Assuming No Islam and a Sassanian Levant, what is the Persian's policy towards Jews?

The Sassanians take Egypt and the Levant from the Eastern Romans and keep it. How exactly would they have treated Judaism and its adherents in Jerusalem and Israel?
 
My answer ought to be "butterflies", however the looking at Persia's policy towards ethnic/religious minorities (including Jews that were within their borders) I'm going to say that the treatment would be good with occasional periods of persecution.
 
Well, or at least suffer from benign neglect at most times. The Jews were treated well during the Sassanian control of the Levant OTL.
It depends on the status and paranoias of the Zoroastrian hierarchy and the disposition of the ruler towards that hierarchy. At times of ascendant Persian identity, minorities and non-practitioners of Zoroastrianism would suffer in at least parts of the Empire.
In general, though, there was no concerted prosecution of Jews empire-wide. Christians fared worse.
Pragmatically, Judaism would be favored in an area recently conquered by the Sassanians while in conflict with the ERE.
 
How exactly would they have treated Judaism and its adherents in Jerusalem and Israel?

Probably a bit more favourably than Byzantines did (granted, that wasn't stellar), but you'll have certainly more pressure on them with time and "zoroastrisation" of these provinces.

In fact, they would probably keep Byzantines laws regarding Jews for a good time : OTL Khosro II didn't minded repress them even after they helped him. Late Sassanids don't have a good reputation on Jewish tradition.

You probably won't have a big-scale persecution up to some centuries, would it be only because these communauties managed the West-East trade roads in Mediterranea, but they wouldn't beneficy from the same relative favour that they had in OTL medieval Arabo-Islamic world.
 
Jews have always held a form of protected status in our society, even to this day, despite our poor relations with Israel, we take pride in our Jewish communities.

Zoroastrianism under the Sassanids had become increasingly... militant, or should I say, missionary. Jews, as a fairly small, regional faith, would probably not see too much attention turned towards them. The Christians were the biggest worry for the Sassanid rulers.
 
Well, Zoroastrianism doesn't have any real connection to Judaism as Christianity does. So, the Sassanids would view them as a religious minority with no outside support, ie-they won't give a damn what they do as long as they pay their taxes. Their is no deicide in Zoroastrianism like in Christianity.
 
Well, Zoroastrianism doesn't have any real connection to Judaism as Christianity does. So, the Sassanids would view them as a religious minority with no outside support, ie-they won't give a damn what they do as long as they pay their taxes. Their is no deicide in Zoroastrianism like in Christianity.

I think the fact that the Christian ERE is the mortal enemy of the Sassanians played a far larger role in persecution of Christians than the fact of "deicide" within Christianity.
 
I think the fact that the Christian ERE is the mortal enemy of the Sassanians played a far larger role in persecution of Christians than the fact of "deicide" within Christianity.

I think he was referring to the persecution of Jews by Christians. The accusation of them as Christ's Killers is what I assumed was the Deicide he referred to.
 
Yes, I was referring to the Zoroastrian relationship with Judaism, and that they come from two very different religions. Because the Jews were a minority and had no outside support there was no reason for the Sassanids to look at them with suspicion. On the other hand, the Christians of Persia were definitely viewed suspiciously because Rome was a Christian empire. Also, besides their general intolerance of any religion, the situation of the Jews in any Christian land was far worse because if the accusation of deicide.
 
Yes, I was referring to the Zoroastrian relationship with Judaism, and that they come from two very different religions. Because the Jews were a minority and had no outside support there was no reason for the Sassanids to look at them with suspicion. On the other hand, the Christians of Persia were definitely viewed suspiciously because Rome was a Christian empire. Also, besides their general intolerance of any religion, the situation of the Jews in any Christian land was far worse because if the accusation of deicide.

Yes. And a little of the "enemy of our enemy is our friend" dynamic is at play from the Sassanid perspective.
 
Meh, didn't refrain them to turn back on Jews as soon they can. I stand with my previous statement : less repressive than Byzzies, still far from Arabo-Islamic world situation.

Sure, the Sassanid attitudes varied and were sometimes both opportunistic or out of realpolitik. The documentation of the Jewish Commonwealth is very scanty and that Wiki article is very disjointed, even bizarre and the citations insufficient.
Just saying.
From the Sassanid perspective, it made political sense to reach some accommodation with the local majority of Christians in Jerusalem. We also don't know the circumstances of the Persian appointed governor Nehemiah ben Hushiel's removal. The massacre of Jews took place after Khosru was forced to retreat from the Levant by Heraclius' armies. The article doesn't make that point clear.

If we are talking about the Sassanid period as a whole in its attitudes and policies towards the Jews in its domain, it was primarily benign neglect with periods of persecution and promotion but neither never really implemented on an Empire-wide scale. But things were better, even far better than what the Jews experienced under the late ERE, even if it wasn't as tolerant as say Al-Andalus (at its best or most mythologized).
 
Last edited:
Sure, the Sassanid attitudes varied and were sometimes both opportunistic or out of realpolitik..

Oh, sure. My point was to say Sassanids had the same motivation against Jews than Romans.
That said we have documentation on this situation : contemporary (the Paschale Chronicle mention a Jewish uprising, while in an hagiographic way)

Sebeos said:
[95] Then the entire country of Palestine willingly submitted to the king of kings. The remnants of the Hebrew people especially rebelled from the Christians and taking in hand their native zeal [The translation is uncertain: ew arheal i dzerhn znaxandz hayreni, perhaps "manifesting desire for a/their homeland"] wrought very damaging slaughters among the multitude of believers.

Going [to the Iranians], [the Jews] united with them. At that time, the army of the king of Iran was stationed at Caesarea in Palestine. Their general was named Rhazmiozan (that is, Xorheam). He spoke with [the inhabitants of] Jerusalem so that they submit voluntarilly and be kept in peace and prosperity.

It hint to an jewish autonomy (even if relative) inside Sassanid Empire

After a Christian riot and the takeover of Jerusalem by Khorso II, however

Sebeos said:
He commanded that the Jews [97] be driven from the city, and the king's order was quickly implemented, with great urgency.
As other reasons, distrust of Palestinian Jews toward the Shah, as he was accused to have killed a jewish leader of his army, probably in the light of previous rulers persecutions.

The mentions are short indeed, but contemporary enough to be considered as valid.

From the Sassanid perspective, it made political sense to reach some accommodation with the local majority of Christians in Jerusalem. The massacre of Jews took place after Khosru was forced to retreat from the Levant by Heraclius' armies. The article doesn't make that point clear.
Other persecutions against Jews happened during Sassanid rule before that.
"Peroz the evil" is another exemple on how rulers didn't exactly favoured Jews : the article (or this one)of the Jewish Encyclopedy makes that relativly clear, and the emigration of jewish communauties in Central Asia (in Afghanistan, by exemple) is commonly identified with this period

If we are talking about the Sassanid period as a whole in its attitudes and policies towards the Jews in its domain, it was primarily benign neglect with periods of persecution and promotion but neither never really implemented on an Empire-wide scale.
As said above, I don't think that Sassanids would be willingly as persecutive than Byzantines, but I just don't think either that they would care enough to repeal Roman legislation.

Something comparable to what existed in Western Europe at this time would probably give a good idea.

But things were better, even far better than what the Jews experienced under the late ERE
OTL, the periods with actual favouring of Jews before Christians were at best episodics.

The risk of an autonomous "national" province in the empire was eventually too great of risk to be taken for too long : Romans tried so, it backfired with multiple revolts. I simply don't see Persians doing much more while they already have an history of persecution of their own.
 
Top