What would have been the global economic, political, and social effects had Suez Canal built let say, 200 years earlier than in OTL?
Why would it be built two hundred years earlier?
ever heard of the Canal of the Pharaohs? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canal_of_the_Pharaohs
100 years earlier otoh might have some real potential.
ever heard of the Canal of the Pharaohs? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canal_of_the_Pharaohs
The fact it was built but fell into disrepair tells us that it wasn't as great a boon as one might expect. If it was important it would have been maintained. also worthy of note is that it did not connect the Mediterranean and the Red seas but the Nile to the Red sea. I doubt a canal following the modern route would be possible without the aid of modern machinery.
FORWhy?
You're still dealing with sailing ships subject to the Red Sea's problems, you're still limited in what equipment you have to dig the damn thing.
What's the point?
It was abandoned because the Nile River moved west and coastline changed, not because it wasn't useful.ever heard of the Canal of the Pharaohs? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canal_of_the_Pharaohs
The fact it was built but fell into disrepair tells us that it wasn't as great a boon as one might expect. If it was important it would have been maintained. also worthy of note is that it did not connect the Mediterranean and the Red seas but the Nile to the Red sea. I doubt a canal following the modern route would be possible without the aid of modern machinery.
Why?
You're still dealing with sailing ships subject to the Red Sea's problems, you're still limited in what equipment you have to dig the damn thing.
What's the point?
FOR
Ptolemy Philadelphus' canal was closed in 770 A.D. by the Caliph al-Mansur in order to cut off trade to his enemies, not from lack of utility but because it was too useful to rebels.
The modern Suez canal would have been dug entirely by manual labour if it had not been for British involvement. 10,000 fellahin were employed as forced labour, but the British government, who opposed a "French" canal and had a competing railway line, made diplomatic protests about the use of "slave labour" and, undiplomatically, sent bedouin mercenaries into the work camps to foment worker strikes and riots and a bit of intimidation. Thus de Lesseps was forced to acquire purpose built steam shovels and dredgers that co-incidentally were built in Britain. One suspects that picks and shovels and wheelbarrows in 1659 were much the same as those in 1859.
A 1659 canal would not need to be as deep or as wide as a 19thC one.
If a lateen sail could handle the problems of the variable winds of the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden, a European-rigged ship certainly could. In any case Greeks, Arabs, Romans and the 16th C Portugese traversed the waterway.
The biggest problem would be travelling the length of the canal where tacking was not an option (the reason why the bottom dropped out of general cargo sailing ships after 1870 in OTL), however galleys were still very much in use in the Med. and remained so until the 1720s alternatively sailing vessels were often towed by long boats in the doldrums or when dismasted.
No, it's not, not according to the title of the thread. The 8th-century Caliphate had direct overland access to the Silk Road, direct oversea access to eastern spices, and the Arabs were suited to crossing the Arabian desert.And not rebuilt later, which is extermely telling.
Of course it would. It's a direct naval route. Having a direct naval route was so important back then that they went all the way around Africa to get to India.eliphas8: How? The Suez Canal doesn't make the Red Sea a more viable trade route by any significant margin, and cleaning up pirates is a separate project.
No, it's not, not according to the title of the thread. The 8th-century Caliphate had direct overland access to the Silk Road, direct oversea access to eastern spices, and the Arabs were suited to crossing the Arabian desert.
And trade with the Christians was limited. Why would they rebuild the canal when they don't really need anything from the West?
A transshipment canal, not a substitute for the Suez canal we know today.Meanwhile, in the 1600s, the situation is completely different, with Westerners wanting Eastern goods and an easy way to get them.
And a canal had already been built with BCs era technology, and maintained until the 8th century AD...
Neither are the alternatives that a rebuilt transshipment canal poses.Of course it would. It's a direct naval route. Having a direct naval route was so important back then that they went all the way around Africa to get to India.
And transporting certain goods by camel train in the Sinai desert is not exactly ideal in the 17th century.
eliphas8: How? The Suez Canal doesn't make the Red Sea a more viable trade route by any significant margin, and cleaning up pirates is a separate project.
Because it turns Egypts mediteranian coast and red sea coast into what is effectively one united coast rather than two entirely separate coast. It unites two seperate trade regions and opens up the red sea coast to far more development.
That's in the 8th century, not the 17th.Precisely. Why would it be worthwhile? It isn't.
A Suez Canal as we know it today would also be possible, and would be just as easy. The coastline and inland lakes were slightly more favorable then, and no locks are required (unlike the Canal of the Pharaohs... which was completed in the BCs).A transshipment canal, not a substitute for the Suez canal we know today.
And Westerners can want Eastern goods all they like, they don't control the area this canal would be built.
Neither are the alternatives that a rebuilt transshipment canal poses.
So that means a canal in the area is even more convenient.The reason for the route around Africa wasn't the advantages of water vs. land&water but Egypt monopolizing trade with the East and a desire to get around that monopoly.
That's in the 8th century, not the 17th.
I don't know how easy it would be to dig, but it would be considerably less useful pre-steam.A Suez Canal as we know it today would also be possible, and would be just as easy. The coastline and inland lakes were slightly more favorable then, and no locks are required (unlike the Canal of the Pharaohs... which was completed in the BCs).
Or they can not build it and not lose Egypt. Like OTL.The owners of the canal (probably the Ottomans) can also charge tolls, or the Christians can conquer Egypt. This is around the time when it would have become possible, with multiple Christian coalitions against the Ottomans and technology recently eclipsing theirs, if very difficult.
No, it doesn't.So that means a canal in the area is even more convenient.
If it did benefit those in power in Egypt enough to be worth the cost, what are the Dutch and British going to do about it?