An Ottoman Suez Canal?

Let's say that in the early-to-mid 1500s, the Ottoman sultan becomes greatly concerned with the Portugese domination of trade with India and the East in general. Due to a different configuration of influence in court, he is able to act against the entrenched interests of land-based traders and promote sea-based trade (and Ottoman power) in the Indian Ocean, by building a Suez Canal. I see two possibilities here:

1. A canal connecting Cairo to the Red Sea, as was done many times from Ancient Egypt onwards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Canal#History).

2. A modern-style Suez Canal, connecting the Red Sea and the Mediterranean directly. This would allow larger ships through, shorten the passage and prevent any possible problems with a flow of saltwater into the Nile, but would be much more difficult to build.

So, here are my questions:

1. Is option #2 even possible with a 1500s level of technology? I would assume so - I mean, the Chinese built the Grand Canal with a lower technological level. So long as the Ottomans are willing to devote the labor and expense to it, I don't see why they couldn't build a sea-level canal.

2. Would this change economic patterns in any major way? The way I see it, this would essentially connect the Indian Ocean and Mediterranean spheres of trade into a single trading area far more effectively than land transit did. Would this trading bloc be able to compete with the growing Western Europe - Baltic - Americas - Africa trading zone being set up by Spain/England/Portugal at the time, or would it simply be subsumed into West European exploitation and hegemony as in OTL?

3. Could the Ottomans, with a canal allowing fast transit from Turkey to the Red Sea and beyond, compete successfully with Portugese naval dominance of the Indian Ocean? Or was it more of a matter of naval tech, and would Ottoman ships be crushed by the Portugese as they were at Lepanto by Spain and Italy?
 
A thing worth asking before attempting to build either - will the probable profits for the Empire make up for the costs of building and maintaining the canal?
 
A thing worth asking before attempting to build either - will the probable profits for the Empire make up for the costs of building and maintaining the canal?


If the Ottomans can recapture the spice trade and general Indian Ocean trade for themselves and fellow Islamic traders (in Malacca, etc.) from the Portugese, I would argue yes, in political and economic terms. Wasn't the loss of the caravan trade to seaborne competition a major economic problem for the Ottomans OTL?
 
If the Ottomans can recapture the spice trade and general Indian Ocean trade for themselves and fellow Islamic traders (in Malacca, etc.) from the Portugese, I would argue yes, in political and economic terms. Wasn't the loss of the caravan trade to seaborne competition a major economic problem for the Ottomans OTL?

Well, the Ottomans will need to reapportion a great deal of their empire's wealth on said matter. They will need to build and maintain a suez canal. They will need build, a navy capable of action in both the red sea and Indian ocean. They will need to build the port facilities necessary to both train and maintain said fleet. They will need to create a fleet that is capable of competing with Portugal in terms of technology and seamanship.

After these expenses are taken care of, the Ottomans will need to compete in the economics of the spice trade.
 
If the Ottomans can recapture the spice trade and general Indian Ocean trade for themselves and fellow Islamic traders (in Malacca, etc.) from the Portugese, I would argue yes, in political and economic terms. Wasn't the loss of the caravan trade to seaborne competition a major economic problem for the Ottomans OTL?

Profits to traders are not the same as profits for the state.

Also, and you may or may not have read this, but:
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=178725

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=4002939&postcount=31 specifically - what's to recapture?
 
Thanks for the links - I really should have looked for previous threads before putting forth my "totally new and original" idea.

I guess my arguement would be that the Ottomans and others never built the Suez for the same reason that the Spanish didn't abolish the mesta (the right of a sheepherders' guild to graze wherever it wanted, trampling and eating farmers' crops): the present institutions formed a stable equilibrium, even though in the long run, making the change would be beneficial.

What's necessary to get the Suez built is an Ottoman Peter the Great: someone who has a vision and is willing to forget the short-run cost and work for his dream. Peter the Great built St. Petersburg in a swamp at huge cost and for very long-run, ideological reasons. I could see the Suez built by the Ottomans for several reasons:

1. The sultan hears about how the Egyptians or Abbasids used to have a canal, and decides that crossing the Suez is the mark of a great nation.

2. The sultan is very pious, and decides that building the canal will help the cause of Islam in 3 ways:
1. It will make it easier for pilgrims to travel to Mecca.
2. By assisting Islamic trade networks against the Portugese, it will maintain a Muslim near-monopoly on Indian Ocean trade.
3. It will help the Ottoman state maintain better control over Mecca and Medina.

3. The sultan is an ally of wealthy naval traders.

I admit that the unsuitability of the Red Sea for sailing ships is a problem, but could this be offset somewhat by the Ottoman/Mediterranean use of galleys.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the links - I really should have looked for previous threads before putting forth my "totally new and original" idea.

No worries. Speaking for myself, we need fresh discussion on old ideas now and then, as long as they're not things like Sealion which there really isn't a whole lot to say after a while. But the old threads should be read so that the same arguments don't get repeated just because no one read them the first time - I think your comments here indicate some possibilities that might make someone try even if it isn't practical, although I'm not sure if the canal offers much of an advantage for the Hajj. And the sea traders . . . not sure that really works. Still, maybe.

I guess my arguement would be that the Ottomans and others never built the Suez for the same reason that the Spanish didn't abolish the mesta (the right of a sheepherders' guild to graze wherever it wanted, trampling and eating farmers' crops): the present institutions formed a stable equilibrium, even though in the long run, making the change would be beneficial.

What's necessary to get the Suez built is an Ottoman Peter the Great: someone who has a vision and is willing to forget the short-run cost and work for his dream. Peter the Great built St. Petersburg in a swamp at huge cost and for very long-run, ideological reasons.
I'm not sure it would be beneficial, though. I agree a Peter the Great like drive to make it happen might make sense - although the question becomes why later sultans who are less driven don't let it decay (if it isn't paying off).
 
I'm not sure it would be beneficial, though. I agree a Peter the Great like drive to make it happen might make sense - although the question becomes why later sultans who are less driven don't let it decay (if it isn't paying off).

Oh, I think that's a very real possibility - I mean, that's what it looks like happened to the Egyptian/Arab canals of earlier centuries. I'd bet that the expanded volume of trade of the 1500s would allow the canal to pay off. But that doesn't mean it'd be kept open - as you said, there's a difference between profit to traders and profit to the state.

I don't think a lasting Suez is likely. But I do think it's plausible, and that if it existed, it would have major effects on world economic and military history - essentially raising the economic profile of the Mediterranean/Indian Ocean states in comparision to Western Europe - that maybe it could halt or even reverse the rise of Northern Europe and the fall of the Mediterranean.
 
I'm not sure if an Ottoman Suez Canal could even be attempted to be built, let alone the Ottomans' ambition for a Don-Volga canal. With the idea of the Don-Volga canal, it served for one purpose only: to create another path for the invasion of Persia.
 
The only problem I see with this is that the Ottomans will have to build a navy that is capable of fighting in the Indian Ocean, far rougher seas than the Mediterranean. Their current navy (and therefore their admirals) is only suited to Mediterranean combat. If they put so much expense on their naval capacity, it means they'll probably have to spend less on the army, until the spice trade really kicks up. The Safavids or Hungarians may take revenge on the Ottomans, which is worse for the Ottomans in the long run. An Ottoman Suez Canal and stronger drive to defeat the Portuguese in the Indian Ocean is a gamble, and a very risky one.
 
Oh, I think that's a very real possibility - I mean, that's what it looks like happened to the Egyptian/Arab canals of earlier centuries. I'd bet that the expanded volume of trade of the 1500s would allow the canal to pay off. But that doesn't mean it'd be kept open - as you said, there's a difference between profit to traders and profit to the state.

Well that all depends on what share of the trade the Ottoman's will take. The Ottomans will need to spend the better part of a sultan's reign building both the canal and the fleet needed to take advantage of it. During this time, the Portuguese are profiting and establishing themselves in the Indian market. The ottoman's will then need to compete against the Portuguese both militarily and economically.

Its also worth noting that the Europeans aren't exactly bad customers from the producer end of the spice trade. They are willing to pay hard specie for large volumes of pepper, cinnamon, and cloves. This significantly undercut the old overland method, with both price and volume. In theory the ottoman's could undercut them further, but they'd need to recoup the canal costs and have open European markets.
 
Top