AHC: Christian-majority Indian Subcontinent

[Prince Ire]

Despite what many monotheists will claim, most pagan peoples adopted monotheism for a firmer grasp on power (this was especially true for the Norse - they didn't see some vague "truth" in Christianity, it was just convenient to access the wealth and alliances of the rest of Europe; it's fairly clear this was the same logic followed by the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms). In India, Hindus already held the power, so there was no real incentive to forsake their native beliefs.

The majority of conversions to monotheism went from the top-down, after all.

It's a common supposition among older style historians that people only converted for power or to gain access to wealth, but more contemporary historians don't necessarily subscribe to that narrative. There's increasing willingness to acknowledge that people--including the ruling elite--typically did in fact believe their own religion. You really have to look at a case by case basis to determine whether conversion was genuine or not. And of course genuine conversion and converting for power or wealth aren't mutually exclusive! One can easily believe that if another people are seemingly wealthier and more powerful than you, clearly their god is better than your god and give more benefits to worshippers.

 

[Cregan]

This is the fastest way to galvanize the Indian Hindu resistance and ensure an even faster overthrow.
The reason why the Mughal Empire collapsed was that Aurangzeb followed this exact policy as laid out, and the result were the Sikh and Maratha revolts. Akbar was smart, and he coopted the Rajput elites by (I repeat heavy)accommodation of their Hindu customs. Even this heavy accommodation proved to be intolerable in eyes of the Orthodox Muslims, as such came the rise of Aurangzeb and defeat of Dara Shikoh.
The Nestorians are very unlikely the engage in this sort of activity.

This is an oversimplification of Akbar's and Aurangzeb's policies, and also of the reasons for the decline of the Mughal Empire. I'll just note that there were two fairly orthodox Muslim Emperors in between Akbar and Aurangzeb (Jahangir and Shah Jahan), and the latter's reign is often considered the zenith of the Mughal Empire.

You'll note that I said if the Christian Turks have the zeal and manpower, they could convert enough of India to make it majority Christian. Zeal alone won't do it, they need the steady stream of missionaries, priests, soldiers, administrators, etc to do it. The Mughals and other Indo-Muslim dynasties were often heavily outnumbered and never pursued an official policy of mass conversions, which will be a big point of difference with the Christian Turkish rulers ITTL. I am positing that the worldview and situation of the Christian Turks will be different to the Indo-Muslim dynasties of OTL and they will instead commit themselves, as long as they have the adequate manpower and lack of external pressure to do so, to evangelising and spreading Christianity across India. You note that the Subcontinent is 55% Hindu - under these circumstances it will not be too difficult to flip that 55% around and turn India at least 55% (or more) Christian, especially as there is no other mass evangelical religion (like Islam) to challenge them.

 

[Elfwine]

I am positing that the worldview and situation of the Christian Turks will be different to the Indo-Muslim dynasties of OTL and they will instead commit themselves, as long as they have the adequate manpower and lack of external pressure to do so, to evangelising and spreading Christianity across India. You note that the Subcontinent is 55% Hindu - under these circumstances it will not be too difficult to flip that 55% around and turn India at least 55% (or more) Christian, especially as there is no other mass evangelical religion (like Islam) to challenge them.

But what makes converting to Christianity - as these Nestorian Turks are still heavily outnumbered (as far as I know, Iran and the areas north of it are not very heavily populated in this period) - significantly more attractive than Christianity and Islam were OTL?

 

[Cregan]

But what makes converting to Christianity - as opposed to that these Nestorian Turks are still heavily outnumbered - significantly more attractive than Christianity and Islam were OTL?

I'm not sure I understand the question. The scenario is that these Nestorian Turks are unable to expand west, and there isn't a Mongol Empire (or some other steppe empire) that destroys them from the northeast, so they focus even more heavily on invading, settling and Christianising India, including by diverting future steppe migrations towards reinforcing the Christian presence in India. They also don't have to compete with a rival evangelical religion in the area like Islam and have more manpower to dedicate towards Christianising India, unlike the OTL Indo-Muslim dynasties. These preconditions, and greater dedication and zeal towards spreading Nestorian Christianity in India than the Indo-Muslim dynasties ever displayed toward spreading Islam, will make the situation more favourable for Christianising 55% of the Indian population. It will also be helped if there is a single united Christian Turkish empire uniting both North and South India rather than the fragmented Indo-Muslim dynasties of OTL.

If you reject this premise and say the Nestorian Turks will be heavily outnumbered like the OTL Indo-Muslim dynasties for whatever reasons, then yes I agree they won't be more succesful than Islam was IOTL in India.

 

[Elfwine]

I am okay with the premise that "they can't expand west, and they're not destroyed from the northeast" and all that - but that doesn't mean that there's a lot of Nestorian Turks/Turco-Mongols to settle and rule in India (including anything from further steppe migrations) relative to the population that they're trying to convert.

I'm trying to find a more precise figure here as far as asserting that, but I think even this scenario suggests a small minority - a minority that may be much more successful at spreading Christianity than OTL, assuming all the above assumptions are valid, but still a small minority.

So given that being fervently zealous feels like it's going to inspire negative responses as well as positive ones by the conquered, I feel like I'm missing something here.

 

[prani]

What makes Hinduism so resilient to monotheism

Because Hinduism at its root is a monoist religion, especially the present iteration, all different gods are viewed as part of the same supreme being that is the God. So the appeal of one true God of Christianity and islam is just not there.

Besides Hindu temples are not pagan shrines, temple and Buddhist stupas,held a lot of land, brought and sold agricultural commodities, did a lot of banking activities, operated local government. In short hindu and Buddhist religious institutions were state within a state and more importantly remained outside state structure rather one would say secular state structure were made part of this theocratic institution, so even if political power went out of the local rajas and into the hands of the sultans and padishahs, the temples remained the basis of social and political framework in rural areas which is why you saw assaults by sultans and padishahs on temples which gave mixed results as people continued their patronage to the temple because of the rich tradition of lores and story surrounding a particular temple. As each temple dedicated to particular deity was unique and tied to the local lore and it's tradition whereas the local mosque or church didn't have such pedigree.

Finally Hinduism is pretty unique in it's outlook and belief, eg: we have our own version of monotheism and people in general just don't change their beliefs. This incompatibility combined with the power of religious institutions and a history of myths and lore which gave Hindus a strong identity in opposition to other religions made it resilient unlike paganism of Europe.

 

[PecuTheGreat]

It's a common supposition among older style historians that people only converted for power or to gain access to wealth, but more contemporary historians don't necessarily subscribe to that narrative. There's increasing willingness to acknowledge that people--including the ruling elite--typically did in fact believe their own religion. You really have to look at a case by case basis to determine whether conversion was genuine or not. And of course genuine conversion and converting for power or wealth aren't mutually exclusive! One can easily believe that if another people are seemingly wealthier and more powerful than you, clearly their god is better than your god and give more benefits to worshippers.

I meant you can agree that the elite did believe in their religion but also agree that what made on religion win out over another is power and organization, not it being more convincing(most of the time)

 

[Cregan]

I am okay with the premise that "they can't expand west, and they're not destroyed from the northeast" and all that - but that doesn't mean that there's a lot of Nestorian Turks/Turco-Mongols to settle and rule in India (including anything from further steppe migrations) relative to the population that they're trying to convert.

I'm trying to find a more precise figure here as far as asserting that, but I think even this scenario suggests a small minority - a minority that may be much more successfulat spreading Christianity than OTL, assuming all the above assumptions are valid, but still a small minority.

So given that being fervently zealous feels like it's going to inspire negative responses as well as positive ones by the conquered, I feel like I'm missing something here.

The premise is that if the manpower is there, along with motivation and momentum, the Christian Turks can Christianise at least 55% of India. If they don't have the manpower, and/or if there are other external pressures that deflate their motivation and momentum, then they won't be anymore successful than the OTL Indo-Muslim dynasties.

If you think that the conditions outlined above still suggest that Nestorian Turks would remain a small minority, then they won't be more successful. However, I think they will have more manpower given these conditions, especially if they manage to maintain a united Turco-Christian Indian Empire. This would also lead to more native Indian converts to Christianity across India, which will further boost their manpower, which can then be a snowball effect to reach that 55%. A simple majority of 55% isn't that far-off the actual religious distribution of the Indian Subcontinent IOTL anyway, it would really only be a marginal increase to achieve a simple Christian majority.

When thinking of the potential Christian manpower pool, we also shouldn't just limit it to Turco-Mongol settlers - native Indian Christian crusaders can play a significant role in Christianising India, much like native Indo-Muslim dynasties played a large role in Indian history (although they weren't that successful or even motivated to Islamise parts of India). For example, the Bahmani Sultanate, which defeated and destroyed the Hindu Vijayanagar Empire, was founded by an Indian Hindu Brahmin convert to Islam. Its not hard to imagine similar Indians converting to Christianity ITTL due to incentives from the Christian Turkish rulers, allowing them to achieve social advancement, power, wealth, security, etc. More official state patronage of Christian charity, equality, missionary activities, etc, towards lower caste Hindus could also incentivise their conversions to Christianity, while also undermining the power of upper caste Hindus - but this if the Christian Turkish rulers feel secure enough to do so (the Indo-Muslim rulers were not motivated to undermine the Hindu caste system, as they wanted to co-opt Hindu power structures rather than subvert them).

 

[Elfwine]

I think this scenario could potentially create a large enough Nestorian population for things like this:

For example, the Bahmani Sultanate, which defeated and destroyed the Hindu Vijayanagar Empire, was founded by an Indian Hindu Brahmin convert to Islam.

but not for the only significant limit on their ability to spread Christianity to be external pressures deflating their motivation and momentum. That is what the premise of an empire blocked from further western expansion, but able and willing to take India (and with the Christian element reinforced by any steppe hordes that come this way), suggests to me.

 

[tex mex]

This is an oversimplification of Akbar's and Aurangzeb's policies, and also of the reasons for the decline of the Mughal Empire. I'll just note that there were two fairly orthodox Muslim Emperors in between Akbar and Aurangzeb (Jahangir and Shah Jahan), and the latter's reign is often considered the zenith of the Mughal Empire

Calling Aurangzeb's reign the zenith would be like calling Leonid Brezhnev tenure as the zenith of the USSR. Today we call it the Brezhnev stagnation, despite the fact that Brezhnev enjoys high popularity even to this day.
Unfortunately, there is a rather disturbing trend to rehabilitate a clearly incompetent ruler given various political stakes.

You'll note that I said if the Christian Turks have the zeal and manpower, they could convert enough of India to make it majority Christian. Zeal alone won't do it, they need the steady stream of missionaries, priests, soldiers, administrators, etc to do it.

This is basically OTL. The only reason Sindh, Punjab, Kashmir, and Bengal converted was due to sociopolitical reasons that are not at all connected to the intensity of foreign settlement and occupation. Thousands of Pashtuns, Turks, and Persians settled in India and you had Sufi pirs like Shah Jalal converting many. In fact, the scenario you just described did indeed happen, but the most successful islamizations happened largely independent of this fact.
The first 3 regions had the landowning classes converted along with their clientele. The result is that the only remaining Hindus of Kashmir were Kashmiri Pandits while the Damara nobility and their serfs converted to Islam. Also, the Mercantile class of Sindh was largely Hindu .Bengal was different since the deforestation of the delta resulted in disproportionate growth of Muslim peasantry versus that of Hindus. The result was that cultural elites of Bengal were actually the Bhodrolok despite Bengal being Muslim majority.
The reason why Bangladesh is Muslim and not Hindu has little to do with the intensity of cultural colonization of foreign entities. In fact, Bangladesh I would argue is very similar to that of West Bengal.

The Mughals and other Indo-Muslim dynasties were often heavily outnumbered and never pursued an official policy of mass conversions, which will be a big point of difference with the Christian Turkish rulers ITTL. I am positing that the worldview and situation of the Christian Turks will be different to the Indo-Muslim dynasties of OTL and they will instead commit themselves, as long as they have the adequate manpower and lack of external pressure to do so, to evangelising and spreading Christianity across India. You note that the Subcontinent is 55% Hindu - under these circumstances it will not be too difficult to flip that 55% around and turn India at least 55% (or more) Christian, especially as there is no other mass evangelical religion (like Islam) to challenge them.

Certain Delhi Sultans like Balban sponsored Mass conversions in the Punjab region. Aurangzeb promoted the Jizya tax, and many converted including the paternal ancestors of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto who were Sindhi Rajputs who became muslim.

There was the Manichaean Uyghur Khaganate which even after migrating to the Tarim Basin, switched to Buddhism. Same goes for many of the Nestorian Mongols like Songhratani Beki who despite being Christian married Non-christians.

The fact is Nestorianism, Manichaeism, and Judaism were popular only amongst the elite cadre and lacked popular appeal. Khazar Judaism, Uyghur Manichaeism and Mongol Nestorianism have since faded away. The uyghurs and khazars couldn't even convert the Tocharians and Slavs respectively to their respective religions.

The same goes for the Ghassanid and Lakhmid states, where these Arab Kingdoms had an elite Christian Cadre that did not wish to propagate their Greek Orthodoxy and Nestorianism energetically.

Iran is very unlikely to turn Christian given the strength of Zoroastrianism, so it is more likely that nestorian turks that conquer Iran would likely be tolerant of Zoroastrianism or even convert to it. The Persian elite became muslim only because of patron-client relationships with Arab tribes and then these clients constructing states during the iranian intermezo.
Nestorian Turkish Empire in India would lead to Nestorianism becoming the religion of a significant minority or completely dissipating just like when the Uyghurs migrated to Tarim basin.

 

[Deleted member 178671]

The OP could be achieved by a few things:

- Neighbouring Christian invaders conquering India rather than Muslim rulers. This would be helped by a No-Islam scenario where the faith is butterflied away to not exist.
- The Christian conquerors not being able to expand west, and not being completely destroyed by another invading force from the east, allowing them to focus all their efforts eastwards on India
- The Christian conquerors aggressively evangelising, rather than the laissez faire approach of the OTL Muslim rulers.
- The Christian conquerors maintaining a single polity over all of India (North and South), rather than the fragmentation that occurred under the Muslim dynasties. This unity would accelerate the evangelising above

How about this scenario:

Islam does not exist. The Arab expansion still happens due to population and resource pressures in the Arabian Peninsula, but it is via several disjointed migratory waves by different and feuding Arab tribal confederations like the OTL Germanic migrations, rather than a single unified conquest like the OTL early Islamic conquests. These Arab tribesmen overrun swathes of the Byzantine and Sassanid Persian Empires, but fail to wholly conquer either. Syria, the Levant, Egypt, Libya and the rest of North Africa as well as most of Anatolia is conquered from the Byzantines, while Mesopotamia and parts of the Caucasus are conquered from the Sassanids. Due to their disunity and haphazard migratory waves, the Arabs will fail to break into the Iranian Plateau, where the Sassanids linger on. These conquering Arab tribesmen settle in the captured regions and Christianise over time (especially those that settle in former Byzantine territories), establishing independent Arab Christian Kingdoms.

In the west, these Arab Christian Kingdoms are linguistically and socio-culturally a mishmash of Hellenistic, Roman, Syriac, Coptic, Berber and Arabic influences. Later on, the Byzantines will somewhat recover and retake some of their lost territories (including the entirety of Anatolia) from these Arab Christian Kingdoms, but will not reconquer all of them.

