WI: Christian sack of Mecca

Worst possible outcome involves Crusaders stealing the holy meteor, but they never make it home. During the return trip, they are attacked by Barbary Pirates and their ship sinks along with the holy meteor.

They'd have to be time-travelling Barbary Pirates. ;) The most dangerous kind, certainly.
But yes, abducting the Black Stone by sea opens the possibility of it sinking, which would cause... problems.
I still question the material feasibility of the whole thing by Crusader raiders anyway. It's an extreme feat for them logistically. The attacking force must be necessarily small and probably undersupplied, operating in an extremely hostile human and natural environment, with unfamiliar winds in the Red Sea, a situation on land where they preferred combat style and equipment don't work well, no knowledge of the terrain, fighting against fiercely motivated locals who know the area, are well-adjusted to fight there, and enjoy higher mobility. The defenders of Mecca here would also be better supplied and almost certainly more numerous. And the terrain around there is unforgiving. Seriously rugged, with little or no water, unless you know where to look for it, which the defenders do and the attackers do not, and otherwise difficult for the invading party in many ways.
The odds are stacked horribly against the Crusaders at every point. Which probably helps explaining why such action was never attempted by any Christian power at any point in time.
(I concede that Mecca is not very far from the sea, so the stay in the desert is going to be short enough before getting there that the supplies could be physically carried. But then, Mecca is going to be defended, and there is no way the Crusaders can sustain a siege).
 
Depends. The Qarmatians got away with doing everything that Fabius wanted the Spanish to do to Mecca. They even got paid for giving back the Black Stone they stole by the Abbasids. The only real reason they destabilized and fell apart was a fit of religious idiocy where they selected a Mahdi to lead them into the end times who also happened to be a pretty angry Zoroastrian who used his power to rip apart their power structure.

I'd think that while there might be an attempt to fight back, the Ottomans might just pay money to get the stuff they stole back.

The Qarmatians were familiar with the general area, tracks, wellsprings in arid environments, and all that it takes to live in a desert and mount a succesful raid in it. They had camels with the enhanced logistics and mobility they bring in that environment. Certainly a lot better than a party of Christian raiders coming by sea.
 
The Qarmatians were familiar with the general area, tracks, wellsprings in arid environments, and all that it takes to live in a desert and mount a succesful raid in it. They had camels with the enhanced logistics and mobility they bring in that environment. Certainly a lot better than a party of Christian raiders coming by sea.

The main element I was focusing on when I mentioned them was that the reactions of the Muslims to Mecca getting sacked would probably not be as incandescently outraged as Aqua has stated. You gave probably the best idea on what level of reaction that would happen; Ottomans up the fight against the Spaniards/Hapsburgs, and Persia signs a truce.

I generally agree that it would not be really feasible for the Spanish to successfully do this, mainly because you gave extremely valid points that all do contribute to the success of the Qarmatians.

I do have a question though, extending from the idea of just Christians sacking the city (rather than needing to worry about a specific period of time): when would a Sack of Mecca be most feasible for Christians post-Muhammad? I say post Muhammad since it'd be far easier before he unified the tribes.
 
The main element I was focusing on when I mentioned them was that the reactions of the Muslims to Mecca getting sacked would probably not be as incandescently outraged as Aqua has stated. You gave probably the best idea on what level of reaction that would happen; Ottomans up the fight against the Spaniards/Hapsburgs, and Persia signs a truce.

I generally agree that it would not be really feasible for the Spanish to successfully do this, mainly because you gave extremely valid points that all do contribute to the success of the Qarmatians.

I do have a question though, extending from the idea of just Christians sacking the city (rather than needing to worry about a specific period of time): when would a Sack of Mecca be most feasible for Christians post-Muhammad? I say post Muhammad since it'd be far easier before he unified the tribes.

And yet it was attempted and failed before Muhammad (well, possibly in the year Muhammad was born). But never attempted thereafter (AFAIK) even if proposed.
I would say that it becomes very feasible, in material terms, in modern times. Say, it's probably well within the ability of the British Empire by 1850 or so. By that point, the correlation of forces is ridiculously favorable to Christian powers against the local Ottoman forces or any other Muslim power. Of course, at that point the Christian powers do not base their identity upon being militantly Christian, and there is no political reason whatsoever to even consider such an action.
In general, I think that by the point a Christian sack of Mecca becomes a physical possibility with decent odds to succeed, it becomes politically idiotic.

Now, I suppose that you could contrive an ATL where some level of militant Christianity is mantained/revived in a powerful West AND the power controlling Mecca is a religious regime that is openly hostile to such Christian West (Saudi Arabia is a very religious regime of course, but it is on generally good terms with the Western powers despite a convoluted set of problems). IOTL, the Western political leadership has exceedingly good reasons for wanting to distinguish sharply between radical Islamist terrorism and Islam at large (rightly so, of course). Some people argue that there is a conflict between "the West" and "Islam", but it's mostly a matter of toxic rhetoric. Nobody in their right mind would argue for sacking Mecca outside the safety of an Internet comment thread (at least I hope so). But it is conceivable that the present unpleasantness might be read in different ways.
Imagine an even more militantly Christian right in power in the US when an 11/9 analog happens, but with Saudi Arabia or it equivalent being, say, a revolutionary openly anti-Western regime reputed to sponsor terrorism - similar to how Iran was perceived.
In that context, I can see an attack on Mecca being done ( it would be stupid even in that context; but then, attacking Iraq IOTL was monumentally, almost self-evidently stupid; that did not stop Bush, Blair and the rest of the clique).
 
Nobody in their right mind would argue for sacking Mecca outside the safety of an Internet comment thread (at least I hope so).

Pretty sure a senator or two suggested the US nuke Mecca, but maybe they forgot the holy city is under that stalwart ally of fredom, Saudi Arabia :p

Eh, we'll see what Trump would do once he becomes Prez. It's gonna be YUUUUUUGE! :D

Getting back to topic, if the Christians couldn't sack Mecca, could the Mongols do it?
 
And yet it was attempted and failed before Muhammad (well, possibly in the year Muhammad was born). But never attempted thereafter (AFAIK) even if proposed.

I'd say it could be possible maybe for someone like the Ghassanids pre-Muhammad to go down to Mecca and sack it, of course that flies in the face of everything in the challenge. I say maybe of course though since I'm in the dark on that and lack details there.

Getting back to topic, if the Christians couldn't sack Mecca, could the Mongols do it?

I'd think the Ilkhanate would run out of steam for it. That and the climate of Arabia is utter ass for invasion; deserts suck for armies to fight in. Alexander for instance lost 3/4ths of his army when he marched back from India since he picked going through the desert to do it.
 
And yet it was attempted and failed before Muhammad (well, possibly in the year Muhammad was born). But never attempted thereafter (AFAIK) even if proposed.
I would say that it becomes very feasible, in material terms, in modern times. Say, it's probably well within the ability of the British Empire by 1850 or so. By that point, the correlation of forces is ridiculously favorable to Christian powers against the local Ottoman forces or any other Muslim power. Of course, at that point the Christian powers do not base their identity upon being militantly Christian, and there is no political reason whatsoever to even consider such an action.
In general, I think that by the point a Christian sack of Mecca becomes a physical possibility with decent odds to succeed, it becomes politically idiotic.

I don't think militant Christianity would be necessary; just engineer an Anglo-Ottoman or Franco-Ottoman war sometime in the 19th century, and have them decide that levelling the Ottomans' holy places would be a good way to break their morale.

(Hmm... maybe a more successful Napoleonic conquest of Egypt?)
 
I'd say it could be possible maybe for someone like the Ghassanids pre-Muhammad to go down to Mecca and sack it, of course that flies in the face of everything in the challenge. I say maybe of course though since I'm in the dark on that and lack details there.

Yup, this is possible.

I'd think the Ilkhanate would run out of steam for it. That and the climate of Arabia is utter ass for invasion; deserts suck for armies to fight in. Alexander for instance lost 3/4ths of his army when he marched back from India since he picked going through the desert to do it.

The Mongols would run into many of the problems the crusaders would have. They'd have better mobility and better familiarity with arid climates (though not specifically tropical deserts) but the probably lack a naval presence in the Red Sea; going there overland is a major challenge even for them.
 
I don't think militant Christianity would be necessary; just engineer an Anglo-Ottoman or Franco-Ottoman war sometime in the 19th century, and have them decide that levelling the Ottomans' holy places would be a good way to break their morale.

(Hmm... maybe a more successful Napoleonic conquest of Egypt?)

Nope, it would be a good way to piss them off for no material gain.
I argue that in most conceivable cases, there is absolutely no point (in terms of strategy, resources, etc.) in taking Mecca, for a Christian power, except as a deliberate religious provocation.

For instance, Napoleon in Egypt tried his best to show respect to Islamic religious feelings. It did not always work as intended, but he certainly would not have tried to desecrate the Islamic holy cities (not mention that his logistical position would not be so much better than the one a crusader state had. He had a technical and organizational edge, but not a so huge one; critically for naval power in the Red sea).
Conceivably, Napoleon, or more likely another colonial power, could prop up a local challenger to Ottoman power and sent Muslim troops there to weaken Ottoman prestige - that would hardly count as a "Christian sack" but might make strategical sense.
 
So the general consensus seems to be that, if such an attack were ever to succeed, there would be little in the way of practical action.

Which I suppose makes sense: trying to get the various Christian powers to do something about the fall(s) of Jerusalem was much like herding cats, and there seems no prima facie reason why trying to get the various Islamic states to do something about a sack of Mecca would be any easier.
 
Eastern Roman Empire never loses, or at worst quickly regains, Egypt (Constans II attacked Alexandria as late as 654) and Syria. 50 years later, after the rest of the Levant has been retaken, a punitive expedition is launched...
 
If you had a British war with the Ottomans at some point in the 19th century, would it be possible for some lone British general, a highly devout Christian, to sack the place when invading the area?
 
Now, I suppose that you could contrive an ATL where some level of militant Christianity is mantained/revived in a powerful West AND the power controlling Mecca is a religious regime that is openly hostile to such Christian West (Saudi Arabia is a very religious regime of course, but it is on generally good terms with the Western powers despite a convoluted set of problems). IOTL, the Western political leadership has exceedingly good reasons for wanting to distinguish sharply between radical Islamist terrorism and Islam at large (rightly so, of course). Some people argue that there is a conflict between "the West" and "Islam", but it's mostly a matter of toxic rhetoric. Nobody in their right mind would argue for sacking Mecca outside the safety of an Internet comment thread (at least I hope so). But it is conceivable that the present unpleasantness might be read in different ways.
Imagine an even more militantly Christian right in power in the US when an 11/9 analog happens, but with Saudi Arabia or it equivalent being, say, a revolutionary openly anti-Western regime reputed to sponsor terrorism - similar to how Iran was perceived.
In that context, I can see an attack on Mecca being done ( it would be stupid even in that context; but then, attacking Iraq IOTL was monumentally, almost self-evidently stupid; that did not stop Bush, Blair and the rest of the clique).
Wouldn't a single [enemy] weapon on Mecca be an even crazier plan than the worst case scenario on several Muslim states after warfare [short of mass genocide]? And, this should be something that unifies the entire Muslim world in their criticism of America [without necessary support from Third World countries, leftists and all sorts of anti-imperialists and Americans]. Of course, what will be the consequences of the event on oppressed Palestine and crazy North Korea?
 
No Byzantine Sassanid war and Islam isn't butterflied. The Islamic army is destroyed by the Byzantines, but not after doing damage. In revenge the Byzantines sack Mecca. Unlikely but possibly the easiest.
 
How does the Muslim world as a whole react to this? Would we see the Islamic states all lining up to fight the Spanish, and avenge this insult to their religion? Would we see a sense of despondency at this clear sign that God is against them? Or would people just lament the sack but do nothing about it?

assuming several things in a row go just right for the Spanish and they succeed... I'd guess the last option (although 'do nothing about it' seems unlikely, they'd counterattack somewhere)... Judaism and Christianity survived having it's holy places captured/sacked by enemies, no reason Islam couldn't do the same...
 
I don't think militant Christianity would be necessary; just engineer an Anglo-Ottoman or Franco-Ottoman war sometime in the 19th century, and have them decide that levelling the Ottomans' holy places would be a good way to break their morale.

(Hmm... maybe a more successful Napoleonic conquest of Egypt?)

If France or Britian burned Mecca their colonies will go up in flames.
 

Cueg

Banned
If France or Britian burned Mecca their colonies will go up in flames.

This.

The British had a vested interest is NOT pissing off their Muslim subjects, of which there were many. Likewise, the French had a similar strategy in regard to West Africa, an area that is home to many Muslims.

The declaration of Jihad on the eve of World War One was, in the eyes of many, a genuine threat/mechanism of war. They quickly found though that the theological implications held no sway within the concrete for a variety of reasons. A sacking of the holy cities, however, would enrage the even most non-pious of Muslims. Seriously, they pray in its direction five times a day. They are connected to the city in a way they aren't connected to the Quran because, well, Arabic.
 
Top