Christianized Persia

[DominusNovus]

Matt, isn't that eerily similar to the ideas I was talking about earlier for the Roman Timeline? Which, I might add, has (will have) a Christian Persia.

 

[Leo Caesius]

I think the clergy would be called Magi collectively. Perhaps elements of the Zoroastrian priestly system would be incorporated into any hierarchy the Persian Christians would have.

The problem with the Magi (who by this point in time are called Moghmardan, "Magians" sg. Moghmard) is that they are (at least initially) a kind of caste of their own. The title mobed, however, isn't (mobed is from Iranian *magu-pati "the one who leads the Magi" and has basically come to mean Zoroastrian priest), even if it tends to stay within certain families. You would probably see the "priestly families" arise (that is, particularly "pure" families that have a tradition of producing priests) and the priests would bear titles such as Mobed (which is the standard term for Zoroastrian priests today).

 

[Xen]

It has been a while but I have been thinking about this topic and done a little research. I havent done a timeline for a while now.

I was considering having the Persian Monarch, Khosrau II to convert to Christianity. During his time in exile, he formed a loose alliance with the Roman Emperor, Maurice who helped him reclaim his thrown. Some historians even speculate he may have married Maurice's daughter. I dont believe its too far fetched. Like with the Roman Empire before, Khosrau uses Christianity to unify Persia.

Byzantine Emperor Maurice will die of natural causes in 599, he divides the Roman Empire between his sons. He planned on one of his sons to rule the Eastern Empire from Constantinople, another to rule the Western Empire from Rome. Historians even debate whether or not he planned on giving his two younger sons parts of the Empire or not, some believe he planned on giving one North Africa, and the other Illiricum. Im going to use the butterflies to have this happen.

In 600 he refused to pay a very little ransom to deliver thousands of byzantine soldiers taken prisoners by the Avars. The prisoners were killed and a military delegation, headed by an officer named Phocas was humiliated and rejected in Constantinople. Phocas eventually overthrew the Emperor, killing him and his sons. In OTL this angered Khosrau II and he wanted to avenge the death of Maurice, which caused a long bloody war between Persia and Rome.

In this, Maurice is dead, dying of natural causes. His son agrees to pay the ransom, and there is no coup in Constantinople. The war between Persia and Byzantium is avoided, for now.

Nestorian Christianity becomes popular in Persia, and although it is loathed in Byzantium, as of now neither Empire is anxious for another war. As fate has it, a new religion has burst on the seems in Arabia. Without the humiliating defeat by the Byzantines at Nineveh, Khosrau still rules Persia, which is much more stable at this point. As the Arabs gather at the border, Khosrau decides to strike a blow against the would be invaders. The Muslim Arabs are caught by surprise by Persia's preemptive strike and are utterly defeated at the Battle of Babylon (or Massacre of Babylon as the Arabs call it).

The Muslim Arabs try their luck against the Romans to the west, after some initial success they are defeated by the alliance of the Three Romes (Western Empire, Eastern Empire and North African Empire), and are pushed back east of the Jordan River. Although the Arabs do eventually conquer the Arabian Peninusla, Islamic conquests is limited to the Red Sea and the coast of East Africa, which sees far more Arabian colonization than OTL, particularly in Somalia and Ethiopia.

Of course from here the face of the world is changed forever.

Also something I have considered, the rebuilding of Babylon. I have seriously put thought into having the Persians rebuild Babylon, at first as a fort against the Arabs, but eventually it becomes a major city. Is that feasible?

 

[Leo Caesius]

Also something I have considered, the rebuilding of Babylon. I have seriously put thought into having the Persians rebuild Babylon, at first as a fort against the Arabs, but eventually it becomes a major city. Is that feasible?

By this point, there was nothing there - it was basically an uninhabited hill.

Ctesiphon (Tisifun) also known as Mada'in (the Cities) is still the capital of Persia and quite possibly the largest city in the world at this time. I'm not sure they'd want to abandon it for an uninhabited spot a couple of miles away.

 

[Max Sinister]

But didn't the Persian shah have to be Zoroastrian?

 

[Xen]

By this point, there was nothing there - it was basically an uninhabited hill.

Ctesiphon (Tisifun) also known as Mada'in (the Cities) is still the capital of Persia and quite possibly the largest city in the world at this time. I'm not sure they'd want to abandon it for an uninhabited spot a couple of miles away.

Im not talking about rebuilding Babylon as a capital, at first its just a fort, then it builds into a city. Sort of like how Basra is a major city in Iraq, but Baghdad is the capital.

Other than this very minor thing, is the rest of my idea checking out okay?

 

[Xen]

But didn't the Persian shah have to be Zoroastrian?

I figure in an absolute monarchy, the Shah could just depose those who disagreed with him, and replace them with those who do. Of course he is treading dangerous water, but so was Constantine.

 

[Leo Caesius]

Im not talking about rebuilding Babylon as a capital, at first its just a fort, then it builds into a city. Sort of like how Basra is a major city in Iraq, but Baghdad is the capital.

Other than this very minor thing, is the rest of my idea checking out okay?

I'm still leery of the Nestorians taking control of Persia. After all, Zoroastrianism is the state religion, and despite the fact that Jews and Christians have been in Persia for hundreds of years, they seem to have had a problem winning converts among the Persians (most of the Nestorians in Iran being Assyrians rather than Persians). Unlike the Romans, there was no population of sympathetic converts among the poor or in the military.

If the king and his family converts to Christianity, this makes it rather likely that he will become the target of assassination attempts, various pretenders to the throne (remember, the Arsacids are still bumming around somewhere), mass rebellions among the nobility (the Persian empire being feudal, its armies are controlled by the nobility, not directly by the shah), and so forth. If, on the other hand, someone else conquers the Persian empire early on, makes a clean slate of everything, and installs a Christian government, that might work in the long run.

If you want a Christianized Persia, the best bet is probably a Byzantine Conquest followed by independence a century or two later.

As for Babylon becoming a major city again, I still think Ctesiphon-Seleucia is way too close. Unless Ctesiphon gets wiped out, there's just no reason for having a new city there; most people who move to that region would prefer to go to the big city rather than the suburb next door. Basra is a major city simply because there is a good reason for it (it's a sea port, for starters, and it is distant enough from Baghdad that it has its own identity).

 

[stevep]

It has been a while but I have been thinking about this topic and done a little research. I havent done a timeline for a while now.

I was considering having the Persian Monarch, Khosrau II to convert to Christianity. During his time in exile, he formed a loose alliance with the Roman Emperor, Maurice who helped him reclaim his thrown. Some historians even speculate he may have married Maurice's daughter. I dont believe its too far fetched. Like with the Roman Empire before, Khosrau uses Christianity to unify Persia.

Byzantine Emperor Maurice will die of natural causes in 599, he divides the Roman Empire between his sons. He planned on one of his sons to rule the Eastern Empire from Constantinople, another to rule the Western Empire from Rome. Historians even debate whether or not he planned on giving his two younger sons parts of the Empire or not, some believe he planned on giving one North Africa, and the other Illiricum. Im going to use the butterflies to have this happen.

In 600 he refused to pay a very little ransom to deliver thousands of byzantine soldiers taken prisoners by the Avars. The prisoners were killed and a military delegation, headed by an officer named Phocas was humiliated and rejected in Constantinople. Phocas eventually overthrew the Emperor, killing him and his sons. In OTL this angered Khosrau II and he wanted to avenge the death of Maurice, which caused a long bloody war between Persia and Rome.

In this, Maurice is dead, dying of natural causes. His son agrees to pay the ransom, and there is no coup in Constantinople. The war between Persia and Byzantium is avoided, for now.


Xen

A couple of questions.

a) The version I heard about Phocas's revolt was that, after Justinians excesses the imperial economy was is a bad way so Maurice became very much a penny-pincher. During the war with the Avars he tried having the army continue to campaign through the winter rather than going into camp and that was the cause of the revolt. As well as Khosrau's friendship with Maurice I also read that part of the reason for the early Persian successes was that the general commanding the troops in the east was a Maurice loyalist. On hearing of the murder of Maurice and his family he refuse to bar the Persian's way. Those differ slightly from what your saying but have you heard them disproved?

b) You refer to Maurice planning to split the empire between his sons. However was there much left of the western empire by this time. Other than a reduced African province I think there was only really Italy. This, having been badly battered during Justianians war with the Ostogoths was being invaded by the Lombards so not sure a separate west would be much of an inheritance. Even more so for the 4 part division of the empire suggested to include his younger sons.

Steve

 

[Xen]

It has been a while but I have been thinking about this topic and done a little research. I havent done a timeline for a while now.

