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

[grumbler]

OTOH the Chinese canals went across populated areas, while the Suez canal would have to cross uninhabited desert? So there would be logistical problems in trying to build it back then.

Yeah, I think the author grossly underestimates the cost of the canal by assuming that the workers would just magically appear, claim no more than the standard wage, take care of their own food and lodging, and then disappear when no longer needed.

Wouldn't most workers be slaves or legionaries?

Not according to that article.

Slaves would need overseers, and their productivity would be way below that of free laborers.  Rome didn't have three or four legions to spare as construction labor.  They could do that at Hadrian's Wall because the legions had to be there for defensive purposes anyway.

[jimmy olsen]

He calculated the cost using freemen, but said it would be cheaper because the Romans would likely use slaves.

According to Diocletian's Edict, the maximum a laborer can charge for his work is 25 Dn per day.  While it is very likely that any Roman Emperor building such a project would use slave labor, the labor costs will be calculated as though it were constructed by freemen for two reasons.  First, because its easier to calculate; we don't have to worry about the cost of feeding or housing the workforce (or guarding them to prevent revolts).  Second, because we can assume that slave labor would be cheaper than freemen, we maintain the principle of estimating up on costs.

Augustus had enough legions laying around to send two to invade Yemen. Once those returned why couldn't he use them on building a canal?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Romans_in_Arabia#Aelius_Gallus_expedition

EDIT: Or, even better, they could have got cold feet because of the logistical difficulties at the beginning and had those legions dig the canal before launching the expedition.

[The Minsky Moment]

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

That's a very good question.

The answer given in the OP is "The Indian ocean trade drove much of the Roman Empire's tax revenue."

Really?  That's news to me.  I don't count myself as an expert on Roman fiscal policy but any means but this is literally the first time I've ever seen the claim that the Indian Ocean trade was a such a significant contributor to Roman tax revenue.  I imagine there is powerful evidence to support such an extraordinary claim, although the author apparently believes it is so self-evident that he does not cite any, or footnote the claim. I might be content to rely on the authority of the author's experience in the field if I knew what it was.

The Grand Canal of China linked the two great population centers of China, the most populous and economically developed center of the world over the 1000 year period or so the project was variously built, rebuilt and renovated. The strategic and economic benefits of that project are glaringly obvious and if there was one pre-modern polity that had the resources to pull it off it would have been imperial China. 

The benefits of a Suez Canal to Imperial Rome are less obvious and I share your skepticism.  The Roman Empire was very capable and if they really wanted to do it , I believe they could pull it off but barring a very strong emperor with an inexplicable mania for an Egyptian canal, I don't see it happening, alternatively or otherwise.

[jimmy olsen]

The cities of the Red Sea coast, Yemen and the Kingdom of Auxum are all far more valuable potential conquests than Britain. The only reason the later was conquered despite being further away was easy access by sea. A canal gives them that access.

Augustus cared, he tried conquering Yemen.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_economy#State_revenues

During the 1st century AD, the total value of imported goods form the maritime trade coming from the Indian Ocean region (including the silk and spice trade) was roughly 1,000 million sesterces, allowing the Roman state to garner 250 million sesterces of that figure in tax revenue.[92] Even after the reduction in the number of Roman legions from about fifty to twenty-eight (500,000 down to 300,000 full-time soldiers and auxiliaries) the Roman state under Augustus still spent 640 million sesterces on military costs alone per annum (with total state expenses hovering around 1,000 million).[93] Raoul McLaughlin stresses that "as long as international commerce thrived, the Roman Empire could meet these high-level military costs."[93] A further 25 million sesterces in state revenues was gathered by taxing the Roman exported goods loaded on ships destined for Arabia and India (worth roughly 100 million in total).[94]

Sourced from

https://www.amazon.com/Roman-Empire-Indian-Ocean-Kingdoms-ebook/dp/B00OZ3HWM2

[The Minsky Moment]

Sourced from

https://www.amazon.com/Roman-Empire-Indian-Ocean-Kingdoms-ebook/dp/B00OZ3HWM2

Well lets assume that Mr. McLaughlin has it dead on with his 250 million sesterces number in annual tax revenue.  That's still a lot lower than the likely direct tax take - indeed it would have to be considering the ~1 billion state budget.  The next question is how much that number would go up from building a canal.  Would it significantly expand the trade?  Doesn't seem likely since the Indian Ocean was a luxury trade in high value/bulk ratio goods so incrementally lowering transport costs by avoiding trans-shipment to barge would not likely lower prices sufficiently to vastly expand overall demand.  Against that must be considered the cost of building the canal.  The costs of China's grand canal are unknown but it took years and the Sui emperor supposedly used over 1 million laborers. If we assume a low daily wage of 3 sesterces per day, that would mean 3 million sesterces per day.  that doesn't include materials or the logistical costs of mobilizing such a labor force to the Egyptian deserts.  Even if the cost estimate is overly high by many orders of magnitude -- and I do suspect the Romans could have gotten it done a lot more efficiently -  it is very difficult to see how the project would be worth it.

But this discussion also assumes Mr. McLaughlin is right and I would not jump to that conclusion despite his PhD and his publication by Pen and Sword books.  He is assuming a 1 billion sesterces trade in luxury items per year and a flawless collection of a 25% tax.  Based on a 20 billion sesterces estimate of total Roman annual income, of which 4 billion would be in the hands of the rich classes -- see https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1299313 -- that would imply that the rich were spending 25% of their total annual revenue on luxury goods from the eastern trade.  While not strictly impossible, it seems a very aggressive estimate indeed.

[jimmy olsen]

that would imply that the rich were spending 25% of their total annual revenue on luxury goods from the eastern trade.  While not strictly impossible, it seems a very aggressive estimate indeed.

Typical Roman aristocrat (colorized)

[Josquius]

Yeah, I've not heard of the India trade being such a huge deal to the Romans either.
Surely there'd be a lot more sources about this?

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.

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.

[jimmy olsen]

Yeah, I've not heard of the India trade being such a huge deal to the Romans either.
Surely there'd be a lot more sources about this?

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.

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.

Ah, it was basically like the British sending all their hard currency to China. The bankers and bureaucrats of the Empire thought it was an economic disaster.

Which is why I chose Augustus. He has the power to do it and the motivation to do it. He already wants to loot and annex all those city states on the coast of the Red Sea.

I wouldn't expect the economic after affects to be at the forefront of his calculations. It would be based on strategic and logistical factors.

[Grey Fox]

OTOH the Chinese canals went across populated areas, while the Suez canal would have to cross uninhabited desert? So there would be logistical problems in trying to build it back then.

Yeah, I think the author grossly underestimates the cost of the canal by assuming that the workers would just magically appear, claim no more than the standard wage, take care of their own food and lodging, and then disappear when no longer needed.

Wouldn't most workers be slaves or legionnaires?

Rome didn't have legionnaires.

Shameful spelling error

Legionnaires
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legionnaires%27_disease

Legionaries
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legionary

Fucking English.

[Tonitrus]

Just so long as we're not mixing up Cavalry and Calvary.

[Darth Wagtaros]

Seems like even if an emperor did want to built he canal, getting the labor there, keeping it productive, and then maintaining the canal once it got built could have caused a severe economic recession. 

[jimmy olsen]

Seems like even if an emperor did want to built he canal, getting the labor there, keeping it productive, and then maintaining the canal once it got built could have caused a severe economic recession.

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.

[Valmy]

Just so long as we're not mixing up Cavalry and Calvary.

When I was a kid I was so excited to discover what I thought was a Cavalry church near my house...man was that disappointing.

[saskganesh]

I do not know, but it's a much better idea than building limes on the Elbe in order to thwart a Hunnic invasion 400 years in the future.

[HVC]

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.

You keep saying that rome had the means to do it. If that so, didn't the fact they didn't mean it wasn't economically viable or even necessary?