So it’s ~1800 BC. You are Pharaoh Sesostris. You need to keep your people busy. You decide to build a canal. But instead of building it from the Red Sea to the Nile, you build it from the Gulf of Suez to the Med. And you succeed. The mined rock and debris is piled up on the Egyptian side, forming a formidable wall. The canal is narrow enough - nowhere near as wide as today - that it can be bridged.
How does this affect Egypt’s future? How does it change the world?
Probably not significantly, because the Pharaoh Necho did construct such a canal: Canal of the Pharaohs - Wikipedia
It was in use for over a thousand years, too:
Not as old as Sesostris (19th century BCE), but certainly during a critical period of Egyptian history and long enough to have had an effect.
I suspect you’re aware of this, but you believe that actually driving it through Suez makes a big difference. Why?
You allude to the Red Sea-Nile canal that was actually built.
Why would Egypt want to have a canal across Suez?
The British built it (and others tried to) in order to bypass Egypt entirely. E.g., to easily sail between India and the UK. Egypt would have no interest in making it easier for others to go around them.
The Red Sea-Nile canal made it easier to get goods to and from Egypt itself!
Note that Egypt had a very long term interest in the Levant. It considered it’s natural border to extend well past even the Sinai.
As far as a defense of last resort, the easternmost branch of the Nile already did that.
Much later. That’s over a thousand years after my time-frame.
Correct.
It’s defensive capability for one. Not being affected by the annual Nile floods for two.
But a canal at that time period - the dawn of empires - could be a world-changer, enhancing trade between Europe, Africa, and India. Or would it?
The pyramids aren’t quite done yet by 1800 bc. You can either have a pyramid or a canal not both. So choose, god like afterlife or waterway to connect two oceans and a possible wikipedia article 3000 years in the future.
I don’t see why they would need a canal. They already had access to both the Red Sea and the Mediterranean. Why would they need them connected?
Trade. They could tax passing ships. Remember that there is shrinkage every time a ship is loaded and every time a ship is unloaded through theft, breakages, and so on. So a ship going through the canal is going to deliver more of its cargo. The more cargo that reaches its destination, the more profit the captain and the merchant make.
I suspect - but cannot provide a cite - that transport on a ship was cheaper than a baggage train.
That’s true unless you yourself are the source of the shrinkage. Then you want as much of it as possible.
Yes ships are always cheaper than other methods of transport. That’s why until the railroad all the great cities of the world were built on rivers.
I don’t know what they traded. They seemed to be a major consumer so I don’t really know who they would trade what with. I believe there was plenty of overland trade already, so they effort to build the canal would have to be paid for in taxes, and with existing overland routes it’s not clear to me that would have worked out to everyone’s advantage.
Also, navigating the Nile was relatively easy compared to travel on the Red Sea. With the ships available at the time an overland trip from the Red Sea to the Nile may have been preferred anyway.
I know in roman times the Egyptian’s main export was grain, without which the Romans starved. I suspect this was true for most of their history since the abundance of food was what really kickstarted their civilization and allowed the sort of specialization that facilitated metallurgy, astronomy, monument building among other pursuits.
How much global trade was there in 1800 BC? I doubt many merchants in Crete were thinking about business opportunities in Harappa. Most of them probably weren’t even aware Harappa existed. And the same is true in reverse.
The Carthaginians traded as far as Cornwall for tin, and may have made it as far as Cork by about 500BC.
Harappa was finished by 1800 BC. But Indus Valley is known to have traded with Mesopotamia.
This was more than a thousand years before that. This was several centuries before Odysseus or Moses and both of those guys spent decades traveling distances of just a few hundred miles. This was not an era when people conducted trade with other continents.
You’re thinking of the Mature Harappan period. The Late Harappan period was still going on.
A canal seems most useful when there are major trading partners on either side. In 1800 BC, you would have Babylonia and the Indus Valley Civilization on the one side…but who is on the other side? There’s no Rome or other major player that would be exporting goods in bulk. One presumes that the Nile Canal was conceived of when it was because it made sense to do at that time. Over a thousand years earlier, not as much.
From a defensive standpoint, yes, a giant wall may have affected history. It might have fended off the Hyksos invasion, for example, but who knows what affect that might have had in the long run. Ultimately, they weren’t in Egypt long and Egypt was still the dominant power in that region both before and after their presence. Whether they came down into Egypt or just hung out in lower Israel probably wouldn’t have made a giant impact on history, beyond some place names and minutiae in the tales of the Bible.
And ultimately, I doubt that it would have done much against the Hyksos since - fundamentally - the reason that they invaded was that Egypt was split and disorganized at the time. A wall is only as effective as the force defending it. If that force is demoralized and disorganized, then the wall is rather pointless. The Hyksos probably would have bribed their way through or figured out a Blitzkrieg tactic to get through, since Egypt wouldn’t have been paying much attention at the time.
Mostly, it would just be a strange place to build a wall. (At least, this is as I understand it, given my limited knowledge of Egyptian history.) In general, Egypt was either too busy fighting itself or it was busy taking over the Levant. I don’t believe that there was ever really a time that they were just happy with the Nile Delta and sought merely to defend it from invasion. The US, for example, would rather have its bases in Germany and Japan than stuck on American soil. The Romans preferred to defend their turf in England than in Rome. A strong empire defends its homeland by controlling the land outside of its population base.
This. Europe at that point was the boonies, not a source of enough trade to make it worth Egypt’s while. Note that it wasn’t the Egyptians who built* the Suez (or Panamanians who built* the Panama) it was more distant metropoles who wanted to bypass the locals. I don’t think the Egyptians were in the habit of making trade easier for the Wessex Culture.
There’s the problem. The canal would be unnecessary for Egypt to export grain or other products. So building the canal would be speculative, hoping to gain a return directly through trade or by taxing trade that didn’t exist yet.
Mycenae & Achaean Greece, Minoans.