Languish.org

I found this and thought it quite interesting. Given that the Gallus 26-24BC expedition to Arabia Felix (Yemen) failed in large part due to supply difficulties, would it have been feasible for Augustus to have had a canal dug across the Suez so that the Red Sea could be accessed year round by Roman ships?

This article I found online suggests so. What say you Languish? Is this rando correct, or not.

http://alternatehistoryweeklyupdate.blogspot.com/2012/06/economics-of-roman-suez-canal.html

QuoteThe Economics of a Roman Suez Canal
Guest post by Christopher Brielman.

Many conversations about an alternate classical history involve a discussion of a possible canal connecting the Red Sea and Mediterranean, similar to the modern Suez Canal.  The idea is often dismissed as infeasible for the technology of the time.  The evidence for this is usually little more than that the actual Suez Canal was not constructed until the 19th century.

This dismissal is often met with discussion of the Canal of the Pharaohs, a supposed structure built by the Pharaoh Necho II, Persian Emperor Darius, or Ptolemy II  (accounts vary as to who actually managed to finish it) that connected the Nile delta to the Red Sea.  This canal is supposed to have run from the eastern-most branch of the Nile Delta (the Pelusiac, named because it emptied in the Mediterranean at the port of Pelusium) eastward to lake Timsah, and then south through the Bitter Lakes, and then to Clysma, on the Gulf of Suez.  This route is estimated to be 140 km long, and Herodotus tells us that it would take 4 days to traverse the canal.

The ancient sources dispute whether or not the canal was finished properly until the Ptolemaic period, due to the concerns of salt water from the Red Sea contaminating the Nile Delta.  Ptolemaic Egypt is said to have been able to overcome this concern with the invention and implementation of the canal lock, allowing them to regulate the flow of water between the Red Sea and Nile.  However, this canal was still prone to the whims of the Nile, and frequently silted up, due to the regular flooding.  The Roman Emperors Trajan and Hadrian had to re-dig the canal, as did the Abbasid Caliphs.

The Canal of the Pharaohs would ultimately be of limited use for a variety of reasons, including the silting and the constraints imposed by the lock (basically, that no ship larger than the lock could be used).  In addition, the canal was only part of a longer river network; any cargo going to Alexandria had another 300 km to travel before reaching the Mediterranean.  Further, sea-going craft were not generally used for Nile traffic (even if the lock were not an issue).  This necessitated unloading of cargo at Clysma, loading it onto riverboats, transporting the cargo along the canal and Nile, and then unloading at Alexandria, before being loaded onto another sea-going ship.  This added additional time (a modest sea-going ship would take at least 2 days to load or unload) and expense.

However, the Canal of the Pharaohs is important for another reason:  It showed that the Persian, Hellenistic, Roman, and Arab civilizations had the necessary technical skill to build a canal of considerable length, and operate it under difficult circumstances.  Given that the main challenge of the Suez is its length, the question  becomes whether or not it would be economically feasible for any of those civilizations to build such a canal.

We have some of the information to answer that question due to the economic policies of Diocletian, Emperor of Rome at the turn of the 4th century.  Diocletian attempted to institute price controls on virtually every good and service within the Roman Empire (listed in what is known as Denarii Communes; basically just a bookkeeping invention from which the value in the contemporary Roman currency actually in use could be calculated. This enabled the price controls to fluctuate with the changes in currency.  Unless otherwise specified, all costs will be in these).  The results are still debated, but most consider this to be a 'bad idea.'  However, it did have an upside:  The Edict of Maximum Prices has proven a treasure trove to Historians, provided a fairly comprehensive catalogue of  Roman micro-economic conditions in AD 301.  This will enable us - along with liberal use of algebra, Google, and guesswork - to calculate the cost of building such a canal.  The ORBIS project from Stanford (a free online resource to calculate travel expenses and times between various points in the Roman Empire, based, in part, on the Edict) enables us to determine much of the economic value of the canal (along with, again, the Edict to determine the value of cargoes).

Here, we shall review the costs and benefits of the construction of a direct canal from the Red Sea, at the Roman port of Clysma, to the Mediterranean Sea, at the Roman port of Pelusium,  This cost-benefit estimate will not be precise or exhaustive; there will be many factors not considered, due to lack of information or ease of calculation.  Much estimation will be used, generally rounding up on costs and down on benefits, to maintain some sense of conservatism about results.  However, the results should show that, unless the numbers are wildly wrong, the general idea is sound.

Construction Costs
The most important factor to determine is how long the canal will be.  This is because we know that there is no need for locks or any other advanced technical work, beyond the digging of the canal and the removal of the soil.  When we run the distance between Clysma and Pelusium on ORBIS, we arrive at 155 km.  Meanwhile, the Modern Suez Canal was 164 km long at completion.  We shall thus use 160 km as the length of our canal, and chalk the difference up to sedimentation and the growth of the Nile Delta.  We can subtract 13 km from the length needed to be dug, to account for the length of the Bitter Lakes (which will be dry until the canal is dug).  Thus, the total length needed to be dug is 147 km.

Now that we know the length of the canal, we need to know the other dimensions.  For this purpose, we can use the Canal of the Pharaohs as our starting point.  Estimates vary as to its width, between roughly 30 meters to 50 meters.  Meanwhile, the likely depth seems to be agreed upon: 9 meters.  Of course, in the case of that canal, subjected to sedimentation, those values wouldn't last very long at all.  Regardless, we are able to calculate the total volume of the canal.  Assuming it is 30 meters wide, we arrive at a value of 39,690,000 cubic meters, which we will round up to 40 million cubic meters.

The next question is how much can one man dig in a day?  This is a harder question to google than one would think (thanks to it being a popular algebra problem, there is no shortage of useless hits on the Internet), so we have to think outside of the box to determine that figure.  The most useful figure that is easy to find is the time it takes to dig a grave.  We can estimate that a grown man can dig a typical grave in 3 hours.  We know that a grave has a volume of 2.71 cubic meters.  We know that the typical Roman workday was 6 hours long.  Thus, we arrive at a figure of 5.42 cubic meters, per day, per worker.  We'll round this down to 5 cubic meters.

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.

Now that we know the amount of work to be done and how much each worker can do, its a simple task to determine how much needs to be done.  Dividing 40 million cubic meters by 5 cubic meters gives us 8 million man-days of work.  Multiplying that cost by 25 Dn gives 200,000,000 Dn as our base construction cost.

However, that would leave the entire mass of earth removed from the canal right next to it on either side, ready to be blown back in during the next windstorm.  The removed material must be transported somewhere else.  That somewhere is, of course, the ocean.  To transport the material, it is likely that the Romans would use river barges, towed by teams of donkeys.  This allows us to run our next calculations.


Assume a barge, 5 meters wide, 30 meters long, with a 3 meter draft, providing it a capacity of 450 cubic meters.  Sail-driven barges of similar dimensions have been found at a archaeological site in Zwammerdam.  Using barges of these dimensions, not only could construction be carried out continuously, with craft passing each other easily in a 30 meter wide canal; they could also pass each other are the head of the canal, where the width might be narrower.  Dividing the total amount of material (40 million cubic meters) among the barges (450 cubic meters) results in 88,889 trips needed to transport the entirety of the canal.  We shall round this up to 100,000 trips, out of sympathy for the donkeys who will be towing the barges.

Armed with this information, we shall now calculate the cost of these trips.  We shall use Herodotus' figure of 4 days to travel the Canal of the Pharaohs as our starting point, and assume that, when this Canal is finished, it would take a draft team the same amount of time to tow a barge the entire length.  Even though the distance is 20 km longer, this Canal would be of uniform dimensions, direction, elevation, and with no current (at least, until completion).  With a travel time of 4 days to travel 160 km, we then divide the construction into 2 groups; one digging from the Mediterranean, and one from the Red Sea (we'll ignore the possibility of teams in the middle of the route, as that would only complicate our calculations).  That means the furthest any barge would have to travel from the dig site to the sea is 80 km.  With the shortest distance possible being 0 km, we can calculate an average distance of 40 km.  That would require 1 day of travel in each direction for the average barge trip.  We'll add another day to account for towing the barge away from the mouth of the canal and unloading into the ocean (its possible that the material could be used to expand the ports on either end).

As an aside, we will not add in additional time for loading the barges, but it is worth noting that, with a digging capacity of 5 cubic meters per day, it would take 360 man-days of work to load each barge.  We'll be estimating digging teams vastly larger than 360 men (which could fill each barge in a day), so the time needed to load each barge will be fairly negligible.

Back to the transportation time table, assuming 100,000 trips, and 3 days per trip, that results in 300,000 trip-days to transport the material.  Draft team drivers were paid 25 Dn per day, the same as general laborers.  We'll assume a team of 4 men per barge, in some combination of drivers guiding the animals and polemen (assumed to be general laborers) guiding the barges, for a labor cost of 100 Dn per day.  That provides a labor cost of 30,000,000 Dn.

Next, we should not neglect the cost of feeding the donkeys.  A typical working donkey is fed 0.5 kg of grain and 2.5 kg of chaff per day.  We shall assume that the grain used is oats (a typical food for draft animals), which cost 3 Dn per kg.  Since we don't know the cost of chaff (its a byproduct of milling grain), we have to do some guesswork.  If chaff cost the same as oats (it doesn't, its a byproduct of milling), it would cost 9 Dn to feed a donkey each day.  Since that number is much higher than would be likely for the cost of chaff, we'll round down the cost to 5 Dn per day.  It is unlikely that that will be the exact type of feed the donkeys get, but it'll serve, again, as a useful benchmark.  Thus, if every single barge trip were pulled by 1 incredibly overworked donkey, the feed cost would be 1,500,000 Dn.

Of course, we know that there's no way one donkey could pull all those barges.  We need to figure out how much the donkeys actually could pull.  The average donkey weighs between 80 kg and 480 kg and can pull a cart that weighs twice as much as the donkey (they can carry, on their backs, a load equal to 30% of their weight; not that that is relevant, but its good to know).  Meanwhile, draft animals can pull barges that weight 50 times as much as the largest carts they can pull.  In other words, a donkey can pull 100 times its own weight in barge loads.  That means that each donkey can pull a barge that is between 8,000 kg and 48,000 kg.    We will not, by the way, factor in how much sails would help the draft animals, other than to note that it would reduce the load, so long as the donkeys are pulling with the wind (in this case, south, unless the barges are equipped with lateen sails, which is a whole 'noter can of worms).

Now that we know how much the donkeys can pull, we need to figure out how heavy the barges are.  The density of dry sand, which will serve as a useful benchmark for how dense the loads are likely to be, is 1600 kg per cubic meter (gravel is not too much different).  That will place our typical barge load at 720,000 kg.  If we assume each donkey can pull a barge load weighing 40,000 kg (this assumes that the construction team uses healthy, strong donkeys, a reasonable assumption), then that load would require 18 donkeys.  We'll round up to 20 donkeys, which, conveniently enough, is the largest team of draft animals known to history (the famed 20-mule borax teams).  So, with 100,000 trips, each with 20 donkeys, each consuming 15 Dn worth of feed per trip, we get 30,000,000 Dn in feed costs.

We now have a general estimate on the total cost of construction.  Digging costs are 200,000,000 Dn, and transportation costs are 60,000,000 Dn, for a grand total of 260,000,000 Dn.  We can assume that costs will go over budget with some certainty, for a variety of reasons, not the least of which that our calculation does not incorporate other construction costs, the cost of any laborers beyond the drivers and diggers (such as overseers), as well as corruption and/or any bonuses paid out.  To be very cautious, and to maintain the consistent trend of decimal laziness evident in these calculations, we'll round the total costs up to 300,000,000 Dn, nearly a third of a billion Denarii.

Its also noteworthy to consider how long it will take to construct the canal.  We know that we have 8 million man-days of digging to do.  If we have teams smaller than 360 diggers on each end of the canal, the time to load the barges, and the number that can be run simultaneously, becomes the constraining figure of how quickly work can proceed.  Herodotus states that 120,000 workers died building Necho's version of the Canal of the Pharaohs, so the labor force would likely be of comparable size.  Emperor Nero attempted to build a canal across the Isthmus of Corinth with a force of 6,000 slaves.  Meanwhile, the greatest engineering project undertaken by the Romans, Hadrian's Wall, was constructed by the three Legions stationed along the border within 6 years, a total of 15,000 men (aside: Hadrian's Wall is an excellent comparison in terms of scale to this project).

These numbers give us a general impression of the scale of the labor forces that could be marshaled in antiquity.  With our figure of 360 diggers needed to fill each barge, we shall use that as our base grouping of construction teams.  It would seem that a reasonable number would be 20 to 40 such teams, or 7200 to 14,400 men, which would put the construction force of a size comparable to the Corinth Canal or Hadrian's Wall.  Both of these teams would be able to quickly dig the canal and fill the barges as they arrived.

With 8 million man-days of digging, a 7200-man team would take 1,112 days to complete the canal.  A 14,400-man team would take 556 days.  Although this would seem to indicate that the canal could be completed in less than 3 years, it is unlikely that construction would continue year-round or, even if it was, it is unlikely that all workers would be working at all times.  We need to take into account weather and holidays.  Given that the Egyptians worked on the Pyramids for 3 months out of the year, we shall assume a 100 day working year for the Canal.  This is a very conservative estimate, as the Egyptians took the majority of the year off, in part, to tend to their farms; a concern that is irrelevant to a specialized work force.  Regardless, it provides an easy time table:  5-11 years.

So, to build a canal across the Sinai Peninsula to directly link the Red Sea and Mediterranean, it could cost the Romans 300 million Denarii and take them about a decade.  This means that annual costs would be in the range of 30 million Denarii.  The easiest way to determine if that would be a surmountable cost is to look that the Roman economy.  During the reign of the Emperor Marcian, who ruled only the eastern half of the Empire, which lasted 7 years, the Imperial government was able to fill the treasury with 100,000 pounds of gold.  To convert that into the Denarii Communes we have been using for our calculations, we convert it into its equivalent in aurei, 1/50 of a pound of gold and worth 1200 Dn in AD 301.  This give us a value of 6,000,000,000 Dn (if we use Diocletian's solidi instead, we get the same value).  This means that the Imperial surplus of an able Emperor and administration could reach a billion Denarii per year.  More than enough to pay for the construction costs of the canal.  The question remains, is it worth it?

Revenue Potential of the Canal
To determine the potential of this canal, we must determine how must it cost to travel.  This cost varied greatly depending on the mode of travel.  The three most important factors for our considerations are caravan travel (where cargo is carried by donkeys or camels), river travel (cargo is carried by riverboats), and (coastal) sea travel (cargo is carried by true ships).  The ORBIS system allows us to run a variety of routes to determine how much it would cost to travel the 160 km route by these various means.  Costs are the cost to transport a given quantity of wheat, a fairly low value, but very commonly traded, bulk good.

Cargo carried by caravan would take 5.33 days, at a cost of 4.49 Dn/kg, to travel 160 km.  Cargo carried by riverboat vary greatly, depending on the river, direction of travel, and season, but we can estimate an average trip would take 3.5 days and cost 0.81 Dn/kg. Cargo carried by ship would take 1.25 days and cost 0.12 Dn/kg.  It clear that land travel is, in general, prohibitively expensive.  This is seen by simply looking at a map: the Roman Empire (and its major cities), in general, was built along the coastlines and navigable rivers.

Now that we know how much it costs per kilogram to transport cargo, we must examine the capacity of Roman ships.  The Roman merchant ships were measured in terms of how many amphorae (26.2 liters) they could carry.  The smallest grain ships in common use were 1,400-amphorae ships, capable of carrying 70,000 kg of grain.  Larger ships in common use had a capacity of 3,000 amphorae, or 150,000 kg.  As an extreme for a large ship in common use might be similar to the Madrague de Giens shipwreck; a capacity of 8,000 amphorae, or 400,000 kg of grain.  In theory, such a ship would likely be narrow enough to traverse the canal, but would likely have a draft too deep.

The costs for transporting a small ship's worth (70,000 kg) of cargo over 160 km would be 314,000 Dn by caravan, 56,700 Dn by riverboat, and 8,400 Dn by ship.  The cost for a larger ship (150,000 kg) would be 673,500 Dn by caravan, 121,500 Dn by riverboat, and 18,000 Dn by ship.  The larger ships mentioned would likely be too rare or too large to factor into consideration for the purposes of the canal.  Therefore, the savings over land travel, for a small ship's worth of cargo, are 257,300 Dn (we'll round down to 250,000 Dn) if the canal is river boat-worthy, and 305,600 Dn (down to 300,000 Dn) if it can handle sea-worthy ships.  For a larger ship, the savings are 552,000 Dn (550,000 Dn) and 655,500 Dn (650,000 Dn), respectively.  The savings would actually be higher for a ship-worthy canal, as it would eliminate the need to unload cargo, an expensive and time consuming process.

With a value of wheat of 10 Dn/kg, a typical small grain ship would be carrying 700,000 Dn worth of grain, and a larger ship would be carrying 1,500,000 Dn worth of grain.  However, the Red Sea trade was not driven by grain trade, but the spice trade.  The most valuable of spices was Indian long pepper, worth 2,400 Dn/kg.  A ship carrying a cargo of nothing but Indian long pepper would be worth 168,000,000 Dn (small ship) to 360,000,000 Dn (larger).  In other words, the total value of a ship loaded with pepper was almost enough to pay for the construction of the canal by our estimates.

The Indian ocean trade drove much of the Roman Empire's tax revenue.  An import tariff (portorium) of 25% was levied on the three main Red Sea ports of Clysma, Myos Hormos, and Berenice.  During a typical year during Augustus' reign, 120-140 ships made the journey from India to the Egyptian ports.  If we make a conservative estimate of 100 ships per year, then the total value of the Indian Ocean trade could be somewhere between 1,680,000,000 Dn to 3,600,000,000 Dn.  This estimate presumes that all the Indian trade is long pepper, the most valuable commodity coming from India.  While this may seem optimistic (it is), we are not factoring in trade from Persia, Arabia, or Africa, all of which were quite important, but for which we don't have as reliable numbers available.

Assuming all those ships were to use the Canal (a reasonable assumption), the total annual savings are 25,000,000 Dn (river boat-capable canal) to 30,000,000 Dn (ship-capable canal), if they're all smaller ships.  If they're larger ships, the savings are 55,000,000 Dn to 65,000,000 Dn, annually.  These figures represent the maximum tolls the Roman Empire could charge; the most the canal could earn in a year.  Anything higher, and the only gain is the savings in travel time.

With the potential savings known and the value of trade known, we also know what the toll rate would be.  Assuming the canal can handle ships, a toll equal to the entire savings represented by the canal would be roughly 1.8% of the value of ships.  Of course, to promote the canal, the tolls would likely be lower; perhaps 1% of value, which would equate to 55% of the savings.  That rate would bring the revenue potential of the canal tolls to 15,000,000 Dn to 35,000,000 Dn, annually (again, rounded down).  This would enable the canal to be paid of within to 8.5 to 20 years.

All this assumes no growth in the Red Sea trade.  We know that the actual Suez Canal carried a trade of 436,000 tons in its first year of operation, and 2,000,000 tons 5 years later, a 4.5 fold increase in trade.  Trade continued to grow drastically in the next 2 decades.  It would be unwise to attempt any sort of comparison in the growth of trade between history and this scenario, but it serves to show that a dramatic increase in trade (and thus, revenues) is very likely.

Historical Implications of the Canal
Now that we have determined the basic economics of the canal itself, we can consider the other effects.  Where Roman merchants went, Roman soldiers often followed.  We know that Augustus made one effort to conquer Arabia, that ended in failure, entirely due to logistical problems.  How might the canal have aided such an operation?

Consider the cost of sending one Roman legion from Rome to Coriosopitum, a town about midway along Hadrian's wall.  At best, it would take 46 days to make the journey of 5936 km, at a cost of 1,160 Dn per person.  With a legion of 5,000 soldiers, it would cost nearly 6 million Denarii just to transport the soldiers, without any consideration of their supplies or equipment.  This represents the the outer limit of Roman ability to project power.

In comparison, with a Suez Canal, it would take about 30 days to sail that same legion from Rome to Arabia Felix, a distance of 5065 km, and a cost of 776 Dn per person, under 4 million Dn for an entire Legion (again, not including equipment or supplies), roughly 2/3 the cost of an expedition to Scotland, enabling a force 50% larger to be supplied.

The end result is this: Rome would be able to project its military power more easily towards the entire west coast of Arabia, as well as Axumite Ethiopia, than it could against the Picts in Scotland.  Somalia and the east coast of Africa, down to Tanzania, would all be within range of the Roman military.  The canal would open up a second front on the eternal wars between Rome and Persia, allowing for Roman legions to attack Mesopotamia from the sea.  Such an expedition would be more expensive than sending a legion to Hadrian's wall, but would be a strategic game changer in the wars.  If Persia were to fall and lose, perhaps, Mesopotamia (to be conservative, in such a scenario), then the entire direction of history changes even further.

And, of course, if the canal is built after the capital is moved to Constantinople (or if the capital is later moved), we can add 900 km to the range of the legions.  However, the canal may also make other cities, such as Alexandria, or even Pelusium or Clysma, (or perhaps along the shore of the Bitter Lake)  more attractive locations for a capital.  Imagine an analogue to Constantine deciding to build his Nova Roma on the foundations of the great trading emporium along the Canal, enabling an efficient administration of the the most valuable provinces of the Empire (Syria and Egypt), as well as close ties to the religious foundations of the newly Christian Empire, and easy supply of armies fighting against Persia.

Perhaps, in a world where the Romans build such a canal, the analogue to the Byzantine Empire would control the southern and eastern Mediterranean, Mesopotamia, the entirety of the Arabian Peninsula, and the African Red Sea coast down to the Horn of Africa, with its capital located near the canal in Egypt.  Such an Empire would have a fantastically secure commercial foundation, having control of the major trade routes of antiquity.  It would control the major agricultural centers of the Nile and the Tigris-Euphrates valleys.  Having incorporated the Arabs into its empire, and with fairly easily defended borders, there would not be too many external threats to its supremacy.  Such an Empire could be as eternal as China's.  Considering how much of China's economy was dependent on its own grand canal, the analogy may be uniquely apt.

How does a Suez canal compare to Chinese canal projects using essentially the same technology level? If a Suez canal wouldn't be a much bigger project than the biggest Chinese projects (single projects, not entire canal systems) then I think it's certain that the Romans COULD have done it.

Egypt was the money for the Empire.  Increasing trade for india and Chiner would have made it even more money.

Quote from: The Brain on May 02, 2021, 09:46:25 AM
How does a Suez canal compare to Chinese canal projects using essentially the same technology level? If a Suez canal wouldn't be a much bigger project than the biggest Chinese projects (single projects, not entire canal systems) then I think it's certain that the Romans COULD have done it.

The first canal to connect the Yangzi and the Huai was built in the 6th or 5th century BC. I don't know the length of the section of canal, but Google says the distance between Yangzhou and Chuzhou is 142.5km. Thqt would seem to compare favorably with the 147km estimated in the above article for a Suez canal.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/51/China-Grand_canal%2C_Sui_and_Tang.svg/1280px-China-Grand_canal%2C_Sui_and_Tang.svg.png)

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.

Well I guess going back to the canal of Ptolemy II, I mean they had one already so why would it occur to them to build another one? I mean we know a Suez canal is better but did the Romans even think of building another access to the Red Sea?

I doubt it'd have made economic sense.

Quote from: Solmyr on May 02, 2021, 12:47:21 PM
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.

His estimates of revenue are also a bit absurd.  He assumes that the entire trade in the IO is Indian Long Pepper and that the abundance of such trade would not reduce its market price in the slightest.  Even then he is proposing that it would take up to 20 years to pay off the cost of the canal.  If his cost figure are low or revenue figures are high, then the payoff takes more than 20 years, and that's probably beyond the planning horizon of any imperial government.

The military utility of such a canal may make it worth doing even if the finances don't justify it, but Rome had enough military issues on its plate already, and its uncertain to me if there would have been major expansion into the Indian Ocean littoral even with a canal.

I wonder why the Panama canal requires locks, but the Suez, which also connects two oceans, doesn't.

I have read the Mediterranean is relatively tideless (which I also don't understand) so maybe that has something to do with it.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 02, 2021, 03:57:58 PM
I have read the Mediterranean is relatively tideless (which I also don't understand) so maybe that has something to do with it.

Isolation from the Atlantic mostly.

But, it's not accurate that it is tideless.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 02, 2021, 03:57:58 PM
I wonder why the Panama canal requires locks, but the Suez, which also connects two oceans, doesn't.

I have read the Mediterranean is relatively tideless (which I also don't understand) so maybe that has something to do with it.

Because Panama is mountainous. Cutting a canal all the way down to sea level would have been much more expensive than the system of lakes and locks that was successful. A lockless canal would have had major issues with tidal currents as well.

I think the (French?) attempt through Honduras(?) was intended to be sea-level all the way through.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 02, 2021, 03:57:58 PM
I wonder why the Panama canal requires locks, but the Suez, which also connects two oceans, doesn't.

I have read the Mediterranean is relatively tideless (which I also don't understand) so maybe that has something to do with it.

Isn't at least part of the Panama canal higher than ocean level?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 02, 2021, 03:57:58 PM
I wonder why the Panama canal requires locks, but the Suez, which also connects two oceans, doesn't.

I have read the Mediterranean is relatively tideless (which I also don't understand) so maybe that has something to do with it.

In Panama ships have to be "lifted" to an intermediate artificial lake that is above sea level. This is not necessary in Suez, where the lakes they cross are in natural depressions.

Maybe it has something to do with the mountains in Panama.  Could that be it?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 02, 2021, 05:02:20 PM
Maybe it has something to do with the mountains in Panama.  Could that be it?

Don't know about the precise geography of Panama, but the artificial lake in the middle of the canal was created by damming a river valley. It's not a huge height difference, though, just 26 metres.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 02, 2021, 05:02:20 PM
Maybe it has something to do with the mountains in Panama.  Could that be it?

Possibly. Are they above sea level?

Quote from: The Brain on May 02, 2021, 05:25:43 PM
Possibly. Are they above sea level?

Beets me.  Maybe we should ask.  Someone is bound to know.

It should be noted that the Sui dynasty that built those canals only lasted some 40 years, short by Chinese standards.  A big part of the reason is that the peasants revolted because too many people were conscripted to build the canals and too many died.  There were other reasons but the canals were a material contributing factor. 

The problem wasn't technology.  It was politics. 

Quote from: Valmy on May 02, 2021, 01:37:32 PM
Well I guess going back to the canal of Ptolemy II, I mean they had one already so why would it occur to them to build another one? I mean we know a Suez canal is better but did the Romans even think of building another access to the Red Sea?

A canal across the Suez would be accessible year round. The one connecting to the nile depends on the level of the Nile and requires a lot more maintenance due to the locks.

Quote from: Solmyr on May 02, 2021, 12:47:21 PM
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.

You can supply them by ship and barge. No overland supply necessary.

Quote from: grumbler on May 02, 2021, 02:56:05 PM

Quote from: Solmyr on May 02, 2021, 12:47:21 PM
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?

Quote from: The Brain on May 02, 2021, 09:46:25 AM
How does a Suez canal compare to Chinese canal projects using essentially the same technology level? If a Suez canal wouldn't be a much bigger project than the biggest Chinese projects (single projects, not entire canal systems) then I think it's certain that the Romans COULD have done it.

they could have done it, and  there were some (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Canal#Precursor) canals made in antiquity, from the Nile to the Red Sea.
The problem however lies in maintaining it.  It has to be regularly redone. 

Quote from: Valmy on May 02, 2021, 01:37:32 PM
Well I guess going back to the canal of Ptolemy II, I mean they had one already so why would it occur to them to build another one? I mean we know a Suez canal is better but did the Romans even think of building another access to the Red Sea?

there was no direct link to the Red Sea by the time of Augustus, the Nile had moved and parts of the canal had been filled by sand.

Quote from: Solmyr on May 02, 2021, 12:47:21 PM
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.

There wer major logistical problems when the Suez was built. 

Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 02, 2021, 06:20:18 PM

Quote from: grumbler on May 02, 2021, 02:56:05 PM

Quote from: Solmyr on May 02, 2021, 12:47:21 PM
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.

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

Quote from: Habbaku on May 02, 2021, 07:21:14 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 02, 2021, 06:20:18 PM

Quote from: grumbler on May 02, 2021, 02:56:05 PM

Quote from: Solmyr on May 02, 2021, 12:47:21 PM
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

Quote from: Tamas on May 02, 2021, 07:21:34 PM
Why would the Romans, and Augustus especially, care about the Red Sea, first of all?

He ordered a major invasion of Yemen. There were lots of rich trading cities on the coast of the Red Sea.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 02, 2021, 07:32:19 PM

Quote from: Habbaku on May 02, 2021, 07:21:14 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 02, 2021, 06:20:18 PM

Quote from: grumbler on May 02, 2021, 02:56:05 PM

Quote from: Solmyr on May 02, 2021, 12:47:21 PM
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

:hmm:

Quote from: Grey Fox on May 02, 2021, 07:39:55 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 02, 2021, 07:32:19 PM

Quote from: Habbaku on May 02, 2021, 07:21:14 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 02, 2021, 06:20:18 PM

Quote from: grumbler on May 02, 2021, 02:56:05 PM

Quote from: Solmyr on May 02, 2021, 12:47:21 PM
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

:hmm:

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

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

Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 02, 2021, 06:20:18 PM

Quote from: grumbler on May 02, 2021, 02:56:05 PM

Quote from: Solmyr on May 02, 2021, 12:47:21 PM
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.

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

QuoteAccording 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.

Quote from: Tamas on May 02, 2021, 07:21:34 PM
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.

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

QuoteDuring 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

Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 02, 2021, 11:58:54 PM
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.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 03, 2021, 12:44:34 AM
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)
(https://i.imgur.com/ZiQV1iy.jpeg)

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.

Quote from: Tyr on May 03, 2021, 03:31:00 AM
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.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 02, 2021, 08:18:39 PM

Quote from: Grey Fox on May 02, 2021, 07:39:55 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 02, 2021, 07:32:19 PM

Quote from: Habbaku on May 02, 2021, 07:21:14 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 02, 2021, 06:20:18 PM

Quote from: grumbler on May 02, 2021, 02:56:05 PM

Quote from: Solmyr on May 02, 2021, 12:47:21 PM
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

:hmm:

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

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

:lol:

Fucking English.

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

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. 

Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on May 03, 2021, 08:10:38 AM
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.

Quote from: Tonitrus on May 03, 2021, 06:15:27 AM
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.

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.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 03, 2021, 08:30:33 AM
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?

It was absolutely unnecessary indeed. Trade flew plentifully without it.

Quote from: HVC on May 03, 2021, 06:43:28 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 03, 2021, 08:30:33 AM
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?

People throughout history often did not do things that were economically viable and necessary, to their detriment. They either wrongly think they can get by on the cheap or the idea simply didn't occur to them.

10,000 workers for the Suez canal in Roman times seem no where near adequate to me.  The Sui dynasty used like five million peasants to build the Grand Canal.  Even if ancient sources exaggerated the real number by ten times, that's still half a million workers. 

There was a very interesting canal building story in the Chinese Warring States period.

The Qin was the strongest warring state and it eventually did defeat all others and unify China.  The state of Han was the weakest among the "Warring States Seven".  The two states neighboured each other and Han was in danger of being totally annexed.  So Han came up with a plan to survive.  Han had a canal engineer, and they sent him to Qin to convince the Qin to build a canal in the Qin heartland for farm irrigation.  Because building such a big canal would be very costly, Qin could not spare resources to conquer Han in the next decade.  Qin accepted the proposal. 

Mid-way through the project, the Qin King discovered that the canal engineer was a Han spy.  He confronted the engineer and threatened to behead him.  The engineer admitted that he was a spy and his mission was to ensure Han's survival.  But he also pointed out that the benefits of the canal were real.  The agricultural output of Qin would be greatly increased.  Qin's population would increase, eventually leading to a much bigger Qin army.  The Qin King pardoned him and ordered him to complete the canal.  He did, and his predictions came true. 

So both Han and Qin got what they wanted.  Han survived for a few years more.  Qin eventually unified China. 

What I really want to say is, building a canal is very costly, and requires the strength of an entire state, not just two legions  ;)

What a cute story.  It read a lot like a parable or a fable.

Is there a particular lesson we're supposed to take away?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 03, 2021, 08:06:02 PM
What a cute story.  It read a lot like a parable or a fable.

Is there a particular lesson we're supposed to take away?

Don't trust Chinese engineers?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 03, 2021, 08:06:02 PM
What a cute story.  It read a lot like a parable or a fable.

Is there a particular lesson we're supposed to take away?

The original lesson of the story is to think long term, not short term.

I want to convince Tim that two legions isn't enough to build the Suez canal. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zheng_Guo

Quote from: Monoriu on May 03, 2021, 08:14:40 PM
The original lesson of the story is to think long term, not short term.

So the protagonist of the story is Qin the Eskimo, since they engaged in long term thinking?

Or the engineer, because he suggested they engage in long term thinking, resulting in the demise of his friends?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 03, 2021, 08:18:11 PM

Quote from: Monoriu on May 03, 2021, 08:14:40 PM
The original lesson of the story is to think long term, not short term.

So the protagonist of the story is Qin the Eskimo, since they engaged in long term thinking?

Or the engineer, because he suggested they engage in long term thinking, resulting in the demise of his friends?

When we were taught the story, we were supposed to laugh at the stupidity of Han. 

Quote from: Monoriu on May 03, 2021, 08:19:52 PM
When we were taught the story, we were supposed to laugh at the stupidity of Han.

Did any of  your classmates question the moral ambiguity of the engineer, and were they paraded through the village square with a dunce cap an sent into the countryside to harvest sweet potatoes in order to help them achieve correct thinking?

In Chinese history, Qin is often thought of as the bad guys.  They burned ancient texts, killed Confucius scholars, murdered hundreds of thousands of surrendered enemy troops, caused millions of deaths in grand projects such as the Great Wall of China.  So the Qin dynasty only lasted like two or three decades.  They were eventually defeated by the good guys the Han dynasty (different from the Han Warring State).  So the biggest tribe in China is known as Hans, not Qins. 

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 03, 2021, 08:22:00 PM

Quote from: Monoriu on May 03, 2021, 08:19:52 PM
When we were taught the story, we were supposed to laugh at the stupidity of Han.

Did any of  your classmates question the moral ambiguity of the engineer, and were they paraded through the village square with a dunce cap an sent into the countryside to harvest sweet potatoes in order to help them achieve correct thinking?

We were asked to memorise the story and learn to write it out during the exam.  Asking questions was not encouraged  :P

What grade was this in?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 03, 2021, 08:27:26 PM
What grade was this in?

Ok we started learning Chinese history in Secondary one, or grade 7.  We spent five years going from the first dynasties, eventually reaching Mao and the Communists in Secondary five, or grade 11.  Qin would be very early on, so likely Secondary one. 

Also, during the Chinese warring states, there was a lot of personnel movement.  A minister, general or scholar who is disgraced in one state very often sought employment in another.  One reason for Qin's success was they welcomed the reformers and innovators who were rejected by vested interests in the other six states. 

In which grade, if ever, were you taught to think for yourself?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 03, 2021, 08:36:16 PM
In which grade, if ever, were you taught to think for yourself?

In Secondary four, or grade 10, there was an Economics and Public Affairs course.  I was particularly good at that one because it required us to state our position and argue for the pros and cons.  I was a very lazy student  :ph34r:  That course did not require so much studying.  But it should be noted that the majority of students took the "Economics" course instead.  Only the elite schools would pick Economics and Public Affairs. 

Quote from: Monoriu on May 03, 2021, 07:50:00 PM
10,000 workers for the Suez canal in Roman times seem no where near adequate to me.  The Sui dynasty used like five million peasants to build the Grand Canal.  Even if ancient sources exaggerated the real number by ten times, that's still half a million workers.

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.

Professional construction workers, which the legions were as much as they were soldiers, are obviously vastly more capable and motivated than peasant conscripts.

Hadrian's wall, from the photos I've seen, looks like some kids decided to shovel some dirt in a sand box.

The actual Suez Canal project, built in the 19th century with much more advanced technology than ancient Rome, used a lot more than 10,000 people.

QuoteThe excavation took some 10 years, with forced labour (corvée) being employed until 1864 to dig out the canal.[57] Some sources estimate that over 30,000 people were working on the canal at any given period, that more than 1.5 million people from various countries were employed,[49][58] and that tens of thousands of labourers died, many of them from cholera and similar epidemics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Canal#Construction_by_the_Suez_Canal_Company

Quote from: Monoriu on May 03, 2021, 10:41:35 PM
The actual Suez Canal project, built in the 19th century with much more advanced technology than ancient Rome, used a lot more than 10,000 people.

QuoteThe excavation took some 10 years, with forced labour (corvée) being employed until 1864 to dig out the canal.[57] Some sources estimate that over 30,000 people were working on the canal at any given period, that more than 1.5 million people from various countries were employed,[49][58] and that tens of thousands of labourers died, many of them from cholera and similar epidemics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Canal#Construction_by_the_Suez_Canal_Company

And it was massively larger than what would be needed for Iron Age triremes. So, it's not apples and oranges.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 03, 2021, 09:59:36 PM
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.

I think that calling a canal "a ditch" may be underestimating the civil engineering requirements.

Rather interesting to check around about what source material exists concerning the Roman trade with India and Arabia. The Roman Empire was obviously quite big and had an extensive bureaucracy for an ancient polity and the trade was quite significant.  Yet there are basically just 3 original sources for the scope of the Eastern trade that the literature seems to cite over and over:
(1) a passage in Pliny's Natural History that indicates Rome generated 100 million sesterces of revenue annually - a sizable amount but a lot less than the 1 billion claimed with McLoughlin.
(2) a reference in Strabo to 120 Roman ships sailing the trade route annually.
(3) a second century papyrus found in south-western India documenting a trade finance transaction for a shipment of Indian goods to Rome - the "Vienna Papyrus"

The literature  I saw focused a lot on the Vienna papyrus.  It documents the shipment in considerable detail and values the shipment at 7 million sesterces.  Multiply that by Strabo's 120 ships and you get 840 million - not that far from McLoughlin''s 1 billion.  Of course there are lot of questionable assumptions there.

Focusing on the specific question of a canal though - the shipment documented in the papyrus was landed at a Red Sea port and carried by camel to Coptos - a city on the bank of the Nile. So the trade benefit of the canal would be eliminating to camel trans-shipment to Coptos. 

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.

The bigger picture is that even though the luxury trade was valuable in cash terms, the heart of the Roman economy was the grain and olive oil trades and the heart of the fiscal system was the land tax. From a security perspective, the grain trade was obviously a much higher priority than spices and incense.

I thought that the 100m Pliny mentioned was the deficit on the trade which had to be paid in silver and gold. The trade was certainly very one-sided with India and China wanting mainly bullion and consuming little from the West.

I think this article is reliable and has quite a lot of info on the trade : https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187936651630032X

That's correct  on Pliny, I meant to say that total value of the trade which would have been approximately equal to the monetary deficit, since the Romans presumably would have paid for goods in coin.

Yes, and perhaps the Asian merchants would use Roman money to buy whatever Roman products they wanted as they would have a surplus of such specie and it would be readily accepted.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 04, 2021, 12:44:33 AM
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.

The bigger picture is that even though the luxury trade was valuable in cash terms, the heart of the Roman economy was the grain and olive oil trades and the heart of the fiscal system was the land tax. From a security perspective, the grain trade was obviously a much higher priority than spices and incense.

While I do think that the canal would have significant economic benefits, I'm not arguing that any Emperor would build the canal with that in mind.

An Emperor would build it so that they could more easily support attempts to conquer the wealthy city states of the Red Sea, the Kingdom of Saba (Yemen) and the Kingdom of Auxum (Ethiopia).

Which would not only add gold mines, frankincense and myrrh to the Empire, but would also clear out the pirates that infest the Sea. That, as much as a canal that was accessible year round, would encourage trade.   

The empire was already over-extended and had enough to do with just holding on to what they had already conquered.

Iirc the northern Red Sea has unfavourable sailing conditions, hence the southern ports (Berenike and the other one on the latitude of Memphis) were preferred, continuing trade overland to the Nile.

Quote from: Threviel on May 04, 2021, 02:15:29 AM
The empire was already over-extended and had enough to do with just holding on to what they had already conquered.

The Empire held onto everything it conquered besides Germania until 270.

It was the civil wars and inflation of the 3rd century that put them on the road to collapse.

None of that applies to the Principate under Augustus.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 04, 2021, 02:44:20 AM

Quote from: Threviel on May 04, 2021, 02:15:29 AM
The empire was already over-extended and had enough to do with just holding on to what they had already conquered.

The Empire held onto everything it conquered besides Germania until 270.

It was the civil wars and inflation of the 3rd century that put them on the road to collapse.

None of that applies to the Principate under Augustus.

Hadrian gave up Mesopotamia for being indefensible. Parts of Dacia, too, and the Scottish lowlands.
Direct rule in Armenia had already been lost under Trajan.

Yes, and the over-stretch was already visible under Augustus. A Roman Empire with spare capacity to do something about it would not have let Teutoburg be the last word in the conquest of Germania, it is very unlike their previous behaviour when losing battles.

Especially in the east, the Persians were the Romans only peer enemy and a lot of resources were spent on securing the eastern frontier.

That's fair Maladict. I can't believe I forgot about Mesopotamia.

However, the reason they couldn't hold on to the places you mentioned was logistical. Too far from Rome. Too far from the sea.

With a canal Yemen is only 2/3 the distance of Hadrian's Wall. And it and the Kingdom of Auxum are right on the coast.

Quote from: Threviel on May 04, 2021, 03:23:27 AM
Yes, and the over-stretch was already visible under Augustus. A Roman Empire with spare capacity to do something about it would not have let Teutoburg be the last word in the conquest of Germania, it is very unlike their previous behaviour when losing battles.

Germania was a worthless forest at the time. If it was worth it they would have tried harder. They still managed to send punitive expeditions deep into Germania for centuries after the battle of Teutonburg Wald

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.

And then after that build a canal through desert with tens of thousands of labourers? The Romans were far cleverer than that, had they tried we would probably be talking about the crisis of the first century.

And if they had deemed it possible to do with just the two legions stationed in Egypt they would probably have done it, they were no fools and would have seen the benefit. But the Romans, with all the information they had that we do not, deemed it not beneficial enough.

Quote from: Threviel on May 04, 2021, 03:23:27 AM
Yes, and the over-stretch was already visible under Augustus. A Roman Empire with spare capacity to do something about it would not have let Teutoburg be the last word in the conquest of Germania, it is very unlike their previous behaviour when losing battles.

It wasn't the last word though. The Romans kept campaigning and conquering territory throughout the first century.
But I agree overstretch, and pressures elsewhere, meant they probably could never have held Germania.

Yeah, I know, the Romans slapped the barbarians around for a few more centuries. But it was the last word in any serious attempt to conquer Germania.

It was more an example of imperial overstretch. They couldn't hold Germania due to lack of resources in the quiet safe part of the empire against enemies they routinely slaughtered. There's no way they could build a Suez canal and conquer Ethiopia and Arabia whilst their only serious peer enemy was just around the corner without exasperating that overstretch.

Quote from: Threviel on May 04, 2021, 04:43:26 AM
Yeah, I know, the Romans slapped the barbarians around for a few more centuries. But it was the last word in any serious attempt to conquer Germania.

The occupation of the Agri Decumates was a pretty significant extension of territory, even if it wasn't a wholesale attempt to reconquer all Germania.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 04, 2021, 01:50:21 AM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 04, 2021, 12:44:33 AM
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.

The bigger picture is that even though the luxury trade was valuable in cash terms, the heart of the Roman economy was the grain and olive oil trades and the heart of the fiscal system was the land tax. From a security perspective, the grain trade was obviously a much higher priority than spices and incense.

While I do think that the canal would have significant economic benefits, I'm not arguing that any Emperor would build the canal with that in mind.

An Emperor would build it so that they could more easily support attempts to conquer the wealthy city states of the Red Sea, the Kingdom of Saba (Yemen) and the Kingdom of Auxum (Ethiopia).

Which would not only add gold mines, frankincense and myrrh to the Empire, but would also clear out the pirates that infest the Sea. That, as much as a canal that was accessible year round, would encourage trade.

What need was there for Rome to conquer all those places? They already traded extensively with them to acquire those luxury goods and had a significant naval presence in the Red Sea without a canal. That's videogame thinking.

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

Land, glory and wealth. Same reason they conquered everywhere else.

Augustus did try to conquer Yemen.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 04, 2021, 06:39:18 AM
What need did Rome to conquer anything outside of the Italian peninsula?

Land, glory and wealth. Same reason they conquered everywhere else.

Augustus did try to conquer Yemen.

And they had other targets that were much more feasible, Augustus himself, besides acquiring and consolidating Egypt (no small task after centuries of Ptolomeian mismanagement), expanded the Empire in the Balkans, Central Europe and Anatolia. Calling the expedition to Yemen a conquest campaign is overplaying it. Its main objective was making the Sabaeans tributaries to Rome, and upon its failure they quickly forgot about it. Augustus was already weary of overextending Rome's frontiers, so imagining wild conquest campaigns in Africa and Arabia is a pointless fantasy.

Any particular reason why this canal should have been 30-90 metres wide?

Were they thinking of tacking the ships up and down it?

Or perhaps avoiding any chance of that not uncommon 21st mishap in the current Suez canal?

Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 04, 2021, 06:39:18 AM
What need did Rome to conquer anything outside of the Italian peninsula?

Land, glory and wealth. Same reason they conquered everywhere else.

Augustus did try to conquer Yemen.

It was mostly about security no?
Rome invaded gaul because the Gauls kept invading Italy. Britain because they were helping the Gauls. Same too many places.

Quote from: Tyr on May 04, 2021, 07:07:32 AM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 04, 2021, 06:39:18 AM
What need did Rome to conquer anything outside of the Italian peninsula?

Land, glory and wealth. Same reason they conquered everywhere else.

Augustus did try to conquer Yemen.

It was mostly about security no?
Rome invaded gaul because the Gauls kept invading Italy. Britain because they were helping the Gauls. Same too many places.

Caesar claimed Britannic support for Gauls for his campaign there, but it's unclear if this was real of Caesar covering his ass post-facto. Afterwards, when it was conquered, it was initially a net loss for Rome, as the trade with Britannia earned them more money than what they initially received as taxes from the conquered province.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 04, 2021, 12:44:33 AM
Rather interesting to check around about what source material exists concerning the Roman trade with India and Arabia. The Roman Empire was obviously quite big and had an extensive bureaucracy for an ancient polity and the trade was quite significant.  Yet there are basically just 3 original sources for the scope of the Eastern trade that the literature seems to cite over and over:
(1) a passage in Pliny's Natural History that indicates Rome generated 100 million sesterces of revenue annually - a sizable amount but a lot less than the 1 billion claimed with McLoughlin.
(2) a reference in Strabo to 120 Roman ships sailing the trade route annually.
(3) a second century papyrus found in south-western India documenting a trade finance transaction for a shipment of Indian goods to Rome - the "Vienna Papyrus"

The literature  I saw focused a lot on the Vienna papyrus.  It documents the shipment in considerable detail and values the shipment at 7 million sesterces.  Multiply that by Strabo's 120 ships and you get 840 million - not that far from McLoughlin''s 1 billion.  Of course there are lot of questionable assumptions there.

Focusing on the specific question of a canal though - the shipment documented in the papyrus was landed at a Red Sea port and carried by camel to Coptos - a city on the bank of the Nile. So the trade benefit of the canal would be eliminating to camel trans-shipment to Coptos. 

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.

The bigger picture is that even though the luxury trade was valuable in cash terms, the heart of the Roman economy was the grain and olive oil trades and the heart of the fiscal system was the land tax. From a security perspective, the grain trade was obviously a much higher priority than spices and incense.

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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periplus_of_the_Erythraean_Sea)

Quote from: mongers on May 04, 2021, 07:05:39 AM
Any particular reason why this canal should have been 30-90 metres wide?

Were they thinking of tacking the ships up and down it?

Or perhaps avoiding any chance of that not uncommon 21st mishap in the current Suez canal?

That's what the article postulates. It does seem overly wide and deep and if it could have been done significantly smaller, it would obviously make it more doable as less work would have to be done.

The Erie canal for example was originally only cut 40 feet (12 m) wide and 4 feet (1.2 m) deep., for example.

And even if you wanted two trireme's to be able to travel past each other in different directions, rather than use barges, it doesn't seem like it would have to be anywhere near as big. Where Roman ships that much bigger than Athenian ones?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trireme#Dimensions

QuoteExcavations of the ship sheds (neōsoikoi, νεώσοικοι) at the harbour of Zea in Piraeus, which was the main war harbour of ancient Athens, were first carried out by Dragatsis and Wilhelm Dörpfeld in the 1880s.[24] These have provided us with a general outline of the Athenian trireme. The sheds were ca. 40 m long and just 6 m wide. These dimensions are corroborated by the evidence of Vitruvius, whereby the individual space allotted to each rower was 2 cubits.[25] With the Doric cubit of 0.49 m, this results in an overall ship length of just under 37 m.[26] The height of the sheds' interior was established as 4.026 metres[citation needed], leading to estimates that the height of the hull above the water surface was ca. 2.15 metres. Its draught was relatively shallow, about 1 metre, which, in addition to the relatively flat keel and low weight, allowed it to be beached easily.[citation needed]

EDIT: It just occurred to me that the ships plying the route from India to Africa might indeed be significantly larger, but even so, one would think 30 meters would be a maximum width needed, not a minimum.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 03, 2021, 12:44:34 AM
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

Quote from: The Larch on May 04, 2021, 07:28:29 AM
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 (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.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 04, 2021, 07:57:12 AM

Quote from: The Larch on May 04, 2021, 07:28:29 AM
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 (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).

Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 04, 2021, 06:39:18 AM
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.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 04, 2021, 08:06:43 AM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 04, 2021, 06:39:18 AM
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.

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.

Quote from: celedhring on May 04, 2021, 08:25:46 AM
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.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 04, 2021, 08:20:16 AM
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.

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

Quote from: Razgovory on May 04, 2021, 09:51:48 AM
Wait, didn't the Romans already have a canal from the Red Sea to the Nile?

The Pharaohs (allegedly) did.

Quote from: Threviel on May 04, 2021, 04:00:59 AM
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.

Quote from: Razgovory on May 04, 2021, 09:51:48 AM
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.

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

Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 03, 2021, 08:30:33 AM

Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on May 03, 2021, 08:10:38 AM
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.

Quote from: grumbler on May 04, 2021, 10:32:11 AM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 03, 2021, 08:30:33 AM

Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on May 03, 2021, 08:10:38 AM
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.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 04, 2021, 10:45:11 AM

Quote from: grumbler on May 04, 2021, 10:32:11 AM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 03, 2021, 08:30:33 AM

Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on May 03, 2021, 08:10:38 AM
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.

Now you are back to the original premise, and away from your contention that the cost of the canal labor would be noting more than the cost of maintaining the legions anyway.

Well, the auxiliaries are like the Legionaries already being paid, fed and housed so there's not really a change in costs if they're digging instead of on campaign against Yemen.

Slaves, also always need to be fed and housed. There is an opportunity cost here, if they're digging, they're not doing something else instead. They need to be transported to the Suez as well, but the everyday maintenance costs for them should be the same as usual.

The Romans were not idiots, if the Suez canal had been that easy they would have done it. 10 000 soldiers cannot spend 20 years just digging a canal, they have soldier stuff to do, otherwise they might as well be stationed somewhere else.

The Ottomans had even more reasons and possibly more resources to build it and they deemed it too expensive.

And to quote wiki about the building of the Suez canal:

"The excavation took some 10 years, with forced labour (corvée) being employed until 1864 to dig out the canal.[57] Some sources estimate that over 30,000 people were working on the canal at any given period, that more than 1.5 million people from various countries were employed,[49][58] and that tens of thousands of labourers died, many of them from cholera and similar epidemics."

And that is with 19th century technology and resources. One benefit of that is probably steam barges drastically lessening the need for draught animals and food for them. Other benefits are probably more steel and iron tools, things that go boom, better food preservation techniques and so on and so forth.

So yeah, the Romans could have done it and the Ottomans could have done it. Neither of them presumably deemed it worth it and they were probably right until the much richer and more sophisticated 19th century states were able to finance it. Or not, to quote wiki again:

"Although numerous technical, political, and financial problems had been overcome, the final cost was more than double the original estimate."

I think that the absence of bulk trade (in the Red sea and Indian ocean) in Roman times is important. The imports were of high value goods, moving them by camel train appears to have cost about 8% of the value of the cargo in the ship that Minsky mentioned. If the goods had been less high value then this figure would be higher. As it is, if the Romans had built the canal, how much could they extract from fees to use it? I'm also wondering about the nature of the sailing vessels use in the Indian ocean at that time; they might have found the passage of a canal driven through desert quite difficult. I don't think it is mere coincidence that the canal was finally built in the steam age; and even then the financial aspects were heavily questioned at the time.

         

Quote from: Syt on May 04, 2021, 09:55:42 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on May 04, 2021, 09:51:48 AM
Wait, didn't the Romans already have a canal from the Red Sea to the Nile?

The Pharaohs (allegedly) did.

I thought the Ptolemies did. They needed to invent a way to keep the salt water out of the Nile and some fancy Greek engineers came up with something.

I knew it was silted over by the time of the Arabic conquest but I was not sure when that happened.

Quote from: Threviel on May 04, 2021, 11:41:24 AM

"Although numerous technical, political, and financial problems had been overcome, the final cost was more than double the original estimate."

That's pretty good by modern standards  :D

The Romans built plenty of (long) canals, sure they could have done it if they had wanted to.
Also, a lot of goods imported from the East were luxury items like spices, not heavy goods or massive quantities that you can't load onto an animal or cart.
And sea transport was still very slow going, adding a few days of overland transport would not have mattered all that much.

edit: RH got there before me

It does strike me you'd need a significant change in rimes relationship with the red sea and beyond to make them do this rather than to expect a canal to be an impetus for the changed relationship.
Things like canals are built when there is a need, not in the hope they will create a need.

No way, Augustus was way more practical than that.  There is the expense, the real lack of need, the fact that the imports were not bulk, the notion that having too many soldiers in one place was a good breeding ground for revolt...and the knowledge that had he done so, some idiot would lodge something like Caligula's Giant Ship against one bank 2 millennia before tugboats were around.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 04, 2021, 11:16:41 AM
Well, the auxiliaries are like the Legionaries already being paid, fed and housed so there's not really a change in costs if they're digging instead of on campaign against Yemen.

Slaves, also always need to be fed and housed. There is an opportunity cost here, if they're digging, they're not doing something else instead. They need to be transported to the Suez as well, but the everyday maintenance costs for them should be the same as usual.

No, the auxilia were provided by Egypt, Nabataea, and Judea in return for a share of the spoils.  They'd likely revolt if forced to become common laborers, or their leaders would withdraw them.

Slaves need guards, overseers, food, housing, etc, plus are much less efficient than hired labor.  They are not going to build the canal more cheaply.

Not clear on what is different between the ancient canal that was actually built, and the proposed canal. Different route, not using a canal lock?

Quote from: Malthus on May 04, 2021, 05:54:37 PM
Not clear on what is different between the ancient canal that was actually built, and the proposed canal. Different route, not using a canal lock?

Different route, and navigable year-round.  The changing height of the Nile over the course of the year made building a year-round canal impossible.  The lock was needed to keep the tides in the Red Sea from pushing salt water into the Nile.

The route was actually the same from the Great Bitter lake to the Red Sea. 

Quote from: grumbler on May 04, 2021, 06:10:33 PM

Quote from: Malthus on May 04, 2021, 05:54:37 PM
Not clear on what is different between the ancient canal that was actually built, and the proposed canal. Different route, not using a canal lock?

Different route, and navigable year-round.  The changing height of the Nile over the course of the year made building a year-round canal impossible.  The lock was needed to keep the tides in the Red Sea from pushing salt water into the Nile.

The route was actually the same from the Great Bitter lake to the Red Sea.

I wonder how the seasonal use of the canal meshed with the monsoon.

My recollection is that, until modern times, navigation to India was also a seasonal affair, dictated by the yearly monsoon; if the existing canal was usable at the right time to accommodate the seasonal round of the India trade, that may have been good enough for their purposes.

Though I readily admit, I don't know enough about the timing of these two events.

In defense of Timmay, building a canal isn't that stupid of an idea.  Europeans would build forts all over the coast of Africa to get access to the Indian Ocean 1500 years later.  I do think that that the existence of a working canal probably was a factor in the decision not to build a new canal.  The situation is somewhat similar to the idea of a canal through Thailand to avoid the straits of Malacca.  A very high cost for a fairly moderate gain.

Still, trying to expand militarily into the Red Sea is just asking for trouble.  Large armies with ambitious generals in rich lands with only sporadic contact with the central authority is why they had civil war in the first place.

Quote from: Malthus on May 04, 2021, 07:09:32 PM

Quote from: grumbler on May 04, 2021, 06:10:33 PM

Quote from: Malthus on May 04, 2021, 05:54:37 PM
Not clear on what is different between the ancient canal that was actually built, and the proposed canal. Different route, not using a canal lock?

Different route, and navigable year-round.  The changing height of the Nile over the course of the year made building a year-round canal impossible.  The lock was needed to keep the tides in the Red Sea from pushing salt water into the Nile.

The route was actually the same from the Great Bitter lake to the Red Sea.

I wonder how the seasonal use of the canal meshed with the monsoon.

My recollection is that, until modern times, navigation to India was also a seasonal affair, dictated by the yearly monsoon; if the existing canal was usable at the right time to accommodate the seasonal round of the India trade, that may have been good enough for their purposes.

Though I readily admit, I don't know enough about the timing of these two events.

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.

Maybe, that kind of long term planning would not relaly work in a system that encouraged even a moderately successful businessman/general to murder his way to the top.

Quote from: Tamas on May 02, 2021, 07:21:34 PM
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.

Quote from: viper37 on May 05, 2021, 05:07:26 PM

Quote from: Tamas on May 02, 2021, 07:21:34 PM
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.

Quote from: Tyr on May 03, 2021, 03:31:00 AM
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.

Quote
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.

Quote from: Tyr on May 05, 2021, 05:41:06 PM

Quote from: viper37 on May 05, 2021, 05:07:26 PM

Quote from: Tamas on May 02, 2021, 07:21:34 PM
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.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 03, 2021, 08:30:33 AM
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.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 03, 2021, 09:59:36 PM
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.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 04, 2021, 12:44:33 AM
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.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 04, 2021, 07:27:54 PM

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.