East India Trade

[Franconicus]

I have a rather simple question, maybe someone has the answer.

In the 17th century (1600 - ...) the Europeans started their trade with India around the horn of Africa. I know that one of reasons was that the Ottomanian Empire blocked the direct path.

Now here's my question:

How long did a sea transport take from India (Ceylon) to Spain around Africa?
How long did a sea/land transport take from India to Spain across the Indian Sea, Sues-Port Said, Med. Sea? Without considering political hurdles?

[Rodion Romanovich]

Most expeditions from European bases to the trade targets and back again seem to have taken around a year. So dividing by two and subtracting the time for trading and loading the ships says that it can't have taken more than about half a year, probably a lot less. My guess is three to five months, depending on weather conditions etc.

[Tribesman]

An East-Indiaman would take about two years for the round trip , it would have a workable life of usually 4 round trips .
With improvements in ship design , accurate charting of winds and currents , improved understanding of medicine and food preservation the roundtrip came down to around 6 months .
Overland could take forever . Plus you would get stung for taxes in transit .

[Franconicus]

...
Overland could take forever . Plus you would get stung for taxes in transit .

Why would it take forever. The passage from Sues to Port Said is about 113 km. Even with unloading and loading this should be done in 4 weeks. Plus a much shorter sea passages. I assume the sea passage ariound Africa is 4 times the passage across the Indian Sea and the Med.

If you take 6 months from India to Spain via Cape, then it should be about 1 month in the Indian Sea, 1 month between Sues and Said and another month in the Med. So in total three months. If I am not wrong the passage via Sues takes half the time of the passage via Cape.

Additionally there are a lot of harbors for supply. So you do not need that much food and water and can take more goods. Plus, there are trade opportunities all along the way.

I think the main reason against that route was the political issue (Ottomanian realm) and maybe thieves.

[King Kurt]

I wonder if there is also a question of logistics against the overland Port said to Suez route. I don't know how much cargo was in a trade ship, but let us take a guess at 300 tonnes. Assuming you are going to use waggons - and that assumes that there is a reasonable road - then at say 2 tonne a waggon that is 150 waggons. then assume 6 horses or oxen per waggon, that is 900 beasts to take care off. Not a lot of grass along the route, so all fodder would have to be carried, so more waggons, beasts etc.
So the effort for a ship would be substanial and would require a significant organisation in place. Throw into to the mix the number of ships - a few means an organisation lying idle for long periods, a lot leads to a truely massive organisation.
So maybe it was just a question of logistics - once goods are on a ship, it is easy to take them from A to B with relatively few men. That, coupled of course with security and political issues makes the overland route nothing like an attractive option as it first appears.

[Tribesman]

Why would it take forever.
Could was the word , it was after all the age of sail , and sailing ships can not work to anything like a schedule , and with the contrary winds prevalent in the gulf of suez it makes it even worse .
Since overland involves co-ordinating both the land and the sea passages can you see the problem ?
Kurt touches on the problem of animals and fodder , to that you can add transport staff .
So do you buy and keep the animals and wait until the ship arrives (if it arrives at all) and then keep them at the other end until the outward bound goods arrive or do you have to hire or buy them all when the ship arrives (if they are available , and of course at a premium price due to demand) .

A-B was just so much simpler , cheaper , reliable and more secure .

BTW Franconios the Persian gulf ---euphrates ---overland would be the more used one .

[rotorgun]

I came across this interesting chart in one of my books, Harbors and High Seas (Henry Holt and Company, 2000, New York) , by Dean King and John B. Hattendorf. It is an excellent companion to the Aubrey-Maturin novels of Patrick O' Brian. (Another fine storyteller from your Tribe...er Tribe )

I shall attempt to reproduce it for you. It is based upon statistical data compiled by the Dutch East India company during the years 1790-1795. While a bit earlier than the period we are discussing, it is still of use to us because sailing technologies had not advanced that much by the 1800's.

1. Holland to Cape Town: 8,000 NM 129 Days (62)
2. Cape Town to Batavia: 6,450 NM 85 Days (76)
3. Cape Town to Ceylon: 6,750 NM 97 Days (69)
4. Batavia to Cape Town: 5,900 NM 89 Days (66)
5. Celon to Cape Town: 5,500 NM 64 Days (86)
6. Cape Town to Holland: 7,500 NM 117 Days (64)

NM= Nautical Miles
# Days= Average number of days under sail (excluding stops for water and reprovisioning)
(##)= Average distance in NM of one day's sail

As one can see, the time for the return voyage could be significantly shorter depending on prevailing winds and currents. I'm sure that voyages by faster ships, such as Frigates or Clipper Ships would be made in the future, but for the slow moving East Indiamen, these times would be accurate into the 19th century as well.

Based on Dutch-Asiatic Shipping in the 17th and 18th Centuries (The Hague Martinus Nijhoff, 1987, tables 6,11,15,20) by J.R. Bruijn
Cordially,

[KrooK]

Europeans started sea trade with India not in XVI century, but in XIV/XV. Portugase sailor Vasco da Gama invented sea way to India.
Why they were using sea way?
1)It was faster. Don't forget that that time there were no highways :) and even slowest ship was much faster than toe (horses has not been used to carrying wagons into trade).
2)It was cheaper - merchants didn't have to pay anyone for passing. And what is more important they didn't have to tell what way are they going, so that way to India was Portugaese secret :)
3)It was safier. It's much easier avoid pirates than robbers. And big trade conwoys can be easy guarded by war ships.

Hmm rotorgun - looks like they were sailing across Horn not across Good Hope.

[King Henry V]

No, Europeans did start trading with Inida in the XVI century, or at least the tail end of the XVth, as Vasco da Gama reached India in 1498.