No Arab invasions: How do Byzantium and Persia develop?

[Indicus]

That's certainly not what I said.

That’s an attitude I have often seen on this forum. Far too often in my view. And that was precisely the statement I was making above. Zoroastrianism was not some moribund religion struggling to survive under the inevitable currents of Christianity at all.

You would need to replicate the long period of conquest by the Arabs that Persia had to make it Christian. As for your list above, a majority of those “conquering” groups came from Persia proper, so I would not call that conquest at all and others were so recent that we can safely discount them.

 

[Pellaeon]

I really don’t understand why this forum believes that Abrahamic religion would conquer the world in any scenario. I’m guessing a big part of it is that most people here are Christian and want their religion to do well.

It's not about people's beliefs here it's taking into account Christianity is a missionary religion that by the 8th century had already reached China and India in the first. Whose to say a Sassanid empress would not convert and then convert her son? Whose to say Chrstianity would not grow more popular with the Sassanid poor and peasantry? I think all those things are likely.

I imagine Persian Christianity will adopt Persian quirks, and culture and perhaps even assimilate certain elements of Zorastrianism but it would have spread further.

 

[Xenophonte]

Would expect that the many and different Christian 'brands' strengths and expands first in the different Byzantine provinces and their struggle against the imperial imposed 'orthodoxy' and their autonomy and/or secessionist seek.
Further west or east conquests only would be to increase the religion tension.
Another factor to consider would be the Nestorian expansion/ missional activity that its probably to continue and deepest along the silk route and with the steppe tribes.
I guess that in this scenario would be voluntarily imitated (or following the 'Nestorian model' after being forced into exile) by the followers from other Christian doctrinal variants / heterodoxies...
Of course it is not to be ruled out that if any of these from the perspective of the epoch were heterodox achieved the conversion / control of some state and / or tribal confederation can face and / or fight both against the empire and against its hypothetical rivals / followers of different / opposed Christian doctrines.
Finally, it is possible that after hundreds of years of 'evolution' and /or doctrinal separation between the different Christian variants may eventually (even if new doctrinal splits don't arise from those already historically known) conclude that they can only share their common identification as Christians being otherwise than radically different in rites and doctrine that would be seemed from different religions.

 

[Indicus]

It's not about people's beliefs here it's taking into account Christianity is a missionary religion that by the 8th century had already reached China and India in the first.

That doesn’t mean everyone will decide to be a Christian. Missionary religion is not the same thing as an entire nation converting. At best, I can imagine something like the Indian subcontinent, with a Christian-majority west, and a Christian minority throughout, but Persia was not Europe at all, and the grounds and sheer luck that led to Europe becoming Christian would not be the case here.

Whose to say a Sassanid empress would not convert and then convert her son?

Who is to say that they wouldn’t simply push further reforms of Zoroastrianism? Reform was exactly what turned Zoroastrianism into a monotheistic faith and led to iconoclasm in the Sassanid era, after all. You seem to view Zoroastrianism as a moribund religion, but it was dynamic and willing to change to combat Christianity. It was not like the indigenous European religions by any measure.

Whose to say Chrstianity would not grow more popular with the Sassanid poor and peasantry?

Why would it grow popular? You’re offering all of these axioms with little justification.

 

[TyranicusMaximus]

Far more interesting than Persia adopting Christianity would be a Zoroastrianism that more consciously tries to take on aspects of it to more effectively compete. Given the large Christian population in Mesopotamia there's plenty of room for influence.

Alternatively the Sassanian religious elite can 'double-down' on the aspects that differentiate the two religions.

 

[Deleted member 97083]

Would expect that the many and different Christian 'brands' strengths and expands first in the different Byzantine provinces and their struggle against the imperial imposed 'orthodoxy' and their autonomy and/or secessionist seek.
Further west or east conquests only would be to increase the religion tension.
Another factor to consider would be the Nestorian expansion/ missional activity that its probably to continue and deepest along the silk route and with the steppe tribes.
I guess that in this scenario would be voluntarily imitated (or following the 'Nestorian model' after being forced into exile) by the followers from other Christian doctrinal variants / heterodoxies...
Of course it is not to be ruled out that if any of these from the perspective of the epoch were heterodox achieved the conversion / control of some state and / or tribal confederation can face and / or fight both against the empire and against its hypothetical rivals / followers of different / opposed Christian doctrines.
Finally, it is possible that after hundreds of years of 'evolution' and /or doctrinal separation between the different Christian variants may eventually (even if new doctrinal splits don't arise from those already historically known) conclude that they can only share their common identification as Christians being otherwise than radically different in rites and doctrine that would be seemed from different religions.

Inside the empire, most of the non-Chalcedonian branches had been subjugated and marginalized by the end of Justinian's reign. But there would definitely be some tensions and religious dissent. Not empire-breaking though.

Chalcedonian Christianity would continue to be strongly politically affiliated with the reigning Emperor. I would expect the Byzantine Empire and its allies to become an "island" of Chalcedonian Christianity, with surrounding regions and states following various "heresies". Arianism was declining, but the Lombards at least were still following it. The Visigoths and Franks had become Catholic, but I could see them diverging from Byzantines after a later council.

 

[DominusNovus]

I really don’t understand why this forum believes that Abrahamic religion would conquer the world in any scenario. I’m guessing a big part of it is that most people here are Christian and want their religion to do well.

The two most successful religions are Abrahamic, Christianity and Islam. Both are proselytizing religions, and worked against each other to a large degree in their 1400 years of shared history. And they still count more than half the world’s population among their number. Therefore, if they didn’t have to compete with each other - particularly with holy wars - its not unreasonable - though not guaranteed - to think that the remaining religion would be even larger than the two combine.

 

[Indicus]

The two most successful religions are Abrahamic, Christianity and Islam. Both are proselytizing religions, and worked against each other to a large degree in their 1400 years of shared history. And they still count more than half the world’s population among their number. Therefore, if they didn’t have to compete with each other - particularly with holy wars - its not unreasonable - though not guaranteed - to think that the remaining religion would be even larger than the two combine.

I certainly find it a highly deterministic view that Persia was doomed to become Abrahamic, and that Zoroastrianism was doomed to become the minority religion of the Iranian people. It ignores a lot, such as the reforms pursued by the Sassanids, and how the religion purged the shrine cults and eliminated idol worship, as well as extolling deep dualism. Zoroastrianism certainly wasn’t declining before Islam rose, and it doesn’t have to fall in this scenario.

 

[DominusNovus]

I certainly find it a highly deterministic view that Persia was doomed to become Abrahamic, and that Zoroastrianism was doomed to become the minority religion of the Iranian people. It ignores a lot, such as the reforms pursued by the Sassanids, and how the religion purged the shrine cults and eliminated idol worship, as well as extolling deep dualism. Zoroastrianism certainly wasn’t declining before Islam rose, and it doesn’t have to fall in this scenario.

I was responding to your supposition was people on this forum think Christianity would spread further than it did, historically, because they're Christian.

 

[Practical Lobster]

The two most successful religions are Abrahamic, Christianity and Islam. Both are proselytizing religions, and worked against each other to a large degree in their 1400 years of shared history. And they still count more than half the world’s population among their number. Therefore, if they didn’t have to compete with each other - particularly with holy wars - its not unreasonable - though not guaranteed - to think that the remaining religion would be even larger than the two combine.

How would you say Christianity and Islam worked against each other? Their major periods of expansion happened nowhere similar to each other.

A couple crusades and some wars don't make for a life and death struggle in the grand scheme of world history. Both religions tended to expand primarily against disorganized societies and at the head of conquering armies or at the very least dominant and hegemonic societies.

I agree that people here dramatically underestimate Persia's chances. Persia would have adapted before it converted and let's be honest - the Eastern Roman Empire was in no position to rule the Zargos long term.

The idea of individual rulers converting and changing the very fabric of their socieites is to me a fantasy that occurs rarely and with many extraneous circumstances. No Sassanian monarch would convert to Christianity no matter how Christophilic they might have been in policy - it would have undermined the very foundation of their regime.

 

[Xenophonte]

Seems that must be reminded that the Zoroastrianism was an 'National' religion with all their strengths and flaws that this characteristic implied both for this religion itself and for the people within or outside the Persian Empire borders.

 

[Pellaeon]

I agree. People are too quick in stating that Zoroastrianism had “zero chance” to stick, or that Persia would inevitably become Christian because apparently it is the inevitable movement of all people to become Christian. Zoroastrianism was not, contrary to belief, a dying religion. It was the staunch religion of the Iranic peoples, and it certainly won’t become a minority religion without a fight.

And a fight it would give but it would succumb perhaps in a century perhaps a thousand years but it would have succumbed.

I know that sounds deterministic and maybe it is but Abrahamic religions do seem be extraordinarily adaptable and successful as well as being nearly infinitely persistent and capable of growth.

 

[Indicus]

And a fight it would give but it would succumb perhaps in a century perhaps a thousand years but it would have succumbed.

Why? Why was Zoroastrianism doomed to collapse, and why could it never have successfully changed itself?

I know that sounds deterministic and maybe it is but Abrahamic religions do seem be extraordinarily adaptable and successful as well as being nearly infinitely persistent and capable of growth.

Ah yes, because apparently no people have been able to resist the onslaught of Abrahamism.

Zoroastrianism is also extraordinary adaptable (just look at how much it changed during the Sassanid era) and extremely persistent (even today, despite great suppression, there exist Zoroastrian communities. Contrast with the fates of European indigenous religious communities).

Don’t discount Zoroastrianism so easily, and don’t view it as a “pagan” (whatever that means) religion.

 

[RogueTraderEnthusiast]

Back to the OP - I don't think it is unreasonable for the Romans to make a push for Exarchates in Mesopotamia and the Caucauses, whilst settling for border states. The constant wars are exhausting - and a long-term peace with Persia is preferable. It can only be done with border states (which could still become a diplomatic quagmire), or a strong frontier that provides incredible defence in depth for the Empire Proper (Mesopotamia). It wouldn't surprise me if the Romans took Persian instability to create that situation.

Meanwhile, with the collapse of the Arabs, then the policy returns to client states in Arabia, slowly but surely.

After that - heck, I don't know. Peace on the Persian border and restoring Egyptian and Syrian authority leaves the Romans in an incredibly strong position. Strong enough to push the Exarchate of Carthage further, as well as Italy and the Balkans. I think vast sums of money might be spent on trying to make Berber clients around the Exarchate of Carthage, to provide it with enough security to secure Western Mediterranean trade and apply pressure to the Visigoths and Ostrogoths.

Beyond that I fear it'd be wishful thinking.

 

[Salvador79]

Border / buffer states were what Romans and Sassanids had been endlessly going to war against each other over in the first place - in the early phases, it was about the weird construction of Armenia, later on, Lakhmids and Ghassanids warred against each other.

 

[RogueTraderEnthusiast]

Border / buffer states were what Romans and Sassanids had been endlessly going to war against each other over in the first place - in the early phases, it was about the weird construction of Armenia, later on, Lakhmids and Ghassanids warred against each other.

Hence my reference to diplomatic quagmire.

I'd prefer two Exarchates myself - no diplomatic ambiguity, but with the freedom to operate as needed.

 

[Serenity2589]

Just so people remember. Here's a list of countries that sucessfully remained with there origional religions even after christian and islamic influence. India. Japan. Despite being Britains playtoy for a while and the site of muslim forays india is still majority hinduism. And despite the influence of western countries japan is still majority shintoism and bhuddism

 

[RogueTraderEnthusiast]

Just so people remember. Here's a list of countries that sucessfully remained with there origional religions even after christian and islamic influence. India. Japan. Despite being Britains playtoy for a while and the site of muslim forays india is still majority hinduism. And despite the influence of western countries japan is still majority shintoism and bhuddism

It is also worth mentioning how successful at spreading Buddhism was.

I would also add a caveat on India that AFAIK Britain never actually tried to convert the region, whilst the Mughals did try and covert it (hence Pakistan).

 

[cmakk1012]

Just so people remember. Here's a list of countries that sucessfully remained with there origional religions even after christian and islamic influence. India. Japan. Despite being Britains playtoy for a while and the site of muslim forays india is still majority hinduism. And despite the influence of western countries japan is still majority shintoism and bhuddism

Both of those examples are flawed IMO. Many Indians are Muslim after centuries of Muslim rule, and eastern regions like Nagaland are today largely Christian due to British proselytization. Japan might well have become Christian if the 16th and 17th Century religious conflicts had gone differently.

IMO it’s likely that Persia could fend off Christianization internally if it wasn’t conquered by the Romans. Christianity’s nature as the faith of the hated enemy would allow Persian rulers to effectively persecute Christians as enemy agents. Moreover, to compete the Persian government would likely support a strengthening of Zoroastrianism. It’s an entirely different issue if Rome did conquer Persia, even if just for a few generations, however.

 

[Faeelin]

The Sasanids were pretty much in a civil war with a teenager on the throne with no heirs, the economy destroyed and the Parthian clans creeping on power, you could probably see either a new dynasty taking place or Persia itself fragmenting (eventually reuniting or not).

This sounds a lot like Rome on Tuesday