Non-Jewish Khazaria doesn't change anything?

I'm trying to figure out the butterflies from having the Khazars be Christian or Muslim instead of Jewish. Is there anything that would change, either short-term or long-term in history?
 
In the short term, either the Byzantines or the caliphate would gain an ally against their main foe. That's all I can think of right now.
 
Well, first you have to remember the khaganate first converted to Islam, historically.
Then the conversion to Judaism mostly concerned part of the elite, probably with really few deep influence (at best, we're talking of a small part of Khazars propers) at the point many depictions of their judaity are semi-mythical.

See, as all other steppe empires, religion simply didn't played a major institutional role, not before taking over regions where it did. Think Mongol approach on religion.

Giving that this supposed conversion played almost no role historically, I'd be tempted to say not undergoing it would play almost no role : ByzantineLover mentioned a possible alliance network, but I don't really thinks it would be that easy.

Khazars would be still pretty much challenging Byzantium in Caucasus and Black Sea, and Abbasids in Caucasus and Caspian Sea.
That said, you could have more easily de facto alliances against one, but it would be essentially contextual, rather than formal.

OTOH, it would make the conspiracy theories about Azkenazi being Khazars being butterflied away.
But more seriously...
It would have an impact on medieval Jewish historiography, culture. How much exactly, and how consequential, I'm not too sure.
 
Well, first you have to remember the khaganate first converted to Islam, historically.
Then the conversion to Judaism mostly concerned part of the elite, probably with really few deep influence (at best, we're talking of a small part of Khazars propers) at the point many depictions of their judaity are semi-mythical.

See, as all other steppe empires, religion simply didn't played a major institutional role, not before taking over regions where it did. Think Mongol approach on religion.

Giving that this supposed conversion played almost no role historically, I'd be tempted to say not undergoing it would play almost no role : ByzantineLover mentioned a possible alliance network, but I don't really thinks it would be that easy.

Khazars would be still pretty much challenging Byzantium in Caucasus and Black Sea, and Abbasids in Caucasus and Caspian Sea.
That said, you could have more easily de facto alliances against one, but it would be essentially contextual, rather than formal.

OTOH, it would make the conspiracy theories about Azkenazi being Khazars being butterflied away.
But more seriously...
It would have an impact on medieval Jewish historiography, culture. How much exactly, and how consequential, I'm not too sure.

I was not aware that the Khazars ever converted to Islam... I know Ibn al-Athir claims they converted to Islam, but this was far later and disputed. Basically at what times where they Muslim? I had never read where they submitted to the Caliph.
 
I was not aware that the Khazars ever converted to Islam... I know Ibn al-Athir claims they converted to Islam, but this was far later and disputed. Basically at what times where they Muslim? I had never read where they submitted to the Caliph.

Apparently you had a conversion happening during the rule of Marwan in the aftermath of the Second Umayyad-Khazar war, in 737 as to obtain a peace treaty (at least locally, it's not entierly clear if we're talking about the khagan, a tarkan or a local lord, while I'd favour the two first).
It's apparently coming from al-Baladhuri, as follows.

Marwan as governor. Marwan ibn-Muhammad * then became the ruler of the frontier and took up his abode at Kisal. Marwan was the one who built the city of Kisal.
This city lies 40 parasangs from Bardha'ah and 20 from Taflis. Marwan then entered the country of al-Khazar next to Bab al-Lan and made Asid z ibn-Zafir as-Sulami abu-Yazid, accompanied by the kings of al-Jibal, enter it from the side of al-Bab wa-1-Abwab. Then Marwan made an incursion on the Slavs who were in the land of al-Khazar and captured 20,000 families whom he settled in Khakhit. When they later put their commander to death and took to flight, Marwan pursued and slaughtered them.

When the chief of al-Khazar learned of the great number of men with whom Marwan had swept over his land and of their equipment and strength, his heart was filled with cowardice and fear. When Marwan came close to him,
he sent him a messenger inviting him to " Islam or war ", to which he replied, " I have accepted Islam. Send therefore someone to present it to me."

Marwan did so. The chief professed Islam and made a treaty with Marwan according to which Marwan confirmed him as ruler of his kingdom. Marwan with a host of al-Khazar accompanied the chief; and al-Khazar were made to settle in the plain of the province of al-Lakz between as-Samur and ash-Sha-
biran.

It could be one of the explanations why Khazars didn't resumed raiding and campaigning in South until the Abbasid coup.

Now, this submission is likely to have been superficial (it was kinda my point, as you can see above) and mostly drawn by the point of the sword of Arab presence north of Caucasus. With the general political dismentlement in this region, I doubt it played a lot.

That said, it only, IMO, increased the Islamic presence among Khazars and their subjects people that lasted well after the Judaic conversion that, and that must be stressed, concerned an elite, at best a fairly large one.
 
Apparently you had a conversion happening during the rule of Marwan in the aftermath of the Second Umayyad-Khazar war, in 737 as to obtain a peace treaty (at least locally, it's not entierly clear if we're talking about the khagan, a tarkan or a local lord, while I'd favour the two first).
It's apparently coming from al-Baladhuri, as follows.



It could be one of the explanations why Khazars didn't resumed raiding and campaigning in South until the Abbasid coup.

Now, this submission is likely to have been superficial (it was kinda my point, as you can see above) and mostly drawn by the point of the sword of Arab presence north of Caucasus. With the general political dismentlement in this region, I doubt it played a lot.

That said, it only, IMO, increased the Islamic presence among Khazars and their subjects people that lasted well after the Judaic conversion that, and that must be stressed, concerned an elite, at best a fairly large one.

Hmm interesting, I had never read that before. So did this Khagan initiate Bayait? If so that would be really interesting. I had always thought it would be fun for the Khazars to invade Armenia/Iraq/Syria/Anatolia as the Cimmerians did. Idk, cool idea IMO.
 
Hmm interesting, I had never read that before. So did this Khagan initiate Bayait? If so that would be really interesting. I had always thought it would be fun for the Khazars to invade Armenia/Iraq/Syria/Anatolia as the Cimmerians did. Idk, cool idea IMO.

Well, "professed Islam" seems to imply that, even if as said before it might not be the khagan (or the khagan at this point). But I wonder at which point it wasn't superficial, at least for what mattered Khazar nobility and elites whom beliefs were particularly diverse.
At best you may have ended with a really formal recognition from the Khagan, as the Umayyad emirs of Al-Andalus did regarding the prayers.

By the late VIIIth/early IXth, it was IMO too late for that. Abbasid Caliphate, in spite of civil war, was too firmly established in the region that for Khazars being really in position to not only kick them out of Caucasus (well, "them" being a mix of Arab and Christian caucasian elites under technical Caliphal, and more directly emiral, authority).

Seljuks and other Turks managed to do that because they had not much to loose, even if it's a bit simplifying things, and already part of the Arabo-Islamic world trough sheer military service (contrary to Khazars).

Khazars being Islamized would imply less hegemonic khaganate (we could even see their influence on some people as Volga Bulgars or Magyars waning), but IMO, it could look like as a steppe-equivalent of Mali : trade center on luxury products but slaves as well (if not mainly), rather than attempting a southern conquest.
 
Well, "professed Islam" seems to imply that, even if as said before it might not be the khagan (or the khagan at this point). But I wonder at which point it wasn't superficial, at least for what mattered Khazar nobility and elites whom beliefs were particularly diverse.
At best you may have ended with a really formal recognition from the Khagan, as the Umayyad emirs of Al-Andalus did regarding the prayers.

By the late VIIIth/early IXth, it was IMO too late for that. Abbasid Caliphate, in spite of civil war, was too firmly established in the region that for Khazars being really in position to not only kick them out of Caucasus (well, "them" being a mix of Arab and Christian caucasian elites under technical Caliphal, and more directly emiral, authority).

Seljuks and other Turks managed to do that because they had not much to loose, even if it's a bit simplifying things, and already part of the Arabo-Islamic world trough sheer military service (contrary to Khazars).

Khazars being Islamized would imply less hegemonic khaganate (we could even see their influence on some people as Volga Bulgars or Magyars waning), but IMO, it could look like as a steppe-equivalent of Mali : trade center on luxury products but slaves as well (if not mainly), rather than attempting a southern conquest.

I disagree, professed Islam does not require the Bayait. For instance no Muslim today performs Bayait to a ruler (unless you count Dawlah). However in those days it was an requirement to perform Bayait in some way to the Caliph and thus make the Ummah of believers (Dar al-Islam) a single entity. In fact I find it more interesting to have a unorthodox Khazaria than a half Islamic state that can't be declared on again by the Caliphate unless the Ulema says so (because if they converted they obviously said the Shahada, thus requiring Ulema rulings of Takfir after the fact).
 
As you said, while today with the absence of a political motivation it's not a requirement, I've an extremely hard way to be convinced that a defeated Khazar chief (critically if it's the khagan) being defeated in Ciscaucasia by one of the most important Caliphal nobles in the name of the Caliph would have somehow being spared it.

That it was significant or not is let to anyone's appreciation (Again, while relatively superficial for what mattered Khazars, I think it played a role on their diplomacy) but I think it was, if something, more tied to a link with Marwan and last Umayyad caliphes reather than Islam proper (which could explain the campaigns in the late VIIIth against Abbasids).

Basically, not Khazars state being an Islamic Khaganate, but some of its rulers being Islamized and with relatively strong ties with Umayyads and Transcaucasus polities (as hinted with the Third Arab-Khazar War's causes, even if it backfired)
 
As you said, while today with the absence of a political motivation it's not a requirement, I've an extremely hard way to be convinced that a defeated Khazar chief (critically if it's the khagan) being defeated in Ciscaucasia by one of the most important Caliphal nobles in the name of the Caliph would have somehow being spared it.

That it was significant or not is let to anyone's appreciation (Again, while relatively superficial for what mattered Khazars, I think it played a role on their diplomacy) but I think it was, if something, more tied to a link with Marwan and last Umayyad caliphes reather than Islam proper (which could explain the campaigns in the late VIIIth against Abbasids).

Basically, not Khazars state being an Islamic Khaganate, but some of its rulers being Islamized and with relatively strong ties with Umayyads and Transcaucasus polities (as hinted with the Third Arab-Khazar War's causes, even if it backfired)


That would make sense. Technically even if the Khazars were heavily Islamic they don't have to acknowledge the Abbasid as long as the Ulema rules that the Umayyads are still lawful, which they were.

I agree on the Bayait question, I just meant that in cases where the Caliph weakens it is very possible and Halal for one to abstain that Bayait. However there is disputes on this topic some say that rebellion is unlawful (99% of Ulema in Saudi Arabia) while others say it is obligatory (Al Qaeda, Dawlah, Taliban, etc).
 
Top