I am in Cairo right now. Anyway I remember someone once wrote in this forum that the Venetians were planing to build a canal in the Suez before the Ottomans conquered Mamluk Egypt. If this canal had been built earlier would the increase in revenue keep Egypt independent? Would the existence of the canal compete against the Portuguese cape route?
Suez Canal in Mamluk Egypt
- Thread starter Richard V
- Start date
It was actually the Ottomans who were far more serious about building a Suez Canal. It was an extremely common idea in sixteenth-century Constantinople, and work was actually abortively begun a few times (in the 1530s, IIRC, and later during Sokollu Mehmed's tenure). It didn't work out because the engineers had problems with the sand and Constantinople had bigger priorities.
It has been done before in antiquity. The problem is keeping the waterway from silting up and maintain a high enough profit to maintain the infrastructure.
OTL the canal bankrupted Egypt, leading to colonial rule by the British and indebtedness to western investors. It wasn't a good idea (at least, not in the way it was financed OTL).
Yeah. It's a bloody expensive proposition, even with steam powered dredging. When digging is by hand, well....
Also, steam made it far more feasible to run ships through. A canal frequented by sailing ships needs one of the following: 1) a nice firm tow path on the side
a) which means the maintenance dredging has to dump all their spoil on the other side
b) you need LOTS of draft animals to pull ships through, which means even greater lots of forrage and WATER to feed them
c) and ships going opposite directions will have to have towlines passed over each other, which is much, much harder on a full sized ship with MASTS than with low slung barges.
2) have the canal be wide enough the ships can tack. Ha ha.
3) pull the sailing ships through with oared galleys. Again, incredibly expensive.
It is almost certainly nowhere near economic before steam.
The only believable rationale, IMO, is for strategic military use, with commerce playing a very minor second fiddle.
Note, this requires a power with a major naval presence in both the Med and Red Sea/Indian Ocean.
Deleted member 114175
Well, that's not the same as a Suez canal. The Mamluks already had an equivalent to the Canal of the Pharaohs connecting the Nile and Red Sea. However, it was only open when the Nile was nearing its height and was closed again when the water levels fell. This continued in the Ottoman period.
https://www.researchgate.net/public..._chronology_location_seasonality_and_function
Canals have existed long before steam. This canal need not be as wide as the one OTL, but rather something like the Grand Canal of China or Canal du Midi of France.
Yes.... But those are very different canals.
Firstly, they're freshwater and in a fertile area so providing fodder and water for the draft animals is trivial. Not so for a Suez canal.
Secondly, if the canal is only barge size then stuff has to be transhipped from ship to barge to ship. That removes the major economic point of an interoceanic canal, and also destroys the military/ strategic point of one.
Both the Pharaohs canal and the Arab canal were not located where the 19th century canal would be dredged. They used branches of the Nile delta, and were sized for galleys or barges. There was the need of periodically dredging the silt, but manpower would be available in the Delta region which was the breadbasket of Egypt. Over the centuries, the branches of the delta changed their paths but it was always feasible to use new branches with relatively minor improvements. IIRC the ancient canal had only one permanent stretch, about 40 km long which connected to the Bitter Lakes: this artificial canal was discovered by archeological teams.
This solution would have certainly be feasible in the 16th century: it was just a matter of identifying a party which would have an economical/military interest in funding it. The Mamelukes were not interested on their own, and the Ottomans were also lacking interest for a number of reasons, chiefly among them the fact that it would compete with the already established trade routes in the Persian gulf as well as the lack of focus in competing against the Portuguese in India (the only serious attempt was in 1509, in alliance with the Mamelukes and the sultan of Gujarat and with some support from Venice too, but the defeat at Diu put an end to any Indian strategy).
The only plausible player could have been Venice, in alliance with the Mamelukes. The strategy was there, but Venice had also much closer focuses to monopolise their attention, and ultimately the ottoman invasion of Egypt closed the window of opportunity.
Economically a mark 3 version of the pharaohs canal might have worked, using oared galleys and barges, and trans-shipment would not have been a serious drawback, since all the trade routes from India to Europe were long and often dangerous. Even from a military/strategic Pov this canal would have worked. Ships like caravels could be towed, and their cargo and guns transported separately. Even more easy would be to ship timber, ropes, sails and guns to an arsenal to be founded at Suez.
It would have been a major undertaking, but also a potentially history changing move.
Mamluk rule stretched from Syria to Mecca. Egypt as a two sea empire connected by a canal and not an appendage of someone else would be pretty interesting. If the Venetians maintain their alliance, which given the Ottoman threat is plausible, would be players in the Indian Ocean as well. Wonder how this impacts the Age of Discovery.
AFAIK, the Mamelukes where never much engaged in naval trade or warfare, possibly because of lack of suitable timber for shipbuilding or because of the way their society was structured. Certainly the Indian trade was dominated by Indian large rounships, and the same was true for pilgrims to Makkah, and the only attempt at naval power projection I am aware of was the war against the Portuguese in 1509, which ended up in a complete disaster. The Ottoman invasion of Egypt was supported by a large fleet, but there was no attempt to contest by the Mamelukes.
It is difficult to make an accurate guess on how events might develop in a TL where Venice decides to pursue an Egyptian strategy (obviously there must be a Pod which results in a better strategic position in the eastern Mediterranean, as well as a different leadership in Venice which manages to avoid the hopeless war against the league of Cognac), the Ottoman invasion of Egypt must be thwarted and the Safavids must be somehow involved too.
Which is not impossible, but at the same time not too easy (a venetian victory at the battle of Sapienza would be a good start).
If everything goes well, Venice might replace the Portuguese in India, and possibly further east too (Malacca and Spice Islands). It then depends on how things evolve in Europe and what happens to the Ottomans