This is extraordinarily bad: Crusaders in Mecca

Apostates?
:eek: Guess that was not the best word I could have used. What I meant was something more along the lines of "heathens." But what I thought at the time, was that Christians had rejected Muhammad and thus Islam. Thank you for pointing that out though.
 
Okay, justify my current Crusader Kings game for me- what if the Crusaders conquered the Hedjaz? What if a Frankish infidel is count of Mecca? Does the entirety of Dar es Salaam declare jihad against that power, or what?
 

Hashasheen

Banned
Okay, justify my current Crusader Kings game for me- what if the Crusaders conquered the Hedjaz? What if a Frankish infidel is count of Mecca? Does the entirety of Dar es Salaam declare jihad against that power, or what?
We kill all of you. We kill you all till you die.
 
We kill all of you. We kill you all till you die.

You've said that three times already, and that outcome is highly improbable. Most likely outcome IMO is that the crusaders get thrown out sooner, Islam continues almost as is, and by the present day no one really remembers the sack except scholars and fundementalist christians/islamists.
 
You've said that three times already, and that outcome is highly improbable. Most likely outcome IMO is that the crusaders get thrown out sooner, Islam continues almost as is, and by the present day no one really remembers the sack except scholars and fundementalist christians/islamists.

Well, sacking by people who are outrightly heathens would surely have some cultural impact, though it can be just a barely noticeable one. I wonder though how much differently this sacking will be perceived compared to the one by the Qarmatians....
 

Hashasheen

Banned
You've said that three times already, and that outcome is highly improbable.
It bears repeating.;)

Most likely outcome IMO is that the crusaders get thrown out sooner, Islam continues almost as is, and by the present day no one really remembers the sack except scholars and fundementalist christians/islamists.
... THe butterflies wish to have some words with you. There would have to be something that changes after such a terrible event. Didn't rabbinic Judaism occur after the destruction of the Temple? Didn't Orthodox Christianity take heavy blows after the Russian Revolution and the capture of Constantiople?
 
Didn't Orthodox Christianity take heavy blows after the Russian Revolution and the capture of Constantiople?

I totally agree with your actual point, but one of those in a misconception. Although Russia is rather a differant matter (hence the Third Rome thing), Balkan Orthodoxy was under attack from Catholicism before the Ottomans moved in, and of course they didn't care what kind of Christian you were if you paid your taxes, so Balkan Orthodox peoples didn't decline under vtheir rule. The fall of Constantinople, of course, was after this had already happened, but it did lead to the revival of the defunct patriarchate under Ottoman supervision. It was perceived as a blow mainly in Orthodox areas not actually affected by it, ie Russia.
 
A few people on here said something about a Islamic counter-Crusade/Jihad. I don't see that happening. If they lost this big, they wouldn't be about to strike back. A select few members of the board more vigorously implied "killing every Christian", some even said that they would do it. That's not very rational. First off, how would Jihadists make it anywhere near Europe, especially Rome? It's not like foreigners were common back then, and the accent would give a spy/jihadist away quicker than lightning. An army would be impossible to bring to bear against Christendom, especially from such an awful state as they'd be in. What I'd rather NOT hear about is how someone on this board could conceive of religious murder - or murder for any reason.
 
No just no. Islam would become incredibly pissed and view it as God's way of saying that they are'nt doing enough. expect every christian to get killed, several Jihads against Byzantine and Europe, and maybe a raid on the Vatican to return the favor.

haha OK bud, keep dreaming :) The Vatican= Untouchable:D
 
A few people on here said something about a Islamic counter-Crusade/Jihad. I don't see that happening. If they lost this big, they wouldn't be about to strike back. A select few members of the board more vigorously implied "killing every Christian", some even said that they would do it. That's not very rational. First off, how would Jihadists make it anywhere near Europe, especially Rome? It's not like foreigners were common back then, and the accent would give a spy/jihadist away quicker than lightning. An army would be impossible to bring to bear against Christendom, especially from such an awful state as they'd be in. What I'd rather NOT hear about is how someone on this board could conceive of religious murder - or murder for any reason.

I agree your sentiment in your last sentence, but to say the others you ought to have neglected several things.

Just because this is a large moral blow, doesn't mean that the Crusaders have just already brought the whole Islamic World into oblivion. Physically it just won't be that awful, in fact far from that. The Crusades in the Middle East will going to have harder time ITTL, for they will be unquestionably evil in the eyes of muslims everywhere. Expect the Crusader states to meet their end sooner. Something like "killing every Christian" will almost certainly happen in Levant, surroundings especially towards the Catholics and maybe even every Christians who aren't openly hostile to the Crusaders(though most likely just those who are friendly to them). Though yeah they just won't be reaching Europe immediately right after that.....

Crusades was largely perceived by muslim world as a raid by barbaric Franks blinded by petty fanaticism. But with the sacking of Mecca, the "Frankish raid" will have more meaning than that for the muslims ITTL....
 
Last edited:
haha OK bud, keep dreaming :) The Vatican= Untouchable:D

There were times where Rome was actually vulnerable for sacking by an Islamic power. Mostespecially during the zenith of the Ottoman naval strength. You still remember how Suleyman I deliberately instructed Barbarossa not to sack Rome during his West Med campaign ?
 
There were times where Rome was actually vulnerable for sacking by an Islamic power. Mostespecially during the zenith of the Ottoman naval strength. You still remember how Suleyman I deliberately instructed Barbarossa not to sack Rome during his West Med campaign ?

Not to mention the raids on the Italian coast in the 9th C, although admittedly if you weren't capable of raiding Italy in the 9th C you were doing something very wrong.
 
Not to mention the raids on the Italian coast in the 9th C, although admittedly if you weren't capable of raiding Italy in the 9th C you were doing something very wrong.
Although to be fair, the Carolingian monarchs were very capable of fighting back against the Arab raiders, at least for a few decades under Louis II. He fought and destroyed the Emirate of Bari, and campaigned throughout Southern Italy against the invaders. Incidentally he is my favorite Carolingian monarch (besides Lothairs I and II... hell, every ruler from Middle Francia) because he came very close to uniting all of Italy ~872.
 
Top