AH: A World without Islam Discussion
- Thread starter Grouchio
- Start date
I don't recall the Arabs adopting Zoroastrianism or the Pahlavi scripts following their conquests of Persia. Persia adopted (and of course modified) the writing system and religion of at least one of its conquerors, so I'd look at its assimilation prowess as China Lite.
I should also note that Turkic languages displaced Iranian ones in Azerbaijan (if you consider Azerbaijan to be formerly Persian, given it belonged to the Achaemenid Empire). Other Turkophone people, maybe one-sixth of Iran's population, in the west, were influenced in language by Persian, but didn't adopt it, and they also displaced Persian in some parts of Central Asia. So, to me, it's rather mixed, with the core of Persia resisting the influence of its conquerors, while the outlying regions were not so successful.
I should also note that Turkic languages displaced Iranian ones in Azerbaijan (if you consider Azerbaijan to be formerly Persian, given it belonged to the Achaemenid Empire). Other Turkophone people, maybe one-sixth of Iran's population, in the west, were influenced in language by Persian, but didn't adopt it, and they also displaced Persian in some parts of Central Asia. So, to me, it's rather mixed, with the core of Persia resisting the influence of its conquerors, while the outlying regions were not so successful.
Thats why this is Alternate history. I think that the Turks became Persianized more as a result of not having a unified cultural counter-balance to the Persians. The Persians did influence the Arabs mostly during the Abbasids, but the Arabs did not really become Persians and the Persians were much more influenced by Arab introduction of Islam. There is a certain level of give and take between cultures, but complete domination happens in rare cases or special cases and in many ways only took increasing hold during the Age of Nationalism.
Not sure why the Turks not having a unified cultural counter-balance means that the Persians influencing them doesn't count.
On the "give and take" part:
And there was a lot of giving by Persia and very little taking from the conquerors.
That's only true for invaders who weren't Arabs.
Also, Turkic invasions arguably ended Central Asia as a "Persian" domain.
The status of the Ashina Clan as a semi divine, unifying family.
Also the reasons why the Arabs conquered Persia.
Why couldn't the Turks do what the Arabs did? Zoroastrianism was at a low point during this time period and the social order of Persia was topsy turvey. Depending on how the Gokturk Khagans reacted they could take advantage of the situation and Turkify the eastern provinces of Persia or maybe form a Hybrid Tengri-Zoroastrian religion or remain distinct from Persian religious culture or simply just take those eastern provinces.
Last edited:
The conquest part did work (including the assimilation) OTL. Religion-wise gets more complicated.
I suppose because Arabs had more zeal when conquering countries were other religions and because the Arabs had unique chances at the time they launched their invasions.
Eh, the Arab Caliphate was rather hesitant toward conquering Persia, they intially did not want to rule over so many people of another religion.
But they still did. Quite impressive that they got into Pakistan in the East and Spain in the West.
And the Abbasids were ended by the Seljuqs and Mamluks and then finally the Mongols (with considerable Turco-Mongols making up their army). They also did in the Byzantines several times. Not to mention China and portions of Europe.
The marvel of Baghdad that was lost in 1258 won't be rued as a symbol of anyone retreating from a Golden Age.
I was going to say that you seemed to have addressed everything except for the Treasure Fleets... and then I remembered that Zheng He was a Muslim. (Insert expression of delighted bowled-away-ness, "whoa!")
If you take away such a major component of the community in which his family came to be, I think you're looking at the potential if not likely butterflying away of the man himself.
This is what, in the 6th c.?
Europe will always have a temperate, wet climate. It will always be hard to conquer. It was already recovering statehood and the benefits thereof.
It will get influenced by someone else, whoever is dominant at the time, then rise up again.
The only thing that can stop it is a centralized Mediterranean power.
They can be kept down, e.g., Vikings, etc.
I think it's interesting that European states seemed to develop concurrently with European national leaders emerging in confrontation with the Caliphate. Hm.
Vikings, etc. didn't really have the force to 'keep Europe down". You need something more significant than sea born brigands for that, and Viking conquest just means Norse laws and so on - not a step down for most of Europe.
