Of course, again, there’s no reason for Islam to “slingshot” into greater success somewhere else, unless it’s directly tied to population movements as a result of the Christian conquests. Why would Muslims be interested in going down the African coast? Muslims fleeing the Christian invasions would probably be more interested in moving to wealthier Asia IMO. That could lead to a stronger Muslim presence in India, though.
And All Nations Shall Gather To It - Volume I: The Abode of Peace
- Thread starter Ricard (i.e. Rdffigueira)
- Start date
jocay
Banned
Because Muslims have been present in the Swahili Coast since the 9th century. Swahili and Arab slave hunters would travel hundreds of miles deep into what's now the eastern reaches of the Democratic Republic of Congo for Bantu slaves whom would be sold and sent to the Middle East, India, etc.
Yeah everyone seems to be forgetting the fact that 1) it’s not easy to reach and 2) that every Muslim would lose their shit if it was taken and defiled. Which includes the many Muslims in the coastal cities where all of the KoJs money comes from.
After checking, Muslim Slave hunters only reached the Lakes in the early 19th century.
well-that a completely different scenario than just raiding Mecca which even then can mean different things to different people. First if the crusaders have the capability and resources to take Mecca and hold it then hats off to them. Second the late the crusader are probably a very large force at this point and powerful enough to do this. So this is far off in the future.
So let say the crusader take Mecca and then decide to be idiots and do all of the above. Then yah most of the areas near enough to them jihad or just delcare war if it after 1600s and there are gonna be hundred thousadn of revolts all across your terriotry sooo great job guys ohh and you lost a lot of revenue now.
also all this talk of muslim expansion doean't make much sense why would muslim suddenly to quick and massive expasnion into a intioer filled with tons of hostile tribes and you have to walk on foot. plus dieases Also there no more reason for the locals to convert then otl.
Didn't the Qarmarians sack Mecca without much consequence? Granted, they're probably better equipped for desert raids, and was smart enough to ransom the Black Stone rather than smash it, but desecrating the Zamzam well with slain pilgrims isn't exactly insignificant either.
The Qarmatians were an Arab state-movement with access to the Persian Gulf slave trade and pilgrimage routes; we know that the Crusaders will be exhausted for manpower after this war, and even if we are talking decades down the line, Mecca (and indeed the Red Sea) are far from and inaccessible to their main allies in Latin and Roman Europe, on whom they depend for auxiliary manpower.
The Qarmatians also had local Muslim support in parts of Arabia that were Shiite then and are partially if not wholly Shiite today; the Crusaders are foreign, idolatrous conquerors imposing a wholly alien regime on the Middle East. It'd be as humiliatin as Hulagu's sack of Baghdad and even more sacrilegious.
The Qarmatians also had local Muslim support in parts of Arabia that were Shiite then and are partially if not wholly Shiite today; the Crusaders are foreign, idolatrous conquerors imposing a wholly alien regime on the Middle East. It'd be as humiliatin as Hulagu's sack of Baghdad and even more sacrilegious.
But IF the crusaders have the power to seriously attack Mecca, their being ensconced in power in the region won't be too different to the Qarmatians - after attacking Mecca they certainly weren't loved, but they were powerful enough that noone dared (for a bit) to strike back for it. If the crusaders hold the Levant and Egypt, and presumably some strongpoints in northern Arabia to be able to attack Mecca in the first place, it will also seem a daunting task to take them down... especially if, as seems likely, there have been several 'coalition-like' attempts to take them down already which failed.
And Hulagu's humiliation mostly, again, seems to have caused shock - 'how could this happen' not 'sure, our greatest sanctuaries already fell, obviously fighting whoever did it is a good idea/easy'.
The Christians also took centuries to strike back after Jerusalem fell the first time, and (by a stretch, because the Brits weren't openly crusading) nearly a thousand years the second time around.
The Christians were greatly weakened and across the Mediterranean -- between the Umayyad conquest of Spain and the interminable Italian wars and then the Carolingian wars, there was no real way to coalesce a Western expedition to the Levant before the timeframe of the Crusades. The Romans, OTOH, were not having a good time of it themselves, with numerous hostile frontiers, iconoclasm and the Roman national sport -- civil war -- to deal with. After the fall of Jerusalem again, the Romans were still weak and the Western Europeans were drawn into their own conflicts, especially the Hundred Year's War.
