Iranian Empire Converts to Christianity Instead of Rome?

How could an Iranian Empire, whether Parthian, Sassanid, or something else, be the first large empire to be converted to Christianity, instead of the Roman Empire? By convert I mean in a manner similar to Rome's conversion, not some scenario where Iran is conquered by some external people who force them to convert (like an Armenia-wank or something).

I think the fall of Zoroastrianism is fairly inevitable, at least in its Sassanid form, simply because it is restricted in who can become Zoroastrian, and large portions of the population of the empire are excluded. Christianity will be strong among the population of the Iranian Empire because it is more democratic* than Zoroastrianism (which OTL received severe challenges from the Mazdaks and Manicheans within, so it was clearly unstable), for the same reasons it became popular amongst many Romans as well.

I assume that having Rome not go Christian would make this more likely, as Christianity would not be the religion of the enemy. However, in a similar vein this would probably hurt Christianity within Rome, as it would be perceived as the religion of the enemy Persians.

* Democratic in the sense of being more egalitarian and appealing to more people, not related to representative or direct democracy
 
Last edited:
How could an Iranian Empire, whether Parthian, Sassanid, or something else, be the first large empire to be converted to Christianity, instead of the Roman Empire? By convert I mean in a manner similar to Rome's conversion, not some scenario where Iran is conquered by some external people who force them to convert (like an Armenia-wank or something).

I think the fall of Zoroastrianism is fairly inevitable, at least in its Sassanid form, simply because it is restricted in who can become Zoroastrian, and large portions of the population of the empire are excluded. Christianity will be strong among the population of the Iranian Empire because it is more democratic* than Zoroastrianism (which OTL received severe challenges from the Mazdaks and Manicheans within, so it was clearly unstable), for the same reasons it became popular amongst many Romans as well.

I assume that having Rome not go Christian would make this more likely, as Christianity would not be the religion of the enemy. However, in a similar vein this would probably hurt Christianity within Rome, as it would be perceived as the religion of the enemy Persians.

* Democratic in the sense of being more egalitarian and appealing to more people, not related to representative or direct democracy

The prohibition against conversion in Zoroastrianism is a post-Islamic manifestation and the Sassanids are known to have tried to convert Armenians, Turks and Yemenis. There were also known communities in Syria and Anatolia. Even now the prohition against conversion is not universally accepted.

Back on point, no Iranian emperor who converted to Christianity would quickly be overthrown by the nobility and clergy. Unlike Rome, Zoroastrianism was an entrenched and state sponsored religion of Iran. However, I think a world without Islam would likely see Persia go Christian at some point, but would definitely not be of the Byzantine variety.
 
Could we have an Armeno-Persian Empire that converts to Christianity of the Armenian kind? Can that result in the Persian language adopting the Armenian alphabet?
 

Sulemain

Banned
I've brought this up before, but I swear that the Iranians were mostly Christian anyway, at one point?
 
No they weren't. Your thinking of the Assyrians. It was most the Assyrians who were Christians. There were Persian Christians but they didn't equal anything near a majority or large minority. Widespread yes, large populous no.
 
How could an Iranian Empire, whether Parthian, Sassanid, or something else, be the first large empire to be converted to Christianity, instead of the Roman Empire? By convert I mean in a manner similar to Rome's conversion, not some scenario where Iran is conquered by some external people who force them to convert (like an Armenia-wank or something).

I think the fall of Zoroastrianism is fairly inevitable, at least in its Sassanid form, simply because it is restricted in who can become Zoroastrian, and large portions of the population of the empire are excluded. Christianity will be strong among the population of the Iranian Empire because it is more democratic* than Zoroastrianism (which OTL received severe challenges from the Mazdaks and Manicheans within, so it was clearly unstable), for the same reasons it became popular amongst many Romans as well.

I assume that having Rome not go Christian would make this more likely, as Christianity would not be the religion of the enemy. However, in a similar vein this would probably hurt Christianity within Rome, as it would be perceived as the religion of the enemy Persians.

* Democratic in the sense of being more egalitarian and appealing to more people, not related to representative or direct democracy

I suspect for a Persian empire to go Christian that the form of Christianity would have to be somewhat syncretic in that Ahura Mazda and Yahweh would be one and the same and Jesus would be Saoshyant.
 
I suspect for a Persian empire to go Christian that the form of Christianity would have to be somewhat syncretic in that Ahura Mazda and Yahweh would be one and the same and Jesus would be Saoshyant.

Historically, the kinds of Christianity (Nestorian, Jacobite) that were tolerated in the Sasanian Empire were quite different than that practiced in the West. Although still quite a stretch to get that kind of syncretism.
 
Historically, the kinds of Christianity (Nestorian, Jacobite) that were tolerated in the Sasanian Empire were quite different than that practiced in the West. Although still quite a stretch to get that kind of syncretism.

I get what you're saying. The point I was trying to make above was that Zoroastrianism was just too strong in Iran at that time for a widespread peaceful conversion to even Nestorian or Jacobite Christianity without some syncretism.
 
I get what you're saying. The point I was trying to make above was that Zoroastrianism was just too strong in Iran at that time for a widespread peaceful conversion to even Nestorian or Jacobite Christianity without some syncretism.

And I would agree with that.
At times, OTL, the Sassinid state was remarkably pluralistic for its times. I wonder if even if there were a conversion if that would be true under Christianity?
 
Whiel doubtful, stranger things have happened. The main reasons why Christianity triumphed in Rome were:

1) Christians ended up being a large part of the educated, literate populace that the Roman bureacracy needed.

2) In Rome's ongoing civil wars, getting the allegiance of the Christians by making them legal was a good strategy.

3) Eventually the Christians became so numerous that the state thought embracing the religion was a good way to unify an Empire which was increasingly breaking down.

IOTL, the Sassanids used the Zorastrian faith to accomplish all of this. So a POD might be that the Sassanids never triumph. Maybe Parthis crushes the Sassanids, but remains an unstable state in decline. Various provinces become de facto independent. Christianity spreads as normal. Eventually someone thinks favoring the Christians make a good policy and unites most or all of Persia and makes Christianity first among equals of the religions, and perhaps eventually the only legal religion (although I think it could remain simply the most favored religion).
 
Maybe if the Parthians had held out longer.

Iirc they were originally nomads from Central Asia, and Nestorian Christianity seems to have made some headway among such peoples.
 
The fall of Zoroastrianism is far from inevitable. We are talking of an organized church older at the time than the Catholic Church is now. Some practices are incredibly ancient, like the holly marriage between priests. The equivalent of priest celibacy in the Catholic Church, it prevents assets from leaving the corporation through marriage.
As has been pointed out before, Zoroastrianism does not restrict conversion; in fact several Sasanid leaders had quite a religious Zeal. Adrashir himself was heavily supported by the magi, and latter Karter magus would prop and depose several kings.
Ambitious emperors tried to distance themselves from the church much in the manner of holly roman emperors, thus the adoption of Mazdakism by Kavadh. He illustrates that such open behavior would lead to a very instable rule. Wiser emperors like Shapur I, manifested their opposition in much subtler tones, for example, imprisoning Mani instead of killing him… Then again Mani´s message was relegated to China and the Kurdistan.

Finally while I agree that Christianity is more egalitarian in principle, I fail to see how such a thing is either ecologically superior, or a sing of stability.
 
The fall of Zoroastrianism is far from inevitable. We are talking of an organized church older at the time than the Catholic Church is now. Some practices are incredibly ancient, like the holly marriage between priests. The equivalent of priest celibacy in the Catholic Church, it prevents assets from leaving the corporation through marriage.
As has been pointed out before, Zoroastrianism does not restrict conversion; in fact several Sasanid leaders had quite a religious Zeal. Adrashir himself was heavily supported by the magi, and latter Karter magus would prop and depose several kings.
Ambitious emperors tried to distance themselves from the church much in the manner of holly roman emperors, thus the adoption of Mazdakism by Kavadh. He illustrates that such open behavior would lead to a very instable rule. Wiser emperors like Shapur I, manifested their opposition in much subtler tones, for example, imprisoning Mani instead of killing him… Then again Mani´s message was relegated to China and the Kurdistan.

Finally while I agree that Christianity is more egalitarian in principle, I fail to see how such a thing is either ecologically superior, or a sing of stability.

To add ato this, if the Iranians want a more egalitarian faith than established Zoroastrianism, they don't have to look past the radical parts of Mazdakism.
 
I would suggest, as a starter to have Parthia controlling Judea doing the period around Jesus ... say Parthians backstabbing Pompey managing to capture Judea and Syria, and maybe even Cilicia, and then keeping control over it (Both Sinai and the mountainous Cilicia is reasonbly easy to defend, and Rome was hardly a brilliant naval nation so), till there comes a time where they and Rome can sit down and draw some permanent borders (as they did in 1 AD).

This would make it plausible that the Apostles would dominantly move towards Ctesiphon and using that as (one of the) center(s) to spread from, instead of Rome
 
First of all the Parthians are unlikely to beat the Romans out of Judea, as a feudal confederacy they were not expansionist, either in will or ability to organize.
But suppose they do…
You face the same problem, eventually the Parthians are going to collapse, OT Christianity spread into Persia during the Parthian period but then…



“the teachings of Ahriman and the devs departed from the empire and were abandoned. And Jews, Sramans (Buddhists), (10) Brahmins, Nasoreans (Orthodox Christians), (Gnostic) Christians, Maktak (Baptisers), and Zandiks (Manichaeans) in the empire were smitten, and destruction of idols and scattering of the stores of the devs and god-seats and nests was abandoned. “

http://www.avesta.org/pahlavi/kz.html



So even in this case the spread of Christianity would have to be such that it erodes the church, before the second century. Since in this period Christianity spread amongst the urban middle classes, and The magi were mainly aristocrats that seems rather unlikely.

Remember we are not dealing with a multitude of competing religions like in the roman world, we are dealing with an organized centralized corporation on the scale of The catholic church.

The best chance for a Christian Persia is via Nestorian Mongols or Turks.
 
It's a big PoD but if the Crisis of the Third Century could be avoided or postponed (more likely) then Rome may be strong enough to limit the expansion of the Sassanids post Parthian collapse.

This in turn may establish Christians in Mesopotamia to an even greater extent

If the Sassanids then collapse without the success of their historical expansion then possibly you end up with a much stronger penetration of Iran by Christian sects.

In the (postponed) crisis of the Roman Empire then someone would seek to fill the vacuum in the East. If the alt-Zenobia was Christian and focussed on Mesopotamia / Iran then possible a Christian alt-Sassanid empire may come to pass and Rome may choose not to try to recover the far EAstern provinces as being too much of a strategic overstretch
 
Top