The Amalingian Empire: The Story of the Gothic-Roman Empire
- Thread starter DanMcCollum
- Start date
Will Islam be butterflied? If so, my world-building recaps are going to be so bloody decisive in research! Glad to be of service!
Yes; I'm a pretty strict butterflyist (a new word!). No offence to any faithful Muslims who might be following this thread, but I believe the Prophet's birth has been butterflied away. However, religious developments in Arabia will continue to be of interest to the rest of the world.
Also, I did want to thank you for those recaps; they gave me quite a few ideas!
I would like to see this. I have always had a lot of sympathy for the Gepids. They were the leading force in destroying the Huns as a political force at the battle of the Nedao, and yet they themselves were later wiped out as a distinct group. Would their language be considered part of the 'Gothic' branch? It was related to, but already distinct from the Gothic languages by the time of this TL. Still, it's closer to Gothic than to any of the Germanic languages that survived to the present day in OTL.
edit -- I see that you already answered that question. The Gepid language would presumably hold a similar position to that of (for example) Umbrian or Oscan within the Italic language family, a sister language to Latin and its descendants.
Last edited:
Yeah, that seems to sum it up nicely; and the same goes for Vandalic, if it survives. I always thought it would be interesting to see a surviving Eastern Germanic family being as vibrant as the Northern and Western branches in OTL.
Here's a quick guide on the heresies of late antiquity:
-Arianism: Christ is not God at all, but a created being (before him, there was), a bit higher than the angels. I always remember this one as "Jesus was an alien", but that's kind of butchering it.
-Nestorianism: This is where things get a bit head-spinny. The Nestorians argue that Christ is fully god and fully man, but they aren't united. The whole controversy was over whether or not Mary actually carried the fullness of god in her womb (theotokos in Greek), or just the human person of Christ (christotokos in Greek). Nestorians argue the latter. Later on, the Nestorian church goes further, as they get geographically separated from orthodoxy, and argues that only the human person of Christ suffers on the cross.
-Monophysitism: Think of the monophysites as the opposite of the Nestorians. Where the Nestorians argue there's no unity between the human and divine nature of Christ, monophysites argue that Christ is one person, with only one nature (I think Miaphysites argue that this single nature is both divine and human, which is what makes them different, but to be honest, can't remember). The Counsel of Chalcedon argues that Christ is one person, with two natures: fully god and fully man. So it takes a middle position between the Nestorians and the Monophysites.
-Monothelitism: So, like I said in a previous post, the Emperors were really keen on religious uniformity. Unfortunately, from their POV, Chalcedon doesn't settle the issue, as a lot of people in Egypt and Syria take a non-Chalcedonian position. So, the first attempt of the Emperors to restore unity was a brilliant little piece of hand-wavium called the Henoticon. Basically, the Henoticon said: "Hey, you guys remember that whole controversy over the nature of Christ? Yeah, let's just pretend that never happened." Naturally, this was a total flop, as it profoundly irritated both sides. So Heraclius tries again around the time of your POV (I think; it may also have been later...) with monothelitism. This was an attempt to split the baby by saying that Christ was fully god and fully man, but only had one will. Very few people took to this theological compromise; Miaphysites didn't like the fact that it still affirmed two natures, while Chalcedonians argued that if Christ didn't have a distinct human will, then our wills can't be redeemed by his sacrifice.
Hopefully, this is actually clarifying, not confusing. So, to sum up: Arians = no trinity. Nestorians = two persons, monophysites = one nature and monothelites = one will.
On Ethiopia: OTL, the dragging was almost always Egypt dragging Ethiopia. The Abuna of Axum was, as I recall, appointed by Alexandria. But if you have a Nagusa Nagus who is courting Constantinople while Heraclius is toying with monothelitism, you could have Maron (the main monothelite guy and sort of founder of the Maronites) take shelter in Axum instead of Lebanon, and thereby convert the Ethiopians to monothelitism. This would, ironically, drive them away from Alexandria, while not drawing them closer to Constantinople in the long-term. However, it's interesting to note that the Maronites, who were the descendants of the monothelites, are now Catholics. So in the event you do get an east-west split at some point, the Ethiopian church could end up a western ally here. Of course, keeping the Ethiopians Miaphysites, and closely linked to Alexandria, is the path of least resistance here.
Again, sorry for the info-dump, and hope it's useful.
-Arianism: Christ is not God at all, but a created being (before him, there was), a bit higher than the angels. I always remember this one as "Jesus was an alien", but that's kind of butchering it.
-Nestorianism: This is where things get a bit head-spinny. The Nestorians argue that Christ is fully god and fully man, but they aren't united. The whole controversy was over whether or not Mary actually carried the fullness of god in her womb (theotokos in Greek), or just the human person of Christ (christotokos in Greek). Nestorians argue the latter. Later on, the Nestorian church goes further, as they get geographically separated from orthodoxy, and argues that only the human person of Christ suffers on the cross.
