WI : Red Sea Expansionism by Ancient Egypt

You might need to alter the evolution of Egyptian society to achieve what you want. For example, the Egyptians were not particularly good sailors. The were spoiled by the Nile and didn't like venturing out on the open ocean. They are also, so far as I am aware, the only major civilization in the ancient world that had what could legitimately be called an empire, and yet in the entire three thousand years of recorded history in Pharaonic Egypt, they did not establish any colonies.
 
Last edited:
You might need to alter the evolution of Egyptian society to achieve what you want. For example, the Egyptians were not particularly good sailors. The were spoiled by the Nile and didn't like venturing out on the open ocean. They are also, so far as I am aware, the only major civilization in the ancient world that had what could legitimately be called an empire, and yet in the entire three thousand years of recorded history in Pharaonic Egypt, they did not establish any colonies.

They had some expeditions to Somalia.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_of_Punt

And ptolemaic Egypt traded with India - so why not securing the way to India by conquering the coast of Arabia?
 
You might need to alter the evolution of Egyptian society to achieve what you want. For example, the Egyptians were not particularly good sailors. The were spoiled by the Nile and didn't like venturing out on the open ocean. They are also, so far as I am aware, the only major civilization in the ancient world that had what could legitimately be called an empire, and yet in the entire three thousand years of recorded history in Pharaonic Egypt, they did not establish any colonies.

The bolded part just isn't true. The Egyptians built excellent boats and sailed all around the Red Sea and the Eastern Mediterranean. It's true that they didn't establish (very many) colonies (outside of the Western Desert, parts of Canaan, and Nubia); but that was mostly because they didn't want to.

You need a reason for Egypt to become culturally expansionist, not just politically. Egypt already thought of its culture as universal, but it was also bound up with notions of insularity - think "Anyone can be Egyptian, provided they live in Egypt". You need to do away with that second part.
 
Last edited:
They had some expeditions to Somalia.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_of_Punt

And ptolemaic Egypt traded with India - so why not securing the way to India by conquering the coast of Arabia?

Yeah, the Egyptians are known to have sent trading expeditions as far north as Lebanon and Syria and possibly as far south as Somalia, but they never stayed anywhere outside of Egypt for very long because they held Egypt to be sacred. The Egyptian state religion outright stated that any Egyptian who died outside the borders of Egypt would not resurrect and go to the next world. If you want Egypt to be more culturally expansionist, somehow you need to change that. Maybe an ATL Amarna period?
 
Last edited:

GdwnsnHo

Banned
They had some expeditions to Somalia.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_of_Punt

And ptolemaic Egypt traded with India - so why not securing the way to India by conquering the coast of Arabia?

Sadly, after a brief read that doesn't make it clear whether these expeditions were peaceful, or trade-wars, or intimidations. But I wasn't aware it was considered God's Land - perhaps an interesting cultural justification for conquest and colonisation.

The bolded part just isn't true. The Egyptians built excellent boats and sailed all around the Red Sea and the Eastern Mediterranean. It's true that they didn't establish (very many) colonies (outside of the Western Desert, parts of Canaan, and Nubia); but that was mostly because they didn't want to.

You need a reason for Egypt to become culturally expansionist, not just politically. Egyptian of its culture as universal, but it was also bound up with notions of insularity - think "Anyone can be Egyptian, provided they live in Egypt". You need to do away with that second part.

Could Security be a justification? Military colonies in the same manner as the Romans. Build a new city, filled with Egyptians, to control the "provinces". The idea of an Egyptian Sicily (whether united with Egypt or not) is a cool idea. Resources seems the most obvious, especially if it enables access to wood. I suppose something like that might have happened on Cyprus, which would be a perfect target for a Mediterranean colony.

It could always be changed to "Anyone can be Egyptian, provided they've stood in Kemet" or "swam in the Nile". The latter seems to be a bit of a copy of bathing in the Ganges. It does seem a bit like the Hajj too. Perhaps another alternative is a baptism with Kemet (Put a thumbprint of Kemet on your forehead?). More practical - ships filled with soil. Considering the role of Pharaoh, I would expect they could pull it off. -> Suddenly soil capture becomes an industry!

Yeah, the Egyptians are known to have sent trading expeditions as far north as Lebanon and Syria and possibly as far south as Somalia, but they never stayed anywhere outside of Egypt for very long because they held Egypt to be sacred. The Egyptian state religion outright stated that any Egyptian who died outside the borders of Egypt would not resurrect and go to the next world. If you want Egypt to be more culturally expansionist, somehow you need to change that. Maybe an ATL Amarna period?

On the ATL Amarna Period - If you haven't, read NikeZnates TL, it's fantastic and bathes in that. As I mentioned, above, perhaps that act of bathing, or having the soil of Kemet on your forehead is another way to assure that they would resurrect and pass to the next world. Whether once in life, or perhaps repeated before death.

Assuming these cultural ideas are plausible, what new resources besides (I hope) coffee could an Egypt with colonies around the Red Sea acquire? Could they manage to maintain colonies around the entire Red Sea?
 
The bolded part just isn't true. The Egyptians built excellent boats and sailed all around the Red Sea and the Eastern Mediterranean. It's true that they didn't establish (very many) colonies (outside of the Western Desert, parts of Canaan, and Nubia); but that was mostly because they didn't want to.

One more source for the Egyptian sailing.

http://reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/timelines/topics/navigation.htm

As Niko already pointed out, you need to give the Egyptians reason for expanding. What is there on the other side of the Red Sea that they'd be interested in?
Nubia had gold (and other metals) and excellent warriors who were happy to live in Egypt. Canaan had salt and timber (both Niko and myself alluded to it in our TLs).
 
AIUI, Egypt was far and away the richest and most densely populated part of the Roman Empire thanks to the fertility of the Nile.

Now presuming we can extrapolate that backwards to all or most of antiquity (and I see no reason why not), the question becomes why did they not use all that wealth and manpower to create an overwhelming force of expansion. Was it that, like the later Chinese, they had everything that was really worth having/that they could reasonably hold on to? Someone mentioned colonisation for wood, but why use wood when you have stone, mud and papyrus, especially somewhere like the desert where that stuff will dry out and burn?.

Once you figure out why Egyptian wealth and numbers didn't translate to imperial destiny OTL, we can figure out how to make it happen in an ATL.
 
Perhaps some Pharoah or explorers decide to move past Kush and find the source of the Nile? Unlikely perhaps, given how they thought it came form divine beings. And probably hard moving along the river all the way into Wthiopia and Uganda.
 

GdwnsnHo

Banned
One more source for the Egyptian sailing.

http://reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/timelines/topics/navigation.htm

As Niko already pointed out, you need to give the Egyptians reason for expanding. What is there on the other side of the Red Sea that they'd be interested in?
Nubia had gold (and other metals) and excellent warriors who were happy to live in Egypt. Canaan had salt and timber (both Niko and myself alluded to it in our TLs).

Around the Red Sea? Probably either trade security, and gold. Whilst Egypt did have a substantial supply of gold already, Pharaoh can always have more. Right :p I'd suggest securing Indian Trade Routes, but they didn't really exist. Another alternative is securing exotic resources from the far south, but without the cultural changes, I can't see that happening.

AIUI, Egypt was far and away the richest and most densely populated part of the Roman Empire thanks to the fertility of the Nile.

Now presuming we can extrapolate that backwards to all or most of antiquity (and I see no reason why not), the question becomes why did they not use all that wealth and manpower to create an overwhelming force of expansion. Was it that, like the later Chinese, they had everything that was really worth having/that they could reasonably hold on to? Someone mentioned colonisation for wood, but why use wood when you have stone, mud and papyrus, especially somewhere like the desert where that stuff will dry out and burn?.

Once you figure out why Egyptian wealth and numbers didn't translate to imperial destiny OTL, we can figure out how to make it happen in an ATL.

Seems like Wood, Culture, and abundant resources were the main reasons that prevented an imperial destiny. No real scarcity to drive the need for expansion, nor an ideology that encouraged it.

Perhaps some Pharoah or explorers decide to move past Kush and find the source of the Nile? Unlikely perhaps, given how they thought it came form divine beings. And probably hard moving along the river all the way into Wthiopia and Uganda.

Moving just along the Nile would be interesting, but difficult once the Nile splits into its tributaries. However, I would love to see an Egypt with its own source of teak. Creating wooden ships out of Teak would be great. Not exactly the Red Sea, but expansion is expansion.

Oddly enough, I think the best reasoning for controlling the Red Sea, and as such, colonising it, would be whether or not it is cheaper to trade with Mesopotamia by sea, than by land. Daring explorers discover the coastal route, including Persia, and India and some of their goods? Quicker trade with Mesopotamia and Iran, and direct access to Indian Goods makes a compelling reason to begin the trade, and then a compelling reason to control/secure the routes.
 
It could always be changed to "Anyone can be Egyptian, provided they've stood in Kemet" or "swam in the Nile". The latter seems to be a bit of a copy of bathing in the Ganges. It does seem a bit like the Hajj too. Perhaps another alternative is a baptism with Kemet (Put a thumbprint of Kemet on your forehead?). More practical - ships filled with soil. Considering the role of Pharaoh, I would expect they could pull it off. -> Suddenly soil capture becomes an industry!

I'm not sure ships full of soil counts as "practical", but it's certainly creative.

I think I once read an Ethiopian folk tale with a premise like this... A king exiles a trickster-type to Egypt, but a year later he sees him at a local festival. The trickster put mud from the Nile in his sandals so he would always be walking on Egyptian soil :p

Once you figure out why Egyptian wealth and numbers didn't translate to imperial destiny OTL, we can figure out how to make it happen in an ATL.

Part of the reason was, it just wasn't the time for huge, continent-spanning empires on the scale of Persia or Rome. New Kingdom Egypt, holding sovereignty over 1 million square kilometers, was about as big as an empire could be in the Bronze Age... There simply weren't enough people outside of the densely populated "cores" of urban civilization - and those who did live on the peripheries were typically not worth conquering. Egypt didn't conquer Arabia's Red Sea coast in OTL because, unlike Nubia or Canaan, there were no people living in cities there to subdue and exploit; the region simply wasn't productive to the Egyptian way of doing things. The reasons for Rome never conquering Germania/further east are an informative parallel.

In LATER periods, Egyptian expansionism into the Red Sea to secure Indian trade routes (as many people have mentioned) is much more feasible. This is part of why I want to do a really in-depth Saïte TL one day.

Perhaps some Pharoah or explorers decide to move past Kush and find the source of the Nile? Unlikely perhaps, given how they thought it came form divine beings. And probably hard moving along the river all the way into Wthiopia and Uganda.

By the 26th Dynasty, the Egyptians knew about the Blue Nile and its Ethiopian source. The White Nile is not navigable past modern Juba, and there wasn't much the Egyptians would want to conquer past that point anyway.
 
Top