Byzantium - Khazaria - Arabs

[Honorius]

the other day i was arguing yet again with a few friends that the Byzantines where the defenders of europe after they had defeated the arabs in a number of sieges and battles. As usual this argument got shot down and someone mentioned a Jewish kingdom called Khazaria and that they had been more vital in the defense of Europe against the Arab Caliphate then the Byzantines had been. what do you guys think of this? were the Khazars more important then Armenia or the states of Georgia? if it wasnt for the Byzantine empire christianity wouldve had a hard time surviving?

 

i eagerly await your replies

[Kosmo]

Khazars were a federation of tukish tribes that was based around Volga and controlled east European steppe. Some were jewish, some christians, some muslims.

They fought against the arabs and prevented them from moving north of the North Caucasus mountain range. In the process their towns and settlements along the foothills of the mountains were destroyed.

 

The article in wikipedia it's another proof that wiki it's growing despite the accent on judaism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazar

 

The impact of khazar resistance it's difficult to establish. They had good conditions as steppe people were rarely defeated by sedentary armies on their own homeland. Byzantine support was helping.

If defeated we could see a slow muslim expansion in the steppe and possible muslim invasions from that directions towards Europe.

The muslims actually did expand later in this areas first by the conversion of the Volga bulgars and later by the early islamization of the mongol Golden Horde.

This muslim state ruled the areas between Nistru/Dniester, Siberia and Central Asia but still was defeated by lithuanians, poles and russians ending as russian land.

Khazar resistence was important by tieing down arab forces, by blocking expansion in the steppe in the explosive days of Islam and by helping Byzantium that was the greatest enemy of the Caliphate.

[Ioannes_Ahenobarbus]

Unfortunately I cannot say too much about the Khazars.

Concerning the Romans/Byzantines, however, it is rather obvious to me that the Roman/Byzantine Empire basically stood as a bulwark against the energetic, bellicose state of the Arabs. After all, the newly Muslim Arab tribes basically attacked and conquered everything until stopped by the Franks and Romans/Byzantines. It is the old, traditional theory of why the Arabs halted, but it is still the most plausible in my opinion.

[The Roadie]

Unfortunately I cannot say too much about the Khazars.

Concerning the Romans/Byzantines, however, it is rather obvious to me that the Roman/Byzantine Empire basically stood as a bulwark against the energetic, bellicose state of the Arabs. After all, the newly Muslim Arab tribes basically attacked and conquered everything until stopped by the Franks and Romans/Byzantines. It is the old, traditional theory of why the Arabs halted, but it is still the most plausible in my opinion.

 

The Kaliphate was ultimately its own largest enemy. In the 8th century, it was the largest empire the world had ever seen at that point, surpassing both Persia and Rome. Yet, it lacked institutions advanced enough to administrate the Empire. The evidence is by the speed it fell to pieces.

 

http://moinansari.files.wordpress.com/2008...pire-750-ad.jpg

 

In 1000 AD, the Kaliphate just comprised the southern half of Iraq. It was a giant failure of an empire, but it is at the same time possibly the only world empire which has spawned an entire civilisation in such a short period of time.

[Romanus]

Unfortunately I cannot say too much about the Khazars.

Concerning the Romans/Byzantines, however, it is rather obvious to me that the Roman/Byzantine Empire basically stood as a bulwark against the energetic, bellicose state of the Arabs. After all, the newly Muslim Arab tribes basically attacked and conquered everything until stopped by the Franks and Romans/Byzantines. It is the old, traditional theory of why the Arabs halted, but it is still the most plausible in my opinion.

 

The Kaliphate was ultimately its own largest enemy. In the 8th century, it was the largest empire the world had ever seen at that point, surpassing both Persia and Rome. Yet, it lacked institutions advanced enough to administrate the Empire. The evidence is by the speed it fell to pieces.

 

http://moinansari.files.wordpress.com/2008...pire-750-ad.jpg

 

In 1000 AD, the Kaliphate just comprised the southern half of Iraq. It was a giant failure of an empire, but it is at the same time possibly the only world empire which has spawned an entire civilisation in such a short period of time.

The reason the Caliphate fell to pieces was the Sunni Shia split no bad governance. The accent of Omar over Ali set the fuse and his Assassination by the Persians lit it. Omar's death lead to the apointment of Uthman which lead to the first Sunni Shia civil war which ended the moderate Rashidun Caliphate and started the rule of the extremist Umayyad Caliphate which was in turn overthrown by the persian backed Abbasid which went into decline with the rise in power of the Turkish Mamluk army it had created. In the end the Abbasid fell apart by the loss of military dominance to it's Turkish slave soldiers not because of poor governing ability.

 

Now as far as the Question on Byzantium first during the Rashidun period the Omar was afraid that Heraclius would repeat what he did against the Sassanid Empire so left Eastern Rome mostly alone. The Umayyads on the other hand set about trying to conquer Europe. If you look at the Caliphate you only had two paths into Europe one was to take Constantinople and the other was via Spain (The Asian steeps was out of the question as Eastern Rome was watching the steeps closely and would pay the tribes in the region to raid and harass any army which came that way. As the heart of the Islamic Empire lay in Egypt and Persia any Invasion by way of Spain would be at the end of a long logistical nightmare. any attempt to move supplies by way of north Africa or the Mediteranian would have met with raids and attacks by Roman forces leaving the Constantinople rout and the only option. As far as the "Defender of Europe" Byzantium didn't do it out of kindness or sense of duty she did it to survive. Two thirds of Europe's wealth was in Eastern Rome and she was always afraid of being out flanked by her enemies who saw her as the jewel in the crown.

[Late Emperor]

As far as the "Defender of Europe" Byzantium didn't do it out of kindness or sense of duty she did it to survive. Two thirds of Europe's wealth was in Eastern Rome and she was always afraid of being out flanked by her enemies who saw her as the jewel in the crown.

 

The greedy idiotic crusaders which sacked Costantinoples and destroyed the Empire could not imagine that they were removing their only safeguard against deep muslim expansion in Europe (like it happened in the following centuries).

 

Without that betrayal the byzantines would have probably halted the turkish westward expansion for a long time or even permanently.