07-14-2017, 11:09 AM
What is sometimes forgotten is the true nature of international trade of high value items. This trade is based on a "pull-factor" by the buyer. So trade does not need to run both ways, something a trade-route would imply. The absence of Roman goods in China can be easily explained by the peoples of the Roman empire not offering much the Chinese thought were worth having in terms of high value items (no pull). It is highly likely the Silk Route was indeed no more then an interlocking trade-web through which high value pull items diffused over great distances and lower value items were traded only within the local trade-web. Traders active within these webs would, by the nature of the product, be drawn to deal in it by upstream demand.
Then there is the size issue. Look at the value in denarii quoted for a pound of silk. One bolt represented a small fortune on arrival in Rome, the value increasing as it travelled further from it's source. A ship full of silk is just not on, a chest full of silk would be a more likely medium. The accumulated wealth would be spread down the supply chain. An overland route for this kind of goods is highly feasible.
When you look at the maps, there are also some large rivers running east-west, possibly allowing for easier transport of trade-goods downstream.
Then there is the size issue. Look at the value in denarii quoted for a pound of silk. One bolt represented a small fortune on arrival in Rome, the value increasing as it travelled further from it's source. A ship full of silk is just not on, a chest full of silk would be a more likely medium. The accumulated wealth would be spread down the supply chain. An overland route for this kind of goods is highly feasible.
When you look at the maps, there are also some large rivers running east-west, possibly allowing for easier transport of trade-goods downstream.