Okay, so lets say that Muhammad isn't born. How would world religion look by the modern day without it. What would be the main worship in North Africa? Arabia? Central Asia? Indonesia? And how would the western world evolve without it?
What would be the main worship in North Africa?
Arabia?
Central Asia?
Indonesia?
And how would the western world evolve without it?
Okay, so lets say that Muhammad isn't born. How would world religion look by the modern day without it. What would be the main worship in North Africa? Arabia? Central Asia? Indonesia? And how would the western world evolve without it?
Christianity; St Augustine is influential perhaps, though more likely the Arian Vandals survive longer as well. Whichever sect predominates, their influence is likely to spread to West African kingdoms like Ghana, changing that region's history as well.
I can see the Turks becoming Nestorian Christians (Tengrism just limits your empire building and FP ability), in which case Persia will fall in the next century or two to one form of Christianity or another.
Wasn't Arianism dead long time before Mohammed's birth? I could see North Africa being very well Donatist.
I think that Persia could still remain as Zoroastrist. There might be notable Manichean influence in Central Asia.
In Iran Zoroastrian continues to remain strong with the huge amount of the lower class following the religion and the empereorstates using it as a stabillizer. There will be even larger restrictions of Christian and Buddhist prostelization in Iran then otl.
See, I really doubt Persia can stay Zoroastrian long term -- at some point, the Sassinids are going to go into political and/or social decline (probably sooner rather than later), and the fact here is TTL Christianity (of various sects, admittedly) is so dominant in all areas surrounding them that the logic of Christian allies, trade with Christian lands, etc will be eventually become too powerful to overcome. Now my guess is Nestorianism is best suited to take advantage of this -- they're already heavily established in Persia, they've got a major presence in Central Asia, and they're not that far off theologically from their Coptic and Othodox neighbors.
I agree with you that it is likely for the Sassanids to fall, yet I do not believe that the survival of Zoroastrianism is tied to the Sassanid state. Zoroastrianism is tied to the Iranian plateau and the Iranian people as long as they remain Zoroastrian, the religion has life, similar to how Hinduism (or the many religions of Hinduism) is alive as long as it holds sway over India.
The belief that Christianity was a huge threat to Persia does have some ground, yet it is often over exaggerated. For one thing the Persian empire's base of power after the fall of Persepolis to Alexander was moved westward to Babylonia/Seleucia/Cteshipon, overtime the non persian ethnicities (the majority) became either Christian or Gnostic (including Manichaeism). Due to Iraq being possibly the larger population region of the empire, makes the religion that is the majority there seemingly the most popular in Persia. Yet, this is most likely untrue as the vast majority of ethnic Persians were still Zoroastrian at the conquest of Islam, only Iraq had the large Christian/Yazidi/Gnostic populations.
Also we have to understand the Sassanids were the first Persian regime to really deal with Christianity therefore had no knowledge and way to defend itself, as we go along the Sassanids began created measures to limit Christian power in the Itanian parts of the empire. Theoretically, a new Persian dynasty would remedy the "Christian problem" by moving the capital/power base back to Iran (with its main supporters). In this scenario, yes Zoroastrianism would survive, survive as it always did as the religion of the Iranian people and culture. The only way to change that would be a large empire with a fearsome army and a powerbase close enough to give the people a true incentive to convert (Abbasids).
I agree with you that it is likely for the Sassanids to fall, yet I do not believe that the survival of Zoroastrianism is tied to the Sassanid state. Zoroastrianism is tied to the Iranian plateau and the Iranian people as long as they remain Zoroastrian, the religion has life, similar to how Hinduism (or the many religions of Hinduism) is alive as long as it holds sway over India.
The belief that Christianity was a huge threat to Persia does have some ground, yet it is often over exaggerated. For one thing the Persian empire's base of power after the fall of Persepolis to Alexander was moved westward to Babylonia/Seleucia/Cteshipon, overtime the non persian ethnicities (the majority) became either Christian or Gnostic (including Manichaeism). Due to Iraq being possibly the larger population region of the empire, makes the religion that is the majority there seemingly the most popular in Persia. Yet, this is most likely untrue as the vast majority of ethnic Persians were still Zoroastrian at the conquest of Islam, only Iraq had the large Christian/Yazidi/Gnostic populations.
Also we have to understand the Sassanids were the first Persian regime to really deal with Christianity therefore had no knowledge and way to defend itself, as we go along the Sassanids began created measures to limit Christian power in the Itanian parts of the empire. Theoretically, a new Persian dynasty would remedy the "Christian problem" by moving the capital/power base back to Iran (with its main supporters). In this scenario, yes Zoroastrianism would survive, survive as it always did as the religion of the Iranian people and culture. The only way to change that would be a large empire with a fearsome army and a powerbase close enough to give the people a true incentive to convert (Abbasids).
2) No hostile religion sitting across the trade lines with India and age of exploration will miss one thing that got it started, the need to find new trade routes to India.
Couldn't have put it better. Zoroastrianism was the way of life for the ancient Iranians and even to this day it Iranian culture, even though it's Islamic, has retained many of it's older traits.
I guess so, Zoroastrianism was pretty strong. It was not too prozelitysig, that's true, but it doesn't equal weakness.Agreed, I think the persistence of Zoroastrian festivals amongst the Indo-Iranian peoples, and their spread to neighboring Turkic speakers (Nowruz, the Persian New Year, is popular from Azerbaijan to the Salar Turks of Gansu, China), as well as the continued persistence of Zoroastrian communities in Iran and India suggests that Iran minus Islam will hold on to Zoroastrianism, or at least that any foreign religion that takes sway even by force will have to borrow heavily from Zoroastrianism.
Ooh, here's a thought -- if Hindus continue to dominate trade in the Indian Ocean, does that mean East Africa sees Hindu city states and empires emerge in later centuries? That'd be cool.
So, with the Eastern Roman Empire to the East, the Ethiopians to the South, the (TTL, Nestorian or Gnostic) Turks from the Northeast, plus their sizable non-Persian population, you don't think that when the Sassanid political power starts to crumble the Zoroastrian faith won't be facing an existential crisis?