Latest chance for Manichaeism, sort of....

Say, what would've been the last best chance for the religion of Manichaeism to be at least a major Asian religion, at least for some centuries, AFTER the emergence of Islam ?

Instead for a Manichaeist Central Asia or Northern India, I'm looking for a respectable size of Manichaean minority as dhimmis under Muslim rule in various parts of Asia, and also possibly for Manichaeism as "the fourth school" in China, after Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism.
 

Philip

Donor
Working from memory...

760ish, the khagan of the Uyghurs converted Manichaeism and made Manichaeism the official religion. He planned on invading the Tang a few years later. Someone rebeled against the khagan and the invasion was called off.

If the invasion proceded and was successful ....
 
Say, what would've been the last best chance for the religion of Manichaeism to be at least a major Asian religion, at least for some centuries, AFTER the emergence of Islam ?

The Uyghurs had Manichaeism as their state religion from roughly 763 to 840, although Islam eventually put an end to it of course.

I'm looking for a respectable size of Manichaean minority as dhimmis under Muslim rule in various parts of Asia

Well, that's pretty much impossible by that period. There's precedent for non peoples of the book to be dhimmis, but they generally weren't allowed to proselytize, so if they were a small minority in Central Asia, that's what they would remain.

and also possibly for Manichaeism as "the fourth school" in China, after Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism.

This is much easier. Groups like the White Lotus and Red Turbans had a heavy influence from Manichean thought. If active suppression of Buddhism lasts a bit longer in China, you very well might see Manichaeism take its place.
 
Well, that's pretty much impossible by that period. There's precedent for non peoples of the book to be dhimmis, but they generally weren't allowed to proselytize, so if they were a small minority in Central Asia, that's what they would remain.

Of course, that I don't intend to make them be able to proselytize under Muslim rule, but to do so before coming under Islamic rule.

Basically, I kinda look for a delayed/slowed down spread of Islam into Central Asia, long enough to give Manichaeism the time to become majority in Central Asia before Islam replacing it as the dominant religion there, but after that Manichaeism remains a sizable minority religion in areas it formerly dominated.

By the way, dualistic Islam is fine, too :D
 
Of course, that I don't intend to make them be able to proselytize under Muslim rule, but to do so before coming under Islamic rule.

Basically, I kinda look for a delayed/slowed down spread of Islam into Central Asia, long enough to give Manichaeism the time to become majority in Central Asia before Islam replacing it as the dominant religion there, but after that Manichaeism remains a sizable minority religion in areas it formerly dominated.

It's not really clear what the predominant pre-Islamic religion was in much of Central Asia. Afghanistan was Buddhist IIRC. To the north, it was a mixture of Buddhism, Manichaeism, Zoroastrianism, and Nestorian Christianity, with no one group really predominant.

Anyway, the only way you'd really keep Islam out of Central Asia is if the