AHD/AHQ: Assuming an Islam 'screw', what is the consensus on the fate of the Sassanid Empire

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.
That's actually heavily debated in Iranologic circles, many modern thesis contests whatever the Sasanids were really Zurvanites due to the lack of Middle Persian sources mentioning the deity (all Sasanian coins depicts or mentions only Mazda), some would tell there was no Zurvanite movement at all.
 
Yet another 'no Islam' thread? Why?

I certainly am not the person to address with this objection. The amount of Islamic themed threads and Islamic history posts I have made are testament. If you feel that I am neglecting Islamic history on the forum, then what items would you suggest I post?

Further, if you read the post that I typed, you will see a very large intertwine of themes between Islam and a world without it.
 
That's actually heavily debated in Iranologic circles, many modern thesis contests whatever the Sasanids were really Zurvanites due to the lack of Middle Persian sources mentioning the deity (all Sasanian coins depicts or mentions only Mazda), some would tell there was no Zurvanite movement at all.

The dispute from those that say Zurvanism did not exist say so from the idea that they find no mention of a god called Zurvan. From my understanding, Zurvan was the hypothetical conception of time and preceding conception of matter if you will. Thus it is an idea that can be missed if one is looking to miss the idea. It is similar to say the ideal of Brahma within ‘Hinduism’.
 
The dispute from those that say Zurvanism did not exist say so from the idea that they find no mention of a god called Zurvan. From my understanding, Zurvan was the hypothetical conception of time and preceding conception of matter if you will. Thus it is an idea that can be missed if one is looking to miss the idea. It is similar to say the ideal of Brahma within ‘Hinduism’.
The issue is that no surviving Zoroastrian scripture or Sasanian-era source ever mentions this supposed cult of "Zurvan," even though Zoroastrian scripture is generall thought to have been compiled in the Sasanian period. Our main sources for "Zurvanism" are Armenian Christians criticizing Zoroastrianism, so it's fully possible that our Christian apologetics are building up a gnostic-looking strawman to attack.
 
I certainly am not the person to address with this objection. The amount of Islamic themed threads and Islamic history posts I have made are testament. If you feel that I am neglecting Islamic history on the forum, then what items would you suggest I post?

Further, if you read the post that I typed, you will see a very large intertwine of themes between Islam and a world without it.

Far from it - my apologies. I looked at the thread title and posted without looking who posted.

One of the interesting questions this raises is whether Zoroastrianism would evolve, and possibly have some sort of Iconoclastic controversy, similar to how the Byzantines did in the 8th century.

More broadly speaking, I think regardless of whether the Sassanid royal house continues, I do see some kind of Persian Empire enduring over the region indefinitely. The linguistic and cultural connections are strong, for example with Dari speakers existing in Afghanistan and other Persian dialects beyond.
 
The issue is that no surviving Zoroastrian scripture or Sasanian-era source ever mentions this supposed cult of "Zurvan," even though Zoroastrian scripture is generall thought to have been compiled in the Sasanian period. Our main sources for "Zurvanism" are Armenian Christians criticizing Zoroastrianism, so it's fully possible that our Christian apologetics are building up a gnostic-looking strawman to attack.

That does not seem likely, Zurvanism is not a Gnostic boogie man in this sense. Namely, that the concept of Zurvan is that there is a preceding figure by which flows the duality of Ahura Mazda and Angra Maynu. In other words, a monist interpretation of the teachings of Zoroaster, a similar development to how many Hindu scholars make mention of the combination of substance as one or an entity from which all issues flow. If this is an easy target for the Armenian Christians, then they must surely be confident in their beliefs.


In regards to Sassanid compilation, what exactly do we have in this regard? I have been under the impression that much of this information has been lost, we do not have access to sort of sweeping documentation on this issue. Thus, much of what we can deduce must come from Islamic and Christian sources. At least in some areas. Perhaps too, I am not so critical of historical witnesses as many of the modern scholars are, who assume malicious intent with each stroke of the pen.
 
Last edited:
lets say turkic invasions begin into the iranian plateau at the same time or earlier than OTL.

How would turkic conquerors interract with the religious situation in persia at the time, which branch or form of zoroastrianism would turkic conquerors be msot likely to adopt or would they adopt some form of christianity?

A side note but a really interesting idea for a "no islam" TL that i thought of is a jewish khazar kahganate to the north and a south arabian jewish power to the south, and how persians and byzantines react to these two noamdic jewish powers.
 