-Monophysitism: Think of the monophysites as the opposite of the Nestorians. Where the Nestorians argue there's no unity between the human and divine nature of Christ, monophysites argue that Christ is one person, with only one nature (I think Miaphysites argue that this single nature is both divine and human, which is what makes them different, but to be honest, can't remember). The Counsel of Chalcedon argues that Christ is one person, with two natures: fully god and fully man. So it takes a middle position between the Nestorians and the Monophysites.
-Monothelitism: So, like I said in a previous post, the Emperors were really keen on religious uniformity. Unfortunately, from their POV, Chalcedon doesn't settle the issue, as a lot of people in Egypt and Syria take a non-Chalcedonian position. So, the first attempt of the Emperors to restore unity was a brilliant little piece of hand-wavium called the Henoticon. Basically, the Henoticon said: "Hey, you guys remember that whole controversy over the nature of Christ? Yeah, let's just pretend that never happened." Naturally, this was a total flop, as it profoundly irritated both sides. So Heraclius tries again around the time of your POV (I think; it may also have been later...) with monothelitism. This was an attempt to split the baby by saying that Christ was fully god and fully man, but only had one will. Very few people took to this theological compromise; Miaphysites didn't like the fact that it still affirmed two natures, while Chalcedonians argued that if Christ didn't have a distinct human will, then our wills can't be redeemed by his sacrifice.
Hopefully, this is actually clarifying, not confusing. So, to sum up: Arians = no trinity. Nestorians = two persons, monophysites = one nature and monothelites = one will.
On Ethiopia: OTL, the dragging was almost always Egypt dragging Ethiopia. The Abuna of Axum was, as I recall, appointed by Alexandria. But if you have a Nagusa Nagus who is courting Constantinople while Heraclius is toying with monothelitism, you could have Maron (the main monothelite guy and sort of founder of the Maronites) take shelter in Axum instead of Lebanon, and thereby convert the Ethiopians to monothelitism. This would, ironically, drive them away from Alexandria, while not drawing them closer to Constantinople in the long-term. However, it's interesting to note that the Maronites, who were the descendants of the monothelites, are now Catholics. So in the event you do get an east-west split at some point, the Ethiopian church could end up a western ally here. Of course, keeping the Ethiopians Miaphysites, and closely linked to Alexandria, is the path of least resistance here.
Again, sorry for the info-dump, and hope it's useful.
Thanks! That was especially useful on some of the later heresies which emerged from attempts at compromise. I think one of the things we may see in this TL, is a much more diverse Christianity if the trends from OTL-Pre-Islamic Conquest hold through with the different Patriarch's adopting their own forms of Christianity.
Chapter 23 A Prince of Persia
Chapter 23
A Prince of Persia
“God became man, so that men might become gods” – Patriarch Athanasius of Alexandria [FN1]
Of Fire and Might: A History of Politics and Religion in Sassanid Persia
By: Coahm O’Seachnall
[Royal University Press: Carrickfergus, Kingdom of Gaelia, 1992]
By the 6th Century, the cultural and political flowering of the Sassanid dynasty of Persia had flowered. Secured upon the Persian expanse and Mesopotamia, the Sassanids continued to present themselves as the cultural and political heirs of the ancient Achaemenidian dynasty. For centuries they had waged war against the Rhomanians, seeking to solidify their position as the predominant power in the neat East. As yet, with the reign of Kavadh the First, we begin to see the beginnings of the struggle which would come to dominate the period of the late-Sassanid dynasty, and eventually see the emergence of a new Persian dynasty during the 7th century.
Kavadh come to throne of Persia under a cloud of confusion, which historian have been unable to pierce. Following the death of his Father, and most of the royal house, at the Battle of Heart in 484, Kavadh fled to the court of the Hephthalites, or White Huns, and was able to secure the King’s daughter in marriage. At the same time, his uncle, Balash, pressed his own claim to the throne of Persia and would rule for only four years.
It is not certain, exactly, how Kavadh gained the throne for himself; however, by 488, coins were being min ted which carried the new Shah’s likeness. However, it is known that the new King was not, initially, the true power within the Persian realm; the distinction was given to a Karen noble by the name of Sukhra. However, within a short period, Sukhra was exiled back to his homeland, and duly executed by authorities.
Around the same time, a preacher by the name of Mazdak was becoming influential in Persia. Mazdak called for a cleansing of the Zoroastrian faith of foreign elements, vegetarianism, the closing of all but the three most prominent fire temples, and an early version of Communalism; claiming that Ahura Mazda had created the Earth so that all of the faithful could share equally in the bounties of the land.
Kavadh was intrigued by the preachings of Mazdak and invited him to court, and, from that time, adopted many Mazdakian proposals, including the opening up of royal warehouses to the poor, and an attempt to reform Zoroastrianiam. For five years the Shah encouraged the preacher and showered him with favor ,but remained somewhat distant from the resulting movement.
Kavadh’s motivation appears to have been simple. Having seen his own family slaughtered in battle, winning the throne from a usurper supported by the nobility, and then struggling to secure real power in the realm against a noble powerbroker, the Shah sought to secure his own power at the expense of the noble factions of the Empire. Mazdakianism, by seeking to strengthen the poor at the expense of the rich, and also to limit the power of the traditional Zoroastrian priesthood, offered him the chance to weaken his foes and strengthen his own position within the Persia.
Although initially, Kavadh had never declared himself a Mazdakian, his hand was called during the noble revolt of 496, the same year as the birth of the Gothic Emperor Theodemir. Sources from the time are scarce, but Kavadh was able to secure his throne despite the opposition of an alliance of chief noble families, likely including, ironically, the Ishahbudhans. Now convinced the noble’s treachery, and fully aware of their alliance with the traditional aristocracy of the Zoroastrian priesthood, the Shan continued his reforms, further undermining his opponent’s power. [FN2]
Kavadh would remain upon the throne until 531, when he passed away from illness. The last decades of his rule had seen numerous conflicts with the Rhomanians, and saw the Persians secure control of Iberia and exact tribute from the Emperors of the East. In 529, a formal council of the Zoroastrian faith had seen Mazdakianism proclaimed as a true interpretation, and a persecution of the Orthodox Magi; although their numbers remained too large to move against strongly.
Following the death of Kavadh, his eldest son Kawus secured the throne. A dedicated Mazdakian, he was initially contested in his rule by his younger brother Khosrau. According to Procopius, Khorsau as initially supported by the nobility and Magi factions within the Empire. In order to secure his own throne, Kawus was forced to see support from, not only the Mazdakians, but also the religious minorities of the realm, including the Nestorian Church of the East, the Jewish community and even the Manichaens, who he promised freedom to practice their own faiths as they saw fit, without intervention from the state. This alliance of disaffected citizens would eventually overcome the strength of the nobility in the Battle of Esfahan in 531, where the Shah’s enemies were defeated, and Khosrau was captured. Rather than execute his younger brother, the Shah chose mercy, and sent him to rule in the distant city of Merv. [FN3]
Kawus’ support of the Mazdakians’ allowed him to undermine the power of the rebellious nobility, but also led to instability during his reign The decade of the 540s witnessed much internal disorder, as the lower classes struggled to secure land and rights for themselves from the nobility. Although the Shah generally supported the rebels, he also was recorded as sending troops to help allies against lawlessness in his realm.
In an effort to divert energies away from battles at home, Kawus furthered his Father’s campaigns against the Rhomans during the Rhomanian Time of Troubles. Although strong initial gains were made, the Persian forces found themselves countered by the superior military minds of Emperors Belisarius and Germanus. In 544, Kawus sued for peace with Belisarius, and was able to extract a yearly tribute from the Rhomans in exchange for a Treaty of Eternal Peace.
Despite the hardships of the conflict, the war appears to have stabilized Kawus’ claim to the throne. Although the Plague of Belisarius would greatly impact Persian life in the coming decades, no serious threat to his throne appears to have emerged. Kawus died in 556, after over twenty years on the throne. During that time, he had managed to centralize more power within the hands of the Shah, weaken the hold of the Magi Priesthood upon the state, and secure a favorable peace with the Rhomans.
During the course of the reigns of his successors, the reforms of Kawus I would play an important role in the growth, and later decline of the Sassanid state. [FN4]
[FN1] An actual quote from the pitbull of Orthodoxy himself!
[FN2] This is the actual POD of Persian developments, everything which proceeded it was as in OTL. In OTL, Khavad lost his throne and went into exile for a number of years before returning to Ctesiphon, overcoming, and pardoning his brother, and returning to the throne. After this, he was much less keen of Mazdakianism. In the ATL, he is able to maintain control of the Empire, and the treachery of the nobility convinces him to use Mazdakianism to further undermine the support of the nobility and their allies, the priesthood.
I’m actually not utterly happy with this POD, as it does not derive from the birth of Theodemir; but the sources I have make the conflict out to be pretty even sided, and so its not impossible that the flap of a butterfly’s wings would make it come out differently.
[FN3] Of course these are not the Kawus and Khosrau of OTL; but it seems likely the that Shan would choose similar names for his children. In the ATL, Kawus possesses not only the religious identity of his OTL counterpart, but much of the administrative powers of OTL Khosrau as well. This leads to a period of stability, all the while the Shah is pushing through reforms which, although popular amongst the lower classes, are deeply unpopular with the nobility. This may cause problems in the future.
[FN4] The Sassanid State appears to have been showing its weaknesses in OTL by this period as well Although it has a long history to go, cracks are beginning to form which will eventually lead to the Dynasty’s downfall. What form the new government will eventually take is left up to your imaginations for the time being
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, there is a general outline of Persian History from the POD up until the reign of Amalaric. It was a bit difficult to write, as I have been having difficulty finding sources which deal specifically wit Sassanid Persia. However, I think the outline is good and makes sense; as for the lack of details, I am assuming that scholarship in the West in the ATL present day is not as focused upon this period as it should be
The next chapter will hopefully deal with events in Arabia before we return to the West (would hate for people to get the notion that this is an entirely Western-based TL; especially when the East was so important to history during this period!)
A Prince of Persia
“God became man, so that men might become gods” – Patriarch Athanasius of Alexandria [FN1]
Of Fire and Might: A History of Politics and Religion in Sassanid Persia
By: Coahm O’Seachnall
[Royal University Press: Carrickfergus, Kingdom of Gaelia, 1992]
By the 6th Century, the cultural and political flowering of the Sassanid dynasty of Persia had flowered. Secured upon the Persian expanse and Mesopotamia, the Sassanids continued to present themselves as the cultural and political heirs of the ancient Achaemenidian dynasty. For centuries they had waged war against the Rhomanians, seeking to solidify their position as the predominant power in the neat East. As yet, with the reign of Kavadh the First, we begin to see the beginnings of the struggle which would come to dominate the period of the late-Sassanid dynasty, and eventually see the emergence of a new Persian dynasty during the 7th century.
Kavadh come to throne of Persia under a cloud of confusion, which historian have been unable to pierce. Following the death of his Father, and most of the royal house, at the Battle of Heart in 484, Kavadh fled to the court of the Hephthalites, or White Huns, and was able to secure the King’s daughter in marriage. At the same time, his uncle, Balash, pressed his own claim to the throne of Persia and would rule for only four years.
It is not certain, exactly, how Kavadh gained the throne for himself; however, by 488, coins were being min ted which carried the new Shah’s likeness. However, it is known that the new King was not, initially, the true power within the Persian realm; the distinction was given to a Karen noble by the name of Sukhra. However, within a short period, Sukhra was exiled back to his homeland, and duly executed by authorities.
Around the same time, a preacher by the name of Mazdak was becoming influential in Persia. Mazdak called for a cleansing of the Zoroastrian faith of foreign elements, vegetarianism, the closing of all but the three most prominent fire temples, and an early version of Communalism; claiming that Ahura Mazda had created the Earth so that all of the faithful could share equally in the bounties of the land.
Kavadh was intrigued by the preachings of Mazdak and invited him to court, and, from that time, adopted many Mazdakian proposals, including the opening up of royal warehouses to the poor, and an attempt to reform Zoroastrianiam. For five years the Shah encouraged the preacher and showered him with favor ,but remained somewhat distant from the resulting movement.
Kavadh’s motivation appears to have been simple. Having seen his own family slaughtered in battle, winning the throne from a usurper supported by the nobility, and then struggling to secure real power in the realm against a noble powerbroker, the Shah sought to secure his own power at the expense of the noble factions of the Empire. Mazdakianism, by seeking to strengthen the poor at the expense of the rich, and also to limit the power of the traditional Zoroastrian priesthood, offered him the chance to weaken his foes and strengthen his own position within the Persia.
Although initially, Kavadh had never declared himself a Mazdakian, his hand was called during the noble revolt of 496, the same year as the birth of the Gothic Emperor Theodemir. Sources from the time are scarce, but Kavadh was able to secure his throne despite the opposition of an alliance of chief noble families, likely including, ironically, the Ishahbudhans. Now convinced the noble’s treachery, and fully aware of their alliance with the traditional aristocracy of the Zoroastrian priesthood, the Shan continued his reforms, further undermining his opponent’s power. [FN2]
Kavadh would remain upon the throne until 531, when he passed away from illness. The last decades of his rule had seen numerous conflicts with the Rhomanians, and saw the Persians secure control of Iberia and exact tribute from the Emperors of the East. In 529, a formal council of the Zoroastrian faith had seen Mazdakianism proclaimed as a true interpretation, and a persecution of the Orthodox Magi; although their numbers remained too large to move against strongly.
Following the death of Kavadh, his eldest son Kawus secured the throne. A dedicated Mazdakian, he was initially contested in his rule by his younger brother Khosrau. According to Procopius, Khorsau as initially supported by the nobility and Magi factions within the Empire. In order to secure his own throne, Kawus was forced to see support from, not only the Mazdakians, but also the religious minorities of the realm, including the Nestorian Church of the East, the Jewish community and even the Manichaens, who he promised freedom to practice their own faiths as they saw fit, without intervention from the state. This alliance of disaffected citizens would eventually overcome the strength of the nobility in the Battle of Esfahan in 531, where the Shah’s enemies were defeated, and Khosrau was captured. Rather than execute his younger brother, the Shah chose mercy, and sent him to rule in the distant city of Merv. [FN3]
Kawus’ support of the Mazdakians’ allowed him to undermine the power of the rebellious nobility, but also led to instability during his reign The decade of the 540s witnessed much internal disorder, as the lower classes struggled to secure land and rights for themselves from the nobility. Although the Shah generally supported the rebels, he also was recorded as sending troops to help allies against lawlessness in his realm.
In an effort to divert energies away from battles at home, Kawus furthered his Father’s campaigns against the Rhomans during the Rhomanian Time of Troubles. Although strong initial gains were made, the Persian forces found themselves countered by the superior military minds of Emperors Belisarius and Germanus. In 544, Kawus sued for peace with Belisarius, and was able to extract a yearly tribute from the Rhomans in exchange for a Treaty of Eternal Peace.
Despite the hardships of the conflict, the war appears to have stabilized Kawus’ claim to the throne. Although the Plague of Belisarius would greatly impact Persian life in the coming decades, no serious threat to his throne appears to have emerged. Kawus died in 556, after over twenty years on the throne. During that time, he had managed to centralize more power within the hands of the Shah, weaken the hold of the Magi Priesthood upon the state, and secure a favorable peace with the Rhomans.
During the course of the reigns of his successors, the reforms of Kawus I would play an important role in the growth, and later decline of the Sassanid state. [FN4]
[FN1] An actual quote from the pitbull of Orthodoxy himself!
[FN2] This is the actual POD of Persian developments, everything which proceeded it was as in OTL. In OTL, Khavad lost his throne and went into exile for a number of years before returning to Ctesiphon, overcoming, and pardoning his brother, and returning to the throne. After this, he was much less keen of Mazdakianism. In the ATL, he is able to maintain control of the Empire, and the treachery of the nobility convinces him to use Mazdakianism to further undermine the support of the nobility and their allies, the priesthood.
I’m actually not utterly happy with this POD, as it does not derive from the birth of Theodemir; but the sources I have make the conflict out to be pretty even sided, and so its not impossible that the flap of a butterfly’s wings would make it come out differently.
[FN3] Of course these are not the Kawus and Khosrau of OTL; but it seems likely the that Shan would choose similar names for his children. In the ATL, Kawus possesses not only the religious identity of his OTL counterpart, but much of the administrative powers of OTL Khosrau as well. This leads to a period of stability, all the while the Shah is pushing through reforms which, although popular amongst the lower classes, are deeply unpopular with the nobility. This may cause problems in the future.
[FN4] The Sassanid State appears to have been showing its weaknesses in OTL by this period as well Although it has a long history to go, cracks are beginning to form which will eventually lead to the Dynasty’s downfall. What form the new government will eventually take is left up to your imaginations for the time being
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, there is a general outline of Persian History from the POD up until the reign of Amalaric. It was a bit difficult to write, as I have been having difficulty finding sources which deal specifically wit Sassanid Persia. However, I think the outline is good and makes sense; as for the lack of details, I am assuming that scholarship in the West in the ATL present day is not as focused upon this period as it should be
The next chapter will hopefully deal with events in Arabia before we return to the West (would hate for people to get the notion that this is an entirely Western-based TL; especially when the East was so important to history during this period!)
Okay, truth time: given more thought, I'm not sure that i really like my last post, and plan on updating it over the next few days. Although, given the POD, I do think that some religioud conflict in Sassanid Persia is likely, I'm not sure I like the way I went about it (even if the initial overthrow of Kavadh was a close thing, the butterflies of a single child being born the same year does not strike me as a likely case of the butterfly effect). Also, i may have had a few beers before i wrote it, which may have had an effect
Anyway, im going to rewrite it.
Also, Groichio, yes, your posts have been very useful
Anyway, im going to rewrite it.
Also, Groichio, yes, your posts have been very useful
Chapter 23a A Prince of Peace (the rewrite!)
Chapter 23a
A Prince of Peace (kind of!)
“God became man, so that men might become gods” – Patriarch Athanasius of Alexandria [FN1]
Of Fire and Might: A History of Politics and Religion in Sassanid Persia
By: Coahm O’Seachnall
[Royal University Press: Carrickfergus, Kingdom of Gaelia, 1992]
Historians have long debated the actual cause for the decline and fall of the Sassanid Dynasty of Persia and attempted to affix a date to the beginning of the rot. The collapse of the Empire has long been blamed upon the dynastic issues which would arise in the 6th century, the calamatus war with the Rhomans of the same era, and even the religious strife which reached its peak under Khosrau II.
It is one of the central arguments of this work, however, that the actual decay had already begun to seep in under the reign of Kavadh I. For, it was during the reign of this illustrious Shah, that we first begin to see the social and religious fragmentation which were to mark the later years of the Sassanid dynasty, and mark the fall of that family from power.
..
By the 6th Century, the cultural and political flowering of the Sassanid dynasty of Persia had flowered. Secured upon the Persian expanse and Mesopotamia, the Sassanids continued to present themselves as the cultural and political heirs of the ancient Achaemenidian dynasty. For centuries they had waged war against the Rhomanians, seeking to solidify their position as the predominant power in the neat East. As yet, with the reign of Kavadh the First, we begin to see the beginnings of the struggle which would come to dominate the period of the late-Sassanid dynasty, and eventually see the emergence of a new Persian dynasty during the 7th century.
Kavadh come to throne of Persia under a cloud of confusion, which historian have been unable to pierce. Following the death of his Father, and most of the royal house, at the Battle of Heart in 484, Kavadh fled to the court of the Hephthalites, or White Huns, and was able to secure the King’s daughter in marriage. At the same time, his uncle, Balash, pressed his own claim to the throne of Persia and would rule for only four years.
It is not certain, exactly, how Kavadh gained the throne for himself; however, by 488, coins were being min ted which carried the new Shah’s likeness. It is known that the new King was not, initially, the true power within the Persian realm; the distinction was given to a Karen noble by the name of Sukhra. However, within a short period, Sukhra was exiled back to his homeland, and duly executed by authorities.
The early reign of Kavadh was marked by his acceptance of the prophet Mazdak. Madak believed that he was a true prophet of Ahura Mazda, and was in the same tradition as the great religious reformer Zoroaster, who had founded the Zoroastrian faith which dominated Persia. Mazdak had been labeled an early believer in Communalism, and openly preached that the world had been created by Ahura Mazda to be shared by all peoples, no matter their wealth or social status. As such, he argued that all but the main three Fire Temples should be closed, the warehouses of the Empire should be opened to all peoples, and that vegetarianism should be practed throughout the land, for any body that had reached death was touched by the corruption of Angra Mainyu, the dark god.
Kavadh’s toying with the ideas Mazdak likely stemmed from a desire to curtail the power of the noble families of the realm and to centralize authority within the hands of the Shah. Whatever the case, this initial flowering of Mazdakiasm would prove to be short lived. The nobility, fed by a fear of the ne doctrine, and allied with the powerful Zoroastrain clergy over threw Kavadh in favor of his brother Djamasap, and was imprisoned in the Castle of Oblivion in the city of Susiana.
However, Kavadh would eventually escape from his prison, build an army, and march upon the capital of Ctesiphon, with the support of the Hephthalites, or White Huns. Rather than fight his own brother, Djamasap abdicated the throne and threw the city gates open for Kavadh, and was rewarded with the administration of a province in the West. The two brothers would remain on good terms, and fragments of letters still exist between the two. [FN2]
Rather than reinforce his own religious beliefs, the overthrow of Kavadh seems to have deeply scarred the Shah. After his return to power, we see him distancing himself from Mazdak and falling in line with traditional Zoroasrian teachings. In 529, the doctrines of Mazdakism were formally denounced by a council of Magi figures held before the Imperial throne. Later that year, Mazdak himself would be executed on the order of the Shah, along with over a thousand of his followers. However, this would not spell the end of Mazdakiasm within the Empire.
…
Khavad died in 531 and immediately a succession crisis emerged between his sons Kuwas and Khosrau. For the last several year of his lie, Khavad ad fallen under the influence of his eldest son Kuwas who, although suspected of being a Mazdakian, towed the official line with his Father while still seeking to protect Mazdakian priests and laymen. The Shah’s eldest son, Khosrau was known to be a supporter of the Orthodox faith, but was also a drunkard and a weak figure. Following the Shah’s death, the two brothers fought a small Civil War over the crown, with the Magi establishment backing Khosrau. Although the younger brother was easily defeated, the new Shah chose to spare him his life and, instead, sent him to administer the far eastern borders of the Empire, where, according to folk memories, he lived a long and distinguished life, winning several battles against the Scythians and Turks. [FN3]
…
Following his ascension, Kuwas initially appeared to favor a moderate religious policy, but slowly moved to show his support for the Maxdakians. He quickly worked to set a limit to the amount of wives that rich nobles could have, and formally reclosed all but the tree main fire temples, and even sponsored a new translation of the Zoroastrian Holy Books, seeking to eliminate errors which had crept in order the centuries. Although many of these moves were initially opposed by the conservative Magi and the nobles themselves, Kuwas used the threat of uprisings by the poor, in order to encourage nobles to accept the new status quo.
Due to the hostility of much of the nobility, Kuwas was forced to seek outside allies. As such, he announced an end to all persecutions of members of the Church of the East, as well as the Manichean faith. This tolerance did not extent to Orthodox Christians, which were still seen as agents of the Emperor of the Rhomans. However, it did lead to a cooling of hostilities between the two great faiths of Persia and the Shah; and, in 555, Cathlicos Joshua of the Easter Church was invited to Ctesiphon to debate religious teachings with a Mazdakian preacher, an Orthodox Magi, as well as a leader of the Manicheans. The resulting dialog, which marked the Cathlicos arguing that the strength of Christianity’s legitimacy came less from logic and more from the miracles performed by the church, was preserved and remains one of the most important documents of the Eastern Church to this day. [FN4]
The greatest threat to Kuwas’ reign came in the form of renewed hostilities with the Rhomans which finally ended in the year 544 with the defeat of the Persian armies by the Rhoman Emperor Belisarius. However, in the peace treaty that followed, the Rhomans agreed to pay 4,000 pounds of gold a year in exchange for an eternal peace, and a further 5,000 in exchange for the return of the One True Cross which had been captured during the sack of Jerusalem. This victory, although not as great as the Shah might have wished, as it saw no actual change in borders between the two great Empires, further solidified his own reign.
Further instability struck, when the Plague of Belisarius reached Persia and burned through the urban centers, creating a death toll which was equal to that suffered in the Eastern Empire as well as the soon-to-bee reestablished Western Empire. However, even this disaster was a mixed blessing for the Shah, as the death toll included many of his most ardent foes amongst the nobility, and the assertion of a new generation which had come to age during his own reign.
Seizing the moment, Kuwas sought to expand his power. Although wary of attacking the Rhomans in the aftermath of his close victory, he chose to turn his attention South. Under Khavad, the King of the client state of Al-Hirah had been deposed and replaced by a follower of Mazdak. Following Khavad’s exile and eventual return, the original King of Al-Hirah had been returned to power. However, under Kuwas tis policy was again reversed, and the son of the Mazak King was given the throne. The ease of the conflict convinced Kuwas that the Arabic principalities were weak, and the Sassadnid’s soon began to expand their control along the Eastern coast of Arabia, deep into the South. [FN5]
…
Kuwas died in 551. Although some accounts depict his death as the result of a palace coup, this is unlikely as his son, Khavad II would continue the policies of his Father. For the time being, it appeared as if Mazdakianism would become the dominant strain of the Zoroatrian faith. However, future events would show the depths of support still held of the Magi amongst the nobility, and Khoasrau I, the son of Khavad II, would return to a more orthodox policy of faith amongst the Persians.
The damage, however, was already done, and the monolithic Sassanid state would soon begin to crumble outside the pressures of internal and external foes. The fall of the Sassanids had already begun, although he realized it at the time. [FN5]
[FN1] An actual quote from the pitbull of Orthodoxy himself!
[FN2] All of this is exactly as in OTL. Although in my original version of this Chapter, I had Khavad win the initial Civil War, I was greatly unhappy with the prospect. Although a strict believer in butterflies, I did not wish to see a faraway war turn out different because of the birth of a child in Italy (this being the same year as the birth of Theodemir in the ATL). In my updated version, I chose to have events proceed as in OTL for the time being.
[FN3] These are, obviously, not the same children of Khavad who appeared in OTL. Due to butterflies (ah, see, I did have then show up eventually), Kuwas has the religious beliefs of his OT: counterpart as well as the administrative abilities of his OTL brother. The result is a Shah who holds religious opinions that are not popular amongst the nobility, but who is able to secure his hold on the throne despite this. May not the best example f butterflies in a TL, but much better than the original version of this chapter
[FN4] This was actually an argument common to the Church of e East in OTL under the Caliphate. I thought it would be fun to have a similar discussion occur in the ATL, earlier, and be recorded.
[FN5] Foreshadowing!
My attitude is that the Sassanid state had some grave weaknesses which would appear, no matter if Islam emerged or not. The Sassanids will fall in the AT, but whether it is to a foreign invasion or a dynastic dispute remains to be seen!Okay, as I initially said, I was not happy with my last update about the Sassanids. I think this chapter is much better constructed and based in history, so consider it the 'true' chapter, if you will.
Hope you enjoyed it, and I would love any comments or questions you may have.
My goal is to do a chapter dealing with the developments in Arabia and then return to Europe. There are some incidents in Gepidia, Lombardy and in the Gothic-Roman Empire that must be dealt with as well. But I still want to establish tha the world itself has changed outside of the Roman Empire.
Very nice update! So now it looks like OTL Islam does have a potential equivalent in TTL, albeit with a different origin and doctrine. May there be conflict between Mazdakaism and Christianity in the future, perhaps?
Also, how goes the conversion of Germanic peoples in Europe around this timeframe?
Also, how goes the conversion of Germanic peoples in Europe around this timeframe?
Well, Mazdakianism is less of a separate religion from Zoroastrianism, and more of an internal reform movement aimed at bring about greater social equality. In many ways, I think its more of an example of a Protestant movement rather than a new religion. It's rise, however, Ia going to have some very major impacta upon the development of Persia in the ATL. I have a certain vision of the way the Middle East turns out here
As for the Germans ... All will be answerwd in a future post
. Remember, this post is a bit of a prequel if you look at chronology.That's even better, I always do enjoy *Zoroastrian Survival TLs (even when it's not an integral part of the overall plot/TL like in this case here ). So I take it that Persia will be stronger or more influential relative to OTL in this TL? I like!
So here's a question, does the word "German*" even have meaning ITTL's Europe? And do the Goths consider themselves part of such people?
*I know it'd be some variant of "Dutch/Deutsch/Theedish/etc." in their own tongue most likely, so I guess my question goes for that way of saying it too.
). So I take it that Persia will be stronger or more influential relative to OTL in this TL? I like!So here's a question, does the word "German*" even have meaning ITTL's Europe? And do the Goths consider themselves part of such people?
*I know it'd be some variant of "Dutch/Deutsch/Theedish/etc." in their own tongue most likely, so I guess my question goes for that way of saying it too.
That's even better, I always do enjoy *Zoroastrian Survival TLs (even when it's not an integral part of the overall plot/TL like in this case here
So here's a question, does the word "German*" even have meaning ITTL's Europe? And do the Goths consider themselves part of such people?
*I know it'd be some variant of "Dutch/Deutsch/Theedish/etc." in their own tongue most likely, so I guess my question goes for that way of saying it too.
Persia is going to be ... interesting, and that is all I am going to say.
As for the Goths and their notion of "Germaness", the Germanic peoples in OTL didsee themselves as part of the same cultural group. After all, stories of the Goths and their Stepped Empire lasted amongst the Norse for over a thousand years before being written down.
I see no reason for this to break down in the ATL. The Goths will likely come to see their Germanic neighbors in much the same way the French and Spanish can understand they share some heritage as Romance speakers. Not that this ever stopped them from warring against one another.
. In fact, if you read some of my cultural updates, I've strongly insinuated that a common cultural tradition remains ... It is, after all, a Saxon who writes the Merovingleid 
Glad you kept Persia mostly OTL - not a fan of willy nilly butterflies
I have some further thoughts on what can be done with evolution of Gothic and will try to write the down to post!
I have some further thoughts on what can be done with evolution of Gothic and will try to write the down to post!
Glad you kept Persia mostly OTL - not a fan of willy nilly butterflies
I have some further thoughts on what can be done with evolution of Gothic and will try to write the down to post!
Please do, I would love to see what you come up with!
But in regards to your other point, I totally agree. I rewrote my initial Persian chapter for just that reason; I just couldn't justify a major shift occurring that early with no real outside influence. Fast forward a couple of years with different personalities in play, who can take advantage of already present currents, and it becomes much more palpable. As much as I love butterflies, and am pretty stringent about them, actually; I would have a problem with a TL where, say, JFK' s first born son lives, and the Soviet Union invades Yugoslavia that same year
Persia is going to be ... interesting, and that is all I am going to say.
As for the Goths and their notion of "Germaness", the Germanic peoples in OTL didsee themselves as part of the same cultural group. After all, stories of the Goths and their Stepped Empire lasted amongst the Norse for over a thousand years before being written down.
I see no reason for this to break down in the ATL. The Goths will likely come to see their Germanic neighbors in much the same way the French and Spanish can understand they share some heritage as Romance speakers. Not that this ever stopped them from warring against one another.
Glad to hear that a common root identity is preserved. In a strange roundabout way, it seems like the Romance and Germanic speaking communities of Europe may well turn out to be the inverse of each other from OTL in that regard. If nothing else, having a strong Gothic literary tradition may be a key reason why (BTW I can't remember if this was ever addressed, but do the Goths use the Latin alphabet or their own?).
I believe the Gothic alphabet was already being phased out by the time of Theodoric in favor of the Latin alphabet. As such, I could see the Latin alphabet becoming dominant, although adopting some letters from the old Gothic script. However, I'd be willing to be convinced that I am wrong