distance and terrain.

^ This plus simple logistics. Waaaaaaaaaay too out of their sphere of control
 
With the Ancient Egyptians obvious skill in stonework, would they have been able to clear the Nile Cataracts, and extend the easily traversable length of the Nile?

Other then potential trade benefits, what are the tangible benefits besides increasing 'natural infrastructure'?

Assuming a Pharaoh decides to expand southward by "Opening the Cataracts" what would the southern half of the Egyptian Empire look like? Other than Nubias wealth in gold, and the Kingdoms of the Kush, could the Empire reach as far as Khartoum? Or extend further to the Ethiopian Highlands or the Sudd?

In addition, assuming the success of such micro-canals - what other potential canal-work or similar stonework could this Egypt indulge in?
You're talking about building canals and locks?

It would be very expensive, and what would the purpose be? If you're talking military purposes, well, men and beasts can get off boats below the cataracts, march around on a portage, and get on new boats. No obvious strategic need for an expensive lock system.

Commercial uses? How much commerce would there be? Is paying (expensive) lock fees cheaper than hiring cart or whatever to portage your goods?

Look at successful otl canals with significant lock systems. They carry(carried) thousands of tonnes of goods annually e.g. wheat from Rochester NY to NYC on the Erie Canal. What masdive, regular, cargo would be coming down the Nile? Or even up it?
 
I wasn't expecting them to build locks, but probably have to deal with the change in depth gradually - essentially using masonry to 'dredge' and clear the cataracts.

Using masonry to 'dredge' the cataracts?? I really dont understand what you mean, I dont think. Do you mean a fast flowing canal? If so, how do boats get up it against the current?
 
I wasn't expecting them to build locks, but probably have to deal with the change in depth gradually - essentially using masonry to 'dredge' and clear the cataracts.

I would posit that Peoples such as the ancient Egyptians would have just adjusted to seasonal rhythms such as the fairly reliable yearly rise of the Nile ( submerging a number of the cataracts) and not have felt the need to engineer 24/7 access.
Also, and perhaps more importantly the early Nile floods brought a huge amount of silt downstream, not only requiring massive yearly dredging but possibly interfering with the life-giving yearly deposits of fertile silt downstream. Key to the agricultural basis of Egyptian civilization.
 
Photos/descriptions of the cataracts themselves would be a great help. I looked over the wikipedia for the cataracts and it looks like it looks like it wouldn't have been feasible for the Egyptians to have cleared the cataracts from the Nile. The only option would be a bypass canal linking navigable stretches above and below the cataract. Obviously this solution would depend a great deal on the geological situation at the construction site but I think the Egyptians had the ability to build the canals if they wanted to. They were able to build the Canal of the Pharaohs alright.


What we really need for this thread is a trained geologist and engineer.

EDIT: Saphroneth is geologist so he might be able to help
 
Last edited:

GdwnsnHo

Banned
Photos/descriptions of the cataracts themselves would be a great help. I looked over the wikipedia for the cataracts and it looks like it looks like it wouldn't have been feasible for the Egyptians to have cleared the cataracts from the Nile. The only option would be a bypass canal linking navigable stretches above and below the cataract. Obviously this solution would depend a great deal on the geological situation at the construction site but I think the Egyptians had the ability to build the canals if they wanted to. They were able to build the Canal of the Pharaohs alright.


What we really need for this thread is a trained geologist and engineer.

EDIT: Saphroneth is geologist so he might be able to help

I'm going to PM Saphroneth later today. Hopefully he can help.

Thinking again, it becomes more obvious that they couldn't clear the river as it was flowing, so a canal seems best - Ideally replacing the Cataract entirely. However, I don't know whether the Egyptians knew how to make/use locks, so I would expect them to build a canal that doesn't need them.

Regarding why would the build them?

1) Trade and Tolls- The Kushites seem to be able to have significant populations in the area beyond the Cataracts, and clearing the Cataracts would allow greater access to each others markets.(in both directions, so why not have the Kushites give the canals a go :p) They weren't insignificant, they did found the 25th Dynasty after all.

Regarding what there was to offer, we have some evidence of significant trade.
wikipedia said:
Over the centuries, trade developed. Egyptian caravans carried grain to Kush and returned to Aswan with ivory, incense, hides, and carnelian (a stone prized both as jewellery and for arrowheads) for shipment downriver.

