AH: Suez Canal built 200 years earlier than in OTL

Blockade it? Their fleets control the Indian Ocean.

Also: Are we assuming that the canal would be passable for ocean going ships or would they have to transfer to smaller ships for the canal and then back to sea-going ones in the Med?

And run into the Ottoman navy.

As for the canal's passibility: People seem to be assuming the former, but rebuilding the canal of the Pharaohs would inevitably be the latter.
 
And run into the Ottoman navy.

As for the canal's passibility: People seem to be assuming the former, but rebuilding the canal of the Pharaohs would inevitably be the latter.


The Ottoman navy was inferior to the Europeans in the Indian Ocean.

Are there any canals from the period that could take ocean going ships? It would help in determining the capacity of the canal.
 

Ancientone

Banned
The Ottoman navy was inferior to the Europeans in the Indian Ocean.

Are there any canals from the period that could take ocean going ships? It would help in determining the capacity of the canal.
Many of the canals of the 17th and early 18th C Europe could have accommodated what was then an ocean going vessel--which were actually quite small by today's standards. A Dutch Fluyt, the most common cargo vessel until the arrival of the East Indiaman would be around 25M in length, have a beam of 5-7M and a draught of 2-3M. Warships though, would be another matter.
The 240 km long Canal du Midi built in the 1660s to 1680s and only designed for river traffic could take 30M long vessels with a 5.5M beam.
 
The Ottoman navy was inferior to the Europeans in the Indian Ocean.

If the Europeans want to blockade the canal, they need to control the Red Sea, not just the Indian Ocean.

Plus, any Ottoman Empire that would want to build such a canal would probably invest more in a naval force than OTL.
 
If the Europeans want to blockade the canal, they need to control the Red Sea, not just the Indian Ocean.

Plus, any Ottoman Empire that would want to build such a canal would probably invest more in a naval force than OTL.

Why would they need to control the Red Sea? Couldn't they just block the Bab-el-Mandeb strait or the Gulf of Aden?

No arguments that the Ottomans would have to be more naval focused to want to build the canal though.
 
Why would they need to control the Red Sea? Couldn't they just block the Bab-el-Mandeb strait or the Gulf of Aden?

No arguments that the Ottomans would have to be more naval focused to want to build the canal though.

They still need to do that, not just the Indian Ocean, though. Having a naval presence in the latter doesn't mean control of the straits or the Gulf.
 
Many of the canals of the 17th and early 18th C Europe could have accommodated what was then an ocean going vessel--which were actually quite small by today's standards. A Dutch Fluyt, the most common cargo vessel until the arrival of the East Indiaman would be around 25M in length, have a beam of 5-7M and a draught of 2-3M. Warships though, would be another matter.
The 240 km long Canal du Midi built in the 1660s to 1680s and only designed for river traffic could take 30M long vessels with a 5.5M beam.

That's bigger than I would have expected. Although it wouldn't fit a war galley it does seem to indicate that a canal could be built that would fit warships.
 
Top