Khazars conquer Umayyad Caliphate

Valerius Publicola

In 730 Khazar general Barjik invaded the Umayyad Caliphate. He had already defeat Umayyad prince Maslama ibn Abd al-Malik. Barjik besieged Ardabil and annihilated a relief force led by Umayyad general al-Jarrah ibn Abdallah killing him. After sacking Ardabil the Barjik marched on Mosul. Khazars dispersed into groups attack various cities. Umayyad general Sa'id ibn Amr al-Harashi was sent with a force before the main army led by Maslama. Sa'id used the dispersion of the khazars to defeat them in detail. What if Barjik kept his army close together? Sa'id's army is crushed like al-Jarrah's was and Maslama is defeated again. Barjik then sacks the Umayyad capital of Damascus and Khazars rampage through Syria the Umayyad powerbase ending the dynasty's reign.
 
Last edited:

altwere

I think that the aftermath of this will in part depend on a couple of things. Was this an attempt to conquer the area or is this like King Mursili's raid on Babylon. It will also depend on the route that the Khazars took. If the came down the west side of the Caspian Sea that would leave the potential for Constantanople to recover more of Anatolia. If the Khazars stay they will keep the area in turmoil for a while., while a new order forms.
 

Hastings

Detachments made it as far as Mosul, but the bulk of forces seem to have been further north. Like the defeat of Barjik took place in what is now Azerbaijan. My impression is the goal was probably to secure the southern Caucuses. They basically fanned out across to secure that area, which resulted in defeat in detail. I don't think they really have the manpower to destroy the Umayyads. But if they decide to do a giant raid as opposed to trying to make territorial gain, maybe they can make it to the walls of Damascus, which would be bad for Umayyad legitimacy.
 

Valerius Publicola

altwere said:
I think that the aftermath of this will in part depend on a couple of things. Was this an attempt to conquer the area or is this like King Mursili's raid on Babylon. It will also depend on the route that the Khazars took. If the came down the west side of the Caspian Sea that would leave the potential for Constantanople to recover more of Anatolia. If the Khazars stay they will keep the area in turmoil for a while., while a new order forms.
Click to expand...
Wasn't Mursili's rule of Babylon stopped by his assassination ?
 

altwere

He was assassinated buy his brother in law and a son. It probably was not for attacking Babylon. The Hittites had a problem with royal inheritance and this would not be the first or last time the crown passed by assassination.
 

Valerius Publicola

altwere said:
He was assassinated buy his brother in law and a son. It probably was not for attacking Babylon. The Hittites had a problem with royal inheritance and this would not be the first or last time the crown passed by assassination.
Click to expand...
I never said that the assassination was for Babylon but the resulting chaos allowed Babylon to slip away from Hittite control.
 
Last edited:

PecuTheGreat

Valerius Publicola said:
Although not majority. Judiasm was widespread. Many were Jewish like the Seljuks.
Click to expand...
I am pretty sure it is just as much argued that the Seljuks had Christians(not Jews) cuz the Abrahamic names used to make that argument are more common with Christians.

And Seljuk were from the Oghuz Yabgu not the Khazars.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top