The Lateran Apostles and Their Attributes

2026 By justmovingaround in Sacred Grounds, VATICAN Tags: apostles, basilica, Lateran, Rome, Vatican

In the nave of the Archbasilica of Saint John Lateran in Rome stands one of the most impressive sculptural programs of the Roman Baroque: a monumental series of statues representing the Apostles. Created in the early eighteenth century by some of the leading sculptors working in Rome, each figure is accompanied by a distinctive attribute that refers either to the apostle’s life or to the manner of his martyrdom. This post looks at these statues one by one, focusing on the symbols that allow us to recognize them.

The Archbasilica of the Most Holy Saviour and Saints John the Baptist and John the Evangelist in the Lateran, commonly known as Saint John Lateran, is the cathedral of the Diocese of Rome and the official ecclesiastical seat of the Pope as Bishop of Rome. Although it stands outside the territory of Vatican City, the Basilica is part of the extraterritorial properties of the Holy See, enjoying a special status similar to that of the Vatican itself.

Founded in the early fourth century by Emperor Constantine, it is the oldest public church in Rome (although heavily reconstructed over the years) and holds the title of the mother and head of all churches in the city and in the world, which underlines its unique importance within the Catholic Church. It is worth noting that, unlike the Pantheon – which was only later converted into a church – the Lateran Basilica is the oldest building in Rome originally constructed as a Christian place of worship.

I have visited the Basilica several times and even shared a post about it here some time ago; however, after my most recent visit I never updated it, especially since I now have a larger collection of detailed photographs from its interior. Before I do so, I would like to highlight one of its more intriguing details, along with a brief commentary.

One of the most striking elements of the interior of the Archbasilica is the monumental cycle of statues representing the Apostles placed along the central nave. The architectural structure of the nave was created in the mid-seventeenth century during the major reconstruction of the basilica ordered by Pope Innocent X and carried out by the architect Francesco Borromini. As part of his redesign, Borromini created a series of large niches in the massive piers of the nave. These niches were clearly intended to hold monumental statues, but for several decades they remained empty. It was only in the early eighteenth century that the sculptural program was finally realized. During the pontificate of Pope Clement XI, the project was entrusted to the architect Carlo Fontana, a former collaborator of Gian Lorenzo Bernini. Fontana invited a group of the most prominent sculptors working in Rome at the time, and each artist was commissioned to create one of the apostolic figures. The sculptures, carved in white marble and standing more than four metres high, occupy the monumental niches between the nave piers. Each niche is framed by pairs of coloured marble columns.

Lateran Archbasilica Rome | Archibasilique du Latran Rome | Lateranbasilika Rom | Archibasílica de Letrán Roma | Arcybazylika na Lateranie Rzym | Arcibasilica Lateranense Roma | Латеранская архибазилика Рим | ラテラノ大聖堂ローマ | 라테라노 대성전 로마 | 罗马拉特朗大殿

The program represents the Twelve Apostles, the closest followers of Christ and the traditional foundations of the Christian Church. However, the series includes a small but significant modification. Instead of Judas Iscariot, who betrayed Christ, the cycle features Saint Paul. Although Paul was not one of the original Twelve, Christian tradition has long regarded him as one of the greatest apostles because of his missionary work and theological writings. For this reason he is often paired with Saint Peter as one of the principal apostles of the Church. The twelve figures represented in the Lateran basilica are therefore: Peter, Paul, Andrew, James the Greater, John the Evangelist, Thomas, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, James the Less, Simon, and Jude Thaddeus.

An important element of this sculptural program is the use of attributes, the symbolic objects held by each apostle. In Christian art these objects function as visual identifiers, allowing viewers to recognize individual saints even without reading the inscriptions on the bases of the statues. The attributes usually refer either to the manner of the apostle’s martyrdom or to his role in the early Church and Christian tradition.

For example, Saint Peter holds the keys symbolizing the authority entrusted to him by Christ, Saint Paul carries a sword referring to his execution in Rome and to the power of his preaching, and Saint John is accompanied by an eagle representing the theological depth of his Gospel. Other apostles are identified through instruments associated with their deaths, such as the saw of Saint Simon, the club of Saint James the Less, or the knife of Saint Bartholomew.

Apostles in the Lateran Archbasilica in Rome | Apôtres dans l’archibasilique du Latran à Rome | Apostel in der Lateranbasilika in Rom | Apóstoles en la Archibasílica de Letrán en Roma | Apostołowie w arcybazylice laterańskiej w Rzymie | Apostoli nell’Arcibasilica Lateranense a Roma | Апостолы в Латеранской архибазилике в Риме | ローマのラテラノ大聖堂の使徒たち | 로마 라테라노 대성전의 사도들 | 罗马拉特朗大殿中的使徒们

Saint Peter – the Key

Saint Peter was one of the closest disciples of Jesus and is traditionally regarded as the leader of the Apostles. Originally named Simon, he was a fisherman from Galilee before being called by Christ to become one of his first followers. According to the Gospels, Jesus gave him the name Peter (from the Greek petros, meaning rock), symbolizing the foundational role he would play in the Christian community.

After the death and resurrection of Christ, Peter became one of the central figures in the early Church and is traditionally considered the first bishop of Rome, and therefore the first pope (although the latter title formally appeared ages later). According to early Christian sources, he was executed in Rome during the persecution of Christians under Emperor Nero around AD 64. Tradition holds that he was crucified upside down, because he did not consider himself worthy to die in the same way as Christ.

Peter’s main attribute in Christian art is the key, or more often a pair of keys. The symbol comes from the Gospel of Matthew, where Christ tells him: I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. In many representations the two keys – often shown as gold and silver – are interpreted as symbols of authority over heaven and earth, or of spiritual and temporal power.

Saint Matthew – the Book

Saint Matthew, also known as Levi, was originally a tax collector before becoming one of the twelve apostles. Matthew left his profession immediately when Jesus called him to follow him. Christian tradition attributes to him the authorship of the Gospel of Matthew, which explains why he is frequently represented with a book or scroll.

After the death of Christ, Matthew is believed to have travelled widely as a missionary. Ancient sources place his preaching in regions such as Ethiopia, Persia, or Syria. Tradition holds that he eventually died as a martyr, although the exact circumstances of his death are uncertain.

Saint Jude Thaddeus – the Spear

Saint Jude Thaddeus remains one of the lesser-known figures, partly due to the similarity of his name to Judas Iscariot. He is traditionally identified as a close relative of Jesus and is regarded in Christian tradition as a devoted and steadfast preacher of the Gospel, most likely active in the regions of the Near East. Over time, he came to be especially venerated as the patron saint of lost causes and desperate situations.

In art, he is most often depicted holding a spear, which refers to the manner of his martyrdom. According to tradition, he was killed while preaching, and the weapon became his identifying attribute in iconography.

Saint Andrew – the Cross

Saint Andrew was the brother of Saint Peter and one of the first disciples called by Jesus. Like his brother, he had been a fisherman from Galilee before becoming a follower of Christ. Andrew was originally a disciple of John the Baptist and was among the earliest to recognize Jesus as the Messiah.

After the Resurrection, Christian tradition describes Andrew as a missionary who travelled widely across the eastern Mediterranean world. Various early sources associate his preaching with regions around the Black Sea, Asia Minor and Greece. He is believed to have been martyred in the Greek city of Patras. He was crucified on a cross in the shape of the letter X, now known as the Cross of Saint Andrew. Because he considered himself unworthy to die in the same manner as Christ, the cross was said to have been positioned differently from the traditional form.

Over time, this distinctive cross shape began to function beyond its purely religious context and entered broader European symbolism – appearing in heraldry, markings, and simple graphic signs, where its form was clear and easily recognisable. The X naturally came to be associated with the crossing of lines and with points of potential conflict or danger. This is why, in the 19th century, with the expansion of the railways, it was adopted as a warning sign at level crossings, indicating the point where a road intersects with railway tracks.

Saint Thomas – the Raised Finger

Saint Thomas is most widely known from the Gospel of John, where he initially doubts the resurrection of Christ. When the other disciples tell him that Jesus has risen, Thomas famously declares that he will not believe unless he can see and touch the wounds of the crucifixion. According to the Gospel narrative, Christ later appears to him and invites him to do exactly that. Later Christian tradition describes Thomas as a missionary who travelled far beyond the Roman world, preaching as far as Persia and India. The ancient Christian communities of southern India still maintain a strong tradition linking their origins to his mission.

The raised pointing finger refers directly to the Gospel episode in which Thomas is invited to place his finger in Christ’s wounds. In art this gesture has come to symbolize both his initial doubt and the moment of recognition and faith that followed.

Saint Paul – the Book and the Sword

Saint Paul was not one of the original Twelve Apostles, but he became one of the most influential figures in early Christianity. Born in Tarsus and originally known as Saul, he was a Pharisee who initially persecuted early Christians. His life changed dramatically after a visionary encounter with Christ on the road to Damascus, after which he became one of the most active missionaries of the early Church. Paul travelled extensively through Asia Minor, Greece and eventually Rome, founding Christian communities and writing letters that would later become a central part of the New Testament.

In artistic representations Paul is almost always shown with two attributes: a book and a sword. The book refers to his epistles – such as the Letters to the Romans, Corinthians and Galatians – which shaped Christian theology and form a major portion of the New Testament. The sword refers to the manner of his martyrdom. According to early Christian tradition, Paul was executed in Rome during the persecution under Emperor Nero around AD 67. As a Roman citizen, he was not crucified but beheaded with a sword. The sword is sometimes understood not only as the instrument of his death, but also as a symbol of the sword of the Word, reflecting the force and clarity of his teaching.

Saint Philip – the Cross

Saint Philip originally came from Bethsaida in Galilee, the same town as Peter and Andrew. According to the Gospel of John, he was among the early followers of Jesus and was the one who introduced Nathanael (traditionally identified with Bartholomew) to Christ. After the Resurrection, Christian tradition describes Philip as a missionary who preached in Asia Minor. Ancient sources associate his later ministry particularly with the city of Hierapolis in present-day Turkey.

The precise details of his death vary in different early accounts, but many traditions describe him as having been crucified. For this reason, Philip is commonly represented in Christian art holding a cross. In many images the cross appears as a tall staff-like cross, which distinguishes it from the smaller crosses used in other contexts.

Saint James the Greater – the Pilgrim’s Staff

Saint James the Greater was the son of Zebedee, as well as the brother of Saint John the Evangelist. Together with Peter and John he belonged to the inner circle of disciples, who witnessed some of the most significant events in the life of Christ. After the Resurrection, Christian tradition describes James as preaching the Gospel in various regions before eventually returning to Jerusalem. According to the Acts of the Apostles, he became the first of the apostles to suffer martyrdom. He was executed by the sword in Jerusalem on the order of King Herod Agrippa I.

In Christian art James the Greater is frequently depicted as a pilgrim, holding a staff. The pilgrim’s staff refers to the medieval tradition that his relics were brought to Santiago de Compostela in Spain, which later became one of the most important pilgrimage destinations in the Christian world. The staff therefore symbolizes both pilgrimage and the widespread devotion associated with Saint James.

Saint Bartholomew – the Knife and the Flayed Skin

Saint Bartholomew is commonly identified with Nathanael mentioned in the Gospel of John. According to early Christian tradition, he preached the Gospel in several eastern regions, including Mesopotamia and Armenia. Ancient sources describe his missionary work as bringing Christianity to areas far beyond the Roman world. His ministry eventually led to persecution. According to the most widely accepted tradition, Bartholomew was martyred in Armenia, where he was flayed alive and then executed.

For this reason, his principal attribute in Christian iconography is a knife, the instrument associated with his martyrdom. In many works of art he is also shown holding his own flayed skin.

Saint Simon – the Saw

Saint Simon, often called Simon the Zealot, travelled as a missionary after the Resurrection of Christ, preaching in regions of the Middle East and Persia. Several early sources describe him working together with the apostle Jude Thaddeus in spreading the Christian faith. Simon is believed to have died as a martyr during these missionary journeys. One common tradition states that he was killed with a saw, which became the symbol associated with him in Christian art. For this reason, Saint Simon is typically depicted holding a saw.

Saint James the Less – the Club

Saint James the Less is traditionally identified as the son of Alphaeus. Early Christian sources describe him as an important leader of the Christian community in Jerusalem and a central figure in the earliest years of the Church. He is often also associated with James the Just, who played a leading role in the Jerusalem church after the Resurrection of Christ. James was eventually persecuted for his faith in Jerusalem. One account describes him being thrown from the pinnacle of the Temple and then killed by blows from a club or fuller’s bat. For this reason, Saint James the Less is commonly depicted holding a club.

Saint John the Evangelist – the Eagle

Saint John the Evangelist was the brother of Saint James the Greater. Together with Peter and James he belonged to the inner circle of disciples who witnessed some of the most significant moments in the life of Chris. Christian tradition attributes to him the authorship of the Gospel of John, as well as the three Epistles of John and the Book of Revelation. Unlike most of the apostles, John is believed to have died a natural death, probably in Ephesus at the end of the first century.

His principal attribute in Christian art is the eagle. The symbol originates from the biblical visions of the four living creatures described in the Book of Ezekiel and the Book of Revelation. In Christian tradition these four creatures became associated with the four evangelists. The eagle was assigned to John because his Gospel rises to the highest theological perspective, contemplating the divine nature of Christ in a way that early Christian writers compared to an eagle soaring high above the earth. The eagle thus not only symbolises the theological depth of his writing, but also the ability to contemplate divine realities beyond the material world.

The series of apostles in the Lateran Basilica is not only a decorative programme, but also a clear and consistent visual system, in which each figure can be identified through its attribute. These symbols, whether simple or more elaborate, refer to well-established traditions and help place each apostle within a broader historical and religious context

St Peter’s Bas i lica

Vatican Museums

Holy See

to my other posts on #VATICAN

The Lateran Apostles and Their Attributes

Stone, Gold and the Age of Discoveries. Jerónimos Monastery in Lisbon

2026 By justmovingaround in PORTUGAL, Sacred Grounds Tags: Jerónimos Monastery, Lisbon, manueline, Portugal

The Jerónimos Monastery in Lisbon is one of the most remarkable monuments of the Portuguese Age of Discoveries. From the monumental stone church visible from the Tagus to the richly gilded chapels inside, the complex reflects both the architectural ambition and the immense wealth of Portugal’s maritime empire.

Today I would like to return to a place I visited quite a long time ago – more than ten years ago – but which has stayed in my memory ever since. At the time, however, I made a rather unfortunate mistake. While travelling to Portugal, I somehow managed to leave my proper camera at home. Instead, I had to rely entirely on the camera in my mobile phone – and this was long before mobile photography reached the level we take for granted today. The device I had with me simply could not capture much detail, and the photographs it produced were limited in both resolution and quality. For years I assumed that these images would remain nothing more than vague digital memories buried somewhere in an old archive.

Recently, however, I decided to try a small experiment. With the help of artificial intelligence, I uploaded those old files and asked the system to enhance them – to recover as much detail as possible and improve their resolution. To my surprise, the results turned out far better than I had expected. I managed to retrieve a handful of usable photographs taken in this place. They are still only fragments of what I saw back then, but they provide just enough of a visual anchor to revisit this impressive structure.

Interior of the main church of the Jerónimos Monastery, front view.

The Jerónimos Monastery (Mosteiro dos Jerónimos) in Lisbon is one of the most important historical monuments in Portugal and one of the places most closely associated with the country’s past. The complex is located in the Belém district, on the banks of the Tagus River, in an area deeply connected with the Portuguese Age of Discoveries. Construction began at the turn of the 15th and 16th centuries on the initiative of King Manuel I, and today the monument is included on the UNESCO World Heritage List (since 1983).

The monastery stands very close to the Tagus River and forms part of the characteristic historical landscape of Belém. When standing by the riverbank near the Belém Tower and the Padrão dos Descobrimentos – the Monument to the Discoveries – and turning one’s back to the river, the long and massive silhouette of the monastery appears in front of you. The building stretches horizontally across the space of Belém and immediately dominates the view. When standing the other way around – with your back to the monastery and facing the river – you see the two other great symbols of Portugal’s maritime past: the Monument to the Discoveries and the Belém Tower. Together with the monastery they form a distinctive historical ensemble that defines this part of Lisbon.

Jerónimos Monastery | Mosteiro dos Jerónimos | Hieronymitenkloster | Monasterio de los Jerónimos | Monastère des Hiéronymites | 热罗尼莫斯修道院 | 제로니무스 수도원 | ジェロニモス修道院 | Klasztor Hieronimitów

Belém Tower, Lisbon | Torre de Belém, Lisboa | Belém-Turm, Lissabon | Torre de Belém, Lisboa | Tour de Belém, Lisbonne | 贝伦塔，里斯本 | 벨렝 탑, 리스본 | ベレンの塔、リスボン | Wieża Belém, Lizbona

Monument to the Discoveries, Lisbon | Padrão dos Descobrimentos, Lisboa | Denkmal der Entdeckungen, Lissabon | Monumento a los Descubrimientos, Lisboa | Monument des Découvertes, Lisbonne | 大发现纪念碑，里斯本 | 발견기념비, 리스본 | 発見のモニュメント、リスボン | Pomnik Odkrywców, Lizbona

Three monuments of Lisbon’s Belém district: the Jerónimos Monastery, Belém Tower and the Padrão dos Descobrimentos (Monument to the Discoveries).

What can be seen from the river, impressive as it already is, actually represents only a part of the entire monastery complex. The long monumental structure visible from the direction of the Tagus is primarily the Church of Santa Maria de Belém, the central church of the Jerónimos Monastery and the most architecturally striking element of the ensemble. Behind it, however, extends a much larger monastic complex that is not immediately visible from the waterfront. There are the vast cloisters, arranged around a large square courtyard and famous for their richly carved Manueline arcades, which once formed the heart of monastic life. Around them were located the functional spaces of the monastery, including the chapter house, where the monks held their meetings, and the refectory, the communal dining hall. After the dissolution of the religious orders in the nineteenth century, parts of these former monastic buildings were repurposed, and today they house institutions such as the Maritime Museum and the National Archaeological Museum. What appears from the river to be a single monumental church is therefore only the visible façade of a much larger historical complex extending further inland through Belém.

The foundation of the monastery was directly connected with Portugal’s maritime expansion. Previously a small church stood on this site, where, according to tradition, Vasco da Gama prayed before departing for his voyage to India in 1497. King Manuel I decided to erect a monumental monastery here that would reflect the power of Portugal and the significance of its oceanic discoveries. The construction was financed partly through a tax on the spice trade arriving in Portugal from Asia, which further underlined the close connection between the building and the country’s global maritime network.

The monastery was entrusted to the Order of Saint Jerome, whose monks played a particular symbolic role during the Age of Discoveries. Among their responsibilities was praying for the king and for Portuguese sailors embarking on long and dangerous ocean voyages. In this way the monastery became not only an important religious centre, but also a place that symbolically accompanied Portugal’s maritime expansion.

Architecturally, the Jerónimos Monastery represents one of the finest examples of the Manueline style, a uniquely Portuguese form of late Gothic architecture. The style is characterised by extraordinarily rich decorative carving that blends plant motifs with maritime imagery and symbols of royal power. Among the decorative details one can recognise carved ropes, shells, exotic vegetation and symbols connected with the Age of Discoveries. Slender, intricately sculpted columns as well as monumental portals and cloisters together create one of the most recognisable architectural ensembles in Portugal.

Interior and the ceilings.

Inside the monastery church – the central part of the complex – one can also find the tombs of important figures in Portuguese history. Among them is Vasco da Gama, one of the most famous explorers of the Age of Discovery. The church also contains the tombs of Portuguese monarchs associated with the Aviz dynasty, further emphasising the symbolic importance of the site as a monument to Portugal’s royal power and maritime achievements.

Although the church itself is a monumental structure of pale carved stone, some of the later chapels and altars create a striking contrast – richly decorated and literally dripping with gold, much like many other churches across Portugal where gilded baroque altarpieces became a defining element of the interior. This lavish decoration was largely the result of the immense wealth that flowed into Portugal during the centuries of maritime expansion and overseas conquest, when the country became one of the richest powers in Europe. One of the chapels I managed to photograph – although capturing all that shimmering gold without proper photographic equipment proved rather difficult – is a good example of such a space, overflowing with gilded ornamentation and centred around a sculpture of Christ lying in an open coffin.

A chapel in gold

This representation belongs to a long-standing Catholic devotional tradition known as the Dead Christ (often called Cristo Morto or Senhor Morto in Iberian countries). The sculpture depicts Christ after the Crucifixion and before the Resurrection, lying in a sarcophagus or open tomb and inviting contemplation of the Passion. In Portugal such figures are often placed in richly decorated side chapels and are sometimes associated with the rituals of Holy Week, when the moment between death and resurrection is symbolically commemorated.

The history of the monastery changed in the 19th century, when Portugal introduced the suppression of religious orders as part of liberal reforms aimed at reducing the political and economic influence of the Church. In 1834 many religious orders were dissolved and their monasteries and properties were confiscated by the state. As a result, the Jerónimos Monastery ceased to function as a monastic institution. The complex itself, however, did not lose its importance. Over time its spaces began to be used for museum and representative purposes, and today the monastery remains one of Lisbon’s most important historical landmarks.

Manueline-style entrance, Jerónimos Monastery | Entrada em estilo manuelino, Mosteiro dos Jerónimos | Eingang im manuelinischen Stil, Hieronymitenkloster | Entrada de estilo manuelino, Monasterio de los Jerónimos | Entrée de style manuélin, Monastère des Hiéronymites | 曼努埃尔风格入口，热罗尼莫斯修道院 | 마누엘 양식 입구, 제로니무스 수도원 | マヌエル様式の入口、ジェロニモス修道院 | Wejście w stylu manuelińskim, klasztor Hieronimitów

Side entrance to the church of the Jerónimos Monastery, decorated in the Manueline style, illuminated by full daylight.

As far as I remember, we actually had very little time to visit the site. In practice we managed to see only the church itself, and even that rather quickly. When planning our time in Lisbon, we essentially just passed through the church and skipped the rest of the monastery complex entirely. Shortly afterwards, however, we visited another convent – today the site of the Azulejos Museum – which surprised us just as much, with a chapel so richly gilded that the amount of gold decoration seemed almost unbelievable.

Even so, if I could go back in time – knowing what I know today and remembering the other monasteries we later visited in Portugal – I would certainly try to set aside at least an extra hour or two to explore the entire Jerónimos complex properly. The cloisters, the monastic spaces and the museums located there today would almost certainly have been well worth that additional time.

To my other posts on #PORTUGAL

Stone, Gold and the Age of Discoveries. Jerónimos Monastery in Lisbon

Asia–Europe Trade Routes in the Shadow of Conflict

2026 By justmovingaround in Transport Notes Tags: geopolitics, maritime transport, New Silk Road, Suez Canal, transport

Usually on this blog I write about history and travel. Yet recent events affecting the main Asia–Europe Trade Routes have prompted me to step for a moment into the area I deal with professionally. When key transport corridors become unstable, the consequences reach far beyond shipping and logistics – they begin to influence trade, supply chains, and the everyday functioning of economies. This article looks at what is currently happening along the routes linking Asia and Europe, why disruptions in the Red Sea matter so much, and what alternative transport corridors might play a larger role in the future.

Asia–Europe Trade Routes in the Shadow of Conflict | Routes commerciales Asie–Europe à l’ombre des conflits | Rutas comerciales Asia–Europa a la sombra del conflicto | アジア・ヨーロッパ間の貿易ルート―紛争の影の中で | 亚洲—欧洲贸易路线：冲突阴影之下

For the past three decades, Asia–Europe trade routes have operated in a relatively stable environment, disrupted only occasionally by minor incidents. The primary objective in logistics was simple: minimise costs wherever possible. Global trade – including trade with China – was widely seen as a remedy for Europe’s high production costs.

Today, however, it is becoming increasingly clear that this model is changing. In global logistics, transport costs are no longer the only decisive factor. Reliability, security, and predictable delivery times are becoming just as important. One of the most visible signs of this shift can be seen in recent developments in the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf – regions through which some of the world’s most important transport corridors linking Europe and Asia pass.

Escalating Disruptions on the Red Sea Route – A Brief Chronology

Although tensions in the Red Sea region are now largely associated with conflicts in the Middle East, the instability of this route has been emerging gradually over the past decade and a half. It has repeatedly shown just how vulnerable the trade connections between Asia and Europe are to disruptions in this region.

One of the first serious challenges was piracy off the coast of Somalia. At the turn of the first and second decades of the 21st century, the waters near the Horn of Africa became one of the most dangerous areas for commercial shipping. Somali pirate groups attacked merchant vessels, kidnapped crews, and demanded substantial ransoms for their release. Although piracy was not a state-driven conflict, its scale was significant enough for many countries to deploy naval forces to protect maritime routes. Joint patrols and new security procedures on board ships gradually brought the problem under control.

In the following decade, another source of tension emerged – this time linked to the civil war in Yemen. As the conflict unfolded, the Houthi movement took control of a large part of northern Yemen, including sections of the Red Sea coastline. Over time, the group began using its geographical position to target commercial vessels sailing close to the Yemeni coast. In some ways, this echoed the earlier problem of Somali piracy: once again, an armed group was operating along one of the world’s most important shipping routes. However, these attacks were more closely tied to regional political tensions and the broader conflicts of the Middle East. As a result, the risk of disruption in this part of the world never fully disappeared and continues to be factored in by shipping companies and logistics operators planning routes between Asia and Europe.

Attacks in the Red Sea region have prompted some shipping companies to alter their routes. Instead of sailing through the Suez Canal and the Red Sea, a number of vessels have begun avoiding the area altogether and travelling around Africa via the Cape of Good Hope. This detour adds several thousand kilometres to the journey between Asia and Europe and can extend transit times by well over a week or more. For global logistics, the consequences are very tangible: transport costs increase, delivery times become longer, and shipping lines need to deploy more vessels to maintain regular service schedules – which in turn pushes their costs even higher.

Another type of disruption occurred in 2021, when the giant container ship Ever Given ran aground in the Suez Canal and blocked the passage for other vessels. For several days, one of the main Asia–Europe trade routes was completely cut off. Hundreds of ships were forced to wait before they could pass through the canal, and global supply chains continued to feel the effects of the blockage for weeks afterwards. The incident demonstrated that even a single technical failure can cause serious disruption to the global transport system. It also highlighted how heavily modern world trade depends on the smooth functioning of a few critical maritime chokepoints.

Today, the Red Sea region also lies in the shadow of broader geopolitical tensions across the Middle East. Conflicts in this part of the world are increasingly multi-layered and rarely limited to direct confrontations between states. Alongside regular armies, a wide range of armed organisations, militias, and political groups operate there, often linked to wider regional power dynamics. As a result, it is difficult to speak of a single conflict; rather, it is a complex web of overlapping tensions stretching across both the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf. Conflicts of this kind are particularly difficult to resolve through a single intervention or agreement.

From the perspective of global logistics, this means that one of the world’s most important trade routes runs through a region that remains unstable. Piracy, the activities of armed groups, infrastructure incidents, and tensions between states can all affect the safety of shipping at any moment. As a result, shipping lines and logistics companies are increasingly treating the Red Sea not as a temporary problem, but as a permanent source of risk within the global transport system.

The Red Sea Route

Although public discussion often refers simply to the route through the Suez Canal, in reality it is an entire system of interconnected seas and narrow maritime passages that together form one of the most important transport corridors in the modern world. A vast share of trade between Asia and Europe moves along this route – from containers carrying electronics and clothing to industrial components and energy resources.

Ships departing from East Asian ports – such as Shanghai, Shenzhen, Ningbo, or Singapore – first pass through the South China Sea and the Strait of Malacca into the Indian Ocean. They then sail along the southern edge of Asia towards the Arabian Peninsula and East Africa. At this stage of the journey, they approach one of the key chokepoints of the entire system – the Bab el-Mandeb Strait.

The Bab el-Mandeb Strait connects the Gulf of Aden, which forms part of the Indian Ocean, with the Red Sea. It is a narrow passage between the Arabian Peninsula and Africa. The northern shore lies along Yemen, while Djibouti and Eritrea sit on the southern side. After passing through the strait, ships enter the Red Sea – a relatively long and narrow body of water stretching between Africa and the Arabian Peninsula. At the northern end of the Red Sea lies the Suez Canal. This artificial canal in Egypt links the Red Sea with the Mediterranean. When it was opened in the 19th century, it dramatically shortened the sea route between Europe and Asia. Thanks to it, ships can sail directly from the Indian Ocean into the Mediterranean basin and then head towards ports in southern Europe – such as Piraeus, Gioia Tauro, or Valencia – or continue further to the major ports of northern Europe, including Rotterdam, Antwerp, and Hamburg.

The importance of this transport corridor is best illustrated by the scale of ship traffic. Tens of thousands of vessels pass through the Suez Canal each year. In practice, this means that several dozen ships transit the canal every single day – including large container vessels, tankers, and ships carrying a wide range of bulk cargoes. It is estimated that around 10–15% of global maritime trade moves through the Suez Canal, and in container shipping the share is even higher.

The entire Asia–Europe route through the Red Sea can therefore be seen as a system of several successive transport gateways. Each of these elements also represents a potential point of vulnerability for global transport. Disruption to shipping at any of them – whether caused by conflict, a technical incident, or security threats – can immediately affect trade flows between Asia and Europe.

Maritime Freight, Transit Time, and the Risk of Disruption on the Asia–Europe Route

The importance of the route through the Red Sea and the Suez Canal does not stem solely from its geographical position. Equally important are the economic consequences that arise when this connection is disrupted. Modern maritime transport forms the backbone of global trade, yet it is highly sensitive to changes in shipping security, route length, and delivery times. Each of these factors directly affects transport costs and the functioning of supply chains.

One of the first areas affected by disruptions along the Suez route is maritime freight rates. Maritime freight refers to the cost of transporting cargo by ship – most often calculated for a container or for a specific quantity of goods. In theory, maritime transport remains the cheapest way to move goods over long distances. In practice, however, freight rates are highly sensitive to geopolitical conditions and disruptions in transport. If risks emerge in a key region such as the Red Sea, shipping companies must include additional costs in their calculations. These may include higher insurance premiums, the need to implement vessel protection measures, as well as the risk of delays during voyages. In the past, regions affected by piracy also saw cases of ships being hijacked and large ransoms demanded for the release of crews and cargo. Although such incidents occur less frequently today than they did fifteen years ago, the mere possibility of them still affects how transport companies and insurers assess risk.

The second key factor is transit time. The route through the Suez Canal is the shortest connection between Asia and Europe. However, if shipping companies consider passage through the Red Sea too risky, vessels may be redirected along an alternative route around Africa – via the Cape of Good Hope. Such a decision has very concrete logistical consequences. Sailing around Africa means extending the journey between Asia and Europe by several thousand kilometres. In practice, the voyage may become longer by well over a week. For shipping lines, this primarily means higher fuel consumption and the need to keep vessels deployed for longer within a single transport cycle. As a result, the operational costs of the entire transport process increase.

A longer journey time has consequences not only for shipping lines but also for companies that rely on maritime transport. In global supply chains, an important concept is inventory in transit. This refers to the value of goods that are currently being transported between the producer and the buyer. If transport takes longer, the goods cannot be used in production or sold. The capital invested in them remains tied up in cargo that is still at sea. The higher the unit value of the goods being transported, the greater the economic importance of reducing transport time. In the case of high-value goods – such as electronics, industrial components, or automotive parts – extending transport by several days can have a real impact on companies’ operating costs.

In practice, disruptions along the route through the Red Sea and the Suez Canal can trigger a domino effect across the entire logistics system serving trade between Asia and Europe. Rising freight rates, longer transit times, and increased security risks mean that companies must adjust delivery schedules, inventory planning, and the organisation of transport along this route.

The New Silk Road and the Asia–Europe Rail Connection

A project that has gained increasing attention over the past decade and a half in discussions about trade between Asia and Europe is the so-called New Silk Road. This initiative was launched by China as part of a broader economic and infrastructure strategy known as the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Its objective is to develop networks of transport and logistics connections linking the Chinese economy with markets across Eurasia, the Middle East, and Europe. From the outset, China’s policy towards this project has been highly proactive. The Chinese state has invested in the development of railway infrastructure, logistics terminals, and transport connections along the entire route from China through Central Asia to Europe. The project has been supported both through infrastructure investment and through various financial mechanisms designed to increase the attractiveness of transport along this corridor.

Within the Belt and Road Initiative, several different variants of transport routes have emerged. Some of them are maritime and run through the Indian Ocean and the Red Sea. There are also land-based variants that cross the Eurasian continent. From the perspective of transport between China and Europe, the rail corridor is particularly important, as it enables the direct movement of goods between these regions by land. The main rail connections run from central and western regions of China through Kazakhstan, Russia, and Belarus to Central Europe. One of the key points along this route is the transhipment hub in Małaszewicze on Poland’s eastern border. It is there that a large share of rail transport from China enters the territory of the European Union.

One of the key characteristics of this connection is transit time. Freight trains operating between China and Europe usually cover this route in around 12–18 days, depending on the specific route and operational conditions. By comparison, maritime transport between Chinese ports and Europe typically takes between four and six weeks. This means that Eurasian rail transport allows goods to be delivered between these two regions significantly faster. However, rail transport cannot replace maritime transport in terms of the scale of shipments. Its role lies rather in handling part of the cargo that is more sensitive to delivery time.

At the same time, this route runs through regions of considerable geopolitical importance. The situation of this corridor changed markedly after the outbreak of the war in Ukraine in 2022. In the initial phase of the conflict, some logistics companies and transport operators began limiting the use of rail connections running through Russia and Belarus. This was primarily due to political uncertainty, concerns about sanctions, and the overall unpredictability of the situation in the region. As a result, in the first months after the start of the war, traffic along this route declined significantly and at one point fell to only around 10–15% of its previous transport volume. In public debate, there were even proposals to reduce the importance of rail routes passing through Russia and Belarus within the European transport system. The corridor, however, did not come to a complete halt. After the initial decline, rail transport gradually began to recover.

In the case of the New Silk Road, the key factor is above all trade between China and Europe, rather than the broader trade between Asia as a whole and Europe. It is also worth noting China’s recently announced new five-year plan. Increasingly, it points towards a shift away from a model based on the production of low-cost consumer goods and towards the production of goods with higher technological value. This implies a greater share of advanced industrial components, electronics, and technological products in Chinese exports, which – due to their higher unit value – are more sensitive to transport time and the cost of inventory in transit. This may further reinforce the trend of relocating the lowest-cost production from China to other countries in the region, such as Vietnam, Bangladesh, or India. In their case, maritime transport will most likely remain the dominant way of moving goods to Europe. China, by contrast, may continue to use the rail alternative, especially since Beijing possesses significant political and economic leverage that may help sustain the functioning of this transport corridor.

Publicly available data suggests that the current volume of traffic on the China–Europe rail corridor is around 2 million TEU per year. It is more difficult to indicate a single official figure for its maximum capacity, because this is not a single railway line but a system of several routes and terminals. It can nevertheless be assumed that the potential capacity of the corridor before it enters the European Union is higher than the current transport volume and, with further infrastructure development, could reach several million TEU annually. Infrastructure development plans in Małaszewicze (Poland) envisage capacity of around 500,000 TEU per year, although more ambitious logistics scenarios suggest that, with further expansion of terminals and improvements in traffic organisation, it could approach around 1 million TEU. The key question, however, concerns not only the terminal itself but also the capacity of Poland’s railway infrastructure, which would need to handle the onward transit of containers deeper into Europe. Container trade between China and Europe is currently estimated at around 20–25 million TEU per year. This means that even with capacity of about 1 million TEU, the Eurasian rail corridor would handle only a few percent of transport on this route, although its role in the overall structure of China–Europe transport could gradually grow if volumes continue to increase.

Are There Other Alternatives for Transport Between China and Europe?

Apart from the maritime route through the Suez Canal and the northern rail corridor running through Russia and Belarus, other transport concepts linking China with Europe have also emerged. The most frequently mentioned alternative is the so-called Middle Corridor – a central transport route running through Central Asia, the Caucasus, and Turkey. In recent years, it has appeared increasingly often in logistics analyses as a potential route that could partially reduce the dependence of trade between Asia and Europe on corridors passing through Russia.

The Middle Corridor runs from western China through Kazakhstan, then across the Caspian Sea to Azerbaijan, and further through Georgia and Turkey to Europe. Unlike the northern rail route, however, it is not a single continuous railway corridor. Transport along this route operates in a mixed system – rail and maritime – because containers must be transhipped in ports on the Caspian Sea. This means additional logistics operations that extend transit times and increase costs. A second limitation of this route is infrastructure. Ports on the Caspian Sea and the railway network in the Caucasus region have significantly lower capacity than the northern Eurasian corridor. In practice, this means that the Middle Corridor may serve as a complementary route to other transport corridors, but for now its ability to handle very large cargo volumes remains limited.

An important factor is also the geopolitical situation in the region. This corridor runs through areas where political tensions and conflicts have occurred in recent years, particularly in the Caucasus and parts of the Middle East. In practice, this means that this transport option is not entirely free from risks associated with political instability.

Another variant that appears in logistics analyses is a corridor running through Ukraine, including the use of the broad-gauge LHS line reaching the terminal in Sławków. Under current conditions, however, its use is practically impossible due to the ongoing Russian–Ukrainian war, which has completely destabilised transport operations along this route. In some infrastructure concepts, this solution is considered as part of a broader transport system linked to the Middle Corridor, but its real significance could emerge only after the end of the conflict and the reconstruction of Ukraine’s transport infrastructure.

An important element of the northern transport system linking Asia and Europe is the Trans-Siberian Railway. For many years it served as the main land corridor connecting the Far East with Europe and formed a key part of the so-called Northern Eurasian Land Bridge. In practice, it was along this route that the first regular container services between China and Europe began to develop, even before the concept of the New Silk Road became widely recognised.

Over time, the role of this connection began to be taken over by new logistics corridors developed as part of China’s infrastructure initiatives, most notably the corridor running through Kazakhstan, Russia, and Belarus to transhipment terminals at the border of the European Union, particularly in the Małaszewicze area (Poland). However, after the outbreak of the Russian–Ukrainian war, the situation of these connections changed significantly. Transport between the transhipment hub near Moscow and the European Union declined markedly, which is visible in both rail and road traffic. At present, the role of the Trans-Siberian Railway in trade between China and Europe has clearly weakened. The line remains an important transport corridor, but it is increasingly used primarily for trade between Russia and China, as well as for the transport of raw materials and goods directed to Asian markets.

In the longer term, transport analyses point to another potential alternative – the so-called Northern Sea Route along the Arctic coastline. As Arctic ice continues to melt, the possibility of using this route as a shortened maritime connection between Asia and Europe is increasingly being considered. This results from the shape of the Earth itself: on flat maps the distances may appear similar, but in reality the Arctic route between Asia and Europe is significantly shorter. For example, a voyage from ports in eastern China to Northern Europe via the Suez Canal is around 20,000 km, whereas the Northern Sea Route could shorten this distance by roughly 30–40%, or about 6,000–8,000 km.

What Next for Trade Between Asia and Europe?

In a scenario of a full-scale conflict in the Middle East that led to a prolonged disruption of shipping through the Red Sea and the Suez Canal, the consequences for trade between Asia and Europe would be multi-dimensional. First of all, a large share of maritime transport would have to be redirected around the Cape of Good Hope. In practice, this means higher fuel consumption, longer utilisation of vessels within a single transport cycle, and the need to deploy a greater number of ships to maintain the same services, which usually leads to higher freight rates. Longer transit times also increase the cost of inventory in transit. In such a situation, part of the cost advantage of production in distant regions of Asia could begin to diminish, as the growing share of transport costs and delivery time affects the final price of goods. As a result, the prices of goods arriving from Asia to the European market could become more sensitive to changes in transport costs than during periods of stable shipping. This would be particularly relevant for products with higher unit value and for industrial components, where both transit time and the cost of inventory in transit play an important role in companies’ calculations.

In such a situation, the importance of alternative transport corridors could increase. A larger share of Chinese cargo – particularly shipments that are more sensitive to delivery time – could be redirected to the Eurasian rail corridor linking China with Europe through Russia and Belarus. In such a scenario, however, the key factor would be the geopolitical situation and the agreements between China and Russia ensuring the stable operation of this corridor.

It is also worth considering another scenario. If the disruptions currently affecting Asia–Europe trade routes were to persist over the longer term, companies might begin searching not only for alternative transport routes but also for different production locations. In such a situation, the trend already visible in recent years towards so-called nearshoring – relocating parts of production closer to end markets – could strengthen further. From the perspective of the European economy, this would mean a gradual shift of some manufacturing from distant regions of Asia to countries closer to Europe, as well as to Europe itself. Shorter supply chains would make companies less vulnerable to transport disruptions and reduce the risks associated with long and unstable logistics routes. In this sense, changes in international transport could become one of the factors accelerating broader shifts in the geography of production. Another possible alternative would be to reduce Europe’s current level of consumer excess – but that is a subject for another article.