Mecca captured by Christians

Hell, it wouldn't be the first time Mecca was desecrated either.

Well, it's a bit different. Qarmatians weren't totally strangers, they didn't searched to control Mecca, and if they didn't venerated the Black Stone they understood its valor and preferred ransom it rather than destroy it and then make every one in the Middle-East ready to exterminate them.

But if the Crusaders take Mecca, i doubt they'll be particularly scrupulous about preserving the Black Stone.
 
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.

True. The Byzantines aren't likely to march into the Hedjaz with a hostile Egypt hanging on their flanks. And while they're smart enough not to do anything to the Kaaba, I doubt the Byzantines will be too nice to the rest of Mecca and Medina. Sieges in Arabia tend to make people cranky. But how would Islam react psychologically to all these reverses? By this point it would have lost Damascus, Cairo, Jerusalem, Medina, and Mecca (even if the last two are ruled by a Muslim who answers to Constantinople). It makes even the 1258 sack of Baghdad pale in comparison.
 
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.

The fact that the Hedjaz remained Egyptian long after the loss had very little to do with how much they wanted to keep it.
 
The fact that the Hedjaz remained Egyptian long after the loss had very little to do with how much they wanted to keep it.

Indeed, but it have MUCH to do with the fact they dominated the Red Sea, and that anyone wanting to take Hejaz would have to deal with them.
There's other lands they wanted to keep but they didn't have the resources to do so. But Red Sea coast, even if they didn't that interested to kept it, was among the lands they could maintain under their domination.
 
Indeed, but it have MUCH to do with the fact they dominated the Red Sea, and that anyone wanting to take Hejaz would have to deal with them.
There's other lands they wanted to keep but they didn't have the resources to do so. But Red Sea coast, even if they didn't that interested to kept it, was among the lands they could maintain under their domination.

This on the other hand is true. Once the primary source of trade revenue, the overland silk trade, had dissipated with the arrival of the Seljuks, they expanded their commitment in the red sea and Nubia in order to take advantage of those markets. Egypt had always had a substantial red sea fleet; after the loss of Syria the Grand wazir upped the ante. I really can't see many polities who could manage to defeat that fleet, even Byzantium. They'd need to create a new fleet from scratch, along with with suitable docking yards in Eilat. Eventually Egypt did lose the Hedjaz, but this was an overland invasion.

Under Salah ad-din, there is no bloody way Raymond could get to Mecca. He was honorable, but he was zealous, and though he had scrapped the Fatimid fleet he (as pointed out by Ibn al-athir in the first volume of his work) made a new one to protect the seas 'knowing only that the devoted could walk to Mecca'.
 
If this happens during the Crusades, I think Islam is rather too entrenched to collapse. Maybe Islam would become more like Judaism after the Temple was destroyed... not bound to any particular place, existing wherever the faithful are...
 
I think it would be useful if I painted a picture of Ethiopia at the time of the early crusades.

The late sixth and seventh centuries were difficult in Ethiopia, just as they were in Europe and western Asia. The plague of Justinian began in the hinterlands of Ethiopia and hit Aksum as hard, perhaps even harder, than it did the Mediterranean world. Kaleb's war in Yemen put a strain on the imperial treasury, which was already drying up due to the larger realignment in trade as the Red Sea was shafted in favor of other routes. With that trade drying up, coinage stopped and Greek fell out of use. The capital city of Aksum was abandoned; its soil exhausted. Later Negusa Nagasts governed from mobile tent capitals.

However, by the later 9th century Aksum had a new permanent capital in the city of "Ku'bar," as attested by Muslim authors. Abyssinian "kings" still payed tribute to the Negusa Nagast, who continued to rule over a large area in a decentralized system closely resembling the Aksumite kingdom. Muslim writers indicate that "Habashat" (the name by which the Arabs referred to Ethiopia) still controlled coastal areas, though Muslim kingdoms were beginning to encroach on that area. The focus of the Ethiopian kingdom, however, shifted south, into the highlands.

Trade continued to flourish; the country still possessed abundant agricultural stores, gold deposits, exotic animals, and a number of other valuable goods. Unfortunately, the expansion of the Muslim caliphates cut off most Ethiopian contact with European Christians, limiting trade to neighboring African and Arab polities. The patriarch in Alexandria continued to appoint a bishop to the Ethiopian Coptic Church, but only with the approval of the Muslim Egyptian governor. The story of Metropolitan Severus, appointed by the Patriarch in Alexandria in 1073, is worth relating. Severus apparently tried to please the Egyptian Amir by building Mosques. He was arrested. The Amir sent letters threatening to demolish the Ethiopia Churches, to which the Negusa Nagast replied ""If you demolish a single stone of the churches, I will carry to you all the bricks and stones of Mecca . . . and if a single stone is missing I will send its weight to you in gold".

During this "post-Aksumite" time period, which stretches from the end of coinage in the 610's or 630's to the establishment of the Zagwe Dynasty in 1137, Arab writers maintain a sense of respect for the Ethiopian state. Abyssinia was not a push over; it retained its marshal spirit of the Aksumite times. Muslim rulers hesitated to push Ethiopia, not just because a late Aksumite king had offered shelter to early followers of Muhammad (though this was certainly taken into consideration) but because such a course of action would have been foolhardy. However, the Ethiopian state did not go entirely unchallenged. The legendary Queen Gudit is a historically attested person, a foreign Queen who seized power in Ethiopia and ruled for around thirty years, from the 950's through the 980's. Ecclesiastical histories indicate that sometime before 1003 the Coptic Church and native Ethiopian monarchy was restored.

I don't have any good information on Ethiopia in the 11th century, though the period of relative quiet would seem to indicate that Ethiopia had rebuilt and was perhaps flourishing after the depredations of the foreign queen. The First Crusade took place during this period. Keep in mind, as I mentioned above, contact with Christian Europe was almost non-existent. Coordinating some sort of attack on the Seljuks would have been close to impossible, to say nothing of sacking Mecca. Then the two decade period beginning in 1131 was a bad time for Ethiopia; the land suffered from pestilence, famine, and drought. During this time, the Zagwe Dynasty was established. Safe to say, they would not be coordinating with the second batch of crusaders, even if they could contact them.

Hopefully this has been informative; if you have any other Ethiopian questions ask, and I will do my best to answer.
 
Oh, I think it could be sacked a la Rome, but I doubt it could be held.

The alternative to that statement is a long and detailed timeline leading up to the event, rather than an AH based on OTL.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Top