Arabs, Turks, Mongols, Jurchens, Manchu, etc.
Each one of these managed to build their success on their conquered neighbours developments.
Persians for Arabs and Turks, Chinese for Mongols, Jurchen and Manchu.
Berbers or Khazars, by exemple, had only at disposition two of these models, already baked in a religious mold that was impossible to extract from the political feature (hence Rus' conversion). Not only the absence of a Jewish powerful entity was a negative factor (I agree there's a vicious circle working there, as Christianism or Muslims managed to build themselves on other ones, but lacking the religious hegemony over cultural/political features), but the only models at disposition then were hostile to the idea of Judaism to begin with, not even talking imperial Judaism.
I don't see the Berber as having a special propensity for disintegration and pulling defeat from the jaws of victory that wasn't at times shared with these other peoples.
- Failure of Berber Revolt to keep united, while it was victorious.
- Recurrent instability of Berber dynasties as Almoravids/Almohads/else, ending regularly with another Berber tribe managing to overthrow them.
It's not because they were Berbers, but because tribal features that were shared with other people using similar ones doesn't allow to build a lasting hegemonic power, let alone a state coming out of nowhere.
Their problem is that they couldn't really took of it because of too powerful neighbours (Spain, Arabs, etc.) or when they did, couldn't be considered much as a Berber entity than an acculturated one (as Fatimids that actually contributed to the arabization of Maghreb). Critically for a period when adopting a political model was about adopting its religion.
The right leaders, numbers, timing, organizing principle, etc. might have wanked, yes, Jewish Berbers.
These doesn't come up from wishful thinking however, but from right conditions (even a genius couldn't do much in a deseperate situation).
The politically lack of unity (almost as a principle), the maintain of tribal features (not only as identity but against Romans, Byzantine or Arab influence) pose a serious obstacle to this even if they appeared out of nowhere.
I actually see the demographics being the biggest challenge. I don't think there were more than a relative small portion of Berber tribes that adopted Judaism.
It's less the numerical important that is relevant, but the actual Judaity of these tribes (most probably not orthodox) that seems to have been opposed to the more important (critically in Ifryqia) coastal Jewish communauties.
Meaning that you not only have to deal with tribal and religious disparities between Berbers (Christians being really present, critically when you go eastwards, while Pagans still representing the main presence), but as well between Berbers in the stricted sense and former Romano-African population including Jews (and even between them disparities between native ones, and probable refugees from southern Spain).
Basically, speaking only of Judaism : judeo-berbers, "babylonians", "Palestinians".
And that's assuming Jewish tribes were both so, and not only nominally (as in the ruling family being so, but not the others)
That they were in the western Maghrib, I see as a positive not a detriment.
It was also the most backward region of Maghrib, meaning less ressources, less structuration. Not that amazing it served as a main source of recruitement for expeditions in Spain and Gaul.
It gives them more time to organize.
The Arab conquest of Ifriqiya and Maghrib seems to have completly been ignored IOTL.
There was no sense of common belonging, or to actual threat (Arabs being seen as only another a far interventionist power as were Byzantines). And that while e
astern Maghrib was the most hard conquest in Africa.
What helped was when conquered Berbers (as Tariq ibn Ziyad) were used to rule over newly conquered provinces or tribes.
Also OTL, it took awhile for a significant Arab presence to establish itself in the West.
Depends of what you're talking about : ethnical Arab? Yes.
For all the rest, it did imposed itself quite quickly : Islam, Quranic teaching (as in, including judicial and cultural features), Arabo-Islamic features (the revolt of 740 being made in the name of a kharidjite Caliphate), and Arab having a favoured use.
It's not like Berbers weren't surrounded internally and externaly (Muslim Spain, Muslim Africa) by Arabs influence and features.
In fact, the coastal African regions, opposed to Maghrib, probably demonstrated more resistance on Arabo-Islamisation than the latter (relativly speaking, of course).
The fact that some of the tribes kept their religions after the conquest (until they religiously assimilated) would seem to indicate relative weakness on the Arab's part in the early conquest and/or they needed Dhimmi to tax.
Definitely not the case.
First, Arabs made Berbers pay Dhimmi taxes, whatever they converted or not.
Then they parctically used the same administrative features than the exarchate (at the point of Ifriqiya province turning as an Islamic equivalent of an exarchate). The point of the revolt of 740 was Arab presence was too important and too hegemonic.
I wasn't making a big deal about the Rif Republic. Just an example of a longer tradition of Berber self-organization.
And it's clearly not an exemple of ability
to unite past immediate threats, or even face to it.
--we had a semi-Judaized Khazar state that lasted at least a couple of centuries after the conversion of the ruling elite.
And for aformentioned reasons, couldn't turn into a
wanked jewish state.
Khazars basically run out their possibility of expansion, having to deal with Byzantium or Abassids in the South, and having nothing of interest North of them.
If only a part of Khazars seems to have converted to Judaism, there's probably a reason : not only tribal federations had a relativly souple vision of religion but the confederal feature prevents a real imposition of religion (critically when some of the components, as Alans, rest of Bulgars, Turks, etc; already practiced another "main" one).
Doing that would be the best way to make a steppe empire explode.
As for the state part, unless having a really broad meaning of state, basically equaling it with politic entity, it wasn't and couldn't without radical changes that so far, only conquest or takeover by or of statist entities made it possible.
It's not a game of Europa Universalis where you can pass from Tribal Federation to Empire just for the kicks of it, when it's about removing the very same feature on which a political power is based, it's generally not a good idea to do it.
Jewish Arabic tribes of S. Arabia
You had actually very few Jewish
tribes in Arabia.
What you had were Arabic kingdoms with an important enough Jewish and/or Judeo-Messianic population for them being able to religiously takeover Yemen for instance; or Jewish populations that doesn't seems to have been carachetrised by tribes but rather by clanic entities.
-- The Beta Israel Jewish kingdom of Semien in NW Abyssinia (sometime after the 4th C. to 1627 (!)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Semien
Unless ASB gives it the means to fight of Christians and Muslims and to expand on them, it doesn't fit.
-- Jewish Berber tribes (some traditions would like to attribute the Warrior Queen Dihya to them --- but probably not)
The first tradition accouting that is Ibn Khaldoun. However, for what we know of Jewish berber tribes, of earlier accounts calling her sons Christians, of his ancestry using Christian-sounding names, it's unlikely.
As for the feasability to turn a war union of several tribes into a full state (not even only a more general ensemble of northern Berbers) AND to make it imposing one religion as insomething, like it or not, incompatible with Berber features at this time without blunt conquest (and even that would require stability and time, something that no Berber tribal state prooved able).
--Various small kingdoms in the Caucasus and Crimea of which we know little.
Short-lived, and certainly not
There has to be some potential for one or more of these to be more successful than they were.
The OP doesn't ask for more successful, he asks for a wank. A "great religious force/Empire"
Not saying it would be easy -- I think it would require someone with specialist knowledge to pull it off --- but would have more than a non-zero chance of existence.
You probably didn't read me carefully enough, I'm afraid. I didn't said there was 0 chance of existance, I said there was 0 chance of any great power in ancient and medieval times to accept the existance of a
Great Jewish Wanked State.
As in an organised and stable polity entity, based on religion (meaning threats of conflict backed by this), powerful and aggressive (wanked without military threat and expansionism is quite a contradition).
It becomes even more unthinkable with a PoD during Muslim conquests : neither Christians or Muslims would allow that.