AHC : Roman-Supported Nestorian Persian Revolt against the Caliphate

As title really.

I didn't want to get involved in a Necro'd thread, but my thoughts for a Nestorian Conquest of Persia would likely involve relying on the Romans for a vast amount of support.

So the question is what PoDs could destabilise the Ummayads enough to enable a Roman reconquest of Syria, alongside the birth of a Nestorian Christian Persian Dynasty, in Mesopotamia with the aim of reconquering Iran.

It doesn't NEED to lead to Roman-Persian SUPER FRIENDS, but extra points if you can reach that point.
 
My guess would be that it would have to be early during the Ummayads time given they were the strong new kid on the block. I can't think of much of a reasonable PoD since this isn't my forte, but you could always just say a mutant strain of the Justainian plague returns and heads from Rome to the east in Arabia. It'd cripple the Caliphate and allow the Romans to support the Christians.
 
Nestorianism was heresy for the Romans. Why would they support it? Also, Christianity was never popular among Iranic speakers.
 
My guess would be that it would have to be early during the Ummayads time given they were the strong new kid on the block. I can't think of much of a reasonable PoD since this isn't my forte, but you could always just say a mutant strain of the Justainian plague returns and heads from Rome to the east in Arabia. It'd cripple the Caliphate and allow the Romans to support the Christians.

Plague PoD? Cruel, but effective. The problem is that it'd do as much damage to the Nestorians as the Arabs.

Nestorianism was heresy for the Romans. Why would they support it? Also, Christianity was never popular among Iranic speakers.

1) Heretics can be brought back into the fold in time, and are still preferable to Heathens of Islamic or Zoroastrian stripes.
2) Under a Zoroastrian Persian Shah, sure. However, that isn't the situation I'm putting forward. It is a reasonable obstacle, but if you have a successful revolt, and it builds an army, I can see it only a few scenarios
- Free Mesopotamia, Caliphate Persia
- Free Mesopotamia, Free Muslim Persia (IMO, only likely towards the end.)
- Free Mesopotamia, Breakaway Zoroastrian Persia. (Which may lead to a united Zoroastrian Persia)
- Nestorian Persia (base of power in Mesopotamia).
- Complete Failure
- Failed Mesopotamia, Breakaway Zoroastrian Persia.

The Nestorian Persia scenario is likely to rely on ensuring better conditions for Zoroastrians than under the Caliphate (i.e. no special taxes). But conversion isn't impossible.
 
Plague PoD? Cruel, but effective. The problem is that it'd do as much damage to the Nestorians as the Arabs.

Depends on where though. It could start at the bottom of Mesotopamia and work down through Arabia via the trade-routes. Would crush the Caliphate for a while.

Plagues remain an untapped source of potential for causing history to go in directions.

1) Heretics can be brought back into the fold in time, and are still preferable to Heathens of Islamic or Zoroastrian stripes.
2) Under a Zoroastrian Persian Shah, sure. However, that isn't the situation I'm putting forward. It is a reasonable obstacle, but if you have a successful revolt, and it builds an army, I can see it only a few scenarios
- Free Mesopotamia, Caliphate Persia
- Free Mesopotamia, Free Muslim Persia (IMO, only likely towards the end.)
- Free Mesopotamia, Breakaway Zoroastrian Persia. (Which may lead to a united Zoroastrian Persia)
- Nestorian Persia (base of power in Mesopotamia).
- Complete Failure
- Failed Mesopotamia, Breakaway Zoroastrian Persia.

The Nestorian Persia scenario is likely to rely on ensuring better conditions for Zoroastrians than under the Caliphate (i.e. no special taxes). But conversion isn't impossible.

Maybe we can have two Irans per say. One that includes Mesopotamia and reaches to half of Iran become Nestorian, while that closer to the East retains Zoroastrianism.
 
The Nestorian Persia scenario is likely to rely on ensuring better conditions for Zoroastrians than under the Caliphate (i.e. no special taxes). But conversion isn't impossible.

In OTL the Caliphate, for the most part, was tolerant of religious minorities. Obviously there were persecutions (including to the present day), but obviously not wide spread. Why else do you think there is so much religious diversity in the Muslim world?

Let's compare that with historically Christian nations. How much religious diversity was there in pre modern Europe? How come there are no historical Odinist, Roman or Aztec religious communities? This is the norm in the majority of Muslim countries.

The Nestorian community, like Christian communities elsewhere, was pretty intolerant. There are plenty of examples of Nestorian mobs trying to destroy Zoroastrian and other non-Christian places of worship in the Sassanid empire. So, it's unlikely a Nestorian Persia would be tolerant of Zoroastrians or any other religious minority.
 
In OTL the Caliphate, for the most part, was tolerant of religious minorities. Obviously there were persecutions (including to the present day), but obviously not wide spread. Why else do you think there is so much religious diversity in the Muslim world?

Let's compare that with historically Christian nations. How much religious diversity was there in pre modern Europe? How come there are no historical Odinist, Roman or Aztec religious communities? This is the norm in the majority of Muslim countries.

The Nestorian community, like Christian communities elsewhere, was pretty intolerant. There are plenty of examples of Nestorian mobs trying to destroy Zoroastrian and other non-Christian places of worship in the Sassanid empire. So, it's unlikely a Nestorian Persia would be tolerant of Zoroastrians or any other religious minority.

I appreciate what you're saying, but I wasn't arguing that the Caliphate was notably intolerant. I was stating a practical relative need for a Nestorian Persia to succeed in Iran. If this means that whoever is in charge ensures that Nestorian vandals are locked up rather than protected, so be it. If it means a Zoroastrian High Priest and a Nestorian Patriarch in court, that works too.

My point was that Nestorian Persia needs to be advantageous to Zoroastrian Persians, as that would make things easier.
 
The Romans had problems keeping their own Christians in line, what with the Miaphysites of Egypt and Armenia revolting against the central orthodox authority, some even siding with the Caliphate (those Christian administrators within the Caliphate didn't come out of the aether, after all). How much more difficult would handling the Syriacs be, I wonder? At least as difficult as handling the Goths or the Franks, I suspect.

Why not an Assyrian buffer state in Mesopotamia?

1) Heretics can be brought back into the fold in time, and are still preferable to Heathens of Islamic or Zoroastrian stripes.

Not necessarily! Also, the Muslims were considered Christian heretics at the time, so...

How come there are no historical Odinist, Roman or Aztec religious communities?

They aren't people of the book, I doubt they would have fared any better with the early Muslim caliphates. :p
 
They aren't people of the book, I doubt they would have fared any better with the early Muslim caliphates. :p

Why not? Hindus aren't people of the book, but managed to survive centuries of Muslim rule. Also, Mandeans, Zoroastrians and Yazidis had shifting status as people of the book and also survived 1400 years of Muslim rule.
 
Heretic arguments aside, what Nestorians revolt? Where? How? Why? With what weapons and what military tradition? Where do they find trained soldiers who can hold the line against Ummayad cavalry?

Also let's be clear that In the premodern era, subjugated people don't rise up all that often due to identity issues, especially on a nice level farmland plain like Mesopotamia. Places like Egypt and Mesopotamia just don't rise up in outright revolt all that often. They might riot and gripe and destabilize but active rebellion and genuine armies, the kinds of things that permanently overthrow states by themselves, are rarely in their grasp. If the Romans are doing it themselves they won't even consider a Nestorians state a possibility and if they're putting in enough effort to make this viable they'll keep any prize that comes out of Mesopotamia. And in an era where Arab rule is light enough to break forever, the Romans are on the defensive and can barely hold Anatolia against raiders let alone march into Mesopotamia. By the time the Romans are back on the offensive, the Turks are but a few generations away.

This is such a common trope on this forum - Christian rebellion in the Middle East against the Caliphate, but to me the question is almost like asking why didn't Babylon rise up against the Seleukids. The correct answer is "why should it?" [1]

I mean what do the Nestorians gain through bloodshed that isn't more easily gained through conversion or at least acquiescence?

[1] hence why in White Huns the main Egyptian state was an Arab-Iranian ruling class that assimilated into the Coptic society.
 
Top