IIRC the Sassanids were pretty weak after decades of war with the Romans. Because of this, they were quickly conquered by the newly Islamized Arabs. This leads me to believe that even without Islam, the Sassanids might not last that much longer. I'm thinking that maybe some nomadic group sweeps in and conquers Persia in the 7th or 8th centuries.
Fate of the Sassanid Empire in a World without Islam
- Thread starter CELTICEMPIRE
- Start date
Paradoxer
Banned
They would likely develop into its own eastern section with “Persian” flavor to it and some zoroastrian influences. The Zoroastrians and Buddhist in those lands even if they eventually become minorities or outnumbered by Christians might still make up large minorities and pluralities in places.
You might get more of dynasty or civil war event with maybe nomads coming then or supporting one side. This leads to fall of Sassanids.
Even without Islam you could still have some large khanates later form in the north. Or more interesting maybe Indian kingdom expands west bit more
They could recover from the aftermath of the 602-628 war with the Byzzies and their own civil war that happened immediately afterwards, or they could fall apart entirely. The "empire" was more of a confederacy anyway.
There was a sizable Christian population in Mesopotamia, sure, but IIRC most of the Iranian Plateau was still Zoroastrian, so they could stay that way.
There was a sizable Christian population in Mesopotamia, sure, but IIRC most of the Iranian Plateau was still Zoroastrian, so they could stay that way.
The Sassanids fall to the normal Central Asian steppe nomads as usual, which is pretty common back then.
No actual chance of this happening since, if the Sassanids survive their civil war, Zoroastrianism will still be pretty much the state religion. With no Islam, you have the Zoroastrian temples in Central Asia surviving making a pretty strong religious core for any invading steppe nomads.
Imagine Seljuk Turks but Zoroastrianic.
Paradoxer
Banned
I could see syncretism or even new sect form that a between of Christianity, Zoroastrianism, and other duelist faiths in region. Wasn’t Iran/Persia often a center of “prophets” and mystics especially before Islam? Machaeans or however hell you spell it I think are kind of that in otl before drifting to steppes and more east
A lot of the nomads were Manichaean (I have no idea why this was the case), could nomads make Persia Manichaean (seems like a stretch, I know).
But why would syncretism even happen when it didn't at all happen before Islam? If syncretism does happen it's all for naught when the next invading Central Asian nomads invade and destroy all of it.
It's the same scenario like the Seljuk Turks. Where they invade, push back the Byzantines, burn down a bunch of Christian churches, cut down Christians and people of your "syncretic" religion in the name of their Zoroastrianic gods.
Paradoxer
Banned
Maybe you get Indian situation between with Christianity, Zoroastrians, Manichaeans, and other duelist or monotheistic faiths in region(also Buddhism). When it comes to cross religion relationships. Also maybe Yazidism grows a little too?
I don't know about Yazidism, because I think it won't exist without Islam also existing. But I could see the rest of that happening.
Shahanshah were known to clash often with the Magi, maybe one of them takes it further and converts to Christianity to stick it up to them.
I quite believe that something similar would happen after the ilkhanate the numerous rebellious would defacto and in some in name as well become kings while the central sassanid holding would become Weaker as rostram and the other men compete to be the equivalent of the magister milituim as yazdsrgerd was puppet
What I can be sure about is the turks are not conquering Persia now the western Turkic Khagante was in steep decline just as the Islamic invasion began .
And the tang will conquer them no caliphate would most likely mean a deeper and more stable control of transoxiana .
Another thing I want to say is that a byzantine invasion is also not going to occur the byzantines have to deal with their own internal issues .
The arab migrations can still occur just on a much smaller scale a mesopotamia would take the brunt of it but the possibitlies are quite high for a new house to take power and just have dynastic change after some years or anarchy
What I can be sure about is the turks are not conquering Persia now the western Turkic Khagante was in steep decline just as the Islamic invasion began .
And the tang will conquer them no caliphate would most likely mean a deeper and more stable control of transoxiana .
Another thing I want to say is that a byzantine invasion is also not going to occur the byzantines have to deal with their own internal issues .
The arab migrations can still occur just on a much smaller scale a mesopotamia would take the brunt of it but the possibitlies are quite high for a new house to take power and just have dynastic change after some years or anarchy
Why, just to get deposed by their own Mazdaist aristocracy and the Parthian clans? It's one thing to flirt with weakening the power of the priesthood and centralizing power in the state, it would be another thing to invite a "foreign" priesthood to take power. (Almost all Christians in the Empire were non-Iranians). The Sassanians were always ruling with the consent of others, even at their times of greatest state power.
Unless he tries to be like the last sassinan Shas and tried to severely diminish the power of the clans plus that and converting in a this chaos will get him murdered a thousand ways
Paradoxer
Banned
I was thinking some leaders would try find balance between all competing and different religions
Or persecute them i mean the sasssnids did do st times with chirstianity and Buddhism