zoroastrian Europe

[srinivasansharma]

What if Romans accepted the parsi religion ,in stead of chiristianity
and spread it all over Europe.?
What will happen in Medieval times and in modern times?

[Keenir]

Originally Posted by srinivasansharma

What if Romans accepted the parsi religion ,in stead of chiristianity
and spread it all over Europe.?
What will happen in Medieval times and in modern times?

No religious wars.

but, instead, a greater drive to colonize other lands (particularly India, which doubtless adopted that icky Christianity after it became a protected faith in Persia in the early 300s AD)

note: in OTL, Persia did consider adopting Christianity as something to protect. (not neccessarily making it the state faith, though)

[Leo Caesius]

Originally Posted by srinivasansharma

What if Romans accepted the parsi religion ,in stead of chiristianity
and spread it all over Europe.?
What will happen in Medieval times and in modern times?

Technically the term Parsi refers only to the Zoroastrian communities of Gujarat. The Zoroastrians of Iran are not Parsis (they're usually called Zardoshtis or sometimes Gabers, which is the derogatory term). The establishment of the Parsis in Gujarat is fairly late.

Christianity had the advantage of being the religion of an increasing number of Romans, and one that was not tied to any other nation. It was also non-hierarchical (at least at the beginning) and not terribly dogmatic (again, initially). Zoroastrianism, by contrast, was the official religion of the Sassanians, Rome's eternal enemies, and was extremely hierarchical as well as dogmatic. Romans converting to Zoroastrianism would find themselves subordinate to Sassanian mobeds, and that is one reason why I think this is a non-starter.

[Faeelin]

Originally Posted by Leo Caesius

Romans converting to Zoroastrianism would find themselves subordinate to Sassanian mobeds, and that is one reason why I think this is a non-starter.

What if you move the conversion back a few centuries? There were Zoroastrian temples in Asia Minor during the Hellenistic Era, weren't there?

[Leo Caesius]

Originally Posted by Faeelin

What if you move the conversion back a few centuries? There were Zoroastrian temples in Asia Minor during the Hellenistic Era, weren't there?

Perhaps. James Russel wrote his dissertation on Zoroastrianism in Armenia, which is considered to be the major work on the status of Zoroastrianism in Asia Minor during this period. The problem is, we're not exactly sure what kind of Zoroastrianism was practiced there; it might be better to speak of "Mazdayasnian religion."

I have yet to get a straight answer from anyone about the religion of the Arsacids; they seem to be Zoroastrians, but the Sassanians labeled them as pagans. If the Arsacids are not as blatantly Zoroastrian as the Sassanians, it might help the religion spread into the Roman empire, but I still feel that its associations with the Parthians might turn most Romans off to it.

[sunsurf]

Some elements of this TL:

1. Persians defeat Greeks at Marathon.
2. Maybe a plague wipes out a lot of Greeks, leaving more room for Persian influence.
3. Romans don't defeat/dominate Etruscans, so the Roman Republic never rises.
4. Judaism/early Christianity spreads east or south, leaving Europe open for the Zoroastrians.

[Faeelin]

Originally Posted by Leo Caesius

I have yet to get a straight answer from anyone about the religion of the Arsacids; they seem to be Zoroastrians, but the Sassanians labeled them as pagans. If the Arsacids are not as blatantly Zoroastrian as the Sassanians, it might help the religion spread into the Roman empire, but I still feel that its associations with the Parthians might turn most Romans off to it.

Maybe in a TL where Parthia falls beneath the strategic genius of Crassus?

Seriously.