I was considering having the Persian Monarch, Khosrau II to convert to Christianity. During his time in exile, he formed a loose alliance with the Roman Emperor, Maurice who helped him reclaim his thrown. Some historians even speculate he may have married Maurice's daughter. I dont believe its too far fetched. Like with the Roman Empire before, Khosrau uses Christianity to unify Persia.

Byzantine Emperor Maurice will die of natural causes in 599, he divides the Roman Empire between his sons. He planned on one of his sons to rule the Eastern Empire from Constantinople, another to rule the Western Empire from Rome. Historians even debate whether or not he planned on giving his two younger sons parts of the Empire or not, some believe he planned on giving one North Africa, and the other Illiricum. Im going to use the butterflies to have this happen.

In 600 he refused to pay a very little ransom to deliver thousands of byzantine soldiers taken prisoners by the Avars. The prisoners were killed and a military delegation, headed by an officer named Phocas was humiliated and rejected in Constantinople. Phocas eventually overthrew the Emperor, killing him and his sons. In OTL this angered Khosrau II and he wanted to avenge the death of Maurice, which caused a long bloody war between Persia and Rome.

In this, Maurice is dead, dying of natural causes. His son agrees to pay the ransom, and there is no coup in Constantinople. The war between Persia and Byzantium is avoided, for now.


Xen

A couple of questions.

a) The version I heard about Phocas's revolt was that, after Justinians excesses the imperial economy was is a bad way so Maurice became very much a penny-pincher. During the war with the Avars he tried having the army continue to campaign through the winter rather than going into camp and that was the cause of the revolt. As well as Khosrau's friendship with Maurice I also read that part of the reason for the early Persian successes was that the general commanding the troops in the east was a Maurice loyalist. On hearing of the murder of Maurice and his family he refuse to bar the Persian's way. Those differ slightly from what your saying but have you heard them disproved?

b) You refer to Maurice planning to split the empire between his sons. However was there much left of the western empire by this time. Other than a reduced African province I think there was only really Italy. This, having been badly battered during Justianians war with the Ostogoths was being invaded by the Lombards so not sure a separate west would be much of an inheritance. Even more so for the 4 part division of the empire suggested to include his younger sons.

Steve

Admittedly this is not my era of expertise. I got my information from Wikipedia. I may rework this to keep Persia as a Zoroastrian Nation since that seems easier, maybe having the Arabs winning in Mesopatamia, but not advancing much further than that.

 

[MerryPrankster]

Surely Persia had urban poor in large numbers. Why wasn't Christianity attractive to them like it was to the Roman urban poor?

Your idea on how Christianity could come to Persia via foreign conquest is an interesting one.

In my "Muslim Europe, Christian Middle East" TL, which I've come up with a version 2.0 and am working on a version 3.0, I have Nestorian horse nomads divide up Persia between them (and a later tribe takes the Persian throne and drives them into the Arab lands) and in the process, Christianize (at least partially) the country.

 

[Leo Caesius]

Admittedly this is not my era of expertise. I got my information from Wikipedia. I may rework this to keep Persia as a Zoroastrian Nation since that seems easier, maybe having the Arabs winning in Mesopatamia, but not advancing much further than that.

Actually, I think this idea has a lot of potential.

Since 301, the state religion of Armenia was Christianity. The rulers at this time were a branch of the Arsacid family (of Parthian descent) which had formerly ruled Iran. Perhaps Trdat the Great (Tiridates III), who was the first to convert to Christianity and who managed to seize northern Mesopotamia and parts of Atropatene (Azerbaijan) from the Sassanids with Roman help, is a bit more successful in his campaigns against the Sassanids and wipes them out entirely. His successes against the Sassanids and his ancient lineage convince the feudal lords of Iran that he has inherited the xwarrah of the Kayanians, despite the fact that he is not Mazdaean. This is mitigated to some extent by the fact that some of the nobility belongs to non-Mazdaean faiths such as Manichaeism, and they desire to weaken the power of the mobeds.

From that point on, the conversion of the Neo-Parthian Empire continues much as the conversion of Armenia did in OTL.

 

[Keenir]

I'm still leery of the Nestorians taking control of Persia. After all, Zoroastrianism is the state religion, and despite the fact that Jews and Christians have been in Persia for hundreds of years, they seem to have had a problem winning converts among the Persians (most of the Nestorians in Iran being Assyrians rather than Persians). Unlike the Romans, there was no population of sympathetic converts among the poor or in the military.

What is the earliest that the Persians* could adopt Christianity?


* = meaning more than just a dozen people in the entire Empire, naturally. Not neccessarily a royal conversion, though that would be neat too.