Justinianus

Banned
What of the Paulicians within Armenia then? In otl, these groups were persecuted by Byzantium, wherein they rebelled and joined with the Abbasid offensives and formed a powerful blocc in Eastern Anatolia. My secession comment was more speaking to the Berbers and the African territories and areas in the east, such as Armenia, etc,,.

1) I never said that the Romans never persecuted heretics, just that there were lulls in those efforts and one of those lulls was during the Heraclian Dynasty (i.e. the period in question). The Heraclian dynasty showed themselves to be quite capable during this period.

2) It is noted that the Paulician issue happened in the late 8th century and were only as successful as they were due to outside support (i.e. the Abbasids). In this period the only outside support that could theoretically exist would be the Sassanids themselves, but due to their weakness in this period, it's quite unlikely that they'd offer any substantial support.

3) The Berbers were never a real threat to Roman Africa. Roman Africa was one of the few areas that were relatively prosperous during the period in question with a substantial population of loyal Romans and as far as I'm aware the Berbers never excelled at seigecraft, and without that they'd never take Roman Africa.

4) The Armenians where never politically unified to be an issue. It's important to note that the only the times the Romans lost Armenia it was due to outside powers taking the area from them (Parthia, Sassanids, Arabs, Turks, etc) and any native revolt would be ultimately crushed.
 
Would the Turkic expansion in the Middle East be slower or faster without Islam? On one hand the Caliphate presented an obstacle in the form of a massive empire able to stop the Turkic migrations in their tracks. On the other hand Caliphs and Islamic rulers soon recruited Turks as mamluks and ghilman, bringing them into the Middle East anyway and Islam later was a unifying factor for the Seljuks who integrated Turks into Near East politics. Without Islam's ban on conscription, there may be fewer Turkic mercenaries hired, but there would also be less political opposition to pagans which may compensate.

Nonetheless, a declining Sassanid Empire would be easy pickings for Turks, Khazars, and perhaps even Bolghars.
 
I certainly don't see any new Persian dynasty adopting Christianity. At this point Zoroastrianism is too deeply tied into the Sassanid state, and a new dynasty would be taking over the Sassanid administrative structure and inheriting the nobility and administrative class, rather than replacing them as the Caliphate did. I seriously doubt that a Christian Shahanshah would be considered legitimate by most of the Persian nobility, and therefore wouldn't last long. Even if this king refused to convert, at least one of his relatives almost certainly would to gain the throne. A Turkic conquest dynasty would probably try to take over the administrative structure in much the same way, and would assimilate fairly quickly much as various conquest dynasties did in China. They would need at least the tacit acceptance of the Zoroastrian clergy to govern Persia, if not outright support. Or, they would need to replace the government structure like the Caliphate did, which is a pretty radical thing to do, and one few conquerors in history have done. Hell, even Alexander just replaced a few people in the Achaemenid system and moved the capital to Babylon. So, a new dynasty might move the capital away from Seleukeia-Ktestiphon, but absent an ideological imperative I don't see much change in the actual governance of the empire.
 
Were there any Iranic steppe nomads left at this time? Would be cool to see one of those replace the Sassanids and maybe give more space for Iranic paganism.
 
Were there any Iranic steppe nomads left at this time? Would be cool to see one of those replace the Sassanids and maybe give more space for Iranic paganism.

You have the Alans amongst the Caucasus, perhaps they could do? I’m not sure how they could go about replacing the Sassanids but with possible Roman support maybe it could be accomplished.
 
Last edited:
Would the Turkic expansion in the Middle East be slower or faster without Islam? On one hand the Caliphate presented an obstacle in the form of a massive empire able to stop the Turkic migrations in their tracks. On the other hand Caliphs and Islamic rulers soon recruited Turks as mamluks and ghilman, bringing them into the Middle East anyway and Islam later was a unifying factor for the Seljuks who integrated Turks into Near East politics. Without Islam's ban on conscription, there may be fewer Turkic mercenaries hired, but there would also be less political opposition to pagans which may compensate.

Nonetheless, a declining Sassanid Empire would be easy pickings for Turks, Khazars, and perhaps even Bolghars.

This is a good point. I have discussed in the past, that without the Mamluk tradition drawing in Turkic peoples into the Caliphal system, the Turkic peoples as did the Hepthalites and Kushana before them, were drawn not toward Iran bu toward Hindustan.
 
Top