WI: Khazars convert to Islam

What if, instead of embracing Judaism as a neutral option the the face of pressure from both the Byzantines and Caliphate, the Khazar rulers decide that their interests lie with the Caliphate and embrace Islam. In particular:
  • How effective would a joint Khazar-Caliphate alliance be against the Byzantines, particularly with the Khazar's ability to raid and attack their Black Sea holdings?
  • What effect is this going to have the the Rus'? Would the Khazars potentially cutting the Byzantines off from their northern trade routes make the Rus' less likely to convert to Christianity or would the prospect of a united front against Khazar expansion mean that they would still seek closer ties with Constantinople?
  • With stronger ties to potential allies to the south how much longer would the Khazar Khanate last for?
 
Last edited:
One possible interesting knock-on is Volga Bulgaria, which became Muslim otl precisely to defend its cultural independence from the Khazars and to get help from the Caliphate. ITTL, it's rather possible that they'll either pick a different unifying religion for the same purposes, or some heterodox version of Islam.
 
The Abbasid diplomatic view was not to gain alliance with the Khazars, but their submission. Khazar interests would be decimated if they submit to vassalage and fealty to the Abbasid.
 
The Abbasid diplomatic view was not to gain alliance with the Khazars, but their submission. Khazar interests would be decimated if they submit to vassalage and fealty to the Abbasid.

Certainly among the smaller societies in the Caucasus (Daghestan, Azerbaijan etc.), integration into the Caliphate and even conversion to Islam often led to really heavy replacement of the elites by Arabs, sometimes to the same degree as the replacement of Anglo-Saxon nobility by the Normans i.e. quite thorough.

The problem with the Khazars is that they already WERE the elite; they were the somewhat thin elite layer on top of a very diverse population. If the patterns from elsewhere hold, I don't think the Khazar identity would necessarily even survive (you might get some kind of "Khazar" tribes joining the Magyars or hiding out in Crimea as OTL even after that, but that's not the same as the Khazar state). Instead you'd get "Muslim" and Muslim-identifying elites ruling over Yassians/Don Alans/Severian Slavs/Kasogians/people of Sarir etc.
 

Marc

Donor
To add a footnote of sorts:
Often as a largely secular society we tend to see events such as conversions, changes of doctrine, as being as being pragmatic or expedient.
That is our biases working - which don't necessarily hold true in the past, particularly prior to the mid 18th century in the West.
Basically, emotions and a desire for a meaningful religious life, as they might see it, can often play a decisive role in what otherwise might seem just a matter of politics.
 
Last edited:
The Abbasid diplomatic view was not to gain alliance with the Khazars, but their submission. Khazar interests would be decimated if they submit to vassalage and fealty to the Abbasid.

IIRC, their main wars had been with the Umayyads and with the Abbasids they managed to establish more or less friendly relations. Anyway, by the 820's secular power of the Abbasid Caliphate started deteriorating and by the early Xth century de facto power was taken by the Persians and then Seljuks with the territorial losses in the North Africa and elsewhere. So if Khazars are converting during period when Caliph is more or less just a religious leader, then they have a chance to retain their state which would be only formally subject of the Caliphate. Of if they manage to stay long enough they can chose Fatimid Caliph as their religious leader. BTW, it seems that in the early X the state already had Khwârazmian Islamic guard (hence request for the retaliation after the Russian raid of the Arab-held territories, a resulting closing of their passage through Volga and spoiled relations ended up with the destruction of Khazarian state by Svyatoslav).

Anyway, their main danger was coming from the nomadic neighbors (often incited by the Byzantines) and strengthening Rus: Khazarian control over the lower Dnieper was contrary to the Russian/Varyangian interests.
 
Last edited:
Exactly. Which is why initially proposed scenario does not make sense from Khazarian point of view. OTOH, if they manage to survive until Caliphate's military power is noticeably decreasing then it can be feasible: while formally acknowledging Caliph's (spiritual) power, they could go the same way as the Seljuks and (later) Khwaresmians.

Sure, but the Khazars would need to survive long enough. Also, the Quman held this position in the steppe as the Khazars, however were slow to conversion. Why would the Khazars do differently?
 
Sure, but the Khazars would need to survive long enough. Also, the Quman held this position in the steppe as the Khazars, however were slow to conversion. Why would the Khazars do differently?

Good question.

They were not exactly the same as the Khazars so the parallels may be deceiving.

The Qumans/Polovtsy (those in Europe) did not have a proper state structure and, unlike the Khazars, they were strictly nomadic with the interests being limited to herding & raiding. Unlike the Khazars, they were neither "imperialistic" (Khazar state at its peak was multi-national) nor too much trade-oriented.

So, basically, you could beat the Polovtsy any number of times but unless you completely occupied their territory they are still there and independent. OTOH, to destroy the Khazars you "simply" needed to raze few of their cities and intercept the trade routes by the major rivers. Again, being trade-dependent, Khazars needed trade partners on both sides of the routes and thus had been sensitive to the shifting political situations outside their borders. Loss of control over the transit from Rus was a very serious blow for their state while for the Polovtsy such a thing was mostly irrelevant.

Polovtsy appeared in the Volga-Don steppes only in mid-XI when Kievan Rus started disintegrating with the center gradually shifting to the Central Russia (Vladimir-Suzdal) and a separate "center" growing in Galitz-Wolynia, which means that Eastward and Southward pressure from the Russian state(s) was decreasing. The same, AFAIK, goes for the trade routes: time of the Varyangian raids was over and emphasis of the Scandinavian and Russian trade started shifting from Byzantine Empire to the West (at least this is one of the existing theories). In other words, Polovtsy were not stepping on other people's toes as much as Khazars. While they still were pain in the butt, soon enough the Russian princes (and leaders of the Polovtsy) figured out a mutually profitable arrangement in which the Russian princes in alliance with the Polovtsy would be looting other Russian princes and burning their towns (as happened to Kiev). Intermarriages among the leadership became reasonably common.

The same goes for the Southern border: their Muslim neighbors were fractured and not as powerful as at the times of Omayyads and at some point they allied with Kingdom of Georgia against the Seljuks thus more or less securing southern direction.

OTOH, Qumans/Kipchaks of the Central Asia got integrated into the local "infrastructure" relatively fast, got converted into Islam and became closely related to the Khwarazmian royal house.
 
One possible interesting knock-on is Volga Bulgaria, which became Muslim otl precisely to defend its cultural independence from the Khazars and to get help from the Caliphate. ITTL, it's rather possible that they'll either pick a different unifying religion for the same purposes, or some heterodox version of Islam.
The Volga Bulgars might just keep Tengri and make alliances as pragmatic concerns necessitate it. Bolghar might survive as a pagan "island" in Russia for several centuries, potentially retaining traits of shamanism.
 
Top