According to wikipedia > Gamal_Abdel_Nasser#Nationalization_of_the_Suez_Canal (current revision), on 26 July 1956, Nasser gave a speech in which he claimed 120,000 Egyptians died during the construction of the canal. The direct quote from Wikipedia is

In the speech, [Nasser] denounced British imperialism in Egypt and British control over the canal company's profits, and upheld that the Egyptian people had a right to sovereignty over the waterway, especially since "120,000 Egyptians had died (sic)" building it.

Is the estimate that 120,000 Egyptians had died building the canal accurate?


Using the reference originally provided by JoeW:

The Suez Canal had 120,000 deaths among its 1.5 million workers during the 11 year excavation project — the most construction worker deaths of the four canal projects.

Though it should be noted that, according to the Britannica history, the canal was under construction to some degree for over 3000 years, so the 120,000 number is probably a lower bound.

  • 1
    Note I didn't post that as an answer because it didn't have any sources for those numbers. – Joe W Jan 1 at 21:35
  • @JoeW - Well, the ForConstructionPros site references a site by SaferAmerica. Unfortunately, however, I can't view that site because it's unsafe and my browser won't go there. – Daniel R Hicks Jan 1 at 21:40
  • 2
    @DanielRHicks Context is important. Some comments mentioned that for the time frame, such work was inherently dangerous and that was accepted as a plain reality. Can you answer if that is actually the case? I only ask because the factoid has apparently been used by a politician to justify a stance against sharing the wealth of this asset. In other words, he's using it as a negotiation for appropriations, which gets flipped on its head if the number gives the opposite impression in it's historical context. – fredsbend Jan 1 at 23:53
  • 1
    @fredsbend - Read the references. Much of the early work was done by hand -- people carrying baskets of sand. And much of the labor was "forced" (ie, slave) labor. How "accepted" is was depends on how rich you are, I suspect. – Daniel R Hicks Jan 2 at 1:21
  • 1
    Even that source only has the Suez Canal as the 6th worst project in terms of death rate for workers. Not radically worse than the Brooklyn Bridge and way better than the Panama Canal. – matt_black Jan 3 at 0:44


Using the figure from the Wikipedia article on the Suez Canal, around 1.5 million people worked on the construction of the canal in total. At any one time, over 30,000 people would be working on the canal project. Building the canal took up to eleven years: 1859 is given as the starting year of works on the shore near what would later be Port Said and the canal was inaugurated in 1869. If we assume the figure of 120,000 to be true, that would be not quite 11,000 deaths a year or an average of about 30 deaths a day. With figure of around 30,000 workers at any given time, this corresponds to an annual mortality rate of 364 deaths per 1000 workers.

On page 31 of his book The Suez Canal (link to archive.org), Arnold T. Wilson states:

But the allegations, made even by responsible writers, of the heavy loss of life amongst the labourers of the Canal are in no way borne out by the published statistics of the Company’s chief medical officer which give the mortality per thousand

  • in 1863 as 1.40
  •  " 1864   "  1.36    average working staff
  •  " 1866   "  2.49  •  •  • 18,605
  •  " 1867   "  1.85  •  •  • 25,770
  •  " 1868   "  1.52  •  •  • 34,258

Being generous to the claim and taking the maximum numbers plus a security margin, I am able to arrive at a maximum of around 120 fatalities per year (assuming a mortality rate of 3 per 1000 and 40,000 working staff); using the highest figures published tops the number of fatalities at 85 and using the figure of 1868 allows us to estimate 52 fatalities in that year.

I note that only five of eleven years are quoted in the work but the numbers are so much short of the required mortality rate that there is no way Nasser’s claim is true. It would require a much hier mortality in the years left out, basically assuming significant singular events which would most certainly have been recorded.

While Wilson states a list of sources at the end of chapter III (which includes page 31 and the passage quoted above) I am unable to precisely determine if the statistics of the chief medical officer are among them or where they may be accessed.

Source: Arnold T. Wilson, The Suez Canal: Its Past, Present and Future Second edition; Oxford University Press (London, New York, Toronto); 1939.

New contributor
Jan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering. Check out our Code of Conduct.
  • The "Company’s chief medical officer" cannot be considered an unbiased observer. Consider what the "medical officers" of the Radium Dial Company advised. – Daniel R Hicks Jan 13 at 19:06
  • @DanielRHicks I don’t see any statement of the ‘medical officers’ on that Wikipedia page (or any phrase that highlights what they have advised); please enlighten me, where to look. – Jan Jan 13 at 19:19
  • In either case, I do believe that the source I presented may have a slightly higher validity than yours as it is much closer to the actual construction. In the Suez Canal construction, the figures of 1.5 million and 30,000 allow us to estimate a total of 50 completely new workforces or an average of 4–5 completely new workforces per year. There would be little value in highly underestimating mortality if the workforce is constantly changing anyway. – Jan Jan 13 at 19:24
  • Very likely the company's numbers did not include slave labor. And the phrase I referred to came from your post, in the highlighted quote. – Daniel R Hicks Jan 13 at 21:50
  • 2
    @Jan I think he assumed you are familiar with the story of the Radium Girls. Quote: U.S. Radium and other watch-dial companies rejected claims that the afflicted workers were suffering from exposure to radium. For some time, doctors, dentists, and researchers complied with requests from the companies not to release their data. - medical professionals were more than willing to help make companies look good – slebetman Jan 14 at 9:19

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .