Basically, create a scenario where in an alternate twentieth-century Zoroastrianism has between 750 million-1 billion adherents, mostly concentrated in the Iranian Plateau and Central Asia, While Hinduism survives but with less than 250,000 devotees and the Indian subcontinent is dominated by other Dharmic religions.
AHC: Zoroastrianism and Hinduism switch fates
- Thread starter Jito
- Start date
-
- Tags
- hinduism religion zoroastinism
Honestly geography is as big an issue for Zoroastrianism fulfilling this challenge as islamic expansion is. I mean, the whole modern population of the middle east doesn't even get you halfway to the goal. To me, the best way to get Zoroastrianism to that level would essentially be to have the Sassanian state withstand the muslim expansion or have a zoroastrian state arise in/reclaim Iran shortly therafter. As far as I know there aren't really definitive numbers of how quickly the population converted in Iran, soome quick googling indicates it was still very low in 750 but urban areas had largely converted by 950. So any zoroastrian resurgence would have to happen reasonably quickly. After that, zoroastrianism really just has to reprise the OTL pattern of islamic expansion to get enough numbers. I'm afraid I can't really weigh in on the hinduism side of the prompt, as I don't know enough about what limited the spread fo Buddhism and Jainism historically.
As an aside, what's the rule for Persian/Iranian nomenclature wise? Would we say that the Parthians were a Persian state but not an Iranian one while the Sassanians were both Persian and Iranian due to the ruling ethnicity? My inclination is to say that in pre-modern contexts Iranian denotes an ethnic identity while Persian indicates a geographical and political one, but that doesn't seem entirely consistent with normal usage.
As an aside, what's the rule for Persian/Iranian nomenclature wise? Would we say that the Parthians were a Persian state but not an Iranian one while the Sassanians were both Persian and Iranian due to the ruling ethnicity? My inclination is to say that in pre-modern contexts Iranian denotes an ethnic identity while Persian indicates a geographical and political one, but that doesn't seem entirely consistent with normal usage.
IMO the only remotely reasonable way to do this would be to have Zoroastrianism itself replace Hinduism in India.
Iran and Persia are exactly the same thing, and increasingly many historians use it as such (e.g. Encyclopedia Iranica).
Here's an idea, though this'll be utter butterfly genocide considering your request for twentieth-century.
Menander, king of the indo-greeks, has a stable sucession, and thraso(?) succeeds him, being his biological son. The indo-greeks are able to capitalise on the immense gains menander made, perhaps reconquer bactria from the yuezhi and expand further into india. Being very strong supporters of buddhism, the indo-greeks are likely to push it hard, resulting in buddhism growing exponentially during their rule (however long it lasts) and providing for a significant buddhist group that gradually grows to replace hinduism, which would probably also greatly improve things in india (no caste system!)
As for the zoroastrians, bit unlikely, unless you stretch out the definition a fuckload, and consider the manichaeans as an option. That could, perhaps, be workable.
How can Zoroastrianism replace Hinduism? Persian conquest of India?
Only in the geographic sense, though. There are plenty of Iranian peoples, cultures, and languages that never existed in the geographic area of Iran/Persia. Likewise there are groups that are Iranian but not Persian in terms of both nationality and ethnicity.
Ah, thank you, that clears it up.
Albert.Nik
Banned
As others said,there were certain Geographical problems for this to happen. For one,Central Asia and Persia(where Zoroastrianism prevailed) were quite Arid regions and hence the strong foothold could be difficult. Probably a Zoroastrianism extending into Volga and the Uralic peoples would deflect Islam southwards and Hinduism instead faces the fate of OTL Zoroastrianism. But that could be difficult too.
Not sure if I can get Zoroastrianism quite that large or Hinduism quite that small, but I can see how to make Zoroastrianism larger than Hinduism.
Basic PoD is a no Islam TL. Sassanids survive for a while longer, though they will eventually be displaced by another Zoroastrian dynasty. Their long wars with the Romans continue over the centuries.
Neither empire is capable of completely dominating the other, but eventually the post-Sassanids consolidate control over Mesopotamia, most of modern Syria, Palestine and Egypt. They are never able to penetrate further into North Africa than Egypt. Over the centuries, these regions consolidate as being mostly Zoroastrian, although Christian minorities remain, particularly in Egypt.
The Sassanids and their successors don't have lasting control over Arabia, but it falls into their cultural orbit. So do many of the peoples of the Caucasus and some of the steppe peoples beyond, though that region remains a contest for influence with the Romans.
To the northeast, Zoroastrianism continues to spread amongst the peoples of Central Asia. Buddhism is present in Central Asia too, but after winning an analogue to Talas, Zoroastrianism gradually becomes predominant in Central Asia, including Tibet, and much of modern Mongolia.
Within the Indian subcontinent and much of modern Afghanistan, though, the absence of Islam is a great boon for Buddhism. Northwestern India (and much of modern Pakistan and Afghanistan) was a particular stronghold of Buddhism in OTL, but was very strongly disrupted by the Islamic conquest, to the point where it largely vanished.
ITTL, Buddhism remains strong in northwestern India. Around AD 1000, a new Buddhist dynasty emerges there that conquers northern and central India, with more ephemeral control/cultural influence over southern India.
Under the rule of this dynasty, and its successors, Buddhism remains the religion of rule. The remaining Buddhist communities in India (which had not yet vanished at this point) experience a resurgence. This leads to a gradual process of conversion; not instantaneous, but steady. By the late twentieth century Buddhism is predominant over most of India, in some cases having syncreticised with Hinduism, but still something that could reasonably be call Buddhist rather than Hindu. There are still plenty of Hindus around, but they are the minority.
Basic PoD is a no Islam TL. Sassanids survive for a while longer, though they will eventually be displaced by another Zoroastrian dynasty. Their long wars with the Romans continue over the centuries.
Neither empire is capable of completely dominating the other, but eventually the post-Sassanids consolidate control over Mesopotamia, most of modern Syria, Palestine and Egypt. They are never able to penetrate further into North Africa than Egypt. Over the centuries, these regions consolidate as being mostly Zoroastrian, although Christian minorities remain, particularly in Egypt.
The Sassanids and their successors don't have lasting control over Arabia, but it falls into their cultural orbit. So do many of the peoples of the Caucasus and some of the steppe peoples beyond, though that region remains a contest for influence with the Romans.
To the northeast, Zoroastrianism continues to spread amongst the peoples of Central Asia. Buddhism is present in Central Asia too, but after winning an analogue to Talas, Zoroastrianism gradually becomes predominant in Central Asia, including Tibet, and much of modern Mongolia.
Within the Indian subcontinent and much of modern Afghanistan, though, the absence of Islam is a great boon for Buddhism. Northwestern India (and much of modern Pakistan and Afghanistan) was a particular stronghold of Buddhism in OTL, but was very strongly disrupted by the Islamic conquest, to the point where it largely vanished.
ITTL, Buddhism remains strong in northwestern India. Around AD 1000, a new Buddhist dynasty emerges there that conquers northern and central India, with more ephemeral control/cultural influence over southern India.
Under the rule of this dynasty, and its successors, Buddhism remains the religion of rule. The remaining Buddhist communities in India (which had not yet vanished at this point) experience a resurgence. This leads to a gradual process of conversion; not instantaneous, but steady. By the late twentieth century Buddhism is predominant over most of India, in some cases having syncreticised with Hinduism, but still something that could reasonably be call Buddhist rather than Hindu. There are still plenty of Hindus around, but they are the minority.
At the same time though, it’d be interesting to see how Buddhism has changed to maintain influence in India because ittl it was so removed from the masses and the rulers needs that it pretty easily got outcompeted by the brahmanism that offered competent administration to rulers and were involved in the communities of the masses as well instead of locked away in some monastery
A viable model would be what Buddhism evolved into in much of SE Asia, where the monarchy was seen as patrons of Buddhism and the sangha, and in turn the sangha provided legitimacy to the monarch.
There may also be the arrangement that is common in some SE Asian countries (eg Thailand) where most men are ordained as monks, if only for a few days, at some point in their lives. Bonus points if this encourages higher literacy and thus a larger potential administrative class.
Last edited:
Deleted member 116192
For Zoroastrian faith to have near a billion plus adherents one way is to have some kingdoms in the Janapada era adopt the faith and by time of Mahajanapada era that kingdom or kingdoms become a major power which eventually unifies the whole of the subcontinent and spread the faith through out the subcontinent , this is another way you can have a billion plus adherents with a very small minority following the old Vedic and other pre Vedic faith ,this is the literal switch in position of Zoroastrian and Hindu faith but I think if Zoroastrianism becomes a dominant faith the rise of Buddhism or any other dharmic faith is butterflied away .
For Buddhism to become dominant india again , well @Madhav Deval put it quite clearly and I would like to point out that the heartland of Buddhism in the subcontinent was not destroyed by Islam but by the white Huns who invaded in 400-500 Ad long before Islam was born , it's erroneous to put such a blame on Islam which had nothing to do with it's decline of Buddhism in Central Asia as it was already in decline well before its arrival because of its prececuted by hepthalite and later it's successor alchon Huns who converted to shaivite branch of Hinduism if it wasnt for the khalifate would have been subplantted by hinduism or Zoroastrianism . So you need to butterfly away the white Huns but that would mean gupta empire survives which is a Hindu power not a Buddhist power . Plus during Gupta rule you saw several relegious reforms within hinduism and brahanism in particular that is to say the rise of Puranic Hinduism, the 18 Mahapuranas , 18 alpa puranas were complied during that era , on the whole Hinduiism was on the rise and Buddhism was in decline . So Buddhist revival in India is unlikely.
So the reversal of Hinduism and Zoroastrianism to take place the POD has to be around 1000-900 bc
For Buddhism to become dominant india again , well @Madhav Deval put it quite clearly and I would like to point out that the heartland of Buddhism in the subcontinent was not destroyed by Islam but by the white Huns who invaded in 400-500 Ad long before Islam was born , it's erroneous to put such a blame on Islam which had nothing to do with it's decline of Buddhism in Central Asia as it was already in decline well before its arrival because of its prececuted by hepthalite and later it's successor alchon Huns who converted to shaivite branch of Hinduism if it wasnt for the khalifate would have been subplantted by hinduism or Zoroastrianism . So you need to butterfly away the white Huns but that would mean gupta empire survives which is a Hindu power not a Buddhist power . Plus during Gupta rule you saw several relegious reforms within hinduism and brahanism in particular that is to say the rise of Puranic Hinduism, the 18 Mahapuranas , 18 alpa puranas were complied during that era , on the whole Hinduiism was on the rise and Buddhism was in decline . So Buddhist revival in India is unlikely.
So the reversal of Hinduism and Zoroastrianism to take place the POD has to be around 1000-900 bc
I can't really see Zoroastrianism displacing Hinduism within India itself. This would require a Persian empire to conquer massive swathes of territory in India -- which IMO was never really possible. The Achaemenids, Sassanids, or Parthians theoretically could have conquered larger parts of Afghanistan/Pakistan and consolidated their rule to a higher degree than they did OTL. Invading the Indo Gangetic plain however (the heartland of Hinduism) would have been much harder for them to manage. Ancient Indian dynasties like the Mauryas and the Nandas fielded mind-bogglingly large armies (the Nandas had 200,000 foot soldiers, 80,000 horsemen, 8,000 chariots, and 6,000 war elephants). Coupled with India's climate (monsoon/extreme heat), and the fact that the Indian dynasty would be fighting on their home ground, a military conquest would be very difficult to achieve. And this is just the Indo-Gangetic plain -- South India would be even more inhospitable and difficult to control.
This isn't even considering how most Persian dynasties focused their military efforts towards the western frontiers (the borders with Roman or Greek polities) or against nomadic tribes invading from the north east. The gridlock between the Sassanids and the Byzantines made an invasion into India completely unfeasible -- all their manpower and resources were concentrated in Mesopotamia.
It's also important to remember that the divisions between Dharmic religions are much smaller than the divisions between Abrahamic religions. Buddhism, Jainism, Hinduism, and Sikhism (to a lesser extent) are fundamentally the same religion with slight changes in presentation. A "Buddhism" that dominates India would look fairly similar to modern-day Hinduism in actual beliefs. Architecture and culture would certainly be affected, but the fundamental beliefs of Hinduism would survive Buddhist dominance in a way that Zoroastrianism did not survive the Islamic conquest. You would basically get a syncretized, liberalized Hinduism that venerates the Buddha (similar to Shaivite/Vaishnavite veneration of Shiva/Vishnu) and treats him as one of many highly respected gods.
My template for this society is modern-day Nepal, which is essentially a Hindu-Buddhist syncretic state. Hinduism and Buddhism are not presented or seen as truly distinctive religions, especially not in terms of their fundamental beliefs (though "Hindu" Nepalis may have different names, slightly different customs, and small cultural differences).
IMO this is actually a pretty difficult situation to create. The only thing I can think of is if Islam gets butterflied away, the Sassanids hold on to Afghanistan/Pakistan/NW India, and this portion of the empire breaks away. Maybe some fanatic, fucked up Zoroastrian sect emerges that sees conversion as an goal. You could have them experience unprecedented success in India and end up converting parts of the local populace. Of course, them experiencing that success would be very difficult (esp. getting it to the point where there are only a couple hundred thousand Hindus), and they would likely lack the manpower that Islamic conquerors had. The other issue is that Zoroastrianism itself is not that different from certain sects of Hinduism. Both are offshoots of the ancient Indo-European Vedic religion and actually have quite a lot in common, so realistically you'd just get another syncretized religion that is basically Hinduism with different window dressing.
This isn't even considering how most Persian dynasties focused their military efforts towards the western frontiers (the borders with Roman or Greek polities) or against nomadic tribes invading from the north east. The gridlock between the Sassanids and the Byzantines made an invasion into India completely unfeasible -- all their manpower and resources were concentrated in Mesopotamia.
It's also important to remember that the divisions between Dharmic religions are much smaller than the divisions between Abrahamic religions. Buddhism, Jainism, Hinduism, and Sikhism (to a lesser extent) are fundamentally the same religion with slight changes in presentation. A "Buddhism" that dominates India would look fairly similar to modern-day Hinduism in actual beliefs. Architecture and culture would certainly be affected, but the fundamental beliefs of Hinduism would survive Buddhist dominance in a way that Zoroastrianism did not survive the Islamic conquest. You would basically get a syncretized, liberalized Hinduism that venerates the Buddha (similar to Shaivite/Vaishnavite veneration of Shiva/Vishnu) and treats him as one of many highly respected gods.
My template for this society is modern-day Nepal, which is essentially a Hindu-Buddhist syncretic state. Hinduism and Buddhism are not presented or seen as truly distinctive religions, especially not in terms of their fundamental beliefs (though "Hindu" Nepalis may have different names, slightly different customs, and small cultural differences).
IMO this is actually a pretty difficult situation to create. The only thing I can think of is if Islam gets butterflied away, the Sassanids hold on to Afghanistan/Pakistan/NW India, and this portion of the empire breaks away. Maybe some fanatic, fucked up Zoroastrian sect emerges that sees conversion as an goal. You could have them experience unprecedented success in India and end up converting parts of the local populace. Of course, them experiencing that success would be very difficult (esp. getting it to the point where there are only a couple hundred thousand Hindus), and they would likely lack the manpower that Islamic conquerors had. The other issue is that Zoroastrianism itself is not that different from certain sects of Hinduism. Both are offshoots of the ancient Indo-European Vedic religion and actually have quite a lot in common, so realistically you'd just get another syncretized religion that is basically Hinduism with different window dressing.
Last edited: