Ferdinand de Lesseps builds his americs canal in Nicaragua instead of Panama

cjc

I don't know a lot about the verius issues lesseps had in biulding the first attempt at a cannal in Panama. But it seems like the much flater land though most of the route in Nicaragua would be much more smiler to what lasseps had done in the suez compared to the highly mountainist Panama. He would still have the very mountainist pacific coast to deal with, but that isn't as wide as Panama.

I have also read (but don't really know) that Nicaragua dosnt get hit by yellow fever (at lest not as badly as Panama) and that seems to be the leading issue most people point to in explaining why lesseps venture failed.

So if lesseps had chosen Nicaragua instead of Panama (still would have been a shorter canal the suez interestingly enough) would he have a better chance of success, or would his venture still have failed.
 

cloistered scholar

Philippe Bunau-Varilla lobbied the US congress to not have it run through Nicaragua, famously passing out stamps with a picture of Mt Momotombo, a volcano near the proposed Nicaragua route.

It even erupted in 1905.
 
Mildtryth

Mildtryth

Kellan Sullivan said:
I'm guessing Bunau-Varilla wasn't a Nicaraguan then?
Click to expand...

Nope. French, general manager of Lesseps' Panama Canal Company, and who had a interest in having a canal built in Panama rather than Nicaragua.

But coming back to the question, if Lesseps had chosen to go for Nicaragua in the first place, Bunau-Varilla probably wouldn't be a factor.
 
JanWellem

JanWellem

It won't solve the basic flaw in Lesseps original plan, the idea of a sea level canal, which IMO would be no more feasible in Nicaragua than in Panama.
 

cjc

JanWellem said:
It won't solve the basic flaw in Lesseps original plan, the idea of a sea level canal, which IMO would be no more feasible in Nicaragua than in Panama.
Click to expand...
Seems to me that a lot more of the canal can be st sea level compared to Panama, wich combined with the lack of mass death (both no yellow fever and malaria, at lest with the San Juan route) should at lest means he gets a lot ferther along then he did in Panama.
 
Last edited:

Dathi THorfinnsson

cjc said:
Seems to me that a lot more of the canal can be st sea level compared to Panama, wich combined with the lack of mass death (both no yellow fever and malaria, at lest with the San Juan route) should at lest means he gets a lot ferther along then he did in Panama.
Click to expand...
???? How do you figure that?
Besides, it's a longer distance, total, which means a sea-level canal would be far more expensive.

I just can't imagine anyone trying a sea-level canal in Nicaragua.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top