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

[jimmy olsen]

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.

He has two books!

https://www.amazon.com/Rome-Distant-East-Routes-ancient/dp/1847252354

[The Minsky Moment]

Most of the places I checked use as its largest reference a 1st century AD document, the "Peryplus of the Erythreaean Sea", that names trade routes from Egypt's ports in the Red Sea down to the Horn of Africa and beyond (the southernmost port named is in modern Tanzania), the Arabian coast and further into modern Pakistan and India. It has a pretty extensive wiki article, in case anyone is interested: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periplus_of_the_Erythraean_Sea

Yes that document discusses routes and commodities - as do other chapters of the Natural History - but it doesn't contain the kind of quantitative information that would facilitate an estimate of total volume and value.

[The Larch]

Most of the places I checked use as its largest reference a 1st century AD document, the "Peryplus of the Erythreaean Sea", that names trade routes from Egypt's ports in the Red Sea down to the Horn of Africa and beyond (the southernmost port named is in modern Tanzania), the Arabian coast and further into modern Pakistan and India. It has a pretty extensive wiki article, in case anyone is interested: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periplus_of_the_Erythraean_Sea

Yes that document discusses routes and commodities - as do other chapters of the Natural History - but it doesn't contain the kind of quantitative information that would facilitate an estimate of total volume and value.

Ah, ok, I misunderstood your post thinking it was about general information about the trade routes themselves. Yeah, hard data about the value of that trade is hard to come by and comes mostly through some rather wild extrapolation (the value of wares in a single ship being assumed as the average value transported by all ships doing those routes, for instance).

[The Minsky Moment]

What need did Rome to conquer anything outside of the Italian peninsula?

Security. The Romans never forgot the sack of the city by the Gauls. So cisalpine Gaul had to be subdued to secure the homeland, then transalpine Gaul to secure Italy.  Wherever the frontier is at any given time, as that area becomes more settled and Romanized, there is always a logic to pushing the frontier back further.

Yemen and Axum posed no security threat and were far away from any Roman border.  There was valuable trade to be done but that could be done by trading not stationing an expensive far flung garrison.  It's the same logic why the US doesn't conquer say the Netherlands today even though it would be militarily feasible.

[jimmy olsen]

What need did Rome to conquer anything outside of the Italian peninsula?

Security. The Romans never forgot the sack of the city by the Gauls. So cisalpine Gaul had to be subdued to secure the homeland, then transalpine Gaul to secure Italy.  Wherever the frontier is at any given time, as that area becomes more settled and Romanized, there is always a logic to pushing the frontier back further.

Taking their self justifications rather seriously there. The elite were for the most part engaged in conquest for wealth, glory and political influence.

[celedhring]

Does this still apply during the Imperial era, though? Seems to me most expansion during that time was driven by security/resource needs. Families jockeying for prestige and power was more a Republic thing.

[The Larch]

Does this still apply during the Imperial era, though? Seems to me most expansion during that time was driven by security/resource needs. Families jockeying for prestige and power was more a Republic thing.

Yeah, during imperial times successful generals were much more likely to start a civil war to depose the emperor than anything else. Most territorial expansion was done during Republican times.

[The Minsky Moment]

Taking their self justifications rather seriously there. The elite were for the most part engaged in conquest for wealth, glory and political influence.

There are many ways a city-state based social elite can seek and obtain wealth, glory and influence.  The question is why in the Roman context that pursuit happened to be channeled into extensive external territorial conquests and the addition of new provinces.  I don't agree that ideological self-justifications are meaningless, the can reveal quite a lot about the mentality of that society.

[Razgovory]

Wait, didn't the Romans already have a canal from the Red Sea to the Nile?

[Syt]

Wait, didn't the Romans already have a canal from the Red Sea to the Nile?

The Pharaohs (allegedly) did.

[Agelastus]

Then why did they try to conquer it at all? The Romans tried, were defeated and withdrew due to lack of resources. The Emperor said to be crying over three lost legions which implies that it was a great drain of imperial resources.

In regards specifically to Germania people tend to forget Pannonia - the Pannonian Revolt had sucked in roughly a third of the Imperial Army plus additional forces raised for that specific campaign (many of which had taken heavy casualties) leaving Varus undermanned. In fact Arminius may have struck when he did in 9AD as he knew the Romans were on the verge of finishing off the revolt and that his window of opportunity would close.

As late as Marcus Aurelius the Romans were seriously contemplating expansion beyond the Rhine/Danube line - if he hadn't died when he did we would have had an Imperial province of Marcomannia next to Dacia.

[jimmy olsen]

Wait, didn't the Romans already have a canal from the Red Sea to the Nile?

Yeah, but it wasn't year round. It depended on the level of the Nile. It was difficult to maintain because floods could damage it and it had locks. It had to be frequently dredged.

A canal through the Suez would be year round and no locks would be necessary.

[Razgovory]

A new, more convenient canal but at a very high cost seems like it would be hard sell.

[grumbler]

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.

The roughly 10,000 men under Gallus were not 10,000 legionaries.  They were about 5000 legionaries and 5,000 auxiliaries.

So, if Augustus decides to build the canal with the Gallus legion, it's going to take something like 20 years. 

Maintenance is going to be an issue, but not a show-stopper.  It's going to make the canal less economically attractive, though.

[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.

The roughly 10,000 men under Gallus were not 10,000 legionaries.  They were about 5000 legionaries and 5,000 auxiliaries.

So, if Augustus decides to build the canal with the Gallus legion, it's going to take something like 20 years. 

Or they can have the auxiliaries dig too. Or hire workers from Egypt. Or conscript some Egyptian peasants, or bring in some slaves. Lots of options.