Go Back   Alternate History Discussion Board > Discussion > Alternate History Discussion: Before 1900

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 29th, 2010, 06:14 AM
kasumigenx kasumigenx is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Occupied Selurong
Posts: 1000 or more
Send a message via Yahoo to kasumigenx
The crusaders sack and invade mecca

What are the consequences?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old March 29th, 2010, 06:15 AM
Germaniac Germaniac is online now
Live from a Library Cubicle
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Atheocracy of New Jersey
Posts: 851
a. When is this done
b. Shouldn't it be invade, then sack
c. who leads this invasion
d. where is it launched from
e. what entails this "sacking"
__________________
Dear Brother, I do not spread rumors, I create them.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old March 29th, 2010, 06:19 AM
orangnumpanglewat orangnumpanglewat is offline
Proletariat Capitalist
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Rotterdam, Pulau Pringgi
Posts: 197
The crusades can't even stray far away from the Mediterranean
How are they going to reach Mecca?

Wait, did the Europeans even know of a Mecca? (To lazy to research )
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old March 29th, 2010, 06:29 AM
August Akuma August Akuma is offline
CFC Refugee
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by orangnumpanglewat View Post
The crusades can't even stray far away from the Mediterranean
How are they going to reach Mecca?

Wait, did the Europeans even know of a Mecca? (To lazy to research )
Whether or not they did isn't important because I doubt they could reach it.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by miocid View Post
I know this is off topic but how do i start a thread?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCliche View Post
That is the most incredibly, bizarrely off-topic thing I have ever read in my life.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old March 29th, 2010, 06:31 AM
Noravea Noravea is offline
National Republican
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Long Island, New York
Posts: 1000 or more
In the earlier crusades maybe they can reach Mecca.

If it does happen, Muslims will hate Christians even more, leading to more modern day violence.

Or, Muslims believe that Allah does not believe in them and they all convert back to Christianity.
__________________
Read the Turtledove Award Winning Story
The Dawn of a System: Redux
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old March 29th, 2010, 06:40 AM
Cook Cook is offline
Duck!
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Hell (the cold part)
Posts: 1000 or more
There’s a problem there with motivation.

The Crusades were conducted to liberate the Holy Land and Jerusalem. There were no further offensives east and south because their objective was access to Jerusalem.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Georgepatton View Post
Operation Seacamel?!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollis Hurlbut View Post
like Truman dropping the atomic bomb on Judy Garland.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beedok View Post
Dead folks tend to mail it in. They're pretty lazy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalBear View Post
A wee small Sealion
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old March 29th, 2010, 07:08 AM
Riain Riain is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1000 or more
Raynald of Chatillion went for a cruise in the Red Sea mainly for piracy but to also threaten Mecca and Medina.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old March 29th, 2010, 07:09 AM
orangnumpanglewat orangnumpanglewat is offline
Proletariat Capitalist
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Rotterdam, Pulau Pringgi
Posts: 197
Agree with Cook

And even if they reached Arabia, they'll just get lost, no water, and died right off
So there would "only" be hatred
If they can stray off their little pond
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old March 29th, 2010, 09:13 AM
Max Sinister Max Sinister is offline
Retired Myriad Club Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Chaos TL
Posts: 1000 or more
Once the crusaders took Alexandria. But I admit, there's still some way to Mecca. And even the most fanatical crusaders should be aware that the sack of Mecca would have repercussions (understatement).
__________________
Finished: Chaos TL - Genghis Khan dies in 1200
Timeline, Scenario, Stories!
Hitler's Med Strategy
Jaredia: A tilted Earth (NOW: 4000 BCE)
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old March 29th, 2010, 09:39 AM
Monty Burns Monty Burns is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Sinister View Post
Once the crusaders took Alexandria. But I admit, there's still some way to Mecca.
I'd say they'd need to secure upper Egypt, Sinai and Akaba, to have a secure access to the red sea, as I can imagine an attack to Mecca only by landing as close as possible by sea. After all, there should be some harbours for the pilgrims.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Sinister View Post
And even the most fanatical crusaders should be aware that the sack of Mecca would have repercussions (understatement).
Well, true. But whereas these repercussions should stop rational crusaders, fanatical crusaders won't. In fact, it's rather typical for fanatics to try to destroy the enemies holy places.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old March 29th, 2010, 09:58 AM
SenatorChickpea SenatorChickpea is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 249
Well if Reynaud I'm-A-Prick-Even-By-Crusader-Standards of Chatillon has more success with his attempted raid on Mecca, I imagine that one of the immediate consequences will be a huge shakeup in Salah-al-Din's court.
He consciously cultivated the image of himself as a pious Jihadi, but proceeded largely at his own pace. That kind of provocation would force his hand, lest he be deposed by more radical elements- or at least by people who claim to be more devout.

There will be far fewer Franks in Jerusalem within decades than there are in our timeline. I'd be very surprised if they're still there in time for Baybars to have his second great claim to fame.

What else... the Mongols will be remembered differently by Western Europe due to less direct diplomatic contact in the Near East. The Mamluks might have a different rise to power in Egypt. The third crusade will happen, but will likely be far less successful; I doubt the Fourth Crusade will occur at all which means no 1204 sack of Constantinople.

That means different course of Venetian art and culture, meaning the visual landscape of the coming centuries will be very different. If he becomes pope, Innocent III will also be remembered differently.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old March 29th, 2010, 09:58 AM
Nusantara Nusantara is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 362
But why? The whole purpose of the Crusades is to drive the Muslims off the Holy Land (well, the Christian Holy Land), and that's not anywhere near Mecca. I mean, if it's hundreds of miles away.

Oh the mind's of the western-centric. (sigh)
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old March 29th, 2010, 10:19 AM
SenatorChickpea SenatorChickpea is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nusantara View Post
But why? The whole purpose of the Crusades is to drive the Muslims off the Holy Land (well, the Christian Holy Land), and that's not anywhere near Mecca. I mean, if it's hundreds of miles away.

Oh the mind's of the western-centric. (sigh)
Yes I know it doesn't make sense- but my point is at least one Crusader tried to set events in motion that would allow him to raid Mecca.


I realize it's monumentally stupid, but let's face it: the Crusaders weren't exactly known for strategic genius, were they? *cough* Second Crusade *cough.*
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old March 29th, 2010, 10:36 AM
orangnumpanglewat orangnumpanglewat is offline
Proletariat Capitalist
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Rotterdam, Pulau Pringgi
Posts: 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenatorChickpea View Post
I realize it's monumentally stupid, but let's face it: the Crusaders weren't exactly known for strategic genius, were they? *cough* Second Crusade *cough.*
And not to mention easily distracted *cough* Fourth Crusade *cough*
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old March 29th, 2010, 11:04 AM
carlton_bach carlton_bach is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Altona, Occupied Denmark
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nusantara View Post
But why? The whole purpose of the Crusades is to drive the Muslims off the Holy Land (well, the Christian Holy Land), and that's not anywhere near Mecca. I mean, if it's hundreds of miles away.

Oh the mind's of the western-centric. (sigh)
Actually, it does make sense from a certain perspective. The crusader states' society was warlike and extremely competitive, and for a nobleman to claim thatfeather in his cap would be an enormoius prestigegain. Of course it contraenes the original stated intent, but they did that all the time, and the incidences of porrly thought-out acts with negatiove consequences ifor the cruisaders is too long to list. Much like Saracen pirates invested Rome in the 9th century, Latin ships might make a move for Mca in the twelfth. Success would be an extremely long shot, but again, there's precedent. Even poorly organised armies, if properly motivated, could achieve impressivbe results in the face of relatively poor defenses through most of the Western world at the time.

As to consequences - it's not going to be too nice, but it's also likely to be transient. Mecca got sacked, as did Rome, but it didn't result in centuries of blood hatred.
__________________
Auframmte der Schmied mit einem Schlag,
Das Tor, das er fronend erschaffen.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old March 29th, 2010, 11:27 AM
Tyr Tyr is offline
cobras everywhere
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ださいたま
Posts: 1000 or more
Send a message via MSN to Tyr
It would need to be post-conquest of Egypt and the Levant as part of a greater attack against enemies threatening their territory.
So pretty much after the muslims are already rather beaten.
__________________
████████████
████████████
████████████
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old March 29th, 2010, 01:12 PM
Cash Cash is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 878
A Crusader sack of Mecca and/or Medina could set in motion long-term (I'm thinking centuries, even) efforts at retribution, an Islamic Crusade to sack Rome, for example. Mecca especially carries such heavy religious significance that some sort of revenge, even if it took 100 years or more, would be considered a duty.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old March 29th, 2010, 01:32 PM
lonewulf44 lonewulf44 is offline
Ense et Aratro
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 359
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cash View Post
A Crusader sack of Mecca and/or Medina could set in motion long-term (I'm thinking centuries, even) efforts at retribution, an Islamic Crusade to sack Rome, for example. Mecca especially carries such heavy religious significance that some sort of revenge, even if it took 100 years or more, would be considered a duty.

I think there would be a lot of internal confusion with Islam as well. I'm assuming that any sack of Mecca would involve the desolation of the Kabba and the robbing of the 'black stone' or something of the like. Wherever that stone goes, I can see the focus of some kind of Islamic crusade. Mecca being the focal point because of the kabba and the stone allows for Islam to have a very important unifying element. Without the kabba and stone in a specific point and acting as some kind of holy core; could we see a much more split and denominational Islamic faith?
__________________
Long Live Prussia!

Setzen wir Deutschland, so zu sagen, in den Sattel! Reiten wird es schon können ~ OVB

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ!
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old March 29th, 2010, 02:16 PM
Monty Burns Monty Burns is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nusantara View Post
But why? The whole purpose of the Crusades is to drive the Muslims off the Holy Land (well, the Christian Holy Land), and that's not anywhere near Mecca.
True.

Nevertheless, there were plenty of crusaders to whom free access to Jerusalem was not sufficient, but who wanted to beat/destroy the heathens. That is religious fanatism can provide incentives for pretty much any dumb plan.

Another point would be looting: what could you actually loot in Mecca? And more important: what did the crusaders back then think they could carry away from Mecca?

And finally: We can be damn sure that we'd know up to today the names of those who raided Mecca. We probably won't be that fond of them, but anyway, we'd still know their names...
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old March 29th, 2010, 07:57 PM
corditeman corditeman is online now
Corditeman
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Dalbeattie, Scotland
Posts: 1000 or more
Cool This is 'what if', remember? Let's see what happens...

Getting into the Red Sea with an army is tough enough - Pharaoh Necho's old canal was, I understand, blocked even by the end of the Roman era. You would need to portage ships across from Port Said to Suez and get them and a well-armed force down the Red Sea to Jeddah (the port for Mecca). Assume a relatively-unopposed landing, your force would then have to cross about 70 miles of desert and semi-desert before besieging or taking Mecca. Hostile terrain in physical terma as well as in the face of pilgrims ready to die to reach the virgin houris in Paradise.

Lots of assumptions piling up here already!

Ok, so you have breached the walls, fought through to the Great Mosque and reached the Ka'aba. That will probably mean literally hewing a way through hundreds of human beings. The priests might try to remove the Black Stone, but you foresaw that and now have seized it.

The stone may be a meteorite, but whatever it is, what will you do to it? Burning or smashing it may not be much good (if it's an iron or stony-iron meteorite, a tough nut to crack). So you take it and any wealth you can lay your hands on, get back to Jeddah and get back on your ships, probably with fewer men (assuming that the pilgrims haven't managed to storm the ships before you return).

What to do with the Sacred Stone? You've managed to thoroughly anger every Muslim from Iberia to Indonesia and from Zanzibar north to Syria. Take it to Rome? No, the Holy Father would regard it as pollution. Take it to Jerusalem? Forget that, Temple Mount is holy enough as it is. Dump it anywhere on land? Again, too much risk of recovery. You dump it either in the Red Sea or halfway between Alexandria and Crete, out of reach of the hordes of Islam. The plunder has to be melted down (the arabic inscriptions make it too clear what it is, otherwise) and split up. So must your army, returning to where they came from in secret, lest the priests of the Ka'aba find them all and kill them.

An unlikely enterprise, therefore, and of little profit. As indicated, it might lead to a Jihad against Rome.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.