Persia without the Islamic Conquests

Sparked by the thread "Byzantium without the Islamic Conquests" I wanted to ask what would the Persian Empire be like had it not been conquered by Islam? Would the Sassanian Dynasty have survived or have been replaced? How long until the Empire is able to challenge the Roman Empire again? What shape would Zoroastrianism be in? Will we ever see a Christian Persia?

For starters--the Sassanids would have required a generation to recover. The economy was still in tatters and leadership after a series of coups, still fragile, when 4-5 years after Heraclius had defeated the Persians, the Arabs had begun their invasions.
Without a serious external threat, the Sassanids probably would have rebuilt their regime and their financial and military resources. Their Empire, after all, had serious reverses in the past and had recovered before. Persian cultural influence was widespread and their control of the East-West trade was still intact.
Hard to say what Zoroastrianism might develop into had it not been replaced by Islam as the new state religion. It had staying power, even after the Arab conquest and persecution, taking several centuries to whither away. The Sassanids sometimes persecuted minority faiths and sometimes were tolerant. So the fortunes of Nestorian Christianity, Buddhism, and Judaism in the empire are hard to discern.
The competition with Rome would be inevitable and eventually wars or proxy wars would break out again.

Herzen's love-child said:

For starters--the Sassanids would have required a generation to recover. The economy was still in tatters and leadership after a series of coups, still fragile, when 4-5 years after Heraclius had defeated the Persians, the Arabs had begun their invasions.
Without a serious external threat, the Sassanids probably would have rebuilt their regime and their financial and military resources. Their Empire, after all, had serious reverses in the past and had recovered before. Persian cultural influence was widespread and their control of the East-West trade was still intact.
Hard to say what Zoroastrianism might develop into had it not been replaced by Islam as the new state religion. It had staying power, even after the Arab conquest and persecution, taking several centuries to whither away. The Sassanids sometimes persecuted minority faiths and sometimes were tolerant. So the fortunes of Nestorian Christianity, Buddhism, and Judaism in the empire are hard to discern.
The competition with Rome would be inevitable and eventually wars or proxy wars would break out again.

Click to expand...

Probably more wars with the ERE, probably over Armenia. Persia certainly had lasting power.

The real threat would come from the East. During this time frame the Sassanids had been repeatedly humiliated by the Turkic-Iranian tribes of Central Asia.

The damage certainly was heavy. After the defeats by the Arabs, it took how long for Persian nationalism to assert itself? 200 years?

Horgus said:

The damage certainly was heavy. After the defeats by the Arabs, it took how long for Persian nationalism to assert itself? 200 years?

Click to expand...

Nationalism is an age after the Arab Conquests. Not before.

Well, yes. But isn't it true that a sense of protonationalism kept Persian culture distinct as its own national identity? We can see this as far back at least as the founding of the Sassanids, and the preservation of a Persian identity even during the Achaemanid period following Alexander's conquest.

Nationalism predates any specific "age", in my opinion.

Horgus said:

The damage certainly was heavy. After the defeats by the Arabs, it took how long for Persian nationalism to assert itself? 200 years?

Click to expand...

A native Persian dynasty came into existence in the 9th Century. The Saminids, who controlled Khorasan.
But it wasn't Persian nationalism that led to their rise as we know nationalism by modern standards. It was cultural resurgence. Islamic, but with Persian being re-established as the state language as opposed to the Arabic of the original Muslim conquest.
Persian culture was and remains a powerful and resilient meme.

Horgus said:

Well, yes. But isn't it true that a sense of protonationalism kept Persian culture distinct as its own national identity? We can see this as far back at least as the founding of the Sassanids, and the preservation of a Persian identity even during the Achaemanid period following Alexander's conquest.

Nationalism predates any specific "age", in my opinion.

Click to expand...

I agree with this. Another reason why Greece was never fully extinguished by the Romans in OTL, despite centuries of domination.

euromellows said:

I agree with this. Another reason why Greece was never fully extinguished by the Romans in OTL, despite centuries of domination.

Click to expand...

The (Greek-speaking) Byzantines called themselves Romans, you know.

Bruce

Persian culture is certainly a survivor, and was OTL extremely influential on Islamic culture, from Baghdad to Bangladesh: I suspect some sort of Iran is quite likely to survive up to OTL, even if it has periods of foreign (Turkish, most likely) rule. How large a state, hard to say: historically the "Persian sphere" extends to the Caucuses, western Anatolia, Mesopotamia, north into central Asia and sort of slowly trails off as one moves into India. It's hard to see a state centered in the Anatolian plateau retaining control over the far more populous (especially as we move into modern times) NW India/Pakistan area. And even OTL Iran is very multicultural, with "proper" Aryan-Iranians only making up about half the population. Indeed, it might end up _more_ Turkish than OTL if Turkish migrations don't continue onwards into Anatolia...

Bruce

Zoroastrianism didn't have any staying power; it disappeared fairly quickly as an actual force. There are still large communities of Copts and Jacobites and the former were still a plurality as late as 1300; Zoroastrianism lost its plurality as early as the 9th century. It was a state-enforced religion that not many people outside of Fars worshiped. It stayed in some areas such as Yazd until the 10th but by then it was gone elsewhere. It's an inherently fragile religion since it discourages a non-noble clergy and acted like a sign of social status than a faith in most cases.