Taking Mecca -- let alone defiling it -- just doesn't seem worth the cost or hassle. They are ruling over a large Muslim population -- as opposed to the early caliphs, who conquered Christians that had greater grievance with Constantinople than with the nascent Muslim faith. They are surrounded by Muslim powers -- the Almohads if they have Egypt, the Fatimids if they dont, and the eventual successor to the Seljuks in Iran. The Qarmatians, OTOH, were a Shiite religious movement drawing on existing and reinvigorated Shiite sentiments in the aftermath of the crippling Zanj rebellion and the rise of the Fatimids -- a much different playing field compared to overstretched European conquerors who rely on foreign allies to win any sustained conflict with the Ummah. That part of Arabia and Iraq had been the historical center of Shiite partisans since the time of Ali and Hussein.
The Muslim infighting helps them out, as we have seen in the 2nd Crusade -- but openly defiling Mecca will have consequences. After all, Fatimid Caliph al-Hakim's atrocities against pilgrims and the Holy Sepulchre were one of the major motivations for the Crusades IOTL and ITTL. I see no reason for Muslims to react differently, particularly when they have shorter supply lines and a ready-made fifth column throughout the Crusader state. A proper response may take decades; personally, the risk of revolt and reprisals from, say, the Hashashin, would be immediate.
And it's not as if the Romans would necessarily bail them out either, which a) deprives the Crusaders of their best ally with the best supply lines and b) makes the travel of Western European help that much harder.
Taking Mecca -- let alone defiling it -- just doesn't seem worth the cost or hassle. They are ruling over a large Muslim population -- as opposed to the early caliphs, who conquered Christians that had greater grievance with Constantinople than with the nascent Muslim faith. They are surrounded by Muslim powers -- the Almohads if they have Egypt, the Fatimids if they dont, and the eventual successor to the Seljuks in Iran. The Qarmatians, OTOH, were a Shiite religious movement drawing on existing and reinvigorated Shiite sentiments in the aftermath of the crippling Zanj rebellion and the rise of the Fatimids -- a much different playing field compared to overstretched European conquerors who rely on foreign allies to win any sustained conflict with the Ummah. That part of Arabia and Iraq had been the historical center of Shiite partisans since the time of Ali and Hussein.
The Muslim infighting helps them out, as we have seen in the 2nd Crusade -- but openly defiling Mecca will have consequences. After all, Fatimid Caliph al-Hakim's atrocities against pilgrims and the Holy Sepulchre were one of the major motivations for the Crusades IOTL and ITTL. I see no reason for Muslims to react differently, particularly when they have shorter supply lines and a ready-made fifth column throughout the Crusader state. A proper response may take decades; personally, the risk of revolt and reprisals from, say, the Hashashin, would be immediate.
And it's not as if the Romans would necessarily bail them out either, which a) deprives the Crusaders of their best ally with the best supply lines and b) makes the travel of Western European help that much harder.
![[totally a legit person]](/forum/data/avatars/m/134/134906.jpg?1617940240){kind=avatar}
You know, we could keep discussing the exhausted topic of the Christians' ability or reasoning for taking Mecca, or, we could discuss more important things that are better, like, for an example: what if we were to discuss the cuisine of the Levant, because, that to me, seems much more interesting and important, then an impossible conquest and/or raid on Mecca.
no, they were developed in the 19th century, so that's a long way, but, there are always the other unique... pastries.
I wonder if another wave of Turkish immigration will happen if they finally decide to cut their losses with Asia Minor and Arabia and go for other conquests, though there are also the Mongols to consider...
You don't want to open up that can buddy, I suggest it for your own sake, trust me, you don't want to be lynched by a mob, capiche?
Much as the Steppes seem to produce endless amounts of would-be conquerors, the losses taken in their recent defeats (and the fact that the Seljuks are a thin top layer on a non-Turkish base) suggests the Turks aren't going to go on a conquering spree before some Steppe Turks overthrow the Seljuks and go from there. Which means the first 'conquest' will be Iran all over again.
Seeing that Armenia's/Byzantines/Crusaders/Georgians are going to be sticking around, they have a better chance at Persia/Mesoptima or perhaps India, maybe even an attempt at Turkish Russia. A radical idea would be Turkish Africa based on Swhalia or Madagascar.
Last edited: