Mecca captured by Christians

How would Islam react if Mecca was captured by a Christian army sometime post-1000? Would there be any difference in the Islam reaction if the Byzantine Empire took it compared to Latin crusaders?
 
I suppose the main question is what the conquerors do once they have it. This used to be a popular Medieval Apocalypse Now scenario in the lonmg shadow of 9/11, by the way. A Search will produce a long series of "ZOMG the Crusaders take the magic black stone and Islam collapses" stories, it's quite depressing.
 
I suppose the main question is what the conquerors do once they have it. This used to be a popular Medieval Apocalypse Now scenario in the lonmg shadow of 9/11, by the way. A Search will produce a long series of "ZOMG the Crusaders take the magic black stone and Islam collapses" stories, it's quite depressing.
Which is pretty damned unlikely. The Black Stone was stolen OTL anyway by the Qarmatians, so it isn't going to collapse Islam, especially if many Muslims will never even find out about the event, which is probably what will happen in an age with poor communications. It seems that in order to get a large effect from a Christian seizure of Makkah, the POD has to be closer to the present. Or very close to the foundation of Islam.
 
Anyway, how could they take Mecca? They didn't have enough men to protect the Levantine states, so i doubt they would have enough men to control the land between Jerusalem and Mecca.
 
Anyway, how could they take Mecca? They didn't have enough men to protect the Levantine states, so i doubt they would have enough men to control the land between Jerusalem and Mecca.

Maybe a powerful Ethiopian state could launch such an attack. Though the Ethiopians would have no reason to hold any part of the Hejaz after sacking the city and gaining a favorable peace. Timing would be an issue as well.
 
Maybe a powerful Ethiopian state could launch such an attack. Though the Ethiopians would have no reason to hold any part of the Hejaz after sacking the city and gaining a favorable peace. Timing would be an issue as well.

I think the right sentence would be an "actual ethiopian state", because Crusade happen right in the same time of very trouble times in Abyssinia. So you'll maybe need the Aksumite kingdom never falling as a start, but it would be still a declining kingdom, a weak state open to invasions more than able to launch ones.

In fact, we have no great knowledge about it, except about an or many invasions, religious conflicts and the "Ethiopian Dark Ages".

Admitting that not only an Ethiopian state is still there at this period but it's a powerful one : it would have probably more interest to protect himself against piracy and his neighbors rather than making a move that is basically a strategic suicide.
 
Reynald de Chatillon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raynald_of_Ch%C3%A2tillon

This guy very almost did it. He gathered a huge mercenary navy on the Red Sea with just the intention of sacking Mecca, desecrating the holy sites and ransoming holy relics of Islam when Mecca was defenceless.

There was a thread on that very subject here ages ago that came to the conlusion that the subsequent violent anti-Christian backlash would throw them out of the Holy Lands alot sooner.
 
Well, Renault de Chatillon was considered as a crazy bastard, even by the crusaders and the Levantine Latins.

He could have threatened Mecca, by demanding a ransom for not attacking the city.
But he didn't have the forces or the resources to effectively doing it.
And, frankly, Renault was too impulsive, too brutal to fulfill the plan correctly.

But even if he did so (admitting that both lack of caution and lack of men didn't avoid it), raiding a city it is not capturing it.

EDIT : Now, a plausible raid could be done by the king of Jerusalem himself, but it's only a technical possibility. Strategically, diplomatically,etc. it makes no sense at all, and would only threaten an attack from Saladin far merciless than OTL.
 
Last edited:
According to this thread Mecca was virtually defenceless if Reynauld managed to attack it so just him and his mercenaries are more likely to succed than you think. Why only threaten to attack the city if you loot it and threaten to destroy their holiest relics from the safety of Krak de Chevialiers as was his plan. Standing outside it would only give them time to gather a defence force.

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=113771&highlight=mecca+chatillon
 
According to this thread Mecca was virtually defenceless if Reynauld managed to attack it so just him and his mercenaries are more likely to succed than you think.

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=113771&highlight=mecca+chatillon

According to Clauda Cahen, Renault didn't have enough men for both using his pirate fleet and controlling a city in the same time.

It's basically why he almost only ransomed or pirated ships, because he couldn't do anything else. If he thought otherwise, and if we tought otherwise it's because it was at the edge of homicidal insanity.
I mean, this guy had a really high opinion of himself, but he didn't have enough men : simple as that.

So threatening the city it's a bluff that could have worked. Plunder it in a quick attack-and-retreat is still plausible (and by that i mean an attack made in less than one day, in order to avoid eventual counter-attacks that could stuck him on land, or even marine attacks), but his fleet would have issues. Controlling it with the ressources he had is ASB.
 
I will concede that he more than likely didnt have enough men to carry out his insane plan, but an attack, a failed attack or even a threat of an attack is bound to have dire consequences. If a vocal enemy of your faith who has support of a local foreign power, no matter how tenuous, the Islamic religious fundamentalists as well as many other muslims are not going to take it well.

A crusader attack is unlikely, a Byzantine, post 1000 attack, probably even less so. What do they have to gain but utter hate directed them?
 

WeisSaul

Banned
Well the Crusades were initially launched in "christian brotherhood" which is a riot to me considering how that never really existed between the two sects. If the Byzantines, Catholics, and Ethiopians were to come together with a nicely sized army of mercenaries it could theoretically be possible assuming that the general consensus in this thread holds to be true.

But what is the big gain from taking the rock? I doubt a Christian Kingdom of Mecca would last very long, and the Muslims would be pretty pissed if anything happened to their sacred city. Saladin would be absolutely ruthless compared to how he was in OTL. Though it might inspire a few more knights to join the Christian forces.
 
Well the Crusades were initially launched in "christian brotherhood" which is a riot to me considering how that never really existed between the two sects.
You should judge the western/bizantine relation's history as they were before 1204. Not only the contacts were frequents but they were relatively correct if not goods, at least, as good it could be between two different medieval cultures.

So, yeah, religious fervor and desire to help orientals christians played a really important role in the First Crusade, mixed with a desire of glory, of strengthening his rank, and conquest of new lands.
Again, the oriental christians while being far more distinct from latin christianity than orthodox church were well treated by the crusader and their descendents.
For the "greeks"...Well, its different indeed. While the desire to prevent Rhomanoi to be invaded was present, the Byzantine Empire had its own policies, not really incline to say to the crusaders "hey, help yourselves! We don't really want these lands anyway".

As the orthodox church was mainly a tool of imperial diplomacy, it was not well saw by Latins, after the crusade.

But, i insist, before 1204 and the prise of Constantinople, Catholics and orthodox still saw themselves as two distinct parts of a same Christianity.

If the Byzantines, Catholics, and Ethiopians were to come together with a nicely sized army of mercenaries it could theoretically be possible assuming that the general consensus in this thread holds to be true.

1)The idea of Crusade is totally stranger to the orthodox byzantine mind. No, really. What the Byzantine Empire wanted was to protect its borders, without a real religious goal.

2)Again, Ethiopians weren't in the capacity of doing anything. They probably didn't had an united kingdom at the time of the firsts crusades. So planning an invasion (after having stopped the Islamic piracy at their coasts, strengthen their borders against neighbors) is unlikely, not even talking about making it.

3)A combined action of three powers with different, when not opposites goals? It's not because they were all Christians that they feel themselves forced to collaborate, the history of Crusades show that quite well.
 
To further develop at least the Byzantines conquer Mecca scenario, how does this sound? The Byzantines are able to revive and conquer the Levant, but annoyed by raiders from Arabia, invades the Hedjaz, capturing Mecca to create a pliant client kingdom. How would Islam react to that? A Byzantine army has ransacked Mecca (and probably Medina too on the way there) and set up a puppet (who would be a Muslim but loyal to Constantinople) over the two holiest cities in Islam.
 
To further develop at least the Byzantines conquer Mecca scenario, how does this sound? The Byzantines are able to revive and conquer the Levant, but annoyed by raiders from Arabia, invades the Hedjaz, capturing Mecca to create a pliant client kingdom. How would Islam react to that? A Byzantine army has ransacked Mecca (and probably Medina too on the way there) and set up a puppet (who would be a Muslim but loyal to Constantinople) over the two holiest cities in Islam.

That's probably the least-bad possibility.

As I understand it, the issue is primarily about the infidels in the cities. A Muslim vassal, even over the Hedjaz, to the Empire isn't that big a deal.

But ransacking Mecca and Medina is going to inspire a good deal of "We want revenge".
 
To further develop at least the Byzantines conquer Mecca scenario, how does this sound? The Byzantines are able to revive and conquer the Levant, but annoyed by raiders from Arabia, invades the Hedjaz, capturing Mecca to create a pliant client kingdom.
Well...Depends of when it's happening. Are we still talking about Crusader's era? If so, i think it would be rather implausible, because of the lack of resources and because even if Byzance manages to take back Levant thanks to Crusaders, they'll pose many issues. Too much to plan an invasion of Hedjaz.


How would Islam react to that? A Byzantine army has ransacked Mecca (and probably Medina too on the way there) and set up a puppet (who would be a Muslim but loyal to Constantinople) over the two holiest cities in Islam.

In order to keep control of Hejaz and Mecca, the Byzantines need a fleet in the Red Sea. Admitting they have taken Eliat and Aqaba, and they have enough time to built a fleet here, i'm not sure about a Fatimid Egypt to allow it without sending its own fleet. I mean, there's a reason if Hejaz was the last possession of Fatimids outside Egypt to fall.
 
I could only really see it happening after/as part of a greater massed christian victory- a christian conquest of Egypt or somesuch ofr instance.
And of course the effects of that would be pretty darn huge on their own before we even get to Mecca.
 
Top