Earliest Possible Suez Canal?

So is the general consensus that building such a canal would be an insanely good idea? How many years would it take?
 
So is the general consensus that building such a canal would be an insanely good idea? How many years would it take?

Dominus estimates 3-4 years, I think.

Personally I think his figures - both on the results and the costs - are optimistic, but I haven't done the math myself.

If it was such an unbeatably brilliant idea, we'd see an earlier than OTL Suez Canal, or at least the OTL transhipment canals continuously maintained. That they weren't suggests we're overlooking something.
 
If it was such an unbeatably brilliant idea, we'd see an earlier than OTL Suez Canal, or at least the OTL transhipment canals continuously maintained. That they weren't suggests we're overlooking something.
How long did the OTL Suez Canal take? How complicated were the dredges used?

And one big reason we didn't see it earlier was that everyone thought the Indian Ocean had a higher water level than the Mediterranean Sea and would therefore sweep down through the canal and inundate the coastlines. Does anyone know where this idea came from? Is there any reason why no one dismissed it by pointing out they connect under the south of Africa? (Was that fact generally accepted?)
 
How long did the OTL Suez Canal take? How complicated were the dredges used?

And one big reason we didn't see it earlier was that everyone thought the Indian Ocean had a higher water level than the Mediterranean Sea and would therefore sweep down through the canal and inundate the coastlines. Does anyone know where this idea came from? Is there any reason why no one dismissed it by pointing out they connect under the south of Africa? (Was that fact generally accepted?)

One, but not the only.

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/suez-canal-opens

Thirteen years from the formation of the company, ten years from starting construction, and four years behind schedule - despite using 19th century technology (as opposed to what would be available earlier) for at least a good part of the work.
 
One, but not the only.

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/suez-canal-opens

Thirteen years from the formation of the company, ten years from starting construction, and four years behind schedule - despite using 19th century technology (as opposed to what would be available earlier) for at least a good part of the work.

The misapprehension about sealevels dates to a hurried survey during napoleons occupation. Afaik, that was the first modern survey .... and the only one to get it wrong.


Ya, de lesseps original methods werent far from what was available a thousand years before ... and were grossly inadequate for a commercial company.

Note, too, that there was a major ridge of rock in the way near the south end that was relatively easy to deal with with tonnes of gunpowder, but would have been much harder with pick and shovel.


Otoh, they dont need to make it as deep or wide, so thats easier.

Ot3h, they may need tow ways, which would make construction interseting, especially in the lake sections.

Moreover, maintaining and dredging that size canal by hand would be ... fun.


Id say 25 or more years to build, and a sizable expense to maintain, which will reduce profits, and extend payoff time.

Remember, too, that all that capital investment is up front, and itlll bbe a generation before ANY money comes in. At 3% interest, that would double the cost. At 100% it increases the cost millions of times.

Real interext rates would be inbetween.
 
Thirteen years from the formation of the company, ten years from starting construction, and four years behind schedule - despite using 19th century technology (as opposed to what would be available earlier) for at least a good part of the work.

The Suez Canal was mostly built with mass forced labor.
 
The Suez Canal was mostly built with mass forced labor.

http://www.associationlesseps.org/en/suez_historique.html

"As from 1863, the campaign against Lesseps escalated, fuelled by the prime minister of the new viceroy Ismaïl, who had succeeded Saïd. At the orders of the Sultan, who was himself taking his instructions from England, forced labour (corvee) was abolished in order to bring the work came to a standstill. But Lesseps then managed to substantially defuse the dispute over labour, replacing manpower, thanks to engineers, with steam engines, dredgers, excavators and other machines. Begun with shovels, pickaxes and baskets, construction of the canal continued under the power of steam."

Since the canal was started in 1859, and finished in 1869, I'm not sure how a period of four years outweighs the next six.
 
http://www.associationlesseps.org/en/suez_historique.html

"As from 1863, the campaign against Lesseps escalated, fuelled by the prime minister of the new viceroy Ismaïl, who had succeeded Saïd. At the orders of the Sultan, who was himself taking his instructions from England, forced labour (corvee) was abolished in order to bring the work came to a standstill. But Lesseps then managed to substantially defuse the dispute over labour, replacing manpower, thanks to engineers, with steam engines, dredgers, excavators and other machines. Begun with shovels, pickaxes and baskets, construction of the canal continued under the power of steam."

Since the canal was started in 1859, and finished in 1869, I'm not sure how a period of four years outweighs the next six.

The point remains: They clearly thought it was both possible and economical (even with competition from steam power) to use mass labor instead.
 
The point remains: They clearly thought it was both possible and economical (even with competition from steam power) to use mass labor instead.

Because thinking it was, and being right, are related.

Sorry about the late response, but I think it has to be said.
 
Top