The crusaders sack and invade mecca

[carlton_bach]

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.

What is it with this fascination with the black stone? Generally, it's quite unlikely such an operation would aim at deliberately carting off the other side's relics (assuming the people who'd do such a thing even cared enpough to find out the things existed in the first place - for all some Latins knew, they'd expect to find some dog-headed demon living there).

A much likelier scenario is: Crusader raiding party reaches Red Sea port in force, captures some ships. Leader orders men on ships, starts raiding other coastal settlements. Resistance is weak because he got inside the enemy's loop. There aren't supposed to be any Christian pirates in the Red Sea. Raiding party resupplies, draws more men, heads off towards Jiddah. jiddah is poorly defended and the attackers get in, standard massacre ensues. Mecca is now within reach, so off they go. It's standard operating procedure for every armoured thug from the Altavilla to Rainald de Chatillon, and it worked scarily often IOTL.

 

[corditeman]

No, Bach, not so, look you...

Just 'grabbing a few ships' won't be enough for more than a bit of commerce raiding. We need a Muslim historian to advise us, but frankly I think you'd be going into a hornets' nest to attack Jiddah with a few ships. A pilgrim port is likely to be a damnsight more dangerous than Caribbean pirates doing a smash and grab at Cartagena or Panama. Even Henry Morgan assembled a pirate army to do that.

Why attack Mecca anyway, unless you're trying to destroy the spiritual home of Islam? That was the point of the title of this thread. The Black Stone is probably the most sacred part of Mecca, so it is inevitable that it is the primary target. It will also be the most heavily defended - a bit like Muslims trying to go for the bones of Saint Peter or the True Cross.

 

[kasumigenx]

Just 'grabbing a few ships' won't be enough for more than a bit of commerce raiding. We need a Muslim historian to advise us, but frankly I think you'd be going into a hornets' nest to attack Jiddah with a few ships. A pilgrim port is likely to be a damnsight more dangerous than Caribbean pirates doing a smash and grab at Cartagena or Panama. Even Henry Morgan assembled a pirate army to do that.

Why attack Mecca anyway, unless you're trying to destroy the spiritual home of Islam? That was the point of the title of this thread. The Black Stone is probably the most sacred part of Mecca, so it is inevitable that it is the primary target. It will also be the most heavily defended - a bit like Muslims trying to go for the bones of Saint Peter or the True Cross.

But what if they were very strong...

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

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.

Good God, what is with this black stone stuff that keeps coming up? It's not a sacred stone, it's just a rock in the outer wall of the Kaaba that pilgrims use to count how many times they've circled it. It might piss people off if it was taken, but it's just not spiritually important.

I think people pay too much attention to the "moon cult" crap that Islamophobes spout. And Mecca was sacked during the Middle Ages, BTW, by Qarmatians, which in Islamic terms are even worse than Crusaders.

 

[Leo Caesius]

Good God, what is with this black stone stuff that keeps coming up? It's not a sacred stone, it's just a rock in the outer wall of the Kaaba that pilgrims use to count how many times they've circled it. It might piss people off if it was taken, but it's just not spiritually important.

Time to update my list.

WI No Islam: Affects on Africa

Effects of an unconceived Islam on...

A different way to stop Islam!

Mohammed Makes Islam a form of Judaism

Islam Nonexistant - What Religious Effects?

What if Mohammed existed & unified people, without Islam?

Would no Islam allow Rome to be rebuilt?

Challenge: Butterfly away islam

WI: If Islam never was founded

No Islam

Islam extinguished

Challenge: Islam stays Arab only

Challenge: the pagans turn it around--weaker Islam AND Christianity

Challenge: a weaker Islam

Could Christianity Have flourished without islam?

Modern world with No Islam

Buddhist Persia, Coptic Egypt, Zoroastrian Syria, Cult of Islam.

Turks and Mongols more Hostile to Islam

Double blind: Islam survives

No Islam

No Islam

Islam dies out

A World Without Mohammed

Christianity fails in Europe, Mohammed and the Arabs convert to Christianity

Mohammed confessing to Christianity

AH: St. Mohammed

Mohammed converts Arabia to Zoroastrianism?

What if Mohammed had never existed?

WI: Mohammed converts to Zoroastrianism

The Apostle Mohammed

Muhammad the Jew

Failure of the conquest of Mecca, and a possible St. Muhammad?

No Muhammad?

An interesting Muhammad What If...

Legacy of St. Muhammad

Muhammad Killed?

Christian Middle East, Post Mohammed's Death

I'm sure I've missed a few, but I think you get the point.

 

[Leo Caesius]

Here are just a few where Mecca is destroyed:

US Capitol Destroyed / Ka'aba Destroyed

What would happen to Islam if Mecca and Medina were destroyed?

Changing the faith

Alien Federation offers Membership, at a price

The christians strike back

WI Mecca destroyed?

 

[Monty Burns]

I think the discussion here suffers from one major flaw: the arguments against a raid to Mecca are very rational - and the crusaders weren't necessarily.

After all, how rational is it to leave your land because some priest tells you to do so, kill people there you do not now nor understand because god wants it - and by the way, god wants you to love your enemy as well...

There are many motivations to induce someone to join a crusade. Religious fanatism is one of them - and as we all know christian and muslim religious fanatics want to convert the whole world, they wouldn't stop in Jerusalem. Destroying holy places of the heathens is what religious fanatics do. We see it even today in India, Iraq, Nigeria...
And religious fanatics might not be interested in rational reasons not to destroy Mecca.

Nevertheless, a large number of crusaders probably weren't that religious at all, but greedy. Now I don't know that much about Mecca and Medina, but I assume that with that many pilgrims, there's quite some bounty to loot. Furthermore, the crusaders might just assume that there's some treasure in Mecca, as this is the case in Rome/Constantinople/Santiago...
On the other side, however, greed is subject to (some) rationality, or let's say a risk-return tradeoff would happen with greedy crusaders and they'd likely not go to Mecca.

So the question is: could you assemble a large enough bunch of completely irrational christian fanatics willing to go to death for destroying the holiest place of your enemy? Sadly, I'd say you could assemble such a crowd even today.

 

[corditeman]

Wot? Go crusading so Pilgrims see Jerusalem? Natch!

...It was all about getting the kudos, the land, the plunder!

Pasha has a point, so has Monty, but...

...the Ka'aba is one of the few things non-Muslims think of when Mecca is mentioned (except now, when it's bingo).

Every temple in history, from the Delphic Oracle to the Vatican, has been a repository of wealth as much as of faith. That is why everybody from the Romans to the Huns has tried to sack the temples/monasteries/churches/mausolea. Why, in the minds of the crusaders, should Mecca and Medina be different?

Loot, not divine love, is what draws military mobs into mad ventures.

So let's get the old cost-benefit analysis going, folks!

 

[Eric Larsen]

Its something that could have happened

Its something the Crusaders could reasonably be expected to possibly do. For one, Raynald of Chatillon tried to. And also, they regarded Islam as an abomination and an enemy of Christianity. And destroying the temples of enemy religions is something that Christians were really into.

Its probably not super feasible unless the Crusaders control Egypt and the route to the Red Sea. Since the Crusaders did try to conquer Egypt (also not part of the "holy land" particularly), this is not such an outlandish idea. In fact, if the Crusaders do control Egypt, I'd consider a move against Mecca, by some insubordinate hothead if not by the top leadership, almost inevitable.

And what if they capture Mecca? Killing lots of pilgrims and looting everything of value seems likely, plus trying to desecrate and destroy as much religious stuff as possible. And if there is a strong Crusader hold on Egypt, then an attempt to permanently hold Mecca might be likely.

Results?

A. Muslims are enraged, start a jihad with lots of volunteers, while Muslims under Crusader rule rebel. The crusaders are kicked out of the middle east.
B They wonder if maybe Allah is not so great after all, especially on top of previous crusader victories. Some become dispirited or, if under Christian rule, convert.
C. Some mix of the two.


I honestly dont know enough about medieval islam to really determine what the psychological effect would be.

If I were the crusader king, I would regard such an attack as a dicey proposition and opt not to do it, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't have happened.

Actually, an interesting speculation would be:

A. How could the Crusaders have nabbed Egypt?
B. What would be the consequences?

IMO they would be pretty dire for Islam. Egypt was very populous and a great source of wealth. The armies, fleets and fortifications they could raise with such wealth might make the Crusaders very hard to dislodge, and might lead to further expansion into the disunited Islamic lands. A wise crusader would leave the despoliation of Mecca until the Crusaders really had a solid control and the combination of immigration, native Christians, and conversions left Muslims as a minority in the conquered lands. But they weren't always very wise.

 

[Keenir]

Its something the Crusaders could reasonably be expected to possibly do. For one, Raynald of Chatillon tried to. And also, they regarded Islam as an abomination and an enemy of Christianity. And destroying the temples of enemy religions is something that Christians were really into.

except what would they find when they get to Mecca? a ten-foot-tall granite stone whose only purpose is for people to walk around it?

the Crusaders would be familiar with the fact - back in Europe - that if someone defaces a hillside where a saint once performed a miracle, the hillside doesn't stop being a pilgrimage stop. same thing here.

And what if they capture Mecca? Killing lots of pilgrims and looting everything of value seems likely, plus trying to desecrate and destroy as much religious stuff as possible.

which is what? don't think of all the gold-covered things the Wahabis put up.

Results?

the Shia laugh their asses off.

B They wonder if maybe Allah is not so great after all, especially on top of previous crusader victories.

not really - look at what Shia did under Sunni rule.

IMO they would be pretty dire for Islam. Egypt was very populous and a great source of wealth.

but not the only source of wealth.

and might lead to further expansion into the disunited Islamic lands.

really? to where? wouldn't going to Mecca already be military overstretch?

A wise crusader would leave the despoliation of Mecca until the Crusaders really had a solid control and the combination of immigration, native Christians, and conversions left Muslims as a minority in the conquered lands. But they weren't always very wise.

those native Christians are not going to be friendly to the Crusaders.

 

[Monty Burns]

except what would they find when they get to Mecca? a ten-foot-tall granite stone whose only purpose is for people to walk around it?

Well, maybe there's something inside, or below...

And if not, they'd be pretty frustrated, wouldn't they? Frustrated armies sometimes tend to vandalism...

the Crusaders would be familiar with the fact - back in Europe - that if someone defaces a hillside where a saint once performed a miracle, the hillside doesn't stop being a pilgrimage stop. same thing here.

True. Yet on the other side, think of the Jewish Temples. And furthermore note that fame and loot could still be gained, whether the site remains holy or not.

wouldn't going to Mecca already be military overstretch?

Not necessarily. As cited frequently above, Chattilon shipped on the red sea. Mecca is a center of pilgrimage, there should be harbours and some roads leading the pilgrims to Mecca. I know nothing about fortifications. A well trained raiding group could have a lucky try.

Nevertheless, I'd say a prerequisite of a successful raid on Mecca would be the conquest of Egypt, an established access to the Red sea and a naval presence of the crusaders in the Red sea with decent experience there. The historical impact of these prerequisites would by far exceed the impact of a successful raid on Mecca IMHO.

 

[carlton_bach]

I'd say a successful conquest of Egypt makes a raid on Mecca less likely, not more. Attacking Mecca is a stupid move - the territory can't be held, it accomplishes nothing of value, the loot would be limited and propaganda value for the enemy huge. Someone who has advisers, a body politic to run and a reasonable grasp of the situation would know that (not that the Crusaders might not 'collect tolls' from pilgrims at sea, but that's actually good business sense). A raid on Mecca itself is the stunt that appeals to terminal testosterone poisoning victims and people who want to be remembered more than they care what for. The very irrationality ensures it might work - nobody'd expect it. But as a concerted military effort it is pretty pointless (and that means a lot more pointless than taking control of Jerusalem which was valuable, militarily viable and religiously significant at home).

 

[Keenir]

Well, maybe there's something inside, or below...

below sand? this is Mecca, not Ubar.

True. Yet on the other side, think of the Jewish Temples.

what about them? yes, that helped decentralize Judaism....which in the case of Mecca would probably play into the hands of the Shia.

And furthermore note that fame and loot could still be gained, whether the site remains holy or not.

what fame? for walking into a desert, kicking a stone, and walking back?

 

[Monty Burns]

below sand? this is Mecca, not Ubar.

What sand? I really doubt that Mecca is build on sand. Nobody builds upn sand.

Anyway, my point is that the crusaders will search for gold. And if they find none, they'll take a closer look. And probably that closer look will destroy much of what is there.

what about them [the Jewish temples]? yes, that helped decentralize Judaism....which in the case of Mecca would probably play into the hands of the Shia.

As you said, destruction of such important holy places has an impact on the religion. Even if Mecca is rebuild instantly - which will likely result in some theological querries about how to do that - there'll be an impact. And that's enough for a religious fanatic to justify the destruction. It's about the humiliation. And it' about proving that god did not help them.

what fame? for walking into a desert, kicking a stone, and walking back?

Yes. People become famous for doing stuff like that. Best example for being famous for destruction of religious art:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herostratus

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

What sand? I really doubt that Mecca is build on sand. Nobody builds upn sand.

Anyway, my point is that the crusaders will search for gold. And if they find none, they'll take a closer look. And probably that closer look will destroy much of what is there.



As you said, destruction of such important holy places has an impact on the religion. Even if Mecca is rebuild instantly - which will likely result in some theological querries about how to do that - there'll be an impact. And that's enough for a religious fanatic to justify the destruction. It's about the humiliation. And it' about proving that god did not help them.



Yes. People become famous for doing stuff like that. Best example for being famous for destruction of religious art:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herostratus

There are no theological issues about rebuilding Mecca. The city was sacked constantly in its history. No big deal.

I don't really see how Crusaders would even get there, but whatever.

 

[SenatorChickpea]

There are no theological issues about rebuilding Mecca. The city was sacked constantly in its history. No big deal.

I don't really see how Crusaders would even get there, but whatever.

There were Crusaders on the Red Sea, so it's possible that they could perhaps get there- but I can't see them getting back.

A stupidly overconfident attack that ends up getting everyone slaughtered, maybe. I really think an attack on Mecca would have far less consequences for the various Islamic powers than it would for the West. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but Salah-al-Din's control nominally extended to Mecca, yes? If the Fatimids (or whoever it was, my memory's failing right now) are the protectors of the Holy City and the holy city gets sacked, then they'll have to strike back hard for the sake of prestige and piety.

That'll see an end to Outremer and the crusading era a bit quicker, which would have real flow on effects for the West.

For Islam, I really think it will be a footnote. Certainly not as traumatic as the later fall of Baghdad to the Mongols.

 

[Keenir]

As you said, destruction of such important holy places has an impact on the religion. Even if Mecca is rebuild instantly - which will likely result in some theological querries about how to do that - there'll be an impact. And that's enough for a religious fanatic to justify the destruction. It's about the humiliation. And it' about proving that god did not help them.

Off the top of my head, I can think of at least two reasons that would occur to them:

• God is punishing the Faithful for not being devout enough.
• God is using heathens to demonstrate that He controls everything. (this was the logic behind Assyria's ability to crush Israel)

 

[corditeman]

Strange though it may seem...

...I find myself of the same opinion as Abdul Hadi Pasha.

Mecca is a tough nut with no kernel. You'd be more likely to win the lottery - or at bingo.

 

[jackalope]

Factual Qarmatians Sack of Mecca, 10th Century

Not sure if this was handled in any of the discussions, but while scrolling through it does not appear so. Mecca was indeed sacked as a Moslem city, by a group from the desert. It is still a matter of burning irritation within believers, and would indicate the level of ire for any organized group from one religion to sack the place:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qarmatians