October 06, 2024

The Suez Canal Part 3

The Suez Canal was completed in 1869, and it was hailed as a technical triumph, linking the Mediterranean to the Red Sea and shaving thousands of miles off the trip between Europe and most of Asia. But it was initially a failure as a business, drawing only a tenth of the expected traffic in its first year. But things slowly improved as rates were cut and more shippers found the time saved to be worth the price. Unfortunately, it wasn't enough to save Ismail's finances from the consequences of his borrowing binge, which by 1875 had reached nearly a hundred million pounds. Lenders were unwilling to extend further credit, so he was forced to unload his one remaining asset: his 44% stake in the Canal Company. It was expected that the French would buy it, but the British Prime Minister, Benjamin Disraeli, saw the value of the Canal to the British Empire and swooped in to buy Ismail's share on behalf of the British government. The government didn't have the 4 million pounds required, but it quickly secured a quite reasonable loan from Lionel Rothschild, and was soon the largest shareholder in the Canal.

But the money in question was a pittance against Ismail's debt, and a year later, he was forced to accept an Anglo-French commission to run Egypt's finances, effectively handing over control of the country to its bankers. Ismail was obviously unhappy and tried to retake his country, but his ministers began to turn on him and in 1879 he was deposed in favor of his son, Tewfik. Further indignities, like forcing Egypt to sell its 15% share of canal revenues, soon ignited Egyptian nationalism, which wasn't particularly happy with either the Europeans or the Turkish/Albanian upper class that dominated politics. The results were predictable, and in 1882, things spilled over into armed rebellion. The British, increasingly dependent on the Canal, sent the fleet, which ended up bombarding Alexandria. It was followed by an Army, which swiftly routed the Egyptians and turned Egypt into a de-facto British colony, although it was still formally part of the Ottoman Empire. The French, who had declined to join the intervention, were unhappy that the Canal was now under British control, and managed to get a treaty passed that declared the Canal to be neutral and open to ships of all nations. The British were not particularly happy about this, and the neutrality language would repeatedly find itself in tension with language allowing regulation in the interest of Egyptian security.1


A French seaplane operates from the Canal

This state of affairs lasted for three decades, as the Suez Canal grew in importance in world trade, and to the British Empire specifically. But in 1914, war broke out between Britain and the Ottomans, and the British swiftly deposed the pro-Ottoman Abbas II and replaced him with his uncle Hussein Kamel, who declared Egypt to be an independent Sultanate under British protection. The Canal was swiftly closed to the ships of the Central Powers, and thousands of Indian and ANZAC troops were rushed to protect Egypt, digging in along the Canal. The Ottomans launched an attack through Sinai as their first major act after joining the war, but only a few companies made it across thanks to the fire of the defending troops and their supporting warships. The Ottomans, whose hopes for the Egyptian populace to rise in revolt had been thwarted, withdrew, leaving only a small party that attempted to harass the British, and despite the occasional mine laid in the canal, traffic soon returned to normal, while the defending force was drawn down to support operations elsewhere, most notably at Gallipoli. As a result, little happened in Sinai through the rest of 1915, although the Turks built out their transportation network to support their next offensive.


Turkish troops in action at Katia

By this point, the British had realized that while using the Canal itself as part of their defenses was perfectly reasonable if they wanted to keep the Ottomans out of Egypt, it was not a particularly good plan if the objective was to keep the Canal open.2 The defensive line would need to be pushed far enough forward to keep the enemy out of artillery range at the very least, and in the spring of 1916, the British began to push the Egyptian Expeditionary Force (EEF) eastward, occupying the oasis at Katia near the Mediterranean coast and destroying the water sources that would allow forces to bypass them to the south. Unfortunately, their enemies also had plans, and managed to get a column to Katia without the British noticing, smashing several cavalry squadrons and capturing the town. But despite their tactical success, the Ottomans were unsuccessful at keeping troops in Egypt and away from the Western Front. The British had also been working on plans to draw off the opponent's army, in this case by supporting a revolt against the Ottomans by Hussein bin Ali, the Sharif of Mecca, which broke out in June.3 With the assistance of the Royal Navy, the rebels soon seized ports on the Red Sea, allowing the Allies to provide supplies directly, and tying down a large number of Turkish troops.


Australian cavalry overruns a Turkish trench at Magdhaba

But the revolt wasn't enough to end Ottoman plans for a further attack on the Canal, although this time they would be bolstered by a German force, which had been dispatched down the Danube, a route opened by the recent fall of Serbia. The British knew they were coming and dug in around Romani, anchoring one flank on the Mediterranean and the other on the dunes that dominated the interior. The presence of monitors offshore ruled out an attack on that flank, so the defenders stacked their forces inland, and prepared an offensive to try and trap the Ottoman force after the attack. Things kicked off in early August, and while the attackers made more progress than the British had hoped, the efforts of the ANZAC Mounted Division, the 52nd (Lowland) Division and the searing heat handed victory to the defenders, the heat and movement-sapping dunes ultimately allowed the German commander, Friedrich Freiherr Kress von Kressenstein, to extract about half of his force before the EEF could spring its trap. But the momentum in the region had clearly shifted, and the Central Powers retreated over the next few months as the British pushed forward the railways and pipelines supplying their force. The threat to the Suez Canal was over, although the Sinai wouldn't be completely cleared until after the British took Magdhaba in the eastern part of the peninsula in December and further actions at Nekhl and Bir el Hassana in February.


Allenby enters Jerusalem on foot, out of respect for the Holy City

The British government wasn't satisfied with securing the Suez Canal, and dispatched its troops to invade the Ottoman province of Palestine, taking the town of Rafah in January 1917. The defenders fell back on the town of Gaza, where they were able to defeat two major British attacks, leading to a stalemate from April until October. Finally, at the end of October, the EEF, now under the command of Edmund Allenby, seized Beersheba, on the Ottoman flank. This destroyed the Ottoman position, and Allenby took the opportunity to drive north, capturing Jaffa (modern Tel Aviv) and Jerusalem within five weeks, greatly boosting British morale.


An armored car at Megiddo

The Arab revolt on the Red Sea coast had continued, bolstered by the Royal Navy and the support of an officer by the name of T.E. Lawrence, who was dispatched in October 1916. By the end of 1917, they had secured the entire coast of the Red Sea, helping to protect the British flank and later joining with them in the campaign in Ottoman Palestine. The British spent the first half of 1918 attempting to cross the Jordan River despite troops being diverted to the Western Front to deal with the German spring offensive. Finally, in September, Allenby unleashed an attack along the Mediterranean coast, breaking the Ottoman position at Megiddo4 through the use of armored cars and air power. He then pursued the collapsing Ottoman forces into Syria, capturing Damascus and Aleppo in short order before the collapsing position of the Central Powers forced the Ottomans to sign an armistice on board the pre-dreadnought Agamemnon.

Postwar, the British found themselves in a pickle. They had promised the Arabs independence in exchange for their support, as well as pledging to support a Jewish homeland in Palestine in the hopes of winning the support of Jewish communities around the globe. And they would ultimately use that pledge to secure what they really cared about, more defensive depth for the Suez Canal, in the form of a League of Nations mandate over Palestine. This was a truly excellent decision which has had no bad consequences whatsoever.

In the aftermath of WWI, nationalism and independence were in the air, and the population of Egypt grew increasingly restless under British control. Britain decided to solve this by declaring Egypt independent in 1922, while reserving responsibility for Egypt's defense and foreign relations. Astonishingly, this failed to solve the problem, as we'll see next time.


1 There are reports that the British took action to block the transfer of the Second Pacific Squadron through Suez during the Russo-Japanese War as a result of the Dogger Bank Incident. I am reasonably sure this isn't true. The Canal was quite shallow at that point, with the Canopus class being designed to a draft of 26' to fit through Suez a decade earlier, and the smaller ships of the Russian force did go through the Canal.

2 It's possible that this wasn't quite as stupid as it sounds. The Sinai was effectively uninhabited because there was no water, and they probably assumed that no force could be kept on the east bank long term. The defending forces got their water from the Sweet Water Canal.

3 This also had the advantage of helping neutralize Ottoman propaganda targeted at the British Empire's Muslim population, if the guardian of the Mecca was willing to fight with them.

4 This was near the site of the first well-recorded battle, and the place where the word "armageddon" comes from.

Comments

  1. October 06, 2024muddywaters said...

    In the 1870s the Canal was 24-30 feet deep (measured; this doesn't state a maximum permitted draft, though it does warn of the risk of wind pushing a ship out of the channel).

    Wiki sources to here that the Russians were concerned that their larger ships might not fit. It lists Navarin (which took the canal) as 27'7" and the Borodinos (which went round Africa) as 29', but that's probably at their nominally-full load and not the ~4' overloaded state they were actually in.

    (The maximum permitted now is 66'.)

  2. October 06, 2024muddywaters said...

    Does it make sense to think of the Canal's financial problems as an example of winner's curse? i.e. that when obvious trends (in this case, general economic growth increasing demand for transport, and steam power for both the construction process and the ships(*)) are moving a known idea from unprofitable (and perhaps impossible) to profitable, but there isn't a clear moment at which it crosses that line, then the first to try it will probably be someone who was over-optimistic and tried too early?

    (*) It's often said to be impractical for sailing ships to use the Canal, though this didn't stop the idea of a canal being proposed in the age of sail. The Thames at the then-main docks is about the same width as the current Suez Canal, but for a shorter distance, and the original canal may have been narrower.

  3. October 07, 2024DampOctopus said...

    For all the events you've linked regarding the Arab revolt in Palestine and the subsequent Arab-Israeli conflict, the number of lives lost in all of them combined is under 200k: less than the number lost individually in the Iran-Iraq war or the Syrian civil war and comparable to many smaller conflicts. In the breakup of the Ottoman Empire, the creation of independent Arab states (following British promises in WWI) led to far more deaths in wars within them and with their neighbours than did the establishment of the Mandate of Palestine, which receives disproportionate media attention.

    Of course, the real question isn't whether these decisions led to suffering, but whether they led to more or less suffering than any of the alternatives. In the particular case of Palestine, it saw immigration between WWI and WWII of around 400k European Jews who would most likely have died otherwise, so - despite the toll of the ongoing conflict - I think establishing the Mandate was a net benefit compared to not doing so.

  4. October 07, 2024Emilio said...

    "Australian cavalry overruns a Turkish trench at Magdhaba"

    Those are Dragoons, aka mounted infantry, not cavalry, and the Ottomans and Germans were highly surprised when they charged, as mounted infantry is EXPECTED to dismount and fight while walking, not charging

    Shocking, I say, SHOCKING!

  5. October 07, 2024AlanL said...

    A French seaplane operates from the Canal

    Wait, does the guy standing on the starboard float swing the prop, then jump off into the water? Or was there another way of starting rotary engines?

  6. October 07, 2024AlanL said...

    @muddywaters

    The Thames at the then-main docks is about the same width as the current Suez Canal

    True, but prevailing westerly winds are more or less along the Thames, at least until the bends at Greenwich, whereas they're directly across the Suez Canal. I wonder if that might make a difference.

  7. October 07, 2024bean said...

    @muddywaters

    Thanks for finding that. I should have thought to check charts.

    As for winner's curse, that was probably a lot of what happened here.

    @DampOctopus

    I am not necessarily saying that the Mandate was a bad thing from a total deaths perspective. I mostly wrote what I did because it struck me as funny.

    @AlanL

    I suspect that the boat casts off the seaplane and moves behind it to pick the guy up.

  8. October 12, 2024Steve Bieler said...

    I'm enjoying this series about the Suez Canal, and you even managed to work in a predreadnought.

    I agree with DampOctupus that establishing the Mandate was a net gain, though I'm Jewish and thus not objective. I'd add the Algerian War of Independence and the Ethiopian Civil War to the sad list of conflicts in this region that dwarf the current war in Israel/Gaza/Lebanon in casualties. I'm not saying that one person's suffering is worse than another person's; I'm saying that if we're going to condemn one war then we'd better condemn all of them.

    Just to lighten the mood here, I did think your sentence about the League of Nations mandate was funny. Maybe I have a sick sense of humor. If you ever run for public office, the oppo researchers will find that first and that'll finish you. That or your assertion that Alaska and Guam were not battlecruisers.

  9. October 25, 2024muddywaters said...

    The 1940s draft limit was 34', and HMS Vanguard's armor was reduced in an attempt to fit in that. (She still didn't fit at full load, but would fit at reduced fuel load, as would the Iowas.)

    This implies that Suezmax has not always been larger than Panamax (39.5') in both dimensions, though I don't know whether there were enough ships near the limit for this to have much impact.

    you even managed to work in a predreadnought.

    And not even the one that ran aground in the canal...

Comments from SlateStarCodex:

Leave a comment

All comments are reviewed before being displayed.


Name (required):


E-mail (required, will not be published):

Website:

You can use Markdown in comments!


Enter value: Captcha