Suez Canal of Antiquity kept open

rewster · Jun 16, 2005

Reading up on the Suez canal in wikipedia, it seems that around the 8th century an older canal that had been in place for thousands of years was "put out of commission".
What if that had not been the case? Would there have been an active red sea trade, which Europe may have tried to take part in to trade with the East?

Flocculencio · Jun 16, 2005

Wasn't there already an active Red Sea trade? I thought that the traders came and went from India and Africa up the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf and then the overland caravans took over.

Anyway, since the older Canal went from the Nile to the Red Sea, Alexandria would have become even more important as it would dominate the Nile Delta. Maybe you'd see Crusades against Alexandria, eager for it's wealth?

Chrispi · Jun 16, 2005

If I recall correctly

There was a Ptolemaic Suez Canal that connected to the Nile. If the Ptolemies kept the Romans out, you might see it exist to this day...

carlton_bach · Jun 16, 2005

Nah. The Romans periodically kept it open, as did the Byzantines. But it takes a lot of resources (this canal was shallow and high-maintenance) and therefore it silted up whenever public funds went elsewhere. Give Egypt stability and a stronger incentive to carry large amounts of good from the Red Sea through to the Med cheaply.

Maybe keep it Byzantine?

Paul Spring · Jun 16, 2005

carlton_bach said:
Nah. The Romans periodically kept it open, as did the Byzantines. But it takes a lot of resources (this canal was shallow and high-maintenance) and therefore it silted up whenever public funds went elsewhere. Give Egypt stability and a stronger incentive to carry large amounts of good from the Red Sea through to the Med cheaply.

Maybe keep it Byzantine?

I think that it was open at some points during the Islamic era as well. Like you said, though, it was expensive to keep open, and various dynastic changes didn't help.

I've often wondered what might have happened if in the 16th century the Venetians, with their trade business dropping because the Portuguese were going around Africa, approached the Ottomans and proposed a joint project to reopen the canal.

Abdul Hadi Pasha · Jun 16, 2005

Paul Spring said:
I think that it was open at some points during the Islamic era as well. Like you said, though, it was expensive to keep open, and various dynastic changes didn't help.

I've often wondered what might have happened if in the 16th century the Venetians, with their trade business dropping because the Portuguese were going around Africa, approached the Ottomans and proposed a joint project to reopen the canal.

I'm not sure that would help too much - the canal was very shallow and would have been of very limited use to transoceanic trade. It would be cheaper to unload, ship it overland, and reload in the Red Sea.

rewster · Jun 16, 2005

What if the canal had been made deeper, or the Venetians funded a new one? They'd have had to act early.

Nik · Jun 16, 2005

Nile Flood height & duration...

Hmm: we think of the Nile Flood as predictable, reliable. It is not.

Because the Nile is fed from two sources, there's more than a few variables involved...

There was a fair-sized lake / oasis WEST of Nile fed by water channelled from flood. When the flood height was too low and/or short too often, silting & dunes blocked the channel, the lake dried up and the soil blew away. Same could apply to a channel East...

http://www.geotimes.org/apr05/feature_NileFloods.html
http://www.waterhistory.org/histories/cairo/
http://www.pontos.dk/e_pub/TBN_sourc_materials.htm

and, something for ISOT enthusiasts...
http://www.magicdragon.com/UltimateSF/timeline4KBC.html

By the way, the original ISOT 1 & 2 are out in UK paperback again.

( Thanks, Borders !! ;-)

rewster · Jun 16, 2005

Well, suppose the engineers of the time saw this, and said to themselves "wouldn't it be easier to go north-south straight from the Med to the Red, and skip this whole flooding river thing?"

Would Venice (and presumably the Ottomans), after the canal was built, regain their dominance in trade with the East?

wkwillis · Jun 16, 2005

The Nile does flow to the Red Sea on occasion. Why not just have it happen naturally?

MrP · Jun 17, 2005

Considering the mania of Roman Emperors for grandiose construction projects, might we posit one with a mania for all things Oriental, who decides to build the "best darned canal ever!" (Mm, wonder where I'll find "darned" in a Latin dictionary

) Egypt was kept under direct Imperial control, and only had a knight appointed to control the province, rather than the standard senatorial walla. The Emperor doesn't even need to do much more than that. Of course, he can be completely insane and squander funds without it being ASB - simply because he's an Emperor

Tyr · Jun 17, 2005

The old 'suez cana'l was a true canal. Of the mallard ducks and barges type.
Nothing like what the suez canal actually is. It may not have had much effect on transport speed- camels going across sinai vs. slow boats travelling down the nile... Not that much difference.

MrP · Jun 17, 2005

Loading and unloading times, surely, even allowing for both modes of transport to take the same time. Plus, fragile things are better transported by water - I think! I was given that as a reason why barges became so popular over here.

rewster · Jun 17, 2005

I say the Sultan of Egypt proclaims himself Pharoah, and instead of a pyramid he has slaves construct a canal traversible at least by caravels and such.
The slaves who dig the last little bits unfortunately don't make it.

Oh come on, a little ASB can't hurt here can it?

carlton_bach · Jun 17, 2005

Leej said:
The old 'suez cana'l was a true canal. Of the mallard ducks and barges type.
Nothing like what the suez canal actually is. It may not have had much effect on transport speed- camels going across sinai vs. slow boats travelling down the nile... Not that much difference.

It isn't about time. It's volume. A single barge can outcarry an entire caravan. But you would still have to factor in transshipment.

the main argument against a 'direct' canal is that the ancients by and large built canals where they could, not necessarily where wanted. The site must have suggested itself (if nothing else, by its relative shortness).

rewster · Jun 17, 2005

Well the direct canal, when it was made, wasn't all that long. There was a big lake in the middle, it doesn't need locks, and for heaven's sakes the Egyptians built the pyramids... they couldn't dig a little ditch?

Hmm, if they couldn't, I'm pretty sure the Venetians could. Or at least their engineers would know quite a bit about waterways, making them, keeping them open, etc.
Most likely, the Ottomans would provide the labor for the endeavor and they would find a way to share the profits that would result.