Unfortunately, having done some research myself into the possibility of Necho's fleet circumnavigating Africa, I've found that almost no serious scholar of the time period regards this as a possibility.
Well, "serious scholars" have doubted all sorts of things we now know to be true. That in itself is not evidence.
Alan B. Lloyd in his article "Necho and the Red Sea: Some Considerations" (The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology Vol. 63, (1977), pp. 142-155) debunks the historicity of the voyage by responding to the three major arguments for the voyage's historicity and laying out a few points against which i will try summarize.
1. Proponents of the historicity of Necho's circumnavigation of Africa point to the fact that given the average speed of nautical travel during the time was about 70 miles per day (assuming no sailing occurred at night due to unfamiliar waters) and the actual distance needed to be travelled, 15,000 miles, a voyage of 3 years that Herodotus describes is not implausible.
HOWEVER:
Keep in mind that 3 is a formulaic number in the ancient world, much like the number 7. Also just because such a voyage is possible in a certain timeperiod, does not mean that it actually happened. If Herodotus was indeed lying the length of the voyage would likely be one of these formulaic numbers such as "7" or "3".
Well, rejecting the story because Herodotus says the journey took 3 years, simply because supposedly the number "3" is a "formulaic" number in the ancient world, even though that's about what the journey SHOULD have taken, is not a reasonable position. And the statement that "just because a voyage is possible in a certain time period doesn't mean it actually happened" is also not an argument against the possibility that it did happen.
2.Proponents also argue that the conditions (currents, winds etc.) favor a hypothetical circumnavigation from Egypt.
HOWEVER:
Again, just because the circumnavigation is possible, doesn't mean it actually happened.
See above.
3.Proponents argue that Herodotus' information about the sun's position during the journey could only be gained by experience.
HOWEVER:
This argument is not as strong as it initially appears. The issue of world geography (the section in which we find Herodotus' account of Necho's fleet circumnavigating Africa) had long fascinated the Greeks and already by the 6th-7th centuries BC we see a view of the universe emerging within the Greek mind that explains the sun's position in the southern hemisphere. Upon hearing of this supposed expedition around Africa (most likely just an expedition to Punt historically) Herodotus would have had the theoretical concepts to posit the sun's position. The fact that he expresses incredulity at the fact probably hints at him not believing that Africa is big enough for one to experience the phenomenon.
Just because Herodotus was Greek doesn't mean he was fully versed in all Greek science of the day. That's just a silly argument. And even if one is aware the world is round (an idea which was only about a century old by the time Herodotus wrote and probably not widely disseminated in the Greek world at this early date), that doesn't mean that a lay person is going to automatically know that in the southern hemisphere, if you travel west, the sun is on the right. Most lay people WOULDN'T know that. It might occur to a mathematician working with geometry...somebody like Pythagoras or Archimedes, for example. It's not something that's incredibly likely to occur to a historian who is not a mathematician.
Lloyd also lays out some counter arguments that I found particularly compelling.
1. First off, the expedition to circumnavigate Africa would have marked a total and complete break in Egyptian thought and the deeds of the Pharaohs. When Pharaohs sent out expeditions, they did so with a particular practical goal in mind. For Necho to send out this exploratory fleet, he would have to do so without any practical goal in mind and completely defy the Egyptian worldview which shaped his decision making process.
He ignores the fact that the Saite dynasty, to which Necho belonged, was not a "typical" Egyptian dynasty. They did a LOT of things differently than earlier Egyptian dynasties had done. Part of this was due to the fact that Necho I and Psamtik I, Necho II's grandfather and father, had been held hostage in Assyria and had absorbed a lot of Mesopotamian ideas which they implemented in Egypt. The Saite Dynasty also had a close relationship with the Greeks and valued Greek knowledge and Greek thought, so Necho may have been influenced by either of these non-Egyptian threads in the Saite dynasty's unique worldview.
2. Secondly, proponents of the voyage's historicity fail to take into account the inherently conservative nature of martime travel and mariners in the ancient world. If past exploration processes have shown us anything it is that mariners prefer to sail waters they know well. If any circumnavigation of Africa was going to occur in this period it would be the result of numerous voyages going back and forth, not one sudden spurt of 15,000 miles never to be repeated.
The voyage was undertaken by the Phoenicians, the most daring and inquisitive sailors of the age. These are the same people who sailed beyond the Pillars of Hercules and explored fairly far down the western coast of Africa...an account which IS generally accepted by historians. These were not guys who were "conservative mariners."
As for the length of the voyage and it being done in "one 15,000 mile spurt," you yourself have mentioned that the currents and winds favor someone doing a circumnavigation. That means that if you decide to turn around and go home, you're facing UNFAVORABLE winds and currents. The maritime tech of the day was not very flexible and sailing against the winds and currents was quite difficult.
The later Portuguese voyages which circumnavigated Africa did follow the "numerous voyages going back and forth" model, but they had advanced maritime tech (advanced sail configurations including the lanteen sail, for example) which made backtracking much less difficult than it would have been in 600 BC. The Phoenicians wouldn't have had those things and would have found backtracking a real chore. So basically it makes complete sense that rather than turn back, they'd just keep going.
3.Thirdly, the issue of supplies, though extraordinary is implausible. Simply put, too many things could go wrong. What if the soil is unsuitable, natives attack, crops fail, etc. etc. etc. the list of problems inherent in such a strategy goes on. Furthermore, one would imagine that 3 years of creating settlements all along the african coast would have left some external evidence. Yet to this day none has been found.
Well, it would have required a lot of good luck. Stranger things have happened. The farming would also have been supplemented by fishing...the Phoenicians were outstanding fishermen and crews of Phoenician merchant vessels would often supplement their supplies by fishing along the journey. So the supply situation is not as tenuous as it might at first appear.
As for the issue of settlements, Africa, even today, is only beginning to be explored by archaelogists. Most likely we simply haven't looked in the right place yet. The kind of temporary camp we're talking about here is difficult to find, archaelogically, anyway.
Though it would be incredibly cool to have Necho's fleet set up a civilization on the Cape, the fact that they never even got close in OTL forces a serious counter-factual historian to abandon such queries.
The fact that they didn't set up a civilization on the Cape is not evidence that the journey wasn't made.
Last edited: