AH: The Great Jewish-wank

Then why did the Golden Horde suddenly mass-convert all of their steppe vassals to Islam in the 1310s? Looking at my CK2 games tells me much about that.

And besides, if some Jewish King were to somehow become independent, said ruler could setup a Janissary-like system for his captives to turn into loyal, zionist elite warriors.

Or Muhammad could've conquered the Middle East in the name of the Torah.

Did they mass convert the Slavs in their domain? The Horde in fact didn't mass convert the Jews and Christians in their dominion. And the Il-Khans only went after the Buddhists and Zoroastrians in their reach.

Come up with a reasonable POD for a Jewish Mohammed then but, as I've stated, Jews (since the advent of rabbinical Judaism) haven't exactly been big on proselytizing. It would be easier to come up with someone spreading Buddhism by the sword than someone doing it in the name of Judaism. In other words, pretty implausible.
 
Did they mass convert the Slavs in their domain? The Horde in fact didn't mass convert the Jews and Christians in their dominion. And the Il-Khans only went after the Buddhists and Zoroastrians in their reach.

Come up with a reasonable POD for a Jewish Mohammed then but, as I've stated, Jews (since the advent of rabbinical Judaism) haven't exactly been big on proselytizing. It would be easier to come up with someone spreading Buddhism by the sword than someone doing it in the name of Judaism. In other words, pretty implausible.
There's always room for the ASB scripts, ne? :D
 
There were Berber federations of tribes historically. Various found in Roman times to a couple in the 11th-12th C.
Rare and generally short lived. It was almost always as a reaction against an invader or to offer a counter power that collapsed or shattered in absentia of a direct threat.

The only counter exemple I could think about is Numidia, and we know little about it, especially not its real importance (I would check Abdallah Laroui later about it) and being backed at least partially by Rome certainly helped.
I'm not sure the power in place in Africa this time (namely Arabs) would be that supportive :D

You could have the exemple of Berber Dynasties as Almoravids or Almohads, but giving they were essentially takeovers by a Berber tribe on others (and prone to collapse as well), I'm not sure it would be a valid comparison (essentially because Islam was an unifying factor there).

Not to mention the Rif Rebellion of last century.
Even if we could compare a decolonizing tribal rebellion in the XXth with ancient and medieval Berber groups and federations, Rif Republic is quite representative of the short-lived and divided tentatives I mentioned.

Some of these had considerable staying power, so I wouldn't underestimate the Berbers ability to organize.
Probably not, but an ethnic common feature doesn't mean it can be unified because. Tribal identities would still be most important, and really prevent the appearance of a true common identity before the appearance of nationalism.


What if Genghis Khan somehow became Jewish? Wouldn't the Hebrew faith spread far and wide prosperously thanks to him and his horde?
For the same reason Khazars partial conversion didn't provoked the appearance of a Jewish Caucasus, I doubt it. Steppe Empires were not very focused on religion, adopting it rather as a semi-private feature, rather than a true "state belief".[/QUOTE]

Or Muhammad could've conquered the Middle East in the name of the Torah.
That's a false equivalency, or "Butterfly-net PoD".
First, Judaism as a religion but as well a legal/political feature have much less focus on warring than Islam.

Either it would be a really twisted Judaism to have an equivalency with OTL first Islamic conquest (as in conquest of Arab tribes and traditional raiding in Byzantium and Persia), or it would be only one of the Jewish statelets on the Red Sea that never really managed to get an hold on all Arabia (as in Yemen).

You have as well other problems, such as Christian Arabs as Ghassanids (but they weren't the only ones, basically all the N-W was dominated by such) that could far more easily adopt or submit to Islam (that at least ackowledged them) rather than Judaism that was seen as more conflicting.

There's always room for the ASB scripts, ne? :D
In a pre-1900 forum? I don't think, honestly :)
 
Rare and generally short lived. It was almost always as a reaction against an invader or to offer a counter power that collapsed or shattered in absentia of a direct threat.

The only counter exemple I could think about is Numidia, and we know little about it, especially not its real importance (I would check Abdallah Laroui later about it) and being backed at least partially by Rome certainly helped.
I'm not sure the power in place in Africa this time (namely Arabs) would be that supportive :D

You could have the exemple of Berber Dynasties as Almoravids or Almohads, but giving they were essentially takeovers by a Berber tribe on others (and prone to collapse as well), I'm not sure it would be a valid comparison (essentially because Islam was an unifying factor there).

All of which are valid issues. I did say, when I brought up Jewish Berbers that there were issues...

Don't forget the Maranids, as well. A Berber dynasty that lasted over 200 years. Also, historically and traditionally, Berbers were usually organized in tribal alliances ---confederations. Loose confederations but present. The seeds for such explosions as the Berber dynasties that have been mentioned.

Numidia is interesting. What we know of it.

However, if, we were to meet the goal of the POD, with Jewish Berbers as the focus, and difficult to implausible as it might be, it would be born out of resistance to the Arab invasion -- offering a long-term existential threat as a uniting force. Worked for the modern state of Israel.;)

Also the POD says nothing about longevity. Just kickstarting a powerful Jewish polity into (possibly ephemeral) existence. ;)
 
Last edited:

Sabot Cat

Banned
Judaism for Gentiles based on the Noahic Covenant is preached by Jesus of Nazareth, whose collected sayings and parables becomes a standard supplement to the Tanakh as a cult of personality rises proclaiming him to be the Messiah. Nonetheless, Christianity never emerges,and this more Gentile-friendly Judaism spreads all throughout the Roman Empire before becoming the official religion.
 
All of which are valid issues. I did say, when I brought up Jewish Berbers that there were issues...
At some point, it's no longer issues but important obstacles to any wank, that is both the OP premise and an overblown expansion not comparable even by far to IOTL (and generally ignoring plausibility).

Don't forget the Maranids, as well. A Berber dynasty that lasted over 200 years.
My point is not about longevity : we could all mention from memory long-lasting Berber dynasties. It's about their capacity to both longevity and hegemony over Berbers, not even talking about religious unification or wank.

Also, historically and traditionally, Berbers were usually organized in tribal alliances ---confederations. Loose confederations but present. The seeds for such explosions as the Berber dynasties that have been mentioned.
It's a bit more complicated. First the traditional grouping (issued from Ibn Khaldoun) is essentially giving a generalized vision of Berber organisation.
In fact each of these was easily dividable, would it be only geographically as the Sanhaja that were divided into two great geographical locations (Atlantic coast and Sahara; and Middle Atlas and Algeria).
Then it's to be noted these confederations were essentially identitarian, not political.

When it had political outcomes it was thanks to the internal relationship maintained between tribes or groups of tribes (One tribe of Zenata allied itself to Cordobans, other followed or were made so). Having one tribe taking effective control of such confederation would be not only really hard but would ask for a foreign support (Clientelisation being something more or less opposed to wank)

However, if, we were to meet the goal of the POD, with Jewish Berbers as the focus, and difficult to implausible as it might be, it would be born out of resistance to the Arab invasion -- offering a long-term existential threat as a uniting force.
You would need to make Jewish tribes actually fighting on. It doesn't seems they were the most rebel of the tribes during the conquest, being largely present in western Maghrib and not participating to the greatest fight in Ifriqiya or Eastern Maghrib.

The fact that several kept their religion afterwards could indicate the existance of a submission rather than an overall conquest. (Admittedly, it seems that Christians Berbers population were maintained up to Norman conquest of Ifriqiya as well)

Worked for the modern state of Israel.;)
As for Rif Republic, we're NOT comparing an ancient and medieval population, with a decolonizing and nationalist takeover.
I would point furthermore, that even for both, international and great power support (or at least passive support) was decisive when it comes to their existance.
There is 0 chance that an ancient or medieval great power would allow a Great wanked Jewish state to emerge, even if it was plausible in first place.

Also the POD says nothing about longevity. Just kickstarting a powerful Jewish polity into (possibly ephemeral) existence. ;)
It doesn't help, actually.
What you want is a wanked Jewish state, issued from an hell of tribal structures with different religions existing inside Berber confederations or even tribes, and appearing ultra-quickly to not unify one confederation but the whole Berbers groups, than imposing one religion, and then pulling a wank elsewhere.

That's not, as in at all, possible with a "possibly ephemeral existance", I'm afraid.
 
At some point, it's no longer issues but important obstacles to any wank, that is both the OP premise and an overblown expansion not comparable even by far to IOTL (and generally ignoring plausibility).


My point is not about longevity : we could all mention from memory long-lasting Berber dynasties. It's about their capacity to both longevity and hegemony over Berbers, not even talking about religious unification or wank.


It's a bit more complicated. First the traditional grouping (issued from Ibn Khaldoun) is essentially giving a generalized vision of Berber organisation.
In fact each of these was easily dividable, would it be only geographically as the Sanhaja that were divided into two great geographical locations (Atlantic coast and Sahara; and Middle Atlas and Algeria).
Then it's to be noted these confederations were essentially identitarian, not political.

When it had political outcomes it was thanks to the internal relationship maintained between tribes or groups of tribes (One tribe of Zenata allied itself to Cordobans, other followed or were made so).

Even so, not an impossibility. Tribal confederations are always complex, tricky, often short-lived. But look at success of other not dissimilar peoples who all had their run in the Sun (or the steppes ;))
Arabs, Turks, Mongols, Jurchens, Manchu, etc.
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. The right leaders, numbers, timing, organizing principle, etc. might have wanked, yes, Jewish Berbers.
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.


You would need to make Jewish tribes actually fighting on. It doesn't seems they were the most rebel of the tribes during the conquest, being largely present in western Maghrib and not participating to the greatest fight in Ifriqiya or Eastern Maghrib.

The fact that several kept their religion afterwards could indicate the existance of a submission rather than an overall conquest. (Admittedly, it seems that Christians Berbers population were maintained up to Norman conquest of Ifriqiya as well)

That they were in the western Maghrib, I see as a positive not a detriment. It gives them more time to organize. Also OTL, it took awhile for a significant Arab presence to establish itself in the West.

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.


As for Rif Republic, we're NOT comparing an ancient and medieval population, with a decolonizing and nationalist takeover.
I would point furthermore, that even for both, international and great power support (or at least passive support) was decisive when it comes to their existance.

I wasn't making a big deal about the Rif Republic. Just an example of a longer tradition of Berber self-organization. They were pretty kick ass against the Spanish and French (who used poison gas against the Berbers) while it lasted, though.

There is 0 chance that an ancient or medieval great power would allow a Great wanked Jewish state to emerge, even if it was plausible in first place.

In the 1st Millennium present era, I see opportunities that would indeed be closed off by your concerns later.
As it was, in this period,
--we had a semi-Judaized Khazar state that lasted at least a couple of centuries after the conversion of the ruling elite. Perhaps the closest we got to an OTL wank, in some respects.
--Jewish Arabic tribes of S. Arabia before Axumite and Persian depredations.
-- 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
-- Jewish Berber tribes (some traditions would like to attribute the Warrior Queen Dihya to them --- but probably not)
--Various small kingdoms in the Caucasus and Crimea of which we know little.

There has to be some potential for one or more of these to be more successful than they were. 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 a beefed-up existence.
 
Last edited:
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 eastern 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.
 
Last edited:
Have widespread conflict between Christians and Muslims last longer, eventually evolving into a cold war scenario. Eventually, as the anti-war counter-culture grows, people start converting to Judaism in response to the Christian/Muslim religious leaders encouraging the violence.
 
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.

Byzantine influence on the pre-conquest Berbers was not non-existent. How much in the wild west of the Maghreb, I'd love to know.
Khazars had many cultural neighbors to choose from --- Persian, Byzantine, their very sitting on major trade routes. Which helped turn it into their own particular civilization.

Depends of what you're talking about : ethnical Arab? Yes.

Ethnic Arab. Oui.

Definitely not the case.
First, Arabs made Berbers pay Dhimmi taxes, whatever they converted or not.
At first, no? Can you pass along a citation for this (French or Spanish) is fine)?

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.

We will have to compare notes on Khazaria sometime. I think we have drawn some different conclusions, here. Do you read Russian, incidentally? For future reference. Some great source material not always easy to find in say English or French.

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.

That is subject to debate. Some of the Yemeni ruling class was Jewish (or a species thereof).

Unless ASB gives it the means to fight of Christians and Muslims and to expand on them, it doesn't fit.

But they did (sans ASBs). They survived, grew, shrank, grew, shrank for a 1000 year period.




Short-lived, and certainly not

Couple of centuries. Insufficient data, really to judge.


The OP doesn't ask for more successful, he asks for a wank. A "great religious force/Empire"


Lawyer.:p

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.

I probably did read you carefully enough.
What you were trying to state implies physical action by these great powers against a Jewish polity. To me, anyway. Hence my comment about existence and I probably should have specifically stated "survivability" as well.


Anyway, your posts are usually very engaging and I love exposure to source material and conclusions I haven't seen or heard so well expressed.
Thank you. :)
 
Byzantine influence on the pre-conquest Berbers was not non-existent.
Nodody said that. My point was the quoted peoples only managed to really last when conquering and/or taking over more stable entities.
As far as I know, Berbers didn't conquered the exarchate, let alone Byzantium.

How much in the wild west of the Maghreb, I'd love to know.
Clearly more limited to the coast (and not all, with a great empty thing between Ceuta and Volubilis), to more and more inexistant as you go to the south or Atlas.
We had very few contemporary mentions after the IIIrd century, and everything past Aurès and the coast is basically a terra icognita for 4 centuries up to Musa ibn Nusayr.

If similar to other highlands we know better about : communauties fragmentation, endogamic societies, using the formulation of Abdallah Laroui.

Khazars had many cultural neighbors to choose from --- Persian, Byzantine, their very sitting on major trade routes. Which helped turn it into their own particular civilization.
The point is not to discuss about their original culture/civilisation, but about them having an imperial state instead of a steppe confederation.
Again, the only models avaible of imperial organisation at their time was either Byzantium and Abassids, when religion was directly tied to political organisation.

The very choice of Judaism is actually an absence of choice between both of politico-religious imperial entities; mostly because the adoption of one or another, would have meant a possible sattelisation, as Abassids actually tried to do IOTL by forcing Khazars to convert to Islam.

At first, no? Can you pass along a citation for this (French or Spanish) is fine)?
Any quick search can show it, sincerely. It caused other important features as the Pact of Umar, that led the fundation of Late Umayyad fiscality (it's not the only reason, but the direct cause).

We will have to compare notes on Khazaria sometime. I think we have drawn some different conclusions, here. Do you read Russian, incidentally? For future reference.
Well, read it yes. Understanding what it means, not at all :D

Some great source material not always easy to find in say English or French.
I used these for writting a quite short memory (no more than 30 pages) about religion and imperial model some years ago.
- L’Empire khazar. VIIe-XIe siècle (collective book, quite interesting and not outdated as many french sources on it)
- Khazars correspondance
- L'Empire des steppes (A classic, but clearly outdated)
- Encyclopedia Judaica article

For the mention of russian work, there's that about Gumilev (Praising his work, while disagreeing about sedentarity and endogamy of Khazars)

Unfortunatly, I don't have all of them there, apart some other secondary mentions that aren't really good (as Ferro that perpetuated Ashkenazi = Khazar's descendents).
I had a summary of Kevin Alan Brook avaible somewhere, (I probably had, as I listed it) but I don't find it...

There's also Koesler Thriteen Tribe, but I'm quite wary about it.

That is subject to debate. Some of the Yemeni ruling class was Jewish (or a species thereof).
You misunderstood me : I didn't said part ruling class or rulers weren't (in fact my post is the exact contrary) but doubted it was a tribal feature to begin with, being more similar to urban communauties.

But they did (sans ASBs). They survived, grew, shrank, grew, shrank for a 1000 year period.
Not as a wank or imperial state.

Couple of centuries. Insufficient data, really to judge.
Sorry, my post was cutted out (or more exactly, began to answer, passed to another question in order to formulate it better, and forgot to continue/rewrite it).
What I wanted to say is that the lack of data isn't a proof of continuity, and that the Caucasus/Crimean entities weren't clearly Jewish (or imperial to begin with)

Maybe, but I like clear premises :)

I probably did read you carefully enough.
What you were trying to state implies physical action by these great powers against a Jewish polity. To me, anyway. Hence my comment about existence and I probably should have specifically stated "survivability" as well.
Not only against a Jewish policy but towards any try at wank (meaning expansionnism).

You could have what you had IOTL, a tolerance of such existance (as in acknowledging it exist and that you can't do anything about it), but never a true acceptance of it (maybe the difference I put between both isn't clear but for me).

By exemple, Byzantium making treaties with Khazars (but you'll notice that's essentially true before the appearance of a Khazar Judaism) but turning really hostile as soon a new, and this time orthodox, power appeared on the Black Sea/Baltic trade roads.

As long it would remain a confederal entity, porous to other peoples (as Cumans), it would remain more tolerable by imperial states.

But if a tendency appeared in Khazaria to form a jewish imperial state (that I define as a religious and political hegemony over a territory), that would mean a far more limited political/dipomatical and economical range for both Byzantines and Arabs (eventually threatening their interests and influence there) it would be seen as a geopolitical and ideological threat.

Anyway, your posts are usually very engaging and I love exposure to source material and conclusions I haven't seen or heard so well expressed.
Thank you. :)
You're another one :D
 
Last edited:
IMO, it doesn't matter if Khazar's survive or not.
Main focus should be through Khazar, Jewish religion should be adopted among nomads.
Lets say Volga Bulgars adopt Judaism and so is Central Asian Nomads including Mongols.
By Genghis Khaan it will become majority religion among Mongols. History will go as OTL and Mongols build its Empire. This will spread Judaism all over the world.
What if Genghis Khaan interpret itself as Jewish Messiah. And his/descendants conquering Holy Land and creating Jewish state, building Third Temple?
Now we can make Judaism spread from Crimea to Pacific Ocean, including part of Northern China. It will have some 100 - 200 million followers, depending on scenarios.
 
Last edited:
Top