development in a Zoroastrian Iran

yofie

Banned
Hi everyone,
If the Persians had won over the Arabs at, say, Qadissiyah, would
Iran have (at least eventually) evolved into a developed, democratic,
and industrialized country, assuming it remained Zoroastrian? I know
that the central tenet of Zoroastrianism is "good thoughts, good words,
good deeds", and so the Zoroastrians have followed that on an almost universal basis through with a high rate of literacy, hard work, etc., not unlike the Jews. For example, the Parsis in India are among the most educated and prosperous people in that country. So, would Iran have developed along the lines of, say, Israel or Japan (even though I know that it's such a long jump between Qadissiyah and now)?
Yosef
 
One of the things that need to be considered is that we are not talking today's Zoroastrianism which has dealt with somewhat of a same issue as the Jews - cultural, and sometimes physical isolation throughout the centuries. If there is no isolation (resulting in smaller communities that create their own set of values that is not always correspondent to those of society at large), and there is a perception that Zoroastrian state is a major power, religion becomes less of a mean to identify oneself as separate from the rest of the world, and more of a cultural background.

Second, there is the fact that Zoroastrianism as the state religion of Persia pre-Arab conquest was in need of serious reform, organization-wise. The "Magi" (priesthood) became basically a hereditary order that guarded their privileges zealously - since there seemed to be little ability for one not born of the Magi to become a part of the order (unlike Christianity or Islam, where path to becoming a cleric is relatively easy - especially in the era we are talking about), it lessens an impact of Zoroastrianism being anything but an "official" religion - less of an-all permeating religious and spiritual philosophy that is available to all, but more of a very elitist system that resulted in elites being Zoroastrian, but anyone that was not either an aristocrat or a magus having a very faint idea on what was going on - even less so than a commoner would with Christianity or Islam, where there was less of a mystical aspect and the holy book of religion (Bible and Qu'ran respectively) was able to be read by anyone literate - with Zoroastrianism, while my knowledge of it is incomplete, it seems that much of the sacred text etc was basically guarded by the Magi who did not want the word to get out.

So, IMO Zoroastrianism of XXIst century if it remained official religion of Persia would have probably been a very different faith from the one we know of. I am thinking there are few factors that an Arab defeat would make a difference with would be:

1) If Persia remains a major power, it will have its own imperialistic designs on the entire Achaemenid empire of old. As such, more interaction with the West, less of a "cultural isolation" when Dark Ages come to an end - higher technology level, larger territory, and earlier sense of nationalism are all likely (although AFAIK the Persians/Iranians always had a much greater sense of nationalism due to their recorded history and achievements they are proud of going for over a thousand years before the Arab conquest).

2) If Arab conquest is successful elsewhere as in OTL with the difference that both Zoroastrian Persia and Christian Byzantium, expect a large mess in the Middle East - a three-way war going on pretty much with no end in sight. A side effect is that every steppe horde that comes rolling into the Middle East (I am thinking Turks and Mongols here) will first get to Arab Baghdad (if it is stil Arab), then to Persia - which is good news for Byzantium, which is likely to survive for much longer thanks to that extra unexpected buffer.

3) How would an Arab world without Persia develop - would it still experience an early conquest-driven "golden age" of sorts and then fall into seclusion, isolation, and decline as in OTL, would it be potentially driven back into Arabia with not one, but two major powers opposing it from the point one, or would it actually benefit from having a smaller, more compact sphere of influence that is easier for one or two states to hold together - longer-lasting Caliphate that actually manages to be a real nation, not a largely meaningless title as it seemed in the final days of the Ottomans.
 

Glen

Moderator
Funny, I've actually been working on an idea that involves the survival of a Zoroastrian Iran. I add a fourth player to that West Asia/Middle East dynamic...Jewish Khazaria.
 
Glen Finney said:
Funny, I've actually been working on an idea that involves the survival of a Zoroastrian Iran. I add a fourth player to that West Asia/Middle East dynamic...Jewish Khazaria.

I wonder... in such a TL would Christianity end up being "one of the many" religions much earlier than in OTL where it held a certain prominence as being the religion of dominant region of the planet by late Renaissanse? It would be very interesting to see what kind of dynamics would there be, and how, with powerful Jewish Khazaria, the Christians, Muslims, and Zoroastrians would deal with their Jewish populations - after all, pogroms and ghettos may not be wise if there is a powerful empire of that religion next door that will gladly absorb any Jews fleeing from persecution elsewhere... and that will hit back if it becomes too much...
 

Leo Caesius

Banned
For the status of the Parsis in Bombay, you should read Luhrmann's The Good Parsi. Suffice it to say that there are many reasons for which the Parsis have distinguished themselves in colonial and postcolonial India, and most of them have little to do with their ethical system.

Compared to the Sassanid zealots, Islam was practically a breath of fresh air. If the Sassanids hadn't been deposed, I see no reason why they would reform; the mobeds (Zoroastrian priests; from *magu-pati, leaders of the Magi) were (and continue to be) extremely opposed to any sort of change or reform. Zoroastrianism has a highly developed theology and moral code that was honed over the centuries if not millennia and is not open to debate or discussion. Plus, a Zoroastrian civilization will likely be focused upon the glories of the past (particularly the mythical past, such as the Kayanian dynasty) rather than the future.

As for other religions and cultures, they tolerated them so long as it was politically expeditious, but once the situation changed they would initiate widescale persecutions.

Finally, the Zoroastrian state was always at its heart a feudal one. Whether this could develop into a democracy like the European feudal dynasties or not is a good question.
 
Leo Caesius said:
As for other religions and cultures, they tolerated them so long as it was politically expeditious, but once the situation changed they would initiate widescale persecutions.

Hmm. From the sound of it, the Zoroastrians would find themselves in a very hostile world. Everyone else, outside of Iran (was Mesopotamia Zoroastrian? My guess is no, but I haven't looked at it) would be a natural enemy...
 

yofie

Banned
midgardmetal said:
I wonder... in such a TL would Christianity end up being "one of the many" religions much earlier than in OTL where it held a certain prominence as being the religion of dominant region of the planet by late Renaissanse? It would be very interesting to see what kind of dynamics would there be, and how, with powerful Jewish Khazaria, the Christians, Muslims, and Zoroastrians would deal with their Jewish populations - after all, pogroms and ghettos may not be wise if there is a powerful empire of that religion next door that will gladly absorb any Jews fleeing from persecution elsewhere... and that will hit back if it becomes too much...

But I've been thinking - once the Mongols/Tatars invade the area of Khazaria/Russia, wouldn't Khazaria fall to the Mongols (and a few centuries later be swallowed up by Ivan the Terrible in Russian expansion)? After all, in OTL, Volga Bulgaria and what not were conquered by the Mongols.
 
yofie said:
But I've been thinking - once the Mongols/Tatars invade the area of Khazaria/Russia, wouldn't Khazaria fall to the Mongols (and a few centuries later be swallowed up by Ivan the Terrible in Russian expansion)? After all, in OTL, Volga Bulgaria and what not were conquered by the Mongols.
Possibly, but if a Khazar culture had solidified on the region prior a neo-Khazar Kingdom could break away from the Mongols and resist the Russians.
 

yofie

Banned
Leo Caesius said:
For the status of the Parsis in Bombay, you should read Luhrmann's The Good Parsi. Suffice it to say that there are many reasons for which the Parsis have distinguished themselves in colonial and postcolonial India, and most of them have little to do with their ethical system.

Compared to the Sassanid zealots, Islam was practically a breath of fresh air. If the Sassanids hadn't been deposed, I see no reason why they would reform; the mobeds (Zoroastrian priests; from *magu-pati, leaders of the Magi) were (and continue to be) extremely opposed to any sort of change or reform. Zoroastrianism has a highly developed theology and moral code that was honed over the centuries if not millennia and is not open to debate or discussion. Plus, a Zoroastrian civilization will likely be focused upon the glories of the past (particularly the mythical past, such as the Kayanian dynasty) rather than the future.

As for other religions and cultures, they tolerated them so long as it was politically expeditious, but once the situation changed they would initiate widescale persecutions.

Finally, the Zoroastrian state was always at its heart a feudal one. Whether this could develop into a democracy like the European feudal dynasties or not is a good question.

If the Persians rather than the Arabs win at Qadissiya, there is a possibility that Rustam, the Persian general, would have overthrown the Sassanids and formed a new, hopefully better, dynasty. I mean, given the chaos at that time, anything was possible, and maybe Rustam, with his new dynasty, then moves the capital from Ctesiphon, on the Tigris, to somewhere in the Persian plateau (e.g. Istakhar, near present-day Shiraz). And given the feudal nature of the Zoroastrian state, maybe Iran could indeed develop into a modern-day, European-style democracy.
 
If Arab conquest is successful elsewhere as in OTL with the difference that both Zoroastrian Persia and Christian Byzantium, expect a large mess in the Middle East - a three-way war going on pretty much with no end in sight. A side effect is that every steppe horde that comes rolling into the Middle East (I am thinking Turks and Mongols here) will first get to Arab Baghdad (if it is stil Arab), then to Persia - which is good news for Byzantium, which is likely to survive for much longer thanks to that extra unexpected buffer.

Though bloody, this is an intriguingly cool idea. Too bad there wouldn't be a Muslim Seljuk Anatolia to add fuel to the fire in this scenario, though.

Funny, I've actually been working on an idea that involves the survival of a Zoroastrian Iran. I add a fourth player to that West Asia/Middle East dynamic...Jewish Khazaria.

This is even more compelling.
 
From what I've read it may be possible to preserve Zoarastranism in Persia even with an Arab conquest if the religion is reformed to allow greater access too non-elites. I get the feeling that Islam spread so widely was because the Arabs were able to recruit the poor and uneducated into their religion and isolate the elites.
 
Top