In Mesopotamia and the Caucasus, these Arab Christian Kingdoms are linguistically and socio-culturally a mishmash of Hellenistic, Roman, Mesopotamian, Persian and Arabic influences, but are likely to become some form of heterodox (probably Nestorian) Christian. The Sassanians will try to recover and retake their lost lands from these Nestorian Arab Kingdoms, but they will be hit from the east by a large, powerful and warlike migratory confederation of Nestorian Christian Turkic tribes (much like the OTL Seljuqs). These Nestorian Christian Turks topple the last Sassanian vestiges and conquer all of Iran and the Nestorian Arab Kingdoms that were established in Mesopotamia and the Caucasus. The conquest of the Nestorian Arab Kingdoms goes fairly smoothly for the Nestorian Turks as they are coreligionists, but they face stiffer resistance as they try - and fail - to push west against the Byzantines and western Arab Christian Kingdoms. Unable to overcome this western resistance, the Nestorian Turks settle down to rule over their new empire, which encompasses Iran, Mesopotamia, the Caucasus, large parts of Central Asia and all of the Eastern Arabian coast (granting them control over the whole Persian Gulf). Over time, all of these regions become heavily Nestorian, encouraged along by aggressive evangelising efforts by the Nestorian Turkish rulers. However, whilst their empire is religiously Nestorian, it is also linguistically and socio-culturally a blending of Turkish, Arabic and Persian influences (much like the OTL Turco-Persianate Muslim dynasties).

Unable to expand westwards, the Nestorian Turks turn east and begin sending raiding parties into India, which over time grow into full scale invasions. Often, the Nestorian Turks also divert - using a combination of bribery, intimidation and force - their migrating Turco-Mongol kinsmen from the steppes southwards into also invading India, avoiding their depredations upon their own imperial Iranian heartland. (Due to butterflies, Genghis Khan and the Mongol Empire do not exist ITTL). These migrating Turco-Mongols are fervently Christian, especially because of long exposure to their Nestorian Turkish kinsmen, and view their invasions of India as holy crusades to Christianise the region.

Thus, the Christian Turco-Mongols conquer all of India in several successive waves, even as the Nestorian Turkish Empire in Iran begins crumbling due to internal stagnation and external pressure, which only sends more Christian Turco-Mongol warriors flooding into India as refugee-crusaders. Eventually, a Christian Turco-Mongol dynasty arises that encompasses all of India (like the OTL Mughal Empire at its height). These Christian Turco-Mongols are much more zealous than their OTL Muslim counterparts and impose a thorough evangelical policy to Christianise their Indian Hindu subjects, seeking to emulate their Nestorian Turkish kinsmen who successfully Christianised Iran and Central Asia. If they have sufficient zeal and manpower (which is reinforced by continuous waves of Christian Turco-Mongol migrant-crusaders), over time they will grind down Indian Hindu resistance and Christianise the majority of India. This is how India ITTL becomes majority (likely Nestorian) Christian.

Hrmmm... with no Islam, that changes history QUITE a bit. Rome takes longer to die off, and perhaps the Coptic Christians are able to spread more in North Africa? No Crusades. No Reconquista. Zoroastrianism would probably be more like Sikhism in numbers, and Bedouin and Berber traditions would be more significant. No Baha'i. None of the recent wars in the Middle East. No Sikhism. No Arab unity without some kind of Christian intervention. Omani Christianity remains dominant. No Ottomans means prolonged Byzantine civilization, no jizya, no devshirme, and perhaps no Balkan hatred. No Greek classics. No Mongol Empire and no muslim trade means the Europeans don't get a compass until a while later, which might mean no imperialism, or at least less of it. No Islam in East Asia means that the Uyghurs are either Christian or Tengrist (probably Christian given that the Mongols are butterflied away). No minarets, no mihrabs, no Islamic finials. No Mughals, no Taj Mahal. Indonesia is primarily Hindu-Buddhist-Animist. Would India get 'Ethiopia'-ed? Overlooked by imperialists because they don't need to Christify it? Aided by European traders, and given a chance to fight back? What about Sri Lanka? A Christian-Buddhist syncretism somewhere? And in the New World? With the Incas and Aztecs at more stable points in their own history, the Columbian Exchange and European invasion may not have been as devastating. They'll still have disease troubles, so it's unlikely the Taino still exist, but the Aztec and Inca civs might. the IMHO, waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too many possible butterflies.

 

[Cregan]

Calling Aurangzeb's reign the zenith would be like calling Leonid Brezhnev tenure as the zenith of the USSR. Today we call it the Brezhnev stagnation, despite the fact that Brezhnev enjoys high popularity even to this day.
Unfortunately, there is a rather disturbing trend to rehabilitate a clearly incompetent ruler given various political stakes.

I said "the latter" after referring to Jahangir and Shah Jahan as fairly orthodox Muslims - I was referring to Shah Jahan's reign, not Aurangzeb's.

This is basically OTL. The only reason Sindh, Punjab, Kashmir, and Bengal converted was due to sociopolitical reasons that are not at all connected to the intensity of foreign settlement and occupation. Thousands of Pashtuns, Turks, and Persians settled in India and you had Sufi pirs like Shah Jalal converting many. In fact, the scenario you just described did indeed happen, but the most successful islamizations happened largely independent of this fact.
The first 3 regions had the landowning classes converted along with their clientele. The result is that the only remaining Hindus of Kashmir were Kashmiri Pandits while the Damara nobility and their serfs converted to Islam. Also, the Mercantile class of Sindh was largely Hindu .Bengal was different since the deforestation of the delta resulted in disproportionate growth of Muslim peasantry versus that of Hindus. The result was that cultural elites of Bengal were actually the Bhodrolok despite Bengal being Muslim majority.
The reason why Bangladesh is Muslim and not Hindu has little to do with the intensity of cultural colonization of foreign entities. In fact, Bangladesh I would argue is very similar to that of West Bengal.

This does not disprove my point. It would not take that much more effort from OTL for a united Christian Turkish Empire to Christianise at least 55% of the Indian population ITTL, probably in the same regions above, but also perhaps more in South India too by supporting the Christian churches there, especially because ITTL they won't be competing with Islam and thus will be the sole missionary religion in India.

There was the Manichaean Uyghur Khaganate which even after migrating to the Tarim Basin, switched to Buddhism. Same goes for many of the Nestorian Mongols like Songhratani Beki who despite being Christian married Non-christians.

The fact is Nestorianism, Manichaeism, and Judaism were popular only amongst the elite cadre and lacked popular appeal. Khazar Judaism, Uyghur Manichaeism and Mongol Nestorianism have since faded away. The uyghurs and khazars couldn't even convert the Tocharians and Slavs respectively to their respective religions.

The same goes for the Ghassanid and Lakhmid states, where these Arab Kingdoms had an elite Christian Cadre that did not wish to propagate their Greek Orthodoxy and Nestorianism energetically.

Iran is very unlikely to turn Christian given the strength of Zoroastrianism, so it is more likely that nestorian turks that conquer Iran would likely be tolerant of Zoroastrianism or even convert to it. The Persian elite became muslim only because of patron-client relationships with Arab tribes and then these clients constructing states during the iranian intermezo.
Nestorian Turkish Empire in India would lead to Nestorianism becoming the religion of a significant minority or completely dissipating just like when the Uyghurs migrated to Tarim basin.

As for the mass appeal of Nestorianism or whether it would fade away - we wont know what it could have been IOTL, as the regions it was initially popular in like Central Asia, Mesopotamia, Iran, swathes of the Eurasian Steppe, etc, converted to Islam, which had far greater appeal. In the absence of Islam, Nestorianism may well grow into a mass religion, particularly if they have powerful sponsors like ruling Turkic dynasties. Your bolded assertions are far too definitive for what is a very fluid situation ITTL.

Note that Zoroastriainism was an ethnic Persian religion that did not have mass external appeal or conversions of outsiders. And Persia can be Christianised during a similar Iranian Intermezzo after being conquered by Christian Turks rather than Muslim Arabs. This could be even faster than IOTL as Nestorianism already has a prior presence in Iran, unlike Islam.

 

[Cregan]

Hrmmm... with no Islam, that changes history QUITE a bit. Rome takes longer to die off, and perhaps the Coptic Christians are able to spread more in North Africa? No Crusades. No Reconquista. Zoroastrianism would probably be more like Sikhism in numbers, and Bedouin and Berber traditions would be more significant. No Baha'i. None of the recent wars in the Middle East. No Sikhism. No Arab unity without some kind of Christian intervention. Omani Christianity remains dominant. No Ottomans means prolonged Byzantine civilization, no jizya, no devshirme, and perhaps no Balkan hatred. No Greek classics. No Mongol Empire and no muslim trade means the Europeans don't get a compass until a while later, which might mean no imperialism, or at least less of it. No Islam in East Asia means that the Uyghurs are either Christian or Tengrist (probably Christian given that the Mongols are butterflied away). No minarets, no mihrabs, no Islamic finials. No Mughals, no Taj Mahal. Indonesia is primarily Hindu-Buddhist-Animist. Would India get 'Ethiopia'-ed? Overlooked by imperialists because they don't need to Christify it? Aided by European traders, and given a chance to fight back? What about Sri Lanka? A Christian-Buddhist syncretism somewhere? And in the New World? With the Incas and Aztecs at more stable points in their own history, the Columbian Exchange and European invasion may not have been as devastating. They'll still have disease troubles, so it's unlikely the Taino still exist, but the Aztec and Inca civs might. the IMHO, waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too many possible butterflies.

Yes the consequences of No Islam are absolutely massive and could go in many different directions in many different regions of the world. However, some of the things you note above could still occur, just in a different format, so I wouldn't rule them out entirely.

