This is a common theme on the site, however, I do not feel that it is well explored enough and we thus tend to not fully explore the situation and comprehend the radical changes with which Islam brought into the geopolitical scene of Afroeurasia. To begin, the POD is 629, Islam is through some method nullified without war related to the two main empires of the region. Thus, in short, I will go over as best I can the geopolitical and religious situation surrounding the region prior to the rise of Islam and how this bodes for the Sassanid state that remains unchallenged by Islam and by extension, the Byzantine empire and all other powers in Afroeurasia. Admittedly, the histories of so many areas is not my area of expertise, despite this, I feel that I have gained some merit on the site to introduce the topic.
In otl, the Caliphal armies upon uniting the Arabian peninsula, had amassed a fairly large force and one that possessed a great amount of energy despite internal difficulties. Namely, through well managed conquest in the very earliest of stages and ineffective or poor luck from both the Byzantines and Sassanids, the Caliphal armies conquered the Sassanid Empire and neutralized for a time the Byzantine Empire. Following these gains, the Umayyad Caliphate set about creating multiple different fronts, creating new ones where the Islam had conquered, new ventures and then inheriting boundaries with which the Sassanid suffered. Excluding the western fronts such as in the region of Iberia, Gaul and the wider Western Mediterranean, the Umayyad inherited much of the conflicts that the Sassanid would have to had faced in the very near future if Islam is to be removed. For the most part, the Umayyad and Abbasid were able to neutralize and effectively expand in all directions and or stop expansion, with the exception of the Byzantines which reconquered lands beginning in 867 after the Anarchy of Samarra and the weakening of Caliphal authority associated with particularism and the corruption of the Abbasid throne.
I: Byzantium and the challenge posed by it.
In otl, the Sassanids from the end of the Eternal Peace had much of its diplomatic activities defined by the Byzantine rival to its west. In the Sassanid civil war, Emperor Maurice I assisted Khosrau II achieve the throne of Eranshahr and for a time we may say that there was a peace and even aligned position between the two empires. As a previous poster recently wrote in a post on the forum, the Byzantine Empire under Maurice is perhaps as solid frame as Byzantium had laid since prior to 476 and certainly in the most firm grip and power over the regional politics as any Emperor after him. As we know, the with the usurpation of Maurice I by Emperor Phocas I, thus began the crescendo of the Byzantine-Sassanid conflicts which would involve two separate emperors and countless skirmishes between the two empires. The result we know, was a victorious Byzantium, weakened drastically Sassanid power in the region and both empires prepared for the soon to be dominant force of the the region, the Caliphate originating from Arabia.
In 630, we may assume that war with Byzantium and the Sassanids is unlikely, but what can be said is that the Byzantines will need to face foes from its north and west, as occurred in prior decades, the hordes from the north often presented a venue for alliance for the Sassanids, could this be a new possible route to procure better diplomatic positions within the region? In addition, the Byzantines despite their admitted better position without Islam, remain in possession of areas that are less than agreeable, though not in total revolt, such as Egypt. Thus Byzantium has a larger area to defend. In otl, the fatigue garnered by the wars with the Sassanids showed only in the war with the Arabs, but in this tl, wherein Byzantium does not face the Arabs, what is the consensus of the forum regarding how this fatigue might display itself in terms of internal squabbles, regional secessionist tendencies and rebellions.
Finally, what is the board's opinion on the Byzantium policy taken toward the Sassanids now in a state of weakness n the immediate future?
II Arabia and the Arab tribes abound.
Without Islam, we may assume the Arab states remain a patchwork of tribal states of varied religions, primarily Nestorian and Monophysite in the north, percentages of Jewish tribal entities, such as the Banu Qindah, large Jewish presence in Yemen and the wrest having a primarily Arab pagan perspective upon the world. In this tl, I can imagine any number of happenings, however, I will await some views on the fate of the Sassanid Empire before my views are issued.
III The Turkic Khans
In 629, the Western Gokturk Empire is soon to be destroyed in approximately 27 years, as Islam changed little its fate , as the destruction seems to be connected with the Anxi Protectorate of the Tang Empire. Regardless, the wars the Umayyad inherited with the remnants are some of the more pressing immediately for the Sassanids. Namely, the Umayyad expansion east, was met by Turkic hrodes, who generally were remnants of this former Gokturk Empire and were dispatched by the Caliphal armies, with great prevalence placed upon slave raids of the nearby steppe and then these followed by occupation. By 780, as far north/east as Ferghana was captured and Islamic raids likely pushing into the upper regions of the steppe, such as latter called Zhetsu or Balasgan.
The more dangerous foe of the Turkic variety in this early period, was the Khazar Khaganate to the north. In the conflict between the Umayyad/Abbasid and Khazars, we can say this was certainly a more fearsome foe than the many of the early steppe hordes in the east, considering the that Khazars managed several breaches through the Caucus, raiding and pillaging toward Iraq and defeating the Umayyad armies a several occasions. The Umayyad counter invasion while a victory, was a small token in the grand scheme as the Umayyad legitimacy had been damaged and the Khazars suffered relatively little in the conflict as the Khazar host tended to avoid the Umayyad counterattack.
In 630, the Turkic hordes rule Derbent and technically control access to the Sassanid Empire, as in otl, it was the Caliphate which recaptured these areas, blocked the Khazars from free unimposed movement. Without Islam, what is the opinion of the board regarding how the Sassanid will defend this corridor?
IV The Tang Dynasty, the Anxi Protectorate and Tibetan empire.
As we know, the Umayyad and Abbasid, in their expansion east, ran toward war and geopolitical competition with the Tang Dynasty. In otl, the Caliphate generally snuffed some of the more western ambitions by the Tang, especially Tang movments past Ferghana into Kwarezm, Bactria, etc... Later, the 'Anxi Incident' would crush Tang powers in the west and north and start a decline for the Tang empire.
With expansion westward, what is the opinion of the forum regarding the response that the Sassanid will or 'should' take? Outright war with the Anxi protectorate seems difficult, but would it be possible, a Tang-Sassanid alliance against the Turkic remnants? Yet further, there is possibility for a Sassanid-Tibetan alliance, yet this too is steeped in difficult situations, as in otl, the main conflict between the Caliphate and Tibet was the wars over the Kashmir, Bactria and Ferghana. Ultimately, in Central Asia, we see the conjoining of four powers if you will, the Turkic and otherwise associated hordes, the Tang dynasty and its protectorates, the Tibetan Empire and an ailing Sassanid Empire. In otl, the Caliphate would ultimately gain ascendancy int he region, lending itself to outright pacification of foes, then toward an ideological shift as the region would become firmly Islamic, safe a period under the Qhara Qhitan/Liao Dynasty.
I hope this is a fair introduction to the geopolitical situation.
In terms of the internal status of the Empire, we may say that it seems tenuous. The loss int he wars with Phocas and Heraclius as well as losses to the Western Gokturks, surely brought shame to the Sassanid throne. My question, is whether the time for a new dynasty from among the Parthian houses is in order? A return to a sort of Parthian oriented empire would be interesting in its preference to move further east. Perhaps the house of Karenid is a good choice for this task.
On the otherhand, might there still be life within the Sassanids to hold on to the throne for another century? It will certainly be a struggle. as was said, the Byzantine fatigue we saw with the war with the Caliphate. If such fatigue is seen in the Byzantines, imagine the fatigue that could be witnessed by the Sassanids in this next few decades without a sudden change.
Religiously, the Zurvanite 'monist' version of Zoroastrianism remains the primary brand espoused by the high priesthood of the Sassanids as exemplified by its reformer, the high priest, Kartir. However, disputes between the primary sects of Zoroastrianism persist. Mazdan viewpoints especially, the Mazdan countering the Zruvanite brand, Mazdism itself having the opinion of a strict dualism, that is of two natures existing within the world. While Zurvanite forms and priest claimed two natures under a single one whole, aka Zurvan. The other form of Zoroastrianism that arose in the past century and remained during the Islamic period, is the Mazdaki version or sect, which in essence was anticlerical, millenialist and yet remained more or less form what we can gather, Mazdan in its view of the strict duality of the natures.
Later Islamic chronicles on Zoroastrianism displays these sects, but notes that few of the peasantry held to these ideas in the sort of strict and defined propositions given. Namely, most of the information we have, makes word that the Muslim chronicles, held that the Mazdan viewpoints of the strict duality, were the primary form for the priesthood after the fall of the Sassanid throne and to the chronicles, aslo the one with which was believed to be the actual teachings of Zoroaster. While Zurvanism, likely on the steep decline by 800, an example of Sassanid era philosophy, which attempted to address issues relating to dualism and combat the heretical Parthianisms as well as combat the Gnostic intrusion of Manichaeism, with its more overt dualism that exceeds the limits of even the Mazdan view. Muslim onlookers viewed correctly that much of the so-called Zoroastrian peasantry continued the practices worship to Iranian deities, issues that during the Parthian Empire were seen in the ruling class, but in the ruling power of the Sassanid, absent as the reforms of Kartir rejected the polytheistic practices that characterized the Parthian nobles and also the peasants (while also rejecting firmly the opposing Christian monotheism/trinity and also the dualism of the Mazdan and Gnosticsim of the Manichaens). In the trial of al-Afshin and Mayzar al-Qazvinand, we also see evidence of this polytheistic holdouts, when the homes of said individuals were searched, images/idols to various Iranian deities were found, in addition to the Zoroastrian images.
Thus we may say that the situation in the empire is complex in terms of the official religion. I am of the opinion that the religion of the people was one of folk traditions that was painted over by varied Zoroastrian principles, symbols and religion, with variance by region in terms of the sect of Zoroastrianism (Zurvan or Mazdan). The reader should be reminded that there is no real evidence of a Zoroastrianism prior to the Parthian Empire and certainly the Sassanid period lasting approximately 400 years was its zenith and apogee.
Other religions also exist within the Empire in 630, Nestorianism perhaps the most well liked. Based out of Iraq, it gained much power during the reign of anticlerical Shahs, such as Kavadh and Hormizd, who actively sought to expand the power of the centralized state. Nestorianism also presented itself as an enemy of the Byzantine supported Chalcedonian Church. However, Nestorianism is not so full-proof in regards to Sassanid policy. Nestorianism itself presenting two the natures of Christ, yet with the principle that the human nature freely corresponds to the divine will, as opposed to the opinion rendered later of the Hypostatic Union. It is however also opposed to the opinions of the Monophysites and its related groups who assert differing models of the nature of Christ (Eutychianism: that Christ had/has two natures but that the human nature and will is absorbed into a sea of divinity, in otherwards, the divine nature and will overhwhelmed the human nature-will,, Apollinairism: That Christ had a divine mind or spirit, yet a human body). The Sassanids will not gain any alliance with the neighboring regions of Byzantium with Nestorianism as generally, the only ways in which the Chalcedonian and anti-Chalcedonians ever could cease fighting was that they had mutual hatred for the Nestorians, especially the figure of Nestorius and Theodore of Mopsuesta. Nestorianism itself predominates in Northern Iraq and among the nearby Arab power across the Euphrates, the Lakhmids. Meanwhile, other areas of Iraq have a more diverse religious scenario, Northern Iraq includes the Kurdish people, of many religions, all of which are likely not Chrisitan, whilst the rest of the Syriac community is divided between a myriad of different religions, mostly Nestorian and Manichaen. There is also evidences that suggest the worship various Assyrian or Babylonian gods and traditions, one can imagine that some practices such as 'fortune telling' the zodiac and other similar concepts regarding the stars, fate and chance likely existed as was evident from the Islamic observations.
Manichaeism is another interesting one, as it is in some regards the mirror of Hellenism reflected upon Eranshahr, the other reflection being the doctrines of Christianity. One can imagine the foremost enemy of the Zurvan sect in terms of ideology to be the Manichaens, as the dualism within the Manichaen cosmology is so overt that the creation is of a demiurge and the light of an immaterial concept of light, such that is antithetical to the monist Zurvanite viewpoint of a dual nature and Zurvan whole of creation which evil and good both derive. Regardless of this distinction, we know that Manichaeism remained in fair numbers in Iraq among the Syriac populace, but it is not known to me the percentages of Manichaeism within the eastern sections of the Empire, but it is assured that the religion existed as a minority in these areas and the further east, the more prevalent and then becoming more so once more once the eastward turn takes an northern move. Which brings us to a religion in the east, that being Buddhism, one like the previous two can make gains yet will need to also defend what it has in the lack of Islam. Buddhism itself predominates in northern sections of Bactria and existed in minorities within the far east and north of the empire.
Thus I repeat the question and discussion, what will the fate of the Sassanid empire be in this situation beginning in 630? What does the forum suggest in this regard?
In otl, the Caliphal armies upon uniting the Arabian peninsula, had amassed a fairly large force and one that possessed a great amount of energy despite internal difficulties. Namely, through well managed conquest in the very earliest of stages and ineffective or poor luck from both the Byzantines and Sassanids, the Caliphal armies conquered the Sassanid Empire and neutralized for a time the Byzantine Empire. Following these gains, the Umayyad Caliphate set about creating multiple different fronts, creating new ones where the Islam had conquered, new ventures and then inheriting boundaries with which the Sassanid suffered. Excluding the western fronts such as in the region of Iberia, Gaul and the wider Western Mediterranean, the Umayyad inherited much of the conflicts that the Sassanid would have to had faced in the very near future if Islam is to be removed. For the most part, the Umayyad and Abbasid were able to neutralize and effectively expand in all directions and or stop expansion, with the exception of the Byzantines which reconquered lands beginning in 867 after the Anarchy of Samarra and the weakening of Caliphal authority associated with particularism and the corruption of the Abbasid throne.
I: Byzantium and the challenge posed by it.
In otl, the Sassanids from the end of the Eternal Peace had much of its diplomatic activities defined by the Byzantine rival to its west. In the Sassanid civil war, Emperor Maurice I assisted Khosrau II achieve the throne of Eranshahr and for a time we may say that there was a peace and even aligned position between the two empires. As a previous poster recently wrote in a post on the forum, the Byzantine Empire under Maurice is perhaps as solid frame as Byzantium had laid since prior to 476 and certainly in the most firm grip and power over the regional politics as any Emperor after him. As we know, the with the usurpation of Maurice I by Emperor Phocas I, thus began the crescendo of the Byzantine-Sassanid conflicts which would involve two separate emperors and countless skirmishes between the two empires. The result we know, was a victorious Byzantium, weakened drastically Sassanid power in the region and both empires prepared for the soon to be dominant force of the the region, the Caliphate originating from Arabia.
In 630, we may assume that war with Byzantium and the Sassanids is unlikely, but what can be said is that the Byzantines will need to face foes from its north and west, as occurred in prior decades, the hordes from the north often presented a venue for alliance for the Sassanids, could this be a new possible route to procure better diplomatic positions within the region? In addition, the Byzantines despite their admitted better position without Islam, remain in possession of areas that are less than agreeable, though not in total revolt, such as Egypt. Thus Byzantium has a larger area to defend. In otl, the fatigue garnered by the wars with the Sassanids showed only in the war with the Arabs, but in this tl, wherein Byzantium does not face the Arabs, what is the consensus of the forum regarding how this fatigue might display itself in terms of internal squabbles, regional secessionist tendencies and rebellions.
Finally, what is the board's opinion on the Byzantium policy taken toward the Sassanids now in a state of weakness n the immediate future?
II Arabia and the Arab tribes abound.
Without Islam, we may assume the Arab states remain a patchwork of tribal states of varied religions, primarily Nestorian and Monophysite in the north, percentages of Jewish tribal entities, such as the Banu Qindah, large Jewish presence in Yemen and the wrest having a primarily Arab pagan perspective upon the world. In this tl, I can imagine any number of happenings, however, I will await some views on the fate of the Sassanid Empire before my views are issued.
III The Turkic Khans
In 629, the Western Gokturk Empire is soon to be destroyed in approximately 27 years, as Islam changed little its fate , as the destruction seems to be connected with the Anxi Protectorate of the Tang Empire. Regardless, the wars the Umayyad inherited with the remnants are some of the more pressing immediately for the Sassanids. Namely, the Umayyad expansion east, was met by Turkic hrodes, who generally were remnants of this former Gokturk Empire and were dispatched by the Caliphal armies, with great prevalence placed upon slave raids of the nearby steppe and then these followed by occupation. By 780, as far north/east as Ferghana was captured and Islamic raids likely pushing into the upper regions of the steppe, such as latter called Zhetsu or Balasgan.
The more dangerous foe of the Turkic variety in this early period, was the Khazar Khaganate to the north. In the conflict between the Umayyad/Abbasid and Khazars, we can say this was certainly a more fearsome foe than the many of the early steppe hordes in the east, considering the that Khazars managed several breaches through the Caucus, raiding and pillaging toward Iraq and defeating the Umayyad armies a several occasions. The Umayyad counter invasion while a victory, was a small token in the grand scheme as the Umayyad legitimacy had been damaged and the Khazars suffered relatively little in the conflict as the Khazar host tended to avoid the Umayyad counterattack.
In 630, the Turkic hordes rule Derbent and technically control access to the Sassanid Empire, as in otl, it was the Caliphate which recaptured these areas, blocked the Khazars from free unimposed movement. Without Islam, what is the opinion of the board regarding how the Sassanid will defend this corridor?
IV The Tang Dynasty, the Anxi Protectorate and Tibetan empire.
As we know, the Umayyad and Abbasid, in their expansion east, ran toward war and geopolitical competition with the Tang Dynasty. In otl, the Caliphate generally snuffed some of the more western ambitions by the Tang, especially Tang movments past Ferghana into Kwarezm, Bactria, etc... Later, the 'Anxi Incident' would crush Tang powers in the west and north and start a decline for the Tang empire.
With expansion westward, what is the opinion of the forum regarding the response that the Sassanid will or 'should' take? Outright war with the Anxi protectorate seems difficult, but would it be possible, a Tang-Sassanid alliance against the Turkic remnants? Yet further, there is possibility for a Sassanid-Tibetan alliance, yet this too is steeped in difficult situations, as in otl, the main conflict between the Caliphate and Tibet was the wars over the Kashmir, Bactria and Ferghana. Ultimately, in Central Asia, we see the conjoining of four powers if you will, the Turkic and otherwise associated hordes, the Tang dynasty and its protectorates, the Tibetan Empire and an ailing Sassanid Empire. In otl, the Caliphate would ultimately gain ascendancy int he region, lending itself to outright pacification of foes, then toward an ideological shift as the region would become firmly Islamic, safe a period under the Qhara Qhitan/Liao Dynasty.
I hope this is a fair introduction to the geopolitical situation.
In terms of the internal status of the Empire, we may say that it seems tenuous. The loss int he wars with Phocas and Heraclius as well as losses to the Western Gokturks, surely brought shame to the Sassanid throne. My question, is whether the time for a new dynasty from among the Parthian houses is in order? A return to a sort of Parthian oriented empire would be interesting in its preference to move further east. Perhaps the house of Karenid is a good choice for this task.
On the otherhand, might there still be life within the Sassanids to hold on to the throne for another century? It will certainly be a struggle. as was said, the Byzantine fatigue we saw with the war with the Caliphate. If such fatigue is seen in the Byzantines, imagine the fatigue that could be witnessed by the Sassanids in this next few decades without a sudden change.
Religiously, the Zurvanite 'monist' version of Zoroastrianism remains the primary brand espoused by the high priesthood of the Sassanids as exemplified by its reformer, the high priest, Kartir. However, disputes between the primary sects of Zoroastrianism persist. Mazdan viewpoints especially, the Mazdan countering the Zruvanite brand, Mazdism itself having the opinion of a strict dualism, that is of two natures existing within the world. While Zurvanite forms and priest claimed two natures under a single one whole, aka Zurvan. The other form of Zoroastrianism that arose in the past century and remained during the Islamic period, is the Mazdaki version or sect, which in essence was anticlerical, millenialist and yet remained more or less form what we can gather, Mazdan in its view of the strict duality of the natures.
Later Islamic chronicles on Zoroastrianism displays these sects, but notes that few of the peasantry held to these ideas in the sort of strict and defined propositions given. Namely, most of the information we have, makes word that the Muslim chronicles, held that the Mazdan viewpoints of the strict duality, were the primary form for the priesthood after the fall of the Sassanid throne and to the chronicles, aslo the one with which was believed to be the actual teachings of Zoroaster. While Zurvanism, likely on the steep decline by 800, an example of Sassanid era philosophy, which attempted to address issues relating to dualism and combat the heretical Parthianisms as well as combat the Gnostic intrusion of Manichaeism, with its more overt dualism that exceeds the limits of even the Mazdan view. Muslim onlookers viewed correctly that much of the so-called Zoroastrian peasantry continued the practices worship to Iranian deities, issues that during the Parthian Empire were seen in the ruling class, but in the ruling power of the Sassanid, absent as the reforms of Kartir rejected the polytheistic practices that characterized the Parthian nobles and also the peasants (while also rejecting firmly the opposing Christian monotheism/trinity and also the dualism of the Mazdan and Gnosticsim of the Manichaens). In the trial of al-Afshin and Mayzar al-Qazvinand, we also see evidence of this polytheistic holdouts, when the homes of said individuals were searched, images/idols to various Iranian deities were found, in addition to the Zoroastrian images.
Thus we may say that the situation in the empire is complex in terms of the official religion. I am of the opinion that the religion of the people was one of folk traditions that was painted over by varied Zoroastrian principles, symbols and religion, with variance by region in terms of the sect of Zoroastrianism (Zurvan or Mazdan). The reader should be reminded that there is no real evidence of a Zoroastrianism prior to the Parthian Empire and certainly the Sassanid period lasting approximately 400 years was its zenith and apogee.
Other religions also exist within the Empire in 630, Nestorianism perhaps the most well liked. Based out of Iraq, it gained much power during the reign of anticlerical Shahs, such as Kavadh and Hormizd, who actively sought to expand the power of the centralized state. Nestorianism also presented itself as an enemy of the Byzantine supported Chalcedonian Church. However, Nestorianism is not so full-proof in regards to Sassanid policy. Nestorianism itself presenting two the natures of Christ, yet with the principle that the human nature freely corresponds to the divine will, as opposed to the opinion rendered later of the Hypostatic Union. It is however also opposed to the opinions of the Monophysites and its related groups who assert differing models of the nature of Christ (Eutychianism: that Christ had/has two natures but that the human nature and will is absorbed into a sea of divinity, in otherwards, the divine nature and will overhwhelmed the human nature-will,, Apollinairism: That Christ had a divine mind or spirit, yet a human body). The Sassanids will not gain any alliance with the neighboring regions of Byzantium with Nestorianism as generally, the only ways in which the Chalcedonian and anti-Chalcedonians ever could cease fighting was that they had mutual hatred for the Nestorians, especially the figure of Nestorius and Theodore of Mopsuesta. Nestorianism itself predominates in Northern Iraq and among the nearby Arab power across the Euphrates, the Lakhmids. Meanwhile, other areas of Iraq have a more diverse religious scenario, Northern Iraq includes the Kurdish people, of many religions, all of which are likely not Chrisitan, whilst the rest of the Syriac community is divided between a myriad of different religions, mostly Nestorian and Manichaen. There is also evidences that suggest the worship various Assyrian or Babylonian gods and traditions, one can imagine that some practices such as 'fortune telling' the zodiac and other similar concepts regarding the stars, fate and chance likely existed as was evident from the Islamic observations.
Manichaeism is another interesting one, as it is in some regards the mirror of Hellenism reflected upon Eranshahr, the other reflection being the doctrines of Christianity. One can imagine the foremost enemy of the Zurvan sect in terms of ideology to be the Manichaens, as the dualism within the Manichaen cosmology is so overt that the creation is of a demiurge and the light of an immaterial concept of light, such that is antithetical to the monist Zurvanite viewpoint of a dual nature and Zurvan whole of creation which evil and good both derive. Regardless of this distinction, we know that Manichaeism remained in fair numbers in Iraq among the Syriac populace, but it is not known to me the percentages of Manichaeism within the eastern sections of the Empire, but it is assured that the religion existed as a minority in these areas and the further east, the more prevalent and then becoming more so once more once the eastward turn takes an northern move. Which brings us to a religion in the east, that being Buddhism, one like the previous two can make gains yet will need to also defend what it has in the lack of Islam. Buddhism itself predominates in northern sections of Bactria and existed in minorities within the far east and north of the empire.
Thus I repeat the question and discussion, what will the fate of the Sassanid empire be in this situation beginning in 630? What does the forum suggest in this regard?