In addition, Kush is meant to have been at the heart a vast trade network, and controls access to sub-saharan trade routes, the increased access to Egypt would benefit everyone upriver, who would in turn benefit from Egyptian grain, bronze, and other goods.

Canals would allow trade ships to carry vastly more goods than the caravans, the profits of which could be taxed at tolls at the canals (which would be relatively easy to fortify to ensure taxes could be collected).

I'll accept that there is a chance that there wouldn't be enough to pay for the canals and the forts, at first - but my instinct would be that there would be, and increased over time as the trade between both markets grew. In addition, if there are any resources around the cataract-canals that are worth exploiting, it could be enough to make the difference. After all Abu/Elephantine wasn't just the centre of the ivory trade, I vaguely recall reading about various types of stone quarries nearby, and it is at the first Cataract, and as such right next to the first Canal.

2) Expansion - If you can control the canals with forts, it makes sense that it then allows you to tap into the local resources, which may in turn lead to wars with the locals, especially Kush. I don't expect a Pharaoh seeking to have these conflicts from the get go, there may be some, but if relations turn sour and the markets are closed, the forts would allow them to force them open again.

In addition, any cities captured in such a war would mean that Egypt Proper could expand southwards with its population, with very secure waterways. At the very least, if a Pharaoh decided to conquer Kush for their resources, the canals would certainly strengthen his position.

Now I am unaware if the Pharaohs had any concept of population management - but assuming some sort of population boom due to good harvests, if we have canals extending the navigable length of the Nile, it also means there are more locations Pharaoh can establish cities for controlling valuable resources (and potentially increasing the maximum area that could be farmed in worse years, reducing the overall strain on farmlands). Assuming they have that level of foresight.

I do find the idea that iron-rich Kush and Meroe could be controlled by the iron-poor Egyptians, which could lead to a larger, iron-rich Egypt once iron tools come into play.

In addition, conquering all of Egypt would be a nightmare, you could conquer Upper and Lower Egypt, but to push to Kush/Far Egypt and Nubia would mean flat out fighting your way past fortified rivers!
 
Photos/descriptions of the cataracts themselves would be a great help. I looked over the wikipedia for the cataracts and it looks like it looks like it wouldn't have been feasible for the Egyptians to have cleared the cataracts from the Nile.

This is a little sketchy, since it's almost certain that the cataracts have changed greatly over the past 3000 years.
 
With the Ancient Egyptians obvious skill in stonework, would they have been able to clear the Nile Cataracts, and extend the easily traversable length of the Nile?

Other then potential trade benefits, what are the tangible benefits besides increasing 'natural infrastructure'?

Assuming a Pharaoh decides to expand southward by "Opening the Cataracts" what would the southern half of the Egyptian Empire look like? Other than Nubias wealth in gold, and the Kingdoms of the Kush, could the Empire reach as far as Khartoum? Or extend further to the Ethiopian Highlands or the Sudd?

In addition, assuming the success of such micro-canals - what other potential canal-work or similar stonework could this Egypt indulge in?

^ This plus simple logistics. Waaaaaaaaaay too out of their sphere of control

Agreed. They definetly had the masonry skills and the manpower to do something like that, but you have to give them a reason to want to do it. The Egyptians actually didn't really like going outside of the borders of Egypt, as their belief system outright stated that if you are buried outside of Egypt you don't resurrect. That's why there were never any Egyptian colonies elsewhere in the Mediterranean or the Middle East.
 
Last edited:
Agreed. They definetly had the masonry skills and the manpower to do something like that, but you have to give them a reason to want to do it. The Egyptians actually didn't really like going outside of the borders of Egypt, as their belief system outright stated that if you are buried outside of Egypt you don't resurrect. That's why there were never any Egyptian colonies elsewhere in the Mediterranean or the Middle East.
What about during Ptolemaic times?
 
This is a little sketchy, since it's almost certain that the cataracts have changed greatly over the past 3000 years.

Absolutely true. The river will have changed, but not enough, I think, to make a difference. Mostly I was looking to see what the geology of the landscape was. That is what will determine if the cataracts can be cleared, and it won't change much in 3000 years. For example, if the cataract was a bunch of boulders and such lying in the river bed that could be cleared whereas the river going over a waterfall (even a small one) couldn't. From the photos it appears that the cataracts are places where the river passes through rough surrounding terrain. rapids, small waterfalls and the like. So to removing the obstacles would require some serious demolition not just hauling material out of the river. I can't see any way for the Egyptians to achieve that.


As to the economics of building the canals there's no reason they'd have to be profitable or even worth the cost of construction to get built. It could be a vanity project by Pharaoh or a military project during a war with the Nubians.

Also, the canals might well end up like Necho's Canal and be abandoned and allowed to silt up in a later era.
 
What about during Ptolemaic times?

Colonies? The Greek/Macedonian overlayer, yes. But not so much the native Egyptians. Far as I know, the Ptolemies never had serious aspirations beyond the traditional bounds of Egypt, beyond the needs of warfare. Ptolemaic/Kushite relations were frosty for extended periods of time. One might as well ask why the Romans never aspired to canal building around the Cataracts, during their tenure...
 
Colonies? The Greek/Macedonian overlayer, yes. But not so much the native Egyptians. Far as I know, the Ptolemies never had serious aspirations beyond the traditional bounds of Egypt, beyond the needs of warfare. Ptolemaic/Kushite relations were frosty for extended periods of time. One might as well ask why the Romans never aspired to canal building around the Cataracts, during their tenure...

The Greeks and the Romans have no need to undertake a canal building project on the Upper Nile, because they are both seafaring cultures and have proper deep water fleets and the ports to support them. In contrast the Egyptians were actually afraid of large expanses of open water and never really learned to sail the same way the Greeks and the Romans did.
 
The Greeks and the Romans have no need to undertake a canal building project on the Upper Nile, because they are both seafaring cultures and have proper deep water fleets and the ports to support them. In contrast the Egyptians were actually afraid of large expanses of open water and never really learned to sail the same way the Greeks and the Romans did.

That has nothing to do with navigation on the Nile, though.
Yes, it seems the Egyptians did commission Phoenicians for at least one famous extended sea voyage. The Egyptians, did however, participate in Eastern Med. trading (by sea). I think you overestimate Egyptian aversion to water travel. What's more, ancient Egyptian dynasties maintained navies. These were even critical for maintaining influence in the Levant.
 
I just found this website discussing canals in Ancient Egypt. http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/timelines/topics/canals.htm

According to it there was a canal bypassing the First Cataract that was extant for nearly a thousand years. However, it frequently fell into disrepair and had to be renovated as it silted up extremely rapidly if not subject to continuous maintenance.

The website doesn't seem to cite any sources for the information though.
 
That has nothing to do with navigation on the Nile, though.
Yes, it seems the Egyptians did commission Phoenicians for at least one famous extended sea voyage. The Egyptians, did however, participate in Eastern Med. trading (by sea). I think you overestimate Egyptian aversion to water travel. What's more, ancient Egyptian dynasties maintained navies. These were even critical for maintaining influence in the Levant.

It actually sort of does, though. The Egyptians didn't try to dredge the Upper Nile, or build around the cataracts, possibly for religious and cultural reasons, despite 3,000 years of trade and warfare with Kush. The Greeks and the Romans didn't do it possibly because they had sufficiently advanced shipbuilding and navigational capabilities in comparison to the Egyptians that they may have felt that they didn't need to. The Egyptians, the Greeks and the Romans all had the necessary knowledge to undertake a project of form or another to improve navigation on the Upper Nile, you just need to give them a reason to want to.
 
It actually sort of does, though. The Egyptians didn't try to dredge the Upper Nile, or build around the cataracts, possibly for religious and cultural reasons, despite 3,000 years of trade and warfare with Kush. The Greeks and the Romans didn't do it possibly because they had sufficiently advanced shipbuilding and navigational capabilities in comparison to the Egyptians that they may have felt that they didn't need to. The Egyptians, the Greeks and the Romans all had the necessary knowledge to undertake a project of form or another to improve navigation on the Upper Nile, you just need to give them a reason to want to.

I agree with you in that whoever built a canal, they would need a thoroughly compelling reason to do so.
 

GdwnsnHo

Banned
I agree with you in that whoever built a canal, they would need a thoroughly compelling reason to do so.

Perhaps I underestimate Pharaohs godhood - but if he declared that all under his dominion was Egypt, or that Kush was now Part of Egypt, would that not count?

Being a god, I'd imagine he can make that call. And if the priests get riled up, I'm sure that the new temples and (ancient Egyptian version of tithes) would probably encourage them to comply.

A cult of Kebet could also insist that all land the nile waters ever touch could be Kebet.

Problem is that you need a Pharaoh half as unorthodox as akhenaten. Probably not their own doom. But maybe.
 
Top