AHC:latest POD for Zoroastrianism to survive as a major religion

samcster94

Banned
What is the latest POD you could go for Zoroastrianism to survive as a major religion??? I am not asking for a Christianity/Islam type religion, but something at least on the level of OTL Sikhism is for what I am asking for. I always thought that religion seemed to actually be one of the better adapted faiths(after Buddhism) to spread pre-Christianity and Pre Islam.
 
The latest point where Zoroastrian states were still around was in the 8-900's AD, and ultimately if Zoroastrianism wants to remain even at sikh levels one or more of those mountainous kingdoms on the Caspian needs to remain, nominally at least, independant or as a vassal of the Caliphs.
 

Albert.Nik

Banned
As I have read in many places,Zoroastrianism had completely weakened from within when it fell to Muslim empire. Invasion was just a co-incidence. Even otherwise,it would have been replaced by Christianity probably Byzantine Catholic or Nestorian or something like that. Or it would have given rise to an another Islamic/Jewish/Christian type religion which developed out of the native religions(paganism) that were present and spread outside. In its original form,very difficult for Zoroastrianism to be a major religion(which would need to contain at least 15% of the World's population and maintain majority in at least 4-5 countries and to be mentioned more prominently by dominant Western European civilizations). The other things,I think would not be much different from OTL. If not successful,it would just be replaced with Christianity instead of Islam if Islam is butterflied.
 
As I have read in many places,Zoroastrianism had completely weakened from within when it fell to Muslim empire. Invasion was just a co-incidence. Even otherwise,it would have been replaced by Christianity probably Byzantine Catholic or Nestorian or something like that. Or it would have given rise to an another Islamic/Jewish/Christian type religion which developed out of the native religions(paganism) that were present and spread outside. In its original form,very difficult for Zoroastrianism to be a major religion(which would need to contain at least 15% of the World's population and maintain majority in at least 4-5 countries and to be mentioned more prominently by dominant Western European civilizations). The other things,I think would not be much different from OTL. If not successful,it would just be replaced with Christianity instead of Islam if Islam is butterflied.
I disagree. Zoroastrianism was quite vibrant and deeply connected to early medieval Persian cultural identity. The State approved Zurvanism was unpopular, but the Zoroastrianism practiced by the everyday Persian was able to survive sustained persecution under the early caliphates, and only declined under a distinctly Iranian shiism, and after centuries of persecution. Have the Arabs fail to conquer the Iranian plateau, or have the early Islamic dynasties in Iran be overthrown, and you could well have the majority of people on the plateau be Zoroastrian into the modern age. It would probably be seen as very much an ethnic religion, like Shinto or Hinduism, but it'd definitely be on the level of Sikhism.
 
I think if you could have a radical upset during the Muslim invasions of Persia you could have this.

According to wiki there were plenty of situations where cities rebelled to overthrow their governors, so my suggestion would be to somehow have those Zoroastrians in Tabaristan effectively pull a Joan of Arc - lead the faithful under a new Shah(?) to restore Iran.

Beyond that, I'd have them proselytise more, aiming at the people of the Steppe - which if successful would lead to huge quantities of Zoroastrians, or at least a heresy of them.

However, I think the best way would be to see that somehow Zoroastrianism takes root in the Indus valley - and from there spread in India. Zoroastrian Persia, backed by a Zoroastrian Indus effectively back to back creates quite a strong alliance from which they can both spread.
 

Albert.Nik

Banned
I disagree. Zoroastrianism was quite vibrant and deeply connected to early medieval Persian cultural identity. The State approved Zurvanism was unpopular, but the Zoroastrianism practiced by the everyday Persian was able to survive sustained persecution under the early caliphates, and only declined under a distinctly Iranian shiism, and after centuries of persecution. Have the Arabs fail to conquer the Iranian plateau, or have the early Islamic dynasties in Iran be overthrown, and you could well have the majority of people on the plateau be Zoroastrian into the modern age. It would probably be seen as very much an ethnic religion, like Shinto or Hinduism, but it'd definitely be on the level of Sikhism.
Some interesting things you have put forth and some interesting I have too. It depends on what you define as Zoroastrianism. Yes,state sponsored institution of Zoroastrianism(Zurvanism) had more or less collapsed. That's what I meant. It would have modified itself into something else like how Semitic Paganism gave Judaism,Hellenism and Judaism gave Christianity,Arab Paganism gave rise to Islam in OTL. Otherwise it is very difficult for Ethnic religions to survive. At least defencively,they have to become an Universalizing religion. Before it's disappearance, Zoroastrianism was prevalent in Asia Minor,Iran,Southern Russia,Caucasus,Central Asia,parts of China and India too. See now how many ethnicities become visible? A Slavic/Greek/Germanic/Celtic empire would have siezed the opportunity and outright conquered it. See how powerful these were in OTL. They would subsequently Christianize it or convert them to any other religion they follow(ethnic religion concept was unpopular in Europe). To survive,Zoroastrianism would need to repack itself and expand like how Arabs expanded from the peninsula to the hyuge region they are in today of course by assimilating locals like it was done in Levant,Iraq and North Africa.
Hinduism,Sikhism aren't exactly ethnic religions in play. Shinto too doesn't have a strong ethnic box plus they were situated too far from regions where invasions were predominant.
 

Albert.Nik

Banned
To add,without Islam,European powers would have almost got a free pass to invade and conquer the East until a sufficiently strong power was in the way.
 
Some interesting things you have put forth and some interesting I have too. It depends on what you define as Zoroastrianism. Yes,state sponsored institution of Zoroastrianism(Zurvanism) had more or less collapsed. That's what I meant. It would have modified itself into something else like how Semitic Paganism gave Judaism,Hellenism and Judaism gave Christianity,Arab Paganism gave rise to Islam in OTL. Otherwise it is very difficult for Ethnic religions to survive. At least defencively,they have to become an Universalizing religion. Before it's disappearance, Zoroastrianism was prevalent in Asia Minor,Iran,Southern Russia,Caucasus,Central Asia,parts of China and India too. See now how many ethnicities become visible? A Slavic/Greek/Germanic/Celtic empire would have siezed the opportunity and outright conquered it. See how powerful these were in OTL. They would subsequently Christianize it or convert them to any other religion they follow(ethnic religion concept was unpopular in Europe). To survive,Zoroastrianism would need to repack itself and expand like how Arabs expanded from the peninsula to the hyuge region they are in today of course by assimilating locals like it was done in Levant,Iraq and North Africa.
Hinduism,Sikhism aren't exactly ethnic religions in play. Shinto too doesn't have a strong ethnic box plus they were situated too far from regions where invasions were predominant.
Zoroastrianism had survived just fine for at least a thousand years by this point, and wasn't really losing ground to Christianity (seen as the Roman religion, and thus un-Persian). It was never dominant in Asia Minor or Mesopotamia, there was syncretism in antiquity, Zoroastrian elements borrowed into local religions, Anahita being particularly popular as a deity in Asia Minor and identified with Artemis. Christianity largely displaced local polytheisms, but did not fully displace them prior to the Islamic conquests. There are reports of pagans in Harran up until the 10th century. Outside of the Iranian plateau, Zoroastrianism was largely restricted to the Persian and Persianised elite, who were displaced by an Arab and Islamised elite. Again, I see no reason why a Zoroastrian Persian culture could not endure and even thrive in the abscence of Islamic rule. I do not believe that the decline of Zoroastrianism was inevitable, and assertions of such seem almost whiggish to me. I do not believe that there are 'superior' or 'more advanced' religions that are destined to replace 'primitive' or 'doomed' ones, much less that any religion is more 'true' than any other and thus predestined to supplant it. People don't tend to convert religions without some other outside factor. In ancient Rome, Christianity was only adopted by the majority of the population under imperial duress, we can know this because emperors felt it necessary to order the closure of temples and prohibit pagan worship. Had Christianity just been destined to take over because Roman paganism was 'unfulfilling', there would be no need, as the temples would shut naturally and only a tiny minority would even bother with pagan rituals. The same logic can be applied to Zoroastrianism.
 
To add,without Islam,European powers would have almost got a free pass to invade and conquer the East until a sufficiently strong power was in the way.
It is perhaps worth noting that there is a reason why the Roman Empire at its height could not conquer Persia during invasions from the East and civil wars. The reason is geography. Crossing the Syrian desert is not an easy thing, and crossing the Zagros is also difficult. The Iranian Plateau is excellent territory for guerilla warfare. And while Persia has a lower population than the Mediterranean basin, it also had great wealth from its position at the confluence of several major trade routes.
 
There are a few Zoroastrian heresies which could have led to a more evangelical and robust faith. The Mazdakites for instance temporarily had a strong following in Arabia untill state persrcution damaged it, a Mazdakite Zoroastrianism that is more invested in could be an alternate rallying point for the Arabian tribes.

To add,without Islam,European powers would have almost got a free pass to invade and conquer the East until a sufficiently strong power was in the way.
I think thats putting the cart before the horse. Islam stopped western conquests because it was tied to sufficiently strong powers.
 
The Abbasid Revolution. It shifted the core of the Islamic world towards Iraq and Iran, making Islam a religion palatable to the Persians, unlike the resistance it had against the Umayyads.
 

Albert.Nik

Banned
@Frrf There is nothing defined as a inferior or superior religion. Ethnically boxed in faiths situated in a direct road from where attacks can come from is very difficult to survive. A very advanced religion too but presented badly or/and is ethnically boxed in would put it in danger. Lucky is if a Celtic/Germanic/Slavic/Greek invading tribe who might have come East and take Zoroastrian advanced elements and make an Universalizing religion. I say this again,most European societies weren't Ethnically boxed in due to historical reasons. Lion can attack a deer if at risk but a deer can't attack a lion whatsoever and in many cases,Lion attacking Lion might not be probable. Both species evolved in their own way. Same way Universalizing European cultures might put ethnic cultures at a high risk and not the other way round.
 
Can you kindly elaborate this as I didn't understand it fully?
In short, it wasnt so much that Islam itself was the stopping power to european expansion, but that Islam was backed by significant powers. So for instance, an Islam that never expanded beyond the Arabian peninsula and spread amongst divided tribes has no hope against crusading forces, whilst a wanked Sassanid Empire that extends into egypt would be more than capable. The former case has Islam but a likely defeat, the latter has Zoroastrianism but no Islam and succeeds.
 

Albert.Nik

Banned
In OTL too,a branch of Iranian peoples(Ossetians) are Christians and other branches of Iranians were absorbed into European society and today are invisible distinctly. Coming to Hinduism and Sikhism,beyond Punjab,any invader gets toned down due to Himalayas. But various Iranian/Possibly Todharian speaking Hindus in Afghanistan don't exist now. Punjabis too are Muslim majority slightly. Sikhism evolved by Kshatriya Khatris to save the remnant of their population and rest of India from being Islamized by Afghan invaders. It is mostly a consequential religion and there are non Khatri sikhs too.
 
To quote myself from another thread...

Do we get extra-double-triple bonus point if we suggest a scenario with a POD after the fall of the Sassanian Empire to Arab conquerors? If so, what about the Khazars? I've actually seen the idea suggested once or twice, though generally in the context of a scenario where Islam never arose, or at least where Persia was never conquered by Arabs.

Still, I think the OTL consensus is that the nobility of the Khazars converted to Judaism in order to deflect pressure from both Christian and Muslim powers to convert to their respective faiths. In principle, that role could be fulfilled by Zoroastrianism as well - maybe have some instability in Persia lead to some Zoroastrian leaders getting exiled, and then they spread their faith among the Khazars.

From there, just follow the template of any scenario that leads to a longer lasting/and or bigger Khazar Khaganate. Have their empire expand in the the Caucasus, the Pontic steppe, Central Asia, etc, and do at least a reasonably good job of converting the local populations to Zoroastrianism. This leads to a world where Zoroastrianism has at least tens of millions of followers by the present day despite Persia/Iran being majority Muslim.
 
@Frrf There is nothing defined as a inferior or superior religion. Ethnically boxed in faiths situated in a direct road from where attacks can come from is very difficult to survive. A very advanced religion too but presented badly or/and is ethnically boxed in would put it in danger. Lucky is if a Celtic/Germanic/Slavic/Greek invading tribe who might have come East and take Zoroastrian advanced elements and make an Universalizing religion. I say this again,most European societies weren't Ethnically boxed in due to historical reasons. Lion can attack a deer if at risk but a deer can't attack a lion whatsoever and in many cases,Lion attacking Lion might not be probable. Both species evolved in their own way. Same way Universalizing European cultures might put ethnic cultures at a high risk and not the other way round.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. An 'advanced' religion 'presented badly'? The weird (and inaccurate, a stag can be very dangerous) lion/deer metaphor? 'Universalizing cultures'?
Also, the Punjab lies directly in the route of any invasion into India. It lies between the Indus Valley and the Gangetic Plain, while the deserts of Rajasthan and the Himalayan foothills channel any invaders directy into the Punjab. This same geography, combined with high agricultural productivity, historically made the Punjab very wealthy.
One further note, Zoroastrianism only ceased accepting converts under Islamic rule. While Zoroastrians didn't make great efforts to proselytise, a tenent of Zoroastrian belief is that all religions contain some truth, they did accept converts.
 
Top