Roman Suez Canal - Was it Possible?

[Lord_Vespasian]

Good, more trade and more tax revenue is for the better.

I don't really care how they thought how the economy worked, I care about about how the economy actually worked. Just because the Roman's believed in Galen's theory of the 4 humours, doesn't mean I should view the spread of the Antonine plague through that lens.

You seem to not understand that economics is largely effected by perception. Until you get it though your thick skull that Rome losing a shit ton of precious metals will harm them greatly because people will see it as losing money you won't understand. I'm done arguing this with you

 

[DominusNovus]

I fundamentally agree with you; however the basic question becomes whether or not Rome can develop the financial and monetary tools and systems, or even the (fairly radical) understanding of money/economics of gold/silver only having value inasmuch as a medium of exchange. Otherwise, a loss of specie will strain the economy if it gets dire enough simply due to limitations in how fast the velocity of money can flow in a classical era society without a solid system of banking, though it may prompt innovations like paper money.

I also agree with your points here. Lets have three cheers in the Christmas spirit for debaters coming to agreement!

I’d like to think that such stresses could produce the incentives for credit-based money such as banknotes, but I don’t want to take that for granted. There are other consequences that we can deduce as more certain (I’ll be focused on Indian trade, in particular here):
- As more specie is exported from Rome, the value of such specie will increases, in Rome, while it will decrease in India.
- This will increase the cost of Indian goods, as each amount of specie spent on their import will be considered more valuable to the Romans and less valuable to the Indians. Thus, a natural economic cap will exist on how much specie can be exported from Rome in exchange for Indian goods.
- As Romans value specie more, and Indians less, Roman trade goods, such as wine (it is my understanding that that was the most common Roman export to India, not counting specie itself), will be considered more desirable in India, particularly as expressed in specie: a given amount of specie that the Indians would spend on Roman wine would be considered less valuable to them than it would be to the Romans. Thus, another natural cap on the imblance of trade will emerge.

Consider, for example, what all the Japanese did once they had a thriving economy based on exports to the US: they bought property in the US. The money came back, one way or another. Not perfectly analogous, but not far off, either.

 

[Hecatee]

To have a better understanding of the economics of the Roman trade with the far east I recommand looking at McLaughlin's two books on the topic, which I use for my own timeline Hadrian's Consolidation. There was trade on a massive scale, with huge exports of valuable metal out of the empire exchanged for incenses and spices (mostly from Somaliland and Arabian Peninsula) and Silk (from China through India, few Romans ever met the Chineses). This trade brought in massive tax revenues for the state due to the 10% value tax at the empire's border, and those taxes covered up to 1/4th of the empire's financial need, which went mostly in paying for the army.

An important factor was that this trade was seasonal due to prevailing winds and monsoon patterns that prevented sailing for a large part of the year. So a canal would only be of use twice a year, when the fleet sailed out and when it sailed back. Investing in one was not deemed the most profitable endeavour given the existing alternative through the Pharaos' canal and the much cheaper to operate land caravans from Berenike and similar ports on the Red Sea. Another important factor for the Romans was that the remoteness of the arrival ports made smugglery more difficult and tax collection more efficient than if ships had been allowed to stop at Pelusium, Alexandria or any other port in the Mediterranean.

But we also have to remember that in this early economy the precious metal was needed inside the empire in large amount not only to be the symbol of wealth but to simply make the economy work : a stagering amount of coins had to be on hand for daily operations, from buying food to buying slaves or paying free employees. Given that the rich effectively took massive amounts of coins out of the economy by either thesauring it or spending it on foreign items, a constant and massive production of new coins was necessary. Given that people gave a certain value to a certain quantity of precious metal, and only of that metal, it required either pure metal coins (bronze, silver and gold) or more coins of degraded precious metal content. Emperors at some periods tried to introduce "impur" coins in the economy but that only led to sky rocketing inflation.

Then two issues happened : more military spendings from the late 2nd/early 3rd century onward (end of the pax romana + 3rd century crisis), less metal production (exhausted mines or, in the later periods, loss of control over mines, especially the gold mines of Dacia/Romania) and problem with the eastern trade due to the collapse of the Chinese Empire at the same time that lowered the taxes income that was needed to pay for the army that was needed to keep control of the mines...

We also have to remember the case of the Corinth Canal, much shorter although needing to be cut very deep, on which Nero ordered work that was never finished (and remains of which you can still see)...

So while technically the Romans could have thrown enough ressources at the problem, it might have been undesirable to build one such canal

 

[Timmy811]

- As Romans value specie more, and Indians less, Roman trade goods, such as wine (it is my understanding that that was the most common Roman export to India, not counting specie itself), will be considered more desirable in India, particularly as expressed in specie: a given amount of specie that the Indians would spend on Roman wine would be considered less valuable to them than it would be to the Romans. Thus, another natural cap on the imblance of trade will emerge.

I thought their principal export to the East was glassworks? Roman glasswork has been found as far east as Korea and Japan.

 

[Arcavia]

But we also have to remember that in this early economy the precious metal was needed inside the empire in large amount not only to be the symbol of wealth but to simply make the economy work : a stagering amount of coins had to be on hand for daily operations, from buying food to buying slaves or paying free employees. Given that the rich effectively took massive amounts of coins out of the economy by either thesauring it or spending it on foreign items, a constant and massive production of new coins was necessary. Given that people gave a certain value to a certain quantity of precious metal, and only of that metal, it required either pure metal coins (bronze, silver and gold) or more coins of degraded precious metal content. Emperors at some periods tried to introduce "impur" coins in the economy but that only led to sky rocketing inflation.

Then two issues happened : more military spendings from the late 2nd/early 3rd century onward (end of the pax romana + 3rd century crisis), less metal production (exhausted mines or, in the later periods, loss of control over mines, especially the gold mines of Dacia/Romania) and problem with the eastern trade due to the collapse of the Chinese Empire at the same time that lowered the taxes income that was needed to pay for the army that was needed to keep control of the mines...

Most of the inflation, IIRC, only happened during the Crisis of the Third Century and afterwards. If the Canal project is completed during the reign of Augustus, it isn't impossible for Augustus or another emperor with legitimacy to carefully introduce less pure coins, building public confidence in a less valuable currency. If this happens, it isn't impossible to see "banknotes" (or some equivalent) and fractional reserve banking emerge during the Roman Empire. Remember that they don't have the Catholic Church's longstanding ursury laws to discourage finance (even if they were surmountable, they were still an obstacle to the emergence of public trust in moneylenders, and I can't imagine the Medieval combination of Antisemitism and forcing many Jewish folks to scrape together a living as moneylenders would help confidence in such moneylenders in emerging), and it would be easy to see the collegia or even individual Patrons providing banking services to their members/clients. All of this is likely helped by having Rome as a center that everyone acts in reference to, so notes for Roman banks can be accepted throughout the Empire as everyone either knows that they can get to Rome to redeem them or--more likely--knows someone else who can and would be happy to accept the note in exchange for goods, though likely at a reduced value. Voila, "paper" currency (or more likely, say, leather currency).

 

[Hegemon]

To have a better understanding of the economics of the Roman trade with the far east I recommand looking at McLaughlin's two books on the topic, which I use for my own timeline Hadrian's Consolidation. There was trade on a massive scale, with huge exports of valuable metal out of the empire exchanged for incenses and spices (mostly from Somaliland and Arabian Peninsula) and Silk (from China through India, few Romans ever met the Chineses). This trade brought in massive tax revenues for the state due to the 10% value tax at the empire's border, and those taxes covered up to 1/4th of the empire's financial need, which went mostly in paying for the army.

An important factor was that this trade was seasonal due to prevailing winds and monsoon patterns that prevented sailing for a large part of the year. So a canal would only be of use twice a year, when the fleet sailed out and when it sailed back. Investing in one was not deemed the most profitable endeavour given the existing alternative through the Pharaos' canal and the much cheaper to operate land caravans from Berenike and similar ports on the Red Sea. Another important factor for the Romans was that the remoteness of the arrival ports made smugglery more difficult and tax collection more efficient than if ships had been allowed to stop at Pelusium, Alexandria or any other port in the Mediterranean.

But we also have to remember that in this early economy the precious metal was needed inside the empire in large amount not only to be the symbol of wealth but to simply make the economy work : a stagering amount of coins had to be on hand for daily operations, from buying food to buying slaves or paying free employees. Given that the rich effectively took massive amounts of coins out of the economy by either thesauring it or spending it on foreign items, a constant and massive production of new coins was necessary. Given that people gave a certain value to a certain quantity of precious metal, and only of that metal, it required either pure metal coins (bronze, silver and gold) or more coins of degraded precious metal content. Emperors at some periods tried to introduce "impur" coins in the economy but that only led to sky rocketing inflation.

Then two issues happened : more military spendings from the late 2nd/early 3rd century onward (end of the pax romana + 3rd century crisis), less metal production (exhausted mines or, in the later periods, loss of control over mines, especially the gold mines of Dacia/Romania) and problem with the eastern trade due to the collapse of the Chinese Empire at the same time that lowered the taxes income that was needed to pay for the army that was needed to keep control of the mines...

We also have to remember the case of the Corinth Canal, much shorter although needing to be cut very deep, on which Nero ordered work that was never finished (and remains of which you can still see)...

So while technically the Romans could have thrown enough ressources at the problem, it might have been undesirable to build one such canal

I, for one, would love to take a look. Which two are these?

 

[Hecatee]

Most of the inflation, IIRC, only happened during the Crisis of the Third Century and afterwards. If the Canal project is completed during the reign of Augustus, it isn't impossible for Augustus or another emperor with legitimacy to carefully introduce less pure coins, building public confidence in a less valuable currency. If this happens, it isn't impossible to see "banknotes" (or some equivalent) and fractional reserve banking emerge during the Roman Empire. Remember that they don't have the Catholic Church's longstanding ursury laws to discourage finance (even if they were surmountable, they were still an obstacle to the emergence of public trust in moneylenders, and I can't imagine the Medieval combination of Antisemitism and forcing many Jewish folks to scrape together a living as moneylenders would help confidence in such moneylenders in emerging), and it would be easy to see the collegia or even individual Patrons providing banking services to their members/clients. All of this is likely helped by having Rome as a center that everyone acts in reference to, so notes for Roman banks can be accepted throughout the Empire as everyone either knows that they can get to Rome to redeem them or--more likely--knows someone else who can and would be happy to accept the note in exchange for goods, though likely at a reduced value. Voila, "paper" currency (or more likely, say, leather currency).

True inflation went through the roof in the 3rd century, thus the attempt to curb it with Diocletian edict of maximal prize, but it had been going on earlier as shown by the necessary pay rises for the troops : Domitian in the late 1st century, set the yearly salary of a legionary to 300 denarii and Septimius Severus had to raise it to 450 or 500 (depending on who you quote) about a century later in an empire with no substantial stability or military issue yet. Under Caracalla, Septimius Severus' son, pay was doubled showing the begining of the economic troubles at the same time as the empire granted citizenship to all free men in its border so as to be able to tax inheritance for everyone because of a dearth of cash.

As for moneylending, don't forget that :
1) the largest cash holders, the senators, were fordibdden to act in it (even if some did, most famously Crassus in the late Republic but also Senecca in the time of Nero)
2) rates and practices were usurary and short term, and for the larger sums usually politically as well as business motivated so I don't really see the domain developp. It would require more needs for long term cash, such as more economical/industrial infrastructure building to create such a need
3) paper money would require banking practices much more advanced to be tought of, the romans had promisory notes exchanged between the largest money lenders of the empire but that was it, and it was only as a security and cost saving measure against the moving of large quantities of bullion

I, for one, would love to take a look. Which two are these?

McLaughlin Raoul The Roman Empire and the Indian Ocean
McLaughlin Raoul The Roman Empire and the Silk Routes

Both published by Pen & Sword

 

[Timmy811]

Another thing, I think that's being overlooked, is that an increase in trade with the east will likely spread superior ship designs to the Empire which will improve intra-empire transportation and communication.

The Junk was vastly superior to the triremes of the Mediteranean, and well there is some evidence they managed to make it into the Med, the numbers would vastly increase with a Red Sea canal and so to would the likelyhood of its adoption by the natives.

The first records of junks can be found in references dating to the Han dynasty (220 BCE–200 CE).

2nd century junks (Han dynasty)[edit]
The 3rd century book "Strange Things of the South" (南州異物志) by Wan Chen (萬震) describes ships capable of carrying 700 people together with 260 tons of cargo ("more than 10,000 "斛"). However, these vessels did not originate from China, but rather from K'un-lun (southern country, that is either Java or Sumatra). He explains the ships' sail design as follows:

The four sails do not face directly forward, but are set obliquely, and so arranged that they can all be fixed in the same direction, to receive the wind and to spill it. Those sails which are behind the most windward one receiving the pressure of the wind, throw it from one to the other, so that they all profit from its force. If it is violent, (the sailors) diminish or augment the surface of the sails according to the conditions. This oblique rig, which permits the sails to receive from one another the breath of the wind, obviates the anxiety attendant upon having high masts. Thus these ships sail without avoiding strong winds and dashing waves, by the aid of which they can make great speed.

— Wan Chen, [23]
A 260 CE book by Kang Tai (康泰) also described these ships, called K'un-lun po (K'un-lun ship), had with seven masts, traveling as far as Syria.[24]

 

[Timmy811]

So, I was looking at the history of Roman contact with Arabian Felix and the perfect point of departure would seem to be the failure of the expedition by Gallus to modern Yemen. This failed in large part due to supply difficulties.

History of the Romans in Arabia - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

If Augustus gets it in his head that future expeditions could succeed if they had access to the Red Sea directly, that could be the impetus for building the canal. Much easier to get buy in from the rest of the elites for strategic reasons and promises of future conquest than for trade or tax reasons.

The expedition ended in 24 BC. So, a couple of years surveying. Then ten years of digging, the canal could be done by 12 BC.

EDIT: Or, even better, the Romans could have gotten cold feet because of the logistical difficulties at the beginning and had the legionaries slated for the invasion of Yemen dig the canal before launching the expedition. Legionaries would work year round and at a high quality, so this could be finished in 4 or 5 years.