Could Augustus have had a canal built across the Suez? Should he have?

[viper37]

Why would the Romans, and Augustus especially, care about the Red Sea, first of all?

Romans had trading network as far as the coast of India.  Egypt was trading with Ethiopia and Yemen, and the Romans took over these networks.

[Josquius]

Why would the Romans, and Augustus especially, care about the Red Sea, first of all?

Romans had trading network as far as the coast of India.  Egypt was trading with Ethiopia and Yemen, and the Romans took over these networks.

But they weren't really a trading power.
And they didn't have any significant sea borne trade rivals in the manner of those people who at different points of history did get into setting up colonies.
You'd need some sort of threat to this network beyond standard pirates to get them too involved.

[viper37]

And it strikes me that wouldn't imperial Rome be quite happy with luxury goods costing the nobility a fortune and have no interest in bringing down the cost? They could have gained more control over the trade even as things stood, but they didn't.

hmm, not really.  I would dispute the definition of "luxury" has used by Minsky.  There were a lot of things coming out of the indian ocean trade that would have been of interest to a large population of the Empire.  It's not like today's Jaguars or Rolls Royce that you see in everyone's hands.

It strikes me a roman suez would be very possible and very useful for them but it would only be done with our top down view of things and modern knowledge of quote what it would mean. It'd need a remarkable prophet of an emperor to see it from within the time period.

useful, yes, but hard to maintain. Also, the Emperor would be preoccupied with more immediate concerns nearer home.

[viper37]

Why would the Romans, and Augustus especially, care about the Red Sea, first of all?

Romans had trading network as far as the coast of India.  Egypt was trading with Ethiopia and Yemen, and the Romans took over these networks.

But they weren't really a trading power.
And they didn't have any significant sea borne trade rivals in the manner of those people who at different points of history did get into setting up colonies.
You'd need some sort of threat to this network beyond standard pirates to get them too involved.

Oh sure, but the interest in the Red Sea was there.  Enough to justify the undertaking of a canal and maintain it every year, probably not.

[viper37]

How? Augustus already had 10,000 legionaries in theater. Instead of ordering them to invade Yemen on a shoe string logistical line, order them to dig the Suez. They get paid either way. Same with food and supplies.

Much cheaper to maintain this canal than the canal of the Pharaohs since no locks are involved and you don't have to deal with the floods of the Nile.

That ain't nearly enough workers to dig such a canal by hand in a timely manner.  And you still need soldiers to guard against barbarian invasions from Southern Egypt and other pirates/raiders/bandits.

[viper37]

Hadrian's Wall was more than 3/4ths the length of this proposed canal and it was built by 15,000 legionaries in six years. A fortified wall seems a much more complex feat than digging a ditch. This canal doesn't require locks. You just need to move earth.

sorry, but no, it's much, much easier to build a fortified stone wall on solid ground than a canal were water will rush in will be wide and deep enough for ships and their cargo.  Any kind of ditch will need to be sloped on the sides to avoid extra erosion by water.  I suppose, also, that sand storms are a reality in this part of the desert and there needs to be a way to avoid the sand to fill the ditch.

[viper37]

The papyrus indicates the cost of the trip to Coptos was 20 talents, or about 640,000 seterces.  An enormous sum, but considering the likely need for heavy security as well as many trained cameleers perhaps not that surprising.  Still as big as that cost was, it was just 9 percent of the total value of the cargo.  So the overall economic impact of a canal, while not insignificant, doesn't seem to be worthwhile enough to justify the project.

there are other costs to consider:- time to discharge the ships to the camels- time to discharge the camels to the ships on the mediteranean side
it would account to more than 9 percent overall, plus the time gains by a canal.
now, there would have been a benefit, but like you, I  remain unconvinced it would be sufficient to justify the expense of building and maintaining a canal.

[Razgovory]

Trade with India would have remained seasonal, but trade with Africa, Arabia and even Persia would have been year round as those ships were just hugging the coast.

The canal would have allowed ships from all those places direct access to the cities of the Mediterranean. And Roman dominion of the Red Sea would have removed the threat of piracy.

Anyways, while beneficial for those reasons in the long term, the main short term motivation for an Emperor to build such a canal was strategic. It allows the robust supply of expeditions of conquest against the rich city states and kingdoms on the coast.

Trade in the Mediterranean was, in large part, seasonal, at least with the sort of ships the Romans had.