Suez canal built by the UK

According to Wiki

Although the alleged difference in sea levels could be problematic for a canal's construction, the idea of finding a shorter route to the east remained alive. In 1830, F. R. Chesney submitted a report to the British government, which stated that there was no difference in altitude, and that the Suez Canal was feasible, but his report received no further attention.


What, if any changes would you expect if the UK had built the canal?
 
Well with it being an all-British deal that means no French influence, so Egypt is more likely to drift into the British sphere of influence and France has less justification to object. I half wonder if they might not try for some sort of Canal Zone along the lines the US negotiated with the Panamanians for the Panama Canal, although IIRC the Ottoman Empire, this being before the Khedivate was formed, whilst being in decline wasn't in a complete mess so probably not. They would probably try and negotiate some sort of rights though. If and when Muhammad Ali tries anything would be interesting, Britain could swing either behind the Sultan in not wanting their possession possibly disturbed or damages or back Muhammad Ali on the line of thought that a smaller state might be more easily influenced. I could see them trying to barter their discrete low-level support for the rebels into an expansion of their rights with the Canal up to and possibly including a full-on Zone in return for a share of the profits.

Technologically it's likely to be a major driver for both commercial and military vessels that are at least partially steam powered, a combination of sail and steam, think HMS Warrior, is a likely midway point I'd think. Screw propellers, compound steam engines and later triple-expansion steam engines are what you need for what we think of as really 'modern' steam ships. Now those didn't all turn up until the 1860s, so we could possibly see them earlier, steam ships continue to be mostly paddle-wheelers for the first couple decades of the Canal's use assuming an 1830 start and ten years to build it as in our timeline, or possibly the report isn't acted on at first but then say a decade or two later with the Canal still being built early as an all British affair. How these technologies possibly being introduced earlier I just don't have the knowledge to say.

An earlier fast route to India is likely to change things there a fair bit, IIRC it was more western women as prospective brides making the trip out that ended the practice of Anglo-Indian marriages. Also introduced the retreating back into western cantonments and associated disconnect with the local culture, up until that point the Company not minding or quite encouraging Anglo-Indian fraternisation if it helped people work more efficiently and turn a larger profit. Later on, again assuming that intervening butterflies don't change everything out of all recognition, if an independent Egyptian government decides to nationalise the Canal then any prospective Operation Musketeer is going to be a solely British affair. That's the best I can come up with it gone one in the morning. :)
 
If the UK builds and owns the canal then its less likley to develop the rail-link from the Red Sea end, this might have an effect on the rates of getting supplies to the battle area during WW2, unless unloading facilities are built along the length of the canal.
 
If the UK builds and owns the canal then its less likley to develop the rail-link from the Red Sea end, this might have an effect on the rates of getting supplies to the battle area during WW2, unless unloading facilities are built along the length of the canal.

I would consider that the rail link infrastructure would be built any both to allow transit along the length of the construction site and allow the quick disembarkment of material. Not to build the railway would regulate all material being sent via ship no matter the size.
 
Top