The Sinai Island

Ian the Admin

Administrator
Donor
i would think that Israel would conquer all of the Sinai Island. This would eliminate the Muslim world that was started there. With GOD'S blessing Israel would become a flourishing island nation. Plants would adapt to the salty water and the coast's will be marshy mangrove swamps. Oh and people who were talking about Homo Erectus. They didn't exist. GOD created man in the Garde of Eden, somewhere in Mesopotamia. And Moses and the Exodus didnt use boats. They crossed the Red Sea on foot when GOD split the waters and crushed Pharoh's army.

Banned instead of kicked, the guy's crazy and he showed even more crazy in PMs.
 
Do we continue? Never had anybody banned from a TL I started...

Other than the People of the Sea, I don't think Egypt was attacked by a maritime nation. Wondering if the Mesopotamian and Asia Minor land-based empires would have been halted at the Palestine Peninsula or would have been able to get locals to provide ships. Or would the Egyptians have fortified the Beka'a Valley and Mount Hermon as a Prince's Wall, to protect the wood?

Or would we have seen more rush-based ships like Ra 1 and Ra 2? Heyerdahl left me unconvinced about long-distance reed boats, but shorter-range ones should be possible. They would let the Egyptians invade the Sinai Island and the Palestine Peninsula. Could the Persians use inflated animal skins to make rafts to float across from Aquaba to Sinai?

Thoughts, folks?
 
I don't think that Mesopotamia or Persia are going to be slowed down much by a Sinai island. The waters around Sinai island really do not strike me as much of a barrier for any humans, let alone organized armies who really only need to hop on rafts, march across the island, hop on a second set of rafts, and mess things up for the Egyptians. And control of these waters is going to be vital to control Red Sea/Mediterranean trade, which will be very lucrative ITTL due to increased trade. Rather than protecting Egypt, a Sinai island will make it an even larger target.

What interests me is the long term cultural exchange that can now occur between Arabia and the Mediterranean, and even India, East Africa, and the Mediterranean. Greek and Phoenician as well as Oman equivalents could spread ideas and technology very far and in a very different manner.
 

fiddyman237

Banned
i would think that Israel would conquer all of the Sinai Island. This would eliminate the Muslim world that was started there. With GOD'S blessing Israel would become a flourishing island nation. Plants would adapt to the salty water and the coast's will be marshy mangrove swamps. Oh and people who were talking about Homo Erectus. They didn't exist. GOD created man in the Garde of Eden, somewhere in Mesopotamia. And Moses and the Exodus didnt use boats. They crossed the Red Sea on foot when GOD split the waters and crushed Pharoh's army.
Like everyone said there is something wrong with this. Depending on the time period the Israeli empire would either be strong or weak. So if King David were the one then they would probably conquer all of the Sinai Island. But i dont think we are talking about that time period. So no. Israel would not be able to conquer all of Sinai. Maybe just the Northern tips it rests on. Southern Sinai would be influenced by Islam enough to stop Judaic invasion. Oh and everybody, I cant get a response from this guy about his Successful Rome thread, does anybody know what happened to him?? And he is crazy.
 
I don't think that Mesopotamia or Persia are going to be slowed down much by a Sinai island. The waters around Sinai island really do not strike me as much of a barrier for any humans, let alone organized armies who really only need to hop on rafts.

Problem is that you'd have considerable problems in finding anything to make rafts from at the OTL coast of Sinai. But as I said before, Assyrians Persians or whatever comes from this general direction simply have to bring in wood from further north. It's the opposite direction - Egyptians going North - which could have more problems.

And control of these waters is going to be vital to control Red Sea/Mediterranean trade, which will be very lucrative ITTL due to increased trade. Rather than protecting Egypt, a Sinai island will make it an even larger target.

Very good point here.

What interests me is the long term cultural exchange that can now occur between Arabia and the Mediterranean, and even India, East Africa, and the Mediterranean. Greek and Phoenician as well as Oman equivalents could spread ideas and technology very far and in a very different manner.

We might even see both Phoenician and Greek colonies around the Red Sea and on the coasts of the Indian ocean.

I think ladn-based trade IOTL already provided enough measn for cultural exchange between the Med, Persia and India. This should increase in speed, though, at a later date, say Roman late republic.

A major difference would be in Eastern AFrica. ITTL, the Horn of Africa was very far away. ITTL, it's quite close. If an equivalent to the Roman empire evolves, I'd bet them to conquer Ethiopia and Yemen ITTL.
 
Some perspective on long-distance sea trade

I just used my G.Projector global map software to estimate the distance from what appears to be the northern mouth of the Aqaba-Jordan/Dead Sea/Lebanon strait, about where I'd put the homeland core of this TL's version of Phoenicians, first to the Pillars of Hercules--that's about 35 degrees in a great circle. Then south, through the strait to and through the Red Sea, around the corner to the mouth of the Gulf that opens between Arabia and Somalia, then as far past that to the south along the African coast as would add up to 35 degrees.

That only takes me halfway along the southern shore of the Horn of Africa. Switching over to an eastbound route instead just takes one to the mouth of the Persian Gulf. All those turns do make the route add up!

So, the guesses that actually the sea passage need not radically alter ancient trade relations between say Mesopotamia and Egypt seem to be pretty well borne out. It's farther than you might think from the Eastern Med to Sumeria or Persia by sea, even with a convenient double super-Suez provided by nature. To be sure sea trade is so much more efficient than overland that it still might make a big difference. But then, OTL this route was available, provided goods and people took a short overland leg where OTL the Suez canal eventually went. Or actually in ancient times, they often docked on the western shore of the Red Sea, took a short overland leg to the Nile, and then boated down the Nile to seaports at its mouth. Either way, for economic purposes on a typical ancient scale, these overland options sufficed to make the Red Sea and trade both down the African coast and east to the Persian Gulf and even the Indus river mouth pretty viable; I don't see the freedom to just sail straight through to the Med as exactly revolutionizing the situation.

Actually, there might be more of an effect due to the eastern strait letting ships come much closer to the northeastern part of the Fertile Crescent, favoring overland routes from a port in what is now Syria along the southern escarpment of Anatolia to northern Mesopotamia. This too was a live and major overland trade route and it is not clear (since I foolishly forgot to keep p. 1 open in a tab and can't look at the moment at the modified map!) how much the sea part of it we've added would cut off any particularly obnoxious leg of the trip. Damascus I believe lies squarely on this route and it would be good to know if that town, or some other one that more anciently controlled that route, now lies exactly on the coast of the strait.

Turning to the changed land geography-I think Tirion guessed right in the first place, and in ancient days the main thing is that overland passage is now significantly impeded. It isn't for peaceful trading purposes, much. Nor for uncontested migrations of peoples, or unopposed passage of armies. But if a state controlled one shore or the other of one of these straits, it would make sense to fortify it, in the sense of putting up watchtowers and garrisons spotted so they could mutually see each other and the shores in between, and move quickly to oppose any landings they observed between them. Given time and motivation, it might actually make sense to build an actual wall--either Hadrian's Wall, or Antoine's, I forget which, had extensions along the south shore of the sound between Roman Britain and the Picts. The wall slowed down any attempt to remobilize ground forces after a ship landing and gave the Romans defenses behind which they could communicate freely, and shift forces to best fight off the Picts landed on the other side of the wall.

A defense in depth of the western strait seems like something Egypt might invest in early, and despite occasional failures and conquer attempts to dismantle it it would probably evolve, over thousands of years, into something quite Cyclopian and perhaps more impressive, per mile anyway, than the Great Wall of China. A wall along the west shore for last-ditch defense, built quite close to the water; the sound itself guarded at both ends with concentrated naval force in the form of galleys based on both shores near the mouths to deter or stop any attempt to attack by sea; a hinterland occupied on the east shore, on Sinai Island, with a palisaded Pale fed and otherwise supplied and reinforced via the water and a garrison to blunt any attack, no matter how massive, coming overland on the island. To complete the defenses, of course Egypt would seek to conquer the whole island, but trying to erect comparable defenses on its east shore would be a whole other level of daunting, nor could its north shores be completely guarded. When Egypt is strong and ambitious, they'd seek to control the island with mobile forces and oppose landings and uprisings piecemeal, often fighting pitched battles, but absorb all potential advances on the western channel as much as possible.

Sinai Island is of course terrain in which historically in ancient times, dozens of kingdoms typically coexisted; I doubt the Egyptians would often be able to subdue it all into provinces and they wouldn't be able to hold it long when they did; the Jordan Sound just offers too many opportunities for landings over too long a shore to patrol. The Egyptians might do better to foster an ally (such as say Judah) to control that shore as best it can and buffer their own territory to the west of the southern peninsula.

Anyway, despite my characterizing the Jordan sound shores as sieve-like, I do think that sound would be a real impediment to advancing forces, in that the break in pace it enforces gives a vigilant and reasonably strong opponent the chance to hold them at the shore, or even, if they are good with boats, to contest their passage on the water itself. The Assyrians for instance would have to have a navy of sorts, if only of war-barges, to assail Sinai island. I don't doubt they can get a navy, and send over forces that prevail despite the defenders' advantages, especially if Sinai Island is not politically unified. If they recruit some Sound subnation to become their allies in return for not getting massacred, it is pretty much game over for the other Sinaiese, same as OTL, as the traitor tribe gives the Assyrian steamroller safe passage. Still, on the whole the two straits will serve as very natural boundaries--even if the Egyptians do hold on the west shore, they probably won't typically claim much beyond that march, preferring to cultivate allies to do their fighting for them in the east instead. Assyrians, or Babylonians, might manage to more or less subjugate the island and then advance on the western wall, break through, overwhelm the defenses of the west shore wall at some point, and finally advance on Egypt; failing that, they might at least fortify the west shore of Sinai against the Egyptians; then of course no one holds the strait itself, it become a no-mans-sea that peaceful commerce cannot pass through without the unlikely event of both powers permitting it, and yet neither shore is safe from a landing from the other side either. A world-conquering empire like the Persians would probably persevere in breaking into Egypt and subdue the whole place; they might retain the barrier wall system (which insofar as Egyptians built them over thousands of years, might be impossible to tear down completely) but controlling both sides then and only then would the straits be the negligible barriers many have been assuming generally.

Could a Sinaian kingdom arise that holds all the shores of Sinai? I neglected to mention the south shores of the peninsula itself because that is tough terrain and because Egyptians wouldn't worry too much about attacks from the south--maybe they should what with Punt being there and all that. A bold Persian attack might come by sea around Arabia though they'd probably be observed and the alarm sounded. However a Sinaise kingdom would need to worry about the south shore because the Egyptians could attack that way, and to garrison that shore would be a heck of a logistical challenge. Again I think it is most likely if they are in a close relationship with Egypt rather than totally independent.

How much would these two straits slow up Alexander? Conceivably they might divert him from trying to consolidate his hold on the whole Med shore before striking east into Persia; he might, having secured Anatolia and the north of the Levant, simply march southeast along the sound and turn east along the trade route to take Mesopotamia from the north, and leave Sinai and Egypt for another day after he has crushed the very head of the beast. Doing so leaves all the shores of his conquests and even Greece itself exposed to Persian naval raids and possible counterlandings in his rear. If he can move fast enough this may not matter, but having to double back west and first cross over to Sinai, then from there to Egypt, might well divert him permanently from trying to reign in Mesopotamia and from ranging farther east to India, not at any rate beyond what it took to bring the last Persian holdouts to heel.

Or he could proceed as OTL, doggedly securing a foothold on Sinai then subduing it (making up for time lost crossing by having a natural barrier on his east flank to fortify while his main body drives on southwest) then battering his way into Egypt which once past that wall should fall to hum as OTL, then regroup somewhere along the Jordan Sound for the final phase--remember he already holds the north shore at least some distance from the Med, so he could just ferry back up to there and go from there.

I think I've taken this farther into OTL parallels already than many would think reasonable. But I do contend that on the whole, these passages don't make for persistent, systematic butterflies of a world-changing type until at least this era, so close parallels of OTL nations are not unreasonable until nautical technology develops enough that the open sea route makes a big systematic difference. Which is just around the corner at this point.
 
We can expect a lot more Indian - Mediterranean trade. And not Vasco Da Gama & Columbus enterprises. Perhaps venetians & genoese trade depots and coastal forts in the Horn of Africa and aroud the Indic Ocean, just like they did in the Black Sea.
 
Will this Sinai Island change wind patterns? If not, a lot of the speculation here is groundless.

The current Red Sea is a pretty lousy place for sailing ships as the prevailing winds make sailing northward, depending on the time of year, either impossible or very time consuming. That's the reason why Arabian cities which supported the caravan trade like Medina and Mecca thrived for as long as they did.

Even after the OTL Suez Canal opened sailing vessels still generally avoided the Red Sea route.
 
Wind problems...

I honestly doubt that the two straits I've postulated - Negev and Suez - would affect wind currents, but they would be sources of atmospheric moisture for rain-clouds.

The idea of a rift up to south of Tyre or Beirut I have avoided because of the activity taking place in the Negev. A flooded Jordan valley and a saline Sea of Galilee would be more interesting and create a Palestinne Peninsula. Transjordan and Syria might then be better-watered and more fertile.

The effect of this on Genesis and Exodus (presuming these are written) would emphasise a culture more like the Persian/Arabian Gulf - would we see active sea-fishery and Phoenician/Philistine colonisation as far south as Aquaba?

Don't be hidebound about sailing ships - quinqueremes of Nineveh from distant Ophir could be rowed up the Red Sea. And I'm sure that dirty British colliers with salt-caked smoke-stacks would ultimately hold the key to linking Britain to India. I imagine Napoleon going for the Sinai and Nelson claiming it for the British Crown after Aboukir Bay. It would be as vital to the Empire as Malta and Gibraltar combined.

Thoughts, folks?
 
Don't be hidebound about sailing ships...


I'm not, I'm stating a fact.

... quinqueremes of Nineveh from distant Ophir could be rowed up the Red Sea.

Despite ancient canals, despite oar-driven galleys existing for millennia, and despite powers hold territory on both Med and Rea Sea for centuries, the majority of northbound trade for thousands of years was carried by caravan. There's a reason all those peoples and all those nations did it that way for all that time and the reason isn't that they were stupid.

The Sinai as an island is going to spark huge changes, but these claims about more and easier seaborne trade between the Mediterranean and Indian Ocean are overblown.
 
The difficulties are there, as are solutions...

If the winds make it fairly easy to sail south, but harder to tack north, then Mediterranean cultures with lateen sailed ships would be able to manage. A lot will depend on cultural attitudes - a land-based culture in the Arabian Peninsula will rely on land-based trade, but why is it that many pilgrims to Mecca came by sea?

If the land is held by hostiles, but the sea is not, then I foresee a naval presence to protect commerce and profits. The Spice Islands beckon, as does the wealth of India and the Orient.
 
Despite ancient canals, despite oar-driven galleys existing for millennia, and despite powers hold territory on both Med and Rea Sea for centuries, the majority of northbound trade for thousands of years was carried by caravan. There's a reason all those peoples and all those nations did it that way for all that time and the reason isn't that they were stupid.

As you pointed out in the canal thread, those canals still required to reload the whole cargo on another ship. This isn't required here. Furthermore, it was probably quite expensive to build and supply a large number of ships on the Red sea. If you wanted a galley there, you'd had to build it with all material transported to the shores. All this is of no concern here and should make a major difference in transportation costs by ship.
 
That's a good point, Monty...

... A ship built in Lebanon or Cypress or Crete could sail/row all the way to Aden and back, if there is a seaway. Red Sea winds will indeed need a skilled guild of pilots...

...I foresee Aden becoming a key entrepot.

A Sinai Island is thus less important of itself than the effects it has on trade and invasions in Arabia and Africa. Byzantium would surely regard it as the key to eastern trade and maybe the Ottoman Empire (unless too land-based) would want to hold both Straits for pilgrim ships to Mecca as well. The moment we get into the Napoleonic and steamship eras, the two Straits become vital for the India trade - the Honourable East India Company might at least sail one way down the Red Sea, even if it sailed a circular route involving the Cape of Good Hope. Steamships not being reliant on wind, I could see transports (and, later, tankers) using the Suez Straits.

Whilst the existence of the Straits might invalidate the creation of Israel, the existence of Palestine as a peninsula, be it my thought or Tirion's, might make a far more defensible country. Alternatively (and I'm guilty of this idea, in times past) the Sinai itself might be palmed off on the Jews as an Israeli homeland; with their ability to make a desert bloom, the results could be highly interesting. Of course, they'd have the Sinai oilfield, but not the new Leviathan gasfield in OTL Israeli/Lebanese waters...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top