For example:

• ITTL there will be a Byzantine Reconquista seeking to recover their lost territories from the western Arab Christian Kingdoms. This could turn into an alternative Crusades with Catholic Europe supporting the western Arab Christian Kingdoms (especially if they become Catholic) against the Byzantines, which is basically an earlier version of the Fourth Crusade.
• And you can imagine a Christian version of the Ottomans and Mughals conquering India ITTL. Since the Christian Turks (Nestorian Seljuqs ITTL) are blocked from expanding west after conquering Persia ITTL, there will be Christian Turkish migratory waves focused on India instead, with the numerous beyliks that formed the Ottoman Empire instead forming in the Subcontinent or similar invasions like the Ghaznavids, Ghurids or Babur's that formed the Indo-Muslim states. Although of course ITTL they will be very different from OTL Ottoman and Mughal culture, they will share a similar Turco-Persian culture, but it will be Christian instead of Muslim.
• Some version of the Islamic architecture you describe could still arise, as they are Arabesque and/or Turco-Persian in nature, just under a Christianised veneer instead of Islamic.
• An interesting facet could be the co-option of Hindu deities as Christian saints if India is sufficiently Christianised ITTL. Christianity did similar things with pagan European deities, and this is a major difference with Islam, which does not do similar things.
• The Greek classics could still be preserved and transmitted by a combination of the Arab Christian Kingdoms, Nestorian Turkish Empire and the Byzantines. Hindu numerals could still be transmitted the same way as well.

 

[tex mex]

I said "the latter" after referring to Jahangir and Shah Jahan as fairly orthodox Muslims - I was referring to Shah Jahan's reign, not Aurangzeb's.

"Orthodox" Islam is a rather problematic term that must be discarded.
Go ask a Sunni, Twelver, Nizari Ismaili in regards to succession to Muhammad, and you will get three different answers. By creating a definition of Orthodox Islam, you are relegating forms of Islam as Un-orthodox and this implies an inferior status.
The question of which sect of Islam is orthodox and which is not is a talking point of extremists like Sayyid Qutb who deemed most of the Ummah as being Non-Muslims given his narrow prescriptions of what he himself consider to be an Orthodox Muslim. This is unfortunately the same argument justified by the Salafis who have demolished many archaeological sites in Mecca as they consider veneration of graves to be contrary to their definition of Orthodoxy.

This does not disprove my point.

It does largely question your point. You may disagree and have a specific personal bias, but at least be respectful.
Islamic States ruled the Doab region from 1200-17/1800s and yet this region has largely a Hindu majority. The Doab attracted Muslim settlers from the Greater Iran region in the form of scholars, officials, clergyman and colonial settlers. To this day there are millions of Pathans in India and millions more descended from Turkish and Persian settlers, yet despite the best of efforts that region is solidly Hindu. Not to mention, most of the large Hindu temples in the Doab were built after the Maratha Reconquista as most of the old Hindu temples fell into neglect or were demolished by the Delhi and Mughal regimes. The Muslim majority in the Gangetic valley is in Bangladesh, which became Muslim for factors completely independent of Turko-Persian intrusion.
Aurangzeb tried to Islamize the Indian Subcontinent by coercion or by force, and his efforts led to the destruction of the Mughal Empire in the years following his death.
Akbar realized the futility of forcing Islam down the throats of his Hindu subjects, and pragmatically coopted the Hindu elites. Aurangzeb frequently backtracked once he realized that an Islamized Subcontinent was not a realistic proposition, and attempted to make amends to his ill-advised Islamizing policies. This is especially so since he depended on his Hindu vassals to provide military support, and Islamization was shooting himself in the foot.

As for the mass appeal of Nestorianism or whether it would fade away - we wont know what it could have been IOTL, as the regions it was initially popular in like Central Asia, Mesopotamia, Iran, swathes of the Eurasian Steppe, etc, converted to Islam, which had far greater appeal. In the absence of Islam, Nestorianism may well grow into a mass religion, particularly if they have powerful sponsors like ruling Turkic dynasties.
Your bolded assertions are far too definitive for what is a very fluid situation ITTL.
It would not take that much more effort from OTL for a united Christian Turkish Empire to Christianise at least 55% of the Indian population ITTL, probably in the same regions above, but also perhaps more in South India too by supporting the Christian churches there, especially because ITTL they won't be competing with Islam and thus will be the sole missionary religion in India.

Yet you make the claim that the Subcontinent as easily be above 55% Christian, when despite 1,100 of Muslim rule only 35% of the region became Muslim? You are simply evading my specific points. Instead of evasion, please provide a counterexample to my points of contention. One hand when you are faced with my objections, you evade my point by saying that "we will not know for certain" and on the other hand you confidently claim that for certain a historical feat that has never been accomplished can for certain be accomplished despite many reasons not in favor.
A Nestorian Turk ruled India is definitely possible, and there are three possible results of a such regime:

1. Dissipation(Uyghur/Golden Horde/Ilkhanate scenario): The Nestorian Turkic elites abandon Nestorianism after settling in Subcontinent. This is exactly what happened to Manichaean Uyghurs who conquered the Tarim Basin, where they abandoned Manichaeism in favor of the Buddhism of their subjects. More recently, the Ilkhanate and Golden Horde Mongols abandoned Tibetan Buddhism in favor of the Islam of their subjects.

2. Christian Caste (Nasrani scenario): The Turks establish a Hindu Monarchy where they establish themselves as a caste. They intermarry with specific castes of Indian nobility to create an Indian caste that specifically adheres to Nestorian Christianity. In this scenario, they maintain most of the Pre-Islamic culture and do not dismantle and erase them like what the Turko-Persian rulers did. This is basically what happened OTL in South India, with a group called the St. Thomas Christians also known as Syrian Christians.
The Syrian Christians are a group of landowning castes that adhere to Nestorian Christianity, and they claim their origins when St. Thomas converted Indians to Christianity. They also have some amount of Middle Eastern ancestry, possibly from converted Cochin Jews or Christian settlers. The interesting fact about them is that before European intrusion, they were very culturally similar to their Hindu counterparts. They are very endogamous and historically did not intermarry much with other Christian communities, and did not proselytize. They speak an Indian language written in Syriac script called Suriyani Malayalam.

I can easily see the Nestorian Turks merging with certain Hindu castes, to form a Nestorian caste group similar to the Syrian Christians. I think this group would be culturally indistinguishable from their Hindu counterparts except in matters of religion. This is also helped by the fact that Nomadic Empires generally had an elite cadre that adhered to the official religious creed, while most of the population didn't. In this scenario, this elite Christian cadre intermarries with certain Hindu caste groups to form an Indian Christian caste that rules a Hindu monarchy.

3. Mughal Scenario: The Turks establish a Christian monarchy that models themselves on the Arab Christian Monarchies like the Lakhmids and Ghassanids. They do their best to Christianize the Subcontinent, and they succeed in Sindh, Punjab, and Kashmir. They do their best to culturally Syrianize North India, with an Indian language written in Syriac script. They also attempt to suppress the preexisting religions in favour of Christianity.
This is pretty similar to what happened in OTL with the Delhi Sultanate and Mughal Empire.
I see Pakistan becoming Christian, while North India is Hindu with christian minority. Not sure about bangladesh. Northern India has a culture that is Syriac-influenced , like how it currently has persian influence.

Note that Zoroastriainism was an ethnic Persian religion that did not have mass external appeal or conversions of outsiders.

Zoroastrianism was not an ethnic Persian religion. It was heavily practiced by Non-Persians such as Sogdians, Bactrians, Khwarezmians, Armenians, Georgians, and even some Pre-Islamic Arabs. There are also passing mentions to Assyrians practicing Zoroastrianism.

And Persia can be Christianised during a similar Iranian Intermezzo after being conquered by Christian Turks rather than Muslim Arabs. This could be even faster than IOTL as Nestorianism already has a prior presence in Iran, unlike Islam.

Or the Turks convert instead to Zoroastrianism after migrating into the Iranian plateau, in similar vein to how the Ilkhanate converted from Buddhism to Islam. Or how the Golden Horde abandoned Buddhism in favor of Islam.

 

[tex mex]

As for the mass appeal of Nestorianism or whether it would fade away - we wont know what it could have been IOTL, as the regions it was initially popular in like Central Asia, Mesopotamia, Iran, swathes of the Eurasian Steppe, etc, converted to Islam, which had far greater appeal. In the absence of Islam, Nestorianism may well grow into a mass religion, particularly if they have powerful sponsors like ruling Turkic dynasties. Your bolded assertions are far too definitive for what is a very fluid situation ITTL.

Nestorian Turks that conquer Iran, would be an elite group or then convert to Zoroastrianism much like how Ilkhanate did OTL. The christians have a small power base, so it is more expendient for them become Zoroastrian to rely on the Zoroastrian elites.
Iran converted, since the Arab Muslims had a very secure power base amongst Muslim Arab tribes settled in Iraq and Khorasan, and as such they did not rely on Zoroastrian nobility. The other way happened, with Persians becoming muslim to rise up the hierarchy.
In contrast, the Turkish christianity would dissipate given the reliance on Zoroastrian vassals.
This is so since the Turkish khaganates tended to having an elite cadre that adhered to official state religion. Take a look at Khazars which only the ruling class was Jewish, or the Uyghur khaganate which only had an elite cadre that was Manichaean.

 

[Cregan]

"Orthodox" Islam is a rather problematic term that must be discarded.
Go ask a Sunni, Twelver, Nizari Ismaili in regards to succession to Muhammad, and you will get three different answers. By creating a definition of Orthodox Islam, you are relegating forms of Islam as Un-orthodox and this implies an inferior status.
The question of which sect of Islam is orthodox and which is not is a talking point of extremists like Sayyid Qutb who deemed most of the Ummah as being Non-Muslims given his narrow prescriptions of what he himself consider to be an Orthodox Muslim. This is unfortunately the same argument justified by the Salafis who have demolished many archaeological sites in Mecca as they consider veneration of graves to be contrary to their definition of Orthodoxy.

You said Akbar, who was more syncretic, led to the backlash of Aurangzeb, who was more fundamentalist. I just pointed out that there were two Mughal Emperors in between them that were orthodox Muslims, meaning they weren't that syncretic, and their reigns didn't result in the collapse of the Mughal Empire from a Hindu backlash, and that in fact Shah Jahan's reign is recognised by some as the height of Mughal wealth and power.

It does largely question your point. You may disagree and have a specific personal bias, but at least be respectful.
Islamic States ruled the Doab region from 1200-17/1800s and yet this region has largely a Hindu majority. The Doab attracted Muslim settlers from the Greater Iran region in the form of scholars, officials, clergyman and colonial settlers. To this day there are millions of Pathans in India and millions more descended from Turkish and Persian settlers, yet despite the best of efforts that region is solidly Hindu. Not to mention, most of the large Hindu temples in the Doab were built after the Maratha Reconquista as most of the old Hindu temples fell into neglect or were demolished by the Delhi and Mughal regimes. The Muslim majority in the Gangetic valley is in Bangladesh, which became Muslim for factors completely independent of Turko-Persian intrusion.
Aurangzeb tried to Islamize the Indian Subcontinent by coercion or by force, and his efforts led to the destruction of the Mughal Empire in the years following his death.
Akbar realized the futility of forcing Islam down the throats of his Hindu subjects, and pragmatically coopted the Hindu elites. Aurangzeb frequently backtracked once he realized that an Islamized Subcontinent was not a realistic proposition, and attempted to make amends to his ill-advised Islamizing policies. This is especially so since he depended on his Hindu vassals to provide military support, and Islamization was shooting himself in the foot.

Yes there was a lot of Muslim settlement in North India, but there was a also a lot of disunity, fragmentation, lack of continuity and instability between the different Indo-Muslim dynasties, and other than a scant few rulers, none of them pushed mass conversions to Islam (for their own pragmatic reasons). History can go in different directions, that's why we are having this thought exercise. I don't think its so hard to consider an alternative dynasty with an alternative religion and alternative external conditions and alternative conquests and an alternative ideological outlook being able to Christianise a simple majority of India. That's what we are discussing here, there is nothing inherent in what you have outlined here from OTL that would automatically apply to Christian Turks under different circumstances.

Yet you make the claim that the Subcontinent as easily be above 55% Christian, when despite 1,100 of Muslim rule only 35% of the region became Muslim? You are simply evading my specific points. Instead of evasion, please provide a counterexample to my points of contention. One hand when you are faced with my objections, you evade my point by saying that "we will not know for certain" and on the other hand you confidently claim that for certain a historical feat that has never been accomplished can for certain be accomplished despite many reasons not in favor.

Your point seems to be that the same conditions that prevailed under the Indo-Muslim dynasties of IOTL will prevail ITTL, while I am saying this is not necessarily the case and different circumstances will lead to different results. Yes, 1,100 years of Muslim rule led to only 35% of the region becoming Muslim due to the specific conditions of those Indo-Muslim dynasties, which may not apply ITTL. The Delhi Sultanate was marred by constant instability and fragmentation, and the Mughal Empire wasn't even a direct continuation of it but an entirely new state that supplanted it. In the counterexample I outlined, I proposed a Christian Turkish dynasty managing to unite all of India for centuries, without the near constant dynastic instability, coups and fragmentation of the Delhi Sultanate (which seemed more chronic than many other historical states), and which wouldn't have to fend off the Mongol invasions and deal with the Mongol destruction of the Islamic world ITTL. They could also better integrate native Indian Christian converts into the system (though many Indo-Muslim dynasties already did this), which would induce further conversions of Indians to Christianity. The dynasty over time could even become a native Indian Christian dynasty with minimal Turco-Mongol ancestry (like several Indo-Muslim dynasties did). Over a long period of time (1200-1800), they may be able to Christianise 55% of their subjects under these more favourable circumstances.

Zoroastrianism was not an ethnic Persian religion. It was heavily practiced by Non-Persians such as Sogdians, Bactrians, Khwarezmians, Armenians, Georgians, and even some Pre-Islamic Arabs. There are also passing mentions to Assyrians practicing Zoroastrianism.

The bolded are Persianate cultures. I didn't know about the Caucasian peoples practising Zoroastrianism though.

Or the Turks convert instead to Zoroastrianism after migrating into the Iranian plateau, in similar vein to how the Ilkhanate converted from Buddhism to Islam. Or how the Golden Horde abandoned Buddhism in favor of Islam.

Nestorian Turks that conquer Iran, would be an elite group or then convert to Zoroastrianism much like how Ilkhanate did OTL. The christians have a small power base, so it is more expendient for them become Zoroastrian to rely on the Zoroastrian elites.
Iran converted, since the Arab Muslims had a very secure power base amongst Muslim Arab tribes settled in Iraq and Khorasan, and as such they did not rely on Zoroastrian nobility. The other way happened, with Persians becoming muslim to rise up the hierarchy.
In contrast, the Turkish christianity would dissipate given the reliance on Zoroastrian vassals.
This is so since the Turkish khaganates tended to having an elite cadre that adhered to official state religion. Take a look at Khazars which only the ruling class was Jewish, or the Uyghur khaganate which only had an elite cadre that was Manichaean.

You are adamant that Nestorianism doesn't have mass appeal, even under very different circumstances ITTL without rivalry from Islam. I'm positing that it may grow into a mass religion under different circumstances - the lack of Islam and the Turkish steppe first being converted to Nestorianism, following which they conquer Iran and Christianise it. We aren't going to convince each other.

The three scenarios you have outlined are realistic, but I am proposing that the third scenario be expanded under the different circumstances ITTL that could result in more of India being converted to achieve an Indian Christian population of 55%. This is not wildly unrealistic as you are arguing.