You mean “Egypt’s competition”?
I don’t think the Greeks were anything notable at the time. They’re important to us, because of the impact of the 1st millenia BC Greeks, and so I think they get talked up to be bigger than they actually were.
The Minoans did have a pretty wide reach and did trade quite a bit, but I get the feeling that they were largely more like nomadic boat traders more than they were a giant, centralized empire with mass production of its own. They were better for spreading things around than serving as a dependable source of X.
In 2000 -1500 BC?
Surely you jest.
Plus - did the Egyptians even have ships that could sail the monsoon route (as opposed to coasters)?
No, I don’t jest. Those are the same areas which are often put forward as sources for various Sea Peoples only 300 years later. Before the Late Bronze Age collapse, they were at various times trade partners, allies and rivals of Egypt.
Unless X was saffron…
I suspect that the main drawback would not be ship design, but knowledge of the dependability of the monsoon route.
It would have taken considerable guts to simply launch into the blue, trusting that the turn of the season would being you back!
The Egyptians did voyage to the “land of Punt” as early as the sixth dynasty (and famously in the reign of Queen Hatshepsut), but such sailing, in enclosed waters and coastal, isn’t nearly as adventurous.
There is, as far as I know, no records of ancient Egyptians knowing of or attempting the monsoon route. Allegedly, the monsoon route wasn’t discovered (at least, from the Egyptian end) until the Ptolemies, around 100 BC:
Apparently, not satisfied with that, he attempted a circumnavigation of Africa, and his fate is unknown.
Was not the spice trade active at that time? A voyage around the coasts from India (and points East) would be far better than an overland journey.
Sure, Egypt had maritime trade with India and so forth, and it’s certainly better to sail there than to walk there.
Why would they need a canal to do that? They had ports on the Red Sea that would work just as well as ports in the Nile Delta area.
And as was said, if you’re going to build a canal, the purpose is to control trade through that canal. It’s no advantage to Egypt if Minoan traders can sail to Yemen without paying off Egyptian officials.
The people who control the trade route control the trade. Sure, it’s a bad thing when there’s a customs house on every bend of the Rhine River. That doesn’t mean the river baron who controls a customs house is going to build a canal that bypasses his own customs house to facilitate free trade. Somebody else might do it, but not him.
And as for the value of a massive fortification across the Suez, what’s the point of that exactly? If Egypt’s military is too weak and divided to repulse an army invading over the land bridge, they’re too weak and divided to man the fortifications. And the way to prevent an army from the Levant or Arabia from invading Egypt isn’t to build a big ass wall, it’s to march your armies over to the Levant and Arabia and turn them into client states.
To control the trade. Trade by sea has been described up-thread as cheaper than trade by land. Think of the taxes all those boats would generate.
In later years, much wealth would come to Persia from the Silk Road. If there had been a canal, Indian traders might have bypassed Persia to trade with Rome directly.
But you’re talking about 2000 years earlier than the Roman Empire.
I’m not talking about the value of a canal. I’m talking about the comparative value of two canals, and we’re going to investigate which one is better. One canal goes from the Red Sea to the Nile. This canal was actually built. The other canal goes from the Gulf of Suez to the Mediterranean. This is the canal you think would have been better.
Obviously Egypt benefits from trade between Egypt and other places. But why would they want to build a canal that facilitates trade between third parties? The reason they’d do that is to play the middleman, to get a cut of all trade that passes through their trade route. So they are obviously not going to build a canal and then just let everyone sail through. They’re going to build a canal and tax the hell out of everyone that sails through. Sometimes certain people don’t have to pay the taxes, because they’ve cut a special deal with the people running the chokepoint. Either they’re buddies with the King, or they hand out bribes/favors to the local officials, or whatever.
But the point is, you build the canal because you want that tariff money, not because you’re trying to promote trade in the abstract.
So the same time period as between us and King George I.
The Egyptian really did not have much trade with the European Mediterranean until the New Kingdom, Old and Middle seem to have concentrated to the East and South, neither of which required sea routes.
I don’t know that anyone made that voyage that far back. And even if they did Egypt didn’t need a canal, traders could travel up the Red Sea if they wanted the spices themselves.
I have no cites, but I’m pretty sure no one had ships that could go far in the open sea. I don’t know if any ships even had keels by that time.
And a thousand years earlier than the founding of Rome.
But all this talk about the advantages of a canal for trade miss the point.
There was, in fact, such a canal, built by the Ancient Egyptians.
The only questions are:
Why didn’t it get built earlier?
Why did it link the Nile to the Red Sea, instead of the Gulf of Suez to the Mediterranean?
Why wasn’t there a big-ass border wall on the Suez to keep out invaders?
To answer, in order:
Canals are hard. It took a lot of work.
The modern Suez Canal was built by the British specifically to bypass the Egyptians. The ancient canal was built by the Egyptians specifically to NOT bypass the Egyptians.
Big-ass border walls don’t work that way. The main purpose of those walls isn’t to stop invaders cold at the wall, that’s impossible since any real invasion can concentrate force at one part of the wall and overcome the spread out wall garrisons.
The purpose of the wall is, when a real invading army comes, it takes them a day or two to cross the wall, which gives enough time for messengers to alert the capital. There’s no need for that in Egypt, since there’s only one route for land invaders to take. You don’t need a big-ass wall to detect invasions, you just need one guy. These walls also aren’t really political borders either. You don’t just sit there behind the wall, and the other guys sit on the other side, and you’re happy. Hadrian’s wall didn’t mark the border between the Roman Empire and the barbarians. The wall can stop small scale raids, it can’t stop real invasions.
I saw that. I’m not sure I’m convinced that saffron is a sufficient X or that the Minoans were producing it in sufficient bulk to interest the Egyptians. I would expect to see Egyptian tablets to the effect that the saffron trade was amaaaaazing, rather than a single non-Egyptian fresco of one ship trading saffron.
Maybe the saffron trade was great for the Minoans. But if it was just the 19th century BC equivalent of the truffle, then it sort of isn’t worth building a massive canal for.
…in a much more culturally- and technologically- static age
They definitely traded with the Minoans. And had cultural exchange. And there’s no way to interact with Crete except by sea. Yes, you’re going to say 18th Dynasty, New Kingdom … I’m going to say that kind of thing doesn’t spring up out of thin air, and there are earlier trade contacts dating back to protoPalatial Minoan time.
Given the preservation percentage of ancient documents, I’d *expect *no such thing. What I do know is the things we do find - mummy wrappings dyed with saffron and mention of saffron in the Ebers papyrus. It’s entirely *possible *that only refers to locally-grown saffron, and Egyptians had no use for outside sources, but we know the Egyptians traded with Crete, and we know the Minoans grew saffron for export. Concluding that the Egyptians would buy saffron from Minoans is not some crazy idea. That it would be a prized trade item, a sufficient X, isn’t speculation, though - that saffron was highly sought after in the Levant and Aegean of the time is just a fact.
You can’t have a bronze age without ships traveling long distances. Although copper is relatively easy to find the souces of tin are relatively rare and ancient Egypt didn’t have any. Italy was the closest minor source and you had to get all the way to the northern part of the iberian peninsula to find a major source.
So yes the ancient Egyptians were trading with Europe before 1800bc.
Were they using much bronze? I understood the tools they used to build the pyramids were just copper. And I believe copper was abundant in the Sinai region.