Christianized Persia

This idea struck me on the way home lastnight, we have seen timelines that go as OTL and Islam over takes Persia, or Persia defeats the Arabs and remains in their religion. Let us create a person who didnt exist and change the course of the world forever, we will call this person St Darius.

Darius was born in Persia in the fifth century, during one of his travels to Jerusalem he encounters a group of Christians who convert him to their faith. On his way back to Persia, Darius claims to have a vision sort of similiar to the one had by Saul on the Road to Damascus. The vision is of the Mother Mary telling him to return to Persia and spread the word of Christ. Darius returns and begins preaching the word. His charisma and charm lead to the salvation of thousands of Persians and began the ripple effect. When the Emperor of Persia became a Christian, the country officially became Christian by royal decree.

How does this effect the rise of Islam? What about the religions of the east? Will a Christianized Persia try to conquer the Hindus of India and Buddhists of Central Asia? Is it likely a Persian church will rise, perhaps at odds with Rome and Constantinople? Could they possibly help the Copts raise up against the Byzantine Empire?

What about Persia remaining Zoroastrian? It appears fairly similar, if not the predecessor of Judeo-Christianity or even parts of it was incorporated into Judaism during the years of Babylonian Exile.

Im also looking at the effects a Christianized Persia would have with the Byzantine Empire while sharing a common religion. Would relations between thw two nations improve? Maybe they have a temporary alliance if Islam does rise and threaten both countries, perhaps a Byzantine-Persian alliance can crush the new religion's Empire and conquer Arabia. Im also curious of how a Christianized Persia would be, if they are like Europe they would look to the Indians and nomads of Central Asia as heathens on their border, how would they react?

Zoroastrianism remaining dominant in Persia has been done before too, this is something new, and the conversion for Persians shouldnt be too much of a leap, due to as you say Zoroastrianism and Christianity share a lot in common. It would still be intresting to see what kind of church the Persians would come up with, surely different than the Latin Catholic Church, and different from the Greek Orthodox Church.

Xen said:

How does this effect the rise of Islam? What about the religions of the east? Will a Christianized Persia try to conquer the Hindus of India and Buddhists of Central Asia? Is it likely a Persian church will rise, perhaps at odds with Rome and Constantinople? Could they possibly help the Copts raise up against the Byzantine Empire?

Click to expand...

The important question is: would a Christian Persia resist the Arab onslaught any better than a Zoroastrian one? Unless the new religion contributes to strengthening Persia's political and military structures, it will still end up Muslim by the 7th century. After all, most of North Africa had been Christian for some 300-odd years when the Arabs came charging through (St Augustine was born in what is now Tunisia), and it didn't put up much of a fight.

Hendryk said:

The important question is: would a Christian Persia resist the Arab onslaught any better than a Zoroastrian one? Unless the new religion contributes to strengthening Persia's political and military structures, it will still end up Muslim by the 7th century. After all, most of North Africa had been Christian for some 300-odd years when the Arabs came charging through (St Augustine was born in what is now Tunisia), and it didn't put up much of a fight.

Click to expand...

But when the Arabs attacked wasnt the Persians weakend by war with the Byzantines. I thought both Empires were exhausted making them easy pickins for the Muslims Armies. Perhaps a Christianized Persia wouldnt go to war with the Christian Byzantines.

Or maybe Islam is butterflied away Mohamad is impressed with the Persian Church and philosophy and spreads it throughout Arabia?

A Christian Persia is definitely a huge change, but the exact effects would really depend on things like the date of eefective conversion and the particular brand of Christianity that it adopted.

If St. Darius were to encounter, say Monophysite Christians, the Byzantine/Persian Wars are going to be a lot nastier given the prevalence of that brand of Christianity in the Levant and Egypt. Persia would probably be constantly fomenting rebellions among their co-religionists and might even launch a couple of large scale invasions. Who knows, maybe they even overthrow the Byzantines in Asia? Or perhaps the increased rancor means that both empires are even more vulnerable to an alt-Mohammed type from Arabia?

My personal opinion is that with a change this big, Islam is butterflyed away completely and that by say 1500 or so, pretty much the entire world gives lip service to at least some format of (heavily localized in most cases) Christianity.

Maybe some syncretism?

We have explored Hindu/Chrisitan syncretism now and then on this Board. I am wondering if there is possibility of Zoroastrianism and Christianity that is possible. My understanding there was an expectation of a Savior figure in Zoroastrianism. Perhaps the myth of the Magi is seen as justification.

Xen said:

But when the Arabs attacked wasnt the Persians weakend by war with the Byzantines. I thought both Empires were exhausted making them easy pickins for the Muslims Armies. Perhaps a Christianized Persia wouldnt go to war with the Christian Byzantines.

Or maybe Islam is butterflied away Mohamad is impressed with the Persian Church and philosophy and spreads it throughout Arabia?

Click to expand...

Hmm. Hard to say, but I suspect that a Christianized Persia won't have any better relations with the Romans. Persian Christianity is likely to be much, much different than Constantinople's. How this will affect events in Arabia is impossible to say - you can probably do whatever you want.

A synthesis of Christianity and Zoroastrianism would look like modern Christianity. Or, for that matter, Islam. Zoroastrians believe in an all-powerful god of Truth (Ohrmazd) and a lord of Deceit (Ahriman, the "Foul Spirit"). They have a developed hierarchy of divine beings (analogous to our angels) and a demonic hierarchy as well. Most importantly, as you have noted, they believe in a savior (the saoshyant) who will be born of a virgin mother and usher in the millennium. For that matter, the three Magi (the Magi being the hereditary priesthood of Persia) were reputedly searching for this very saoshyant when they came to visit Christ in the manger.

None of these features are part of orthodox judaism, but many of them are attested among heterodox jewish communities at the time of Christ (such as the Essenes).

In addition to these core theological beliefs, many fundamental rituals were borrowed from Iranian religion (such as the baptism and the consumption of a ceremonial host).

Actually the Persian empire contained lots of Christians already of the Nestorian branch, mainly in Mesopotamia and the eastern Caucasus. The Sassanids favored Nestorians because the Romans persecuted them and they wouldn't form a fifth column. This makes Nestorianism the most likely form of Christianity the Persians may adopt. It wouldn't improve relations with Constantinople though, rather the opposite (or with the Monophysites, who disagreed with Nestorians as much as with Orthodox), or equip them better to withstand the Muslims. OTOH they might convert Arabia to their brand of Christianity before Mohammed turns up. they already in some fashion controlled or dominated the eastern coastal areas.

A conversion opf Persia to Christianity was planned at least at two distinct points by the Romans, trying to place a Christian candidate on the throne. It didn't work, and although there was a significant number of Christians in Persia they would very likely not have supported it, they not being orthodox. So any conversion attempt after c. 400 AD would be mentally connected with such hostile takeover bids.

Even assuming a best-case scenario, I doubt Persia would long remain in subjection to the Eastern Patriarchates and develop its autocephalic church - maybe under the Patriarch of Ctesiphon?. It would also ean continuing warfare, though likely putting Byzantium at an advantage (non-Christian vs Christian fighting inside Persia is a natural fulcrum for interference). This might well work towards reducing Persia from blood enemy to 'fellow civilised state we occasionally fight', like the earlier Parthians (though I susapoect the whole 'blood enemy' thing only really developed during the wars of Heraclius). The Muslim conquest (if any - events that hinge on one person are incredibly easy to butterfly) would find it tougher going against the Byzantines for sure.

JHPier said:

Actually the Persian empire contained lots of Christians already of the Nestorian branch, mainly in Mesopotamia and the eastern Caucasus. The Sassanids favored Nestorians because the Romans persecuted them and they wouldn't form a fifth column. This makes Nestorianism the most likely form of Christianity the Persians may adopt. It wouldn't improve relations with Constantinople though, rather the opposite (or with the Monophysites, who disagreed with Nestorians as much as with Orthodox), or equip them better to withstand the Muslims. OTOH they might convert Arabia to their brand of Christianity before Mohammed turns up. they already in some fashion controlled or dominated the eastern coastal areas.

Click to expand...

I agree completely. The Nestorian church was quite influential in Persia (Shirin, the wife of Khasrau II, was a Christian), and Nestorian leaders tried to convince the King to support their church on the grounds that it's a different sort of Christianity than was practiced in the Byzantine Empire.

How different Nestorianism is from Orthodoxy-Catholicism is debatable. According to my research, the Nestorian Church never actually taught "Nestorianism" (an excessive divide between Christ's Deity and humanity).

On the matter of Arabia, there was a Nestorian monastery in Bahrain and many of the eastern Arabs were Christians. A Nestorian-Christian Persia could fund all sorts of missionary efforts in Arabia, for starters. Islam might not exist in TTL, or its axis of expansion may change (south into Africa directly from Arabia instead of east into Persia).

If Persia is Christian, that gives them a major base to evangelize elsewhere. Even without an "official state," the Nestorians gained millions of converts from Persia all the way to Japan in OTL. Nestorian-Christian Central Asia? Nestorian-Christian Seljuk Turks? The possibilities in TTL are quite interesting...

So what if their was no schism and Catholicism was predominant in the east? Then their is no differentiation.

Arch-Angel said:

So what if their was no schism and Catholicism was predominant in the east? Then their is no differentiation.

Click to expand...

In OTL, the Nestorians were persecuted sometimes by the Persian Emperors anyway, for being Christians (despite the schism with Rome) or for trying to convert Zoroastrians.

If there is no schism with Rome, I'd expect things for the Persian church to get much worse. Either they'd get wiped out completely or, through "the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" process, take over completely (like in Rome...300 Christians killed in the Arena and 3,000 in the stands are so impressed they become Christians themselves, things work out for the Christians in the long run).

Matt Quinn said:

In OTL, the Nestorians were persecuted sometimes by the Persian Emperors anyway, for being Christians (despite the schism with Rome) or for trying to convert Zoroastrians.

If there is no schism with Rome, I'd expect things for the Persian church to get much worse. Either they'd get wiped out completely or, through "the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" process, take over completely (like in Rome...300 Christians killed in the Arena and 3,000 in the stands are so impressed they become Christians themselves, things work out for the Christians in the long run).

Click to expand...

Exactly so the Roman Catholic Church could easily streach from Spain to through Persia.

Wasn't it Rome that schism'd? First there were five and then there were four and one?

One important thing to consider about the Nestorians is the fact that the ones in Central Asia and those in the modern Middle East were not great theologians. Perhaps the ones who were involved in the Arabic translation project were; however, orthodox Christianity has a tendency of finding some small difference in the teachings of heterodox sects (such as the Nestorians) and accentuating them in their descriptions of these faiths, which were written largely for heresiological and polemical purposes. Nestor's doctrine may have once been a fundamental part of the original "Nestorian" church, or it may not have featured much at all; we'll probably never know. You have to take polemical sources with a large dosage of salt.

The fact of the matter is that the Nestorians today are not appreciably different from other Middle Eastern sects. Their rituals, and even ritual language, do owe much to Zoroastrianism, as several Christian Orientalists have noted. Incidentally, they reject the name "Nestorian" today and prefer to be called "Assyrians," "The Church of the East," or (most recently) "The Syriac Church" (largely for the purposes of the American census). Similarly most Maronites prefer to identify themselves as Catholics, especially in this country.

Leo Caesius said:

Incidentally, they reject the name "Nestorian" today and prefer to be called "Assyrians," "The Church of the East," or (most recently) "The Syriac Church" (largely for the purposes of the American census). Similarly most Maronites prefer to identify themselves as Catholics, especially in this country.

Click to expand...

IIRC The Syriac Church refers to the Syrian Monophysites (they certainly use the Syriac language). At some point the Nestorians of modern Iraq split in two, one branch accepting the authority of the pope and being known as Chaldaeans and the other, the "Assyrians", staying separate. The Maronites are in a sense Catholics, having acceptied the authority of the pope.

There was a movement here recently, spearheaded by the Metropolitan (?) of Belmar, NJ - IIRC - to have all of the churches that are unified by use of the Syriac language (basically every modern ME christian denomination, except the Greek Orthodox Melchites) register for the census as the "Syriac Church" regardless of individual denomination. He believed (with some justification) that there was strength in numbers, and if the majority of Middle Eastern Christians banded together, American politicians might attempt to court their votes more actively in the way that they court Jewish and Muslim voters.

You're correct that the "Syriac Church" refers more specifically to those monophysite Syrian Orthodox Christians who prefered to maintain the liturgy in Syriac against Greek, and were formerly known as Jacobites. When I was trained in Syriac, I learned the Jacobite script, although I'm familiar enough with the traditional "Estrangela" script. There are about 2 million of them worldwide, nearly three quarters of which reside in India, and at least one of them on this forum.

Believe it or not, Maronites do use Syriac - the traditional liturgy is in Syriac, although most of the services are conducted in Arabic these days. My great uncle (who was a Lebanese "Catholic") used to roam about the house singing the Syriac liturgy all day. It drove my aunt batty. There are a number of Maronites who wish to revive the use of Syriac in Lebanon, and some of the schools (which are generally run by the individual religious denominations in Lebanon) have started offering Syriac lessons for children.

Actually, come to think of it, we do have a very good model for Iranian Christianity. The Armenians are culturally and linguistically so close to the Iranians that they were considered to be an Iranian people until the 19th century (their language contains a boatload of Middle Persian loanwords). Also, Armenian Christianity is built upon a firm Zoroastrian bedrock (see J.R. Russell, Zoroatrianism in Armenia).

Leo Caesius said:

Actually, come to think of it, we do have a very good model for Iranian Christianity. The Armenians are culturally and linguistically so close to the Iranians that they were considered to be an Iranian people until the 19th century (their language contains a boatload of Middle Persian loanwords). Also, Armenian Christianity is built upon a firm Zoroastrian bedrock (see J.R. Russell, Zoroatrianism in Armenia).

Click to expand...

Very interesting idea, Leo. Thing is, Iran is more likely to become Nestorian than Monophysite. Do the Armenians call Mary "Mother of God" and have crucifixes with Christ on them? The Nestorians never did; when some Anglicans came to visit them 200-odd years ago, they thought they found a colony of Protestants.

The Nestorian emphasis on Christ's Deity and humanity being distinct (though part of one person--they still believe in the Hypostatic Union) means that they won't call Mary "Mother of God," though they do call her "Mother of Christ."