ImmortalImpi said:

Zoroastrianism didn't have any staying power; it disappeared fairly quickly as an actual force. There are still large communities of Copts and Jacobites and the former were still a plurality as late as 1300; Zoroastrianism lost its plurality as early as the 9th century. It was a state-enforced religion that not many people outside of Fars worshiped. It stayed in some areas such as Yazd until the 10th but by then it was gone elsewhere. It's an inherently fragile religion since it discourages a non-noble clergy and acted like a sign of social status than a faith in most cases.

Click to expand...

Actually the reason why there are more Copts then Zoroastrians may have to do with a simple issue of geography. Persia as a pathway into the Middle East has been fought over literally dozens of times by invading forces and that the compact nature of the Nile Valley may have dis encouraged actual displacement of the local population.

Though the State influence is certainly a prime factor in things, as if Islam had not emerged then Zoroastrianism would have remained entrenched within the influential sphere of Greater Persia. It was the Hinduism of Persia.

King of Malta said:

Actually the reason why there are more Copts then Zoroastrians may have to do with a simple issue of geography. Persia as a pathway into the Middle East has been fought over literally dozens of times by invading forces and that the compact nature of the Nile Valley may have dis encouraged actual displacement of the local population.

Click to expand...

The invasions were irrelevant since Zoroastrians disappeared as a minority in the late 8th-early 9th century. I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here?

It's a well-known fact that Zorastrianism was propped up mostly by the state and had little vitality on its own.

ImmortalImpi said:

The invasions were irrelevant since Zoroastrians disappeared as a minority in the late 8th-early 9th century. I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here?

Click to expand...

I don't think it was for Ideological reasons that Zoroastrianism declined, but simple social demographics and politics.

King of Malta said:

I don't think it was for Ideological reasons that Zoroastrianism declined, but simple social demographics and politics.

Click to expand...

But the social demographics and politics was due to the ideology in which Zoroastrianism was fostered???

And yet, after so many years of persecution there still remain a remnant in Iran.
Anyway, the focus of the OP's thread is "Persia without the Islamic Conquest". Any thoughts, being as you are associated with the region?

ImmortalImpi said:

But the social demographics and politics was due to the ideology in which Zoroastrianism was fostered???

Click to expand...

Anti-Zoroastrian Political Laws and a decline of the original Zoroastrian population as well as the influx of Anti-Zoroastrian populations. The areas where Zoroastrianism survived in Persia were areas which geographically isolated from such forces.

Herzen's love-child said:

And yet, after so many years of persecution there still remain a remnant in Iran.
Anyway, the focus of the OP's thread is "Persia without the Islamic Conquest". Any thoughts, being as you are associated with the region?

Click to expand...

The damage done to the actual Persian state is difficult to define. The Royal family had been mostly wiped out, Yazdegerd was a teenager, if an intelligent one, and Northern Mesopotamia had been burnt and depopulated by Heraclius on his march to the Fire Temple in Azerbaijian. The very fabric of the state was in danger, as Xusro II had given much of the crown land to the nobles in order to finance his incredibly expensive wars and relinquished even more to them when he was losing. That was a dangerous prospect, and the following royal intrigue showed the power that nobles were attempting to exert on the royal house.

There would likely be a push for decentralization to which Yazdegerd could hardly refuse; the armies had been brutalized and the nobles would have wanted some sort of recompense for all their fighting. Xusro I had a massive centralization program, and likely as a start the nobles would demand some of his changes reversed. The authority of the Shahanshah would likely not be questioned, though they may try undermining his power in favor of the Magi.

I have my doubts about a Turkish invasion. The Turkish confederation had more interest in raiding the borders of Persia than staging any invasion, and those Turks which settled along the borders were given money, food and weapons to serve the Persian state as auxiliary light cavalry. It seems to me that people are attempting to draw parallels between the Seljuk invasions and a similar possibility in 7th century Iran.

It is doubtful. The Seljuks invaded during a time of immense disarray, when their traditional patrons the Samanids had been uprooted from their posts. It is far more likely that the Turks would turn towards unstable India if their confederacy dissolves naturally, as the Zunbils and harsh deserts of southern Afghanistan would urge them eastwards. The Persian state had a strong and complicated system to deal with these Turks, and them simply falling to an invasion is unlikely, despite some of my earlier assumptions.

Once they establish themselves in the Ganges Delta and the Panjab, there is little likelihood of them leaving. Some will likely establish states in the Afghanistan area, but the semi-independent ring of marches and cities along the Persian frontier only disappeared because of the Arab conquests. Overall, the state will likely survive, though in a weaker state. A proto-socialist revolution such as Mazdak's is unlikely unless situations get really bad. A war against Byzantium would be out of the question for quite some time; perhaps if the borders in the east stabilize, Persia would turn back to warring against the states of the Sind and Panjab in order to reclaim the original empire of Ardashir. Byzantium and Persia would not decide to be best friends, but the evolution of other neighbors along their frontiers would increase the complexity of the situation.

King of Malta said:

Anti-Zoroastrian Political Laws and a decline of the original Zoroastrian population as well as the influx of Anti-Zoroastrian populations. The areas where Zoroastrianism survived in Persia were areas which geographically isolated from such forces.

Click to expand...

Fair enough, though I don't see how this is relevant to the Copts which survived in the south more than the north specifically because of geographical realities?

I would see an actual Turkish invasion only out of opportunity, say, if Persia were in the midst of civil war. Otherwise, as you say.

Constantinople, after a period of rebuilding would look East, again.. Armenia and the Caucasus region, certainly. This would have the potential for continued friction with Persia.