How many OTL opportunities were there to make Buddhism dominant in Central Asia (plus Xinjiang)?

While an ATL scenario where the Kalymk and Dzunger Khanates are both heavily wanked would be one way of making Buddhism the dominant belief system in much of Central Asia (plus Xinjiang) at the very latest, how many OTL opportunities or potential PODs were there to make Central Asia (plus Xinjiang) majority Buddhist even in TLs where Islam still exists?
 
Kashgaria being Buddhist along with the rest of Central Asia is kind of a given.

Avoid the An Lushan rebellion, and it's very possible that China expands into Transoxiana, spreading Chinese culture there, and with it, strengthening local Buddhism.
 
Kashgaria being Buddhist along with the rest of Central Asia is kind of a given.

Avoid the An Lushan rebellion, and it's very possible that China expands into Transoxiana, spreading Chinese culture there, and with it, strengthening local Buddhism.

I see, what other opportunities were there after the OTL An Lushan rebellion? Would Tibet avoiding the Era of Fragmentation have somehow helped matters? Is there any way for the Chagatai Khanate or Golden Horde to remain Buddhist?
 
Kashgaria being Buddhist along with the rest of Central Asia is kind of a given.

Avoid the An Lushan rebellion, and it's very possible that China expands into Transoxiana, spreading Chinese culture there, and with it, strengthening local Buddhism.
I'd say one step earlier and have the Tang win the battle of Talas is going to be the best preventative measure against islam in the steppes for the short term. The Steppes nomads have always been pragmatic about religion, and the victory of the Abbasids over the Tang was enough for Islam to be considered the "religion of victory" over Buddhism.
 
I'd say one step earlier and have the Tang win the battle of Talas is going to be the best preventative measure against islam in the steppes for the short term. The Steppes nomads have always been pragmatic about religion, and the victory of the Abbasids over the Tang was enough for Islam to be considered the "religion of victory" over Buddhism.

That is a good place to start. While that ensures that Buddhism survives, it does not mean that it dominates central
Asia. Most of which, will be inhabited by those practicing traditional religions and Zoroastrianism in places such as Ferghana and Sogdia.

It is a major point of revision that the Abbasid victory at Talas was minor or less important, one I have sympathy, it was massive for the development of the former frontier of the Sassanid empire. It was the paramount reason for the conversion of the Zoroastrian elite to Islam. Had the Abbasids failed for some reason to assert itself in the east, would lead to the Zoroastrian nobles seeking protection elsewhere.
 
Avoid the An Lushan rebellion, and it's very possible that China expands into Transoxiana, spreading Chinese culture there, and with it, strengthening local Buddhism.
I'd rather think that, even before the An Lushan Rebellion, China control over the Tarim basin was more of a protectorate, less of a clear and established presence or a jumpgate for outer expension : at this point, T'ang China heavily relied on Central Asian leadership (An Lushan rise and threat couldn't be really understable IMO without this) to control these regions and to provide management.
 
It is a major point of revision that the Abbasid victory at Talas was minor or less important, one I have sympathy, it was massive for the development of the former frontier of the Sassanid empire. It was the paramount reason for the conversion of the Zoroastrian elite to Islam. Had the Abbasids failed for some reason to assert itself in the east, would lead to the Zoroastrian nobles seeking protection elsewhere.
I think the "minor" or "less important" perspective comes from Sinologists, or at any rate people who are thinking more about China than about the Abbasids, much less the Zoroastrian elite of the region. After all, even if the Tang had defeated the Abbasids, Chinese forces there were very far from their centers of power, really at the edge of even nominal Chinese control at practically any pre-modern time, so they couldn't possibly create a very strong presence there. From the perspective of Xi'an, a victory at Talas, by itself, would mean a few years, maybe decades, of nominal suzerainty over faraway princes, then too many problems at home and on the supply lines to those peripheral garrisons would show up to hold on to even that bare pretense of power.

Assuming that the Abbasids still have any influence and control in the region at all, that right there would be a perfect opportunity for them to come in and snap up those Zoroastrian princes you mention (or for ambitious Persian Muslims, etc.). That would certainly lead to changes, but the significance is hard to assess...
 
I think the "minor" or "less important" perspective comes from Sinologists, or at any rate people who are thinking more about China than about the Abbasids, much less the Zoroastrian elite of the region. After all, even if the Tang had defeated the Abbasids, Chinese forces there were very far from their centers of power, really at the edge of even nominal Chinese control at practically any pre-modern time, so they couldn't possibly create a very strong presence there. From the perspective of Xi'an, a victory at Talas, by itself, would mean a few years, maybe decades, of nominal suzerainty over faraway princes, then too many problems at home and on the supply lines to those peripheral garrisons would show up to hold on to even that bare pretense of power.

Assuming that the Abbasids still have any influence and control in the region at all, that right there would be a perfect opportunity for them to come in and snap up those Zoroastrian princes you mention (or for ambitious Persian Muslims, etc.). That would certainly lead to changes, but the significance is hard to assess...

Well it is not only the Tang that are competing, but Turkic hordes. Regardless of what occurs, the Zoroastrian nobility will seek protection from someone, if the Abbasids are not the ones, then it will either be the Tang or steppe hordes.
 
Well it is not only the Tang that are competing, but Turkic hordes. Regardless of what occurs, the Zoroastrian nobility will seek protection from someone, if the Abbasids are not the ones, then it will either be the Tang or steppe hordes.
Well, isn't that what happened OTL? Not that the Seljuqs showing up (metaphorically, of course) a few centuries early wouldn't be a major change...
 
I'd rather think that, even before the An Lushan Rebellion, China control over the Tarim basin was more of a protectorate, less of a clear and established presence or a jumpgate for outer expension : at this point, T'ang China heavily relied on Central Asian leadership (An Lushan rise and threat couldn't be really understable IMO without this) to control these regions and to provide management.
Some accounts say that Tang China's influence over the Tarim Basin and the eastern half of Turkestan actually saw an increase after the Battle of Talas, before the An Lushan rebellion shifted focus away from the region.
 
Well, isn't that what happened OTL? Not that the Seljuqs showing up (metaphorically, of course) a few centuries early wouldn't be a major change...

No, the Turks for the most part in this period were defeated and sold into slavery generally by the early Abbasid period. The Saljuqs were later, nearly two centuries after the Sogdia was firmly Muslim.
 
That is a good place to start. While that ensures that Buddhism survives, it does not mean that it dominates central Asia. Most of which, will be inhabited by those practicing traditional religions and Zoroastrianism in places such as Ferghana and Sogdia.

It is a major point of revision that the Abbasid victory at Talas was minor or less important, one I have sympathy, it was massive for the development of the former frontier of the Sassanid empire. It was the paramount reason for the conversion of the Zoroastrian elite to Islam. Had the Abbasids failed for some reason to assert itself in the east, would lead to the Zoroastrian nobles seeking protection elsewhere.
Well it is not only the Tang that are competing, but Turkic hordes. Regardless of what occurs, the Zoroastrian nobility will seek protection from someone, if the Abbasids are not the ones, then it will either be the Tang or steppe hordes.

In a scenario where the Tang win at Talas with Buddhism both surviving and flourishing (at least compared to OTL) in Central Asia, which Turkic hordes had the potential of becoming a threat to the Abbasids and other nearby kingdoms / empires?

Also what would be the consequences of the Zoroastrian nobility seeking protection elsewhere?
 
No, the Turks for the most part in this period were defeated and sold into slavery generally by the early Abbasid period. The Saljuqs were later, nearly two centuries after the Sogdia was firmly Muslim.
Yes. Obviously I was referring to the later period, given that I specifically referenced the Seljuqs. I am aware that the Turks were not running the show in 700. The point was that the elites of Central Asia did eventually get dominated by Turkic steppe hordes, not that the Zoroastrian elite of 700 did.
 
Yes. Obviously I was referring to the later period, given that I specifically referenced the Seljuqs. I am aware that the Turks were not running the show in 700. The point was that the elites of Central Asia did eventually get dominated by Turkic steppe hordes, not that the Zoroastrian elite of 700 did.

Well other political events occurred that caused this trend. It is not linked to the geopolitical situation of the early 800s Central Asia. More so, to the excess of the Mihna and the deep corruption of the courts of Baghdad and Samarra.

Forgive me, if you took offence to my response earlier. It is rarely my intention.
 
Last edited:
Well other political events occurred that caused this trend. It is not linked to the geopolitical situation of the early 800s Central Asia. More so, to the excess of the Mihna and the deep corruption of the courts of Baghdad and Samarra.

Forgive me, of you took offence to my response earlier. It is rarely my intention.
I apologize, I was just a bit annoyed that you were treating me as if I didn't know anything about the rise of the Turks as players in Middle Eastern politics. I would hardly style myself an expert or anything of the sort, but I know the basic outline of how it happened.
 
Top