What if sugarcane was cultivated in the Roman Empire?
- Thread starter Diego
- Start date
IIRC, the Arabs introduced sugar cane plantation in Europe in Sicily. During the Middle Ages, it was also a staple product of Egypt and Palestine. Introducing it in the Roman Empire could have worked. They were used to large scale agricultura, after all.
Sicily was a center of sugar cultivation and production under Muslim rule, so I see no reason why it could not have been successful there under Roman rule.
Sugar was later cultivated on Madeira and the Canaries under Portugal and Spain. I'm not sure if the Romans knew of Madeira, but they certainly knew of the Canaries. Perhaps if sugar had gained popularity, the suitability of these islands for sugar production would have been discovered, and there would have been more Roman interest and settlement in this area.
Sugar was later cultivated on Madeira and the Canaries under Portugal and Spain. I'm not sure if the Romans knew of Madeira, but they certainly knew of the Canaries. Perhaps if sugar had gained popularity, the suitability of these islands for sugar production would have been discovered, and there would have been more Roman interest and settlement in this area.
Rome would have it's own domestic source or something that was once an imported good and the price on sugar would plummet for a time until demand for the item rose again. Sugar and its uses would penetrate deeper into Europe and North Africa I'd expect to see the emergence of a planter and exporter class, an expansion of slave labor to do the actual agricultural work as well. A new source of power and money that will attract political attention, expect the new planter class to have a few Senators and other politicians in their pocket. Securing their support might be of vital importance in a period of civil war for an Emperor or wannabe Emperor.
Would it only be a rich person's crop or could enough be produced for the average man to have access to it? Would it be consumed enough to have a major health impact?
I'd say the effects on say the Canaries and the Azores (though that may or may not be touched) would be absolutely huge, and the effects on Africa may be the same, with more Roman marine presence giving Rome more(compared to otl) trade with sub saharan Africa. The Africans would probably want Roman goods like sugar and the such in exchange sending Rome to gold and ivory and slaves.
Reasons:
1) India already had a pretty big sugar production during this time, if say Persia wanted it or something they could just buy it from India rather then Rome, and they'd face big competition, not what Rome would want.
2) Africa would be interacted more as coastal exploration increases looking for more areas like the Canaries, increasing Roman presence
3) Africa during this time was extremely isolated from the outside world and doesn't have things like sugar and advanced glassware as the Roman's have, basically giving Rome new markets to sell things as at a huge advantage, instead of just an endpoint wealth flowed out of.
Effects on greater history:
Rome would still fall around how it did as Romes biggest weakness was the decline in cities throughout the Empire, weakening it from the core. In fact Rome may fall slightly earlier with the slave society that would form in the periphery also contributing to the rot.
Africa would be more in touch with the rest of the world, and would be at least somewhat developed. That would in itself have huge effects and ripples as they could resist the Moors better.
Former Roman Africa and Sicily would probably still be Christian kingdoms, as the area would be richer and the Berbers in our timeline nearly repulsed the Arabs and this slight push in there favor may help them out here. That also means that they'd get the superior central Asian camel from the Arabs. With that they'd establish higher volume trade in Saharan Africa and they'd get absurdly wealthy from that, though being Christian they wouldn't ultimately make as much money as Christans during this age couldnt make the financial transactions the Muslims or Jews did.
Western Africa would probably be Christian by at least 1300, with Christians controlling the best trade routes and being the civilization the Berber armies and Romano/African traders would bring south, converting as they would go. Having other targets like Italy and Egypt it would likely be Morocco doing the heavy hitting in this, being the only direction they can really go.
Reasons:
1) India already had a pretty big sugar production during this time, if say Persia wanted it or something they could just buy it from India rather then Rome, and they'd face big competition, not what Rome would want.
2) Africa would be interacted more as coastal exploration increases looking for more areas like the Canaries, increasing Roman presence
3) Africa during this time was extremely isolated from the outside world and doesn't have things like sugar and advanced glassware as the Roman's have, basically giving Rome new markets to sell things as at a huge advantage, instead of just an endpoint wealth flowed out of.
Effects on greater history:
Rome would still fall around how it did as Romes biggest weakness was the decline in cities throughout the Empire, weakening it from the core. In fact Rome may fall slightly earlier with the slave society that would form in the periphery also contributing to the rot.
Africa would be more in touch with the rest of the world, and would be at least somewhat developed. That would in itself have huge effects and ripples as they could resist the Moors better.
Former Roman Africa and Sicily would probably still be Christian kingdoms, as the area would be richer and the Berbers in our timeline nearly repulsed the Arabs and this slight push in there favor may help them out here. That also means that they'd get the superior central Asian camel from the Arabs. With that they'd establish higher volume trade in Saharan Africa and they'd get absurdly wealthy from that, though being Christian they wouldn't ultimately make as much money as Christans during this age couldnt make the financial transactions the Muslims or Jews did.
Western Africa would probably be Christian by at least 1300, with Christians controlling the best trade routes and being the civilization the Berber armies and Romano/African traders would bring south, converting as they would go. Having other targets like Italy and Egypt it would likely be Morocco doing the heavy hitting in this, being the only direction they can really go.
It wouldn't be as dirt cheap as beet sugar, but cheap enough that the middle class emerging during the early empire could afford it. It would be an alternative to honey, which was what Romans, who could afford it, used as a sweetener IOTL in most of their food and drink, you'd be surprised how often honey is mentioned in Apicius cook book even in hearty meals recipes. For poorer Romans cheap pomace syrup boiled in lead cauldrons and thus containing lead acetate would likely remain the sweetener of choice.
18th century France had a huge sugar industry, 50 % of GNP acording to a paper i read, but the average person did not see much sugar in his life, it was mostly for urbanites who had more purchasing üower than landed peasants and was exported into the rest of Europe that didn't have colonies with slave plantations. There's some good reasons why beet sugar took off the way it did.
dcharles
Banned
I think they actually grow more sugar in the south of Egypt, actually.
Well, the Arabs were able to get cane to grow in Sicily and Spain and so forth with a lot of irrigation. It doesn't grow particularly well there otherwise. Egyptians had been doing large scale irrigation for a long time, and so, after India, that became a center of sugar production and innovation. In general, there was a lot of know-how in the Islamic world related to sugar production specifically (and hundreds of years of agricultural development in general) that the Romans just wouldn't have had.
So, there's not one specific reason the Romans probably would have made exceedingly poor sugar planters. There's numerous reasons.
To solve the irrigation problems we can think that in this scenario sugarcane came to Egypt in 25 B.C, after 30+ years it started to be cultivated in other areas of the empire with Egyptian techniques, I think that it is at least plausible that Egyptian know how allied with Roman engineering would be capable of doing the job.
Anyway, if the Romans entered the business of sugar plantation it seems obvious to me that they would rely heavily in slave labour, that would mean that prices of slaves would go up. So I really would like to know the opinion of you all about what would be the effect of this new demmand for slaves.
Do you think that the Romans would try to solve the problem by conquering new provinces to bring more slaves to the empire and solve the problem in the a short time repeating the process when the shortage presents itself again, or would they try to develop a trade relation with their neighbours to buy slaves from them creating a relationship akin to the Atlantic Slave Trade?
Anyway, if the Romans entered the business of sugar plantation it seems obvious to me that they would rely heavily in slave labour, that would mean that prices of slaves would go up. So I really would like to know the opinion of you all about what would be the effect of this new demmand for slaves.
Do you think that the Romans would try to solve the problem by conquering new provinces to bring more slaves to the empire and solve the problem in the a short time repeating the process when the shortage presents itself again, or would they try to develop a trade relation with their neighbours to buy slaves from them creating a relationship akin to the Atlantic Slave Trade?
Last edited:
twovultures
Donor
Could go either way; the timeframe you give for the introduction of sugar is before Trajan's big expansion, so conquest for slaves could become a motivator for an alt-Trajan ITTL. However, if that becomes established as a pattern, the Roman Empire could quickly overstretch itself. I can see a political disaster caused by emperors in the thrall of a planter class moving the armies further and further out as they try to conquer for slaves; supply lines stretch to the point that the legions can no longer effectively prosecute wars, and are too far away to quickly put down slave rebellions that will surely occur in the Mediterranean sugar plantations.
It all comes down to how stupid and corrupt the emperor is; a smart one will realize that constant conquest is a bad idea, and establish trade relations to obtain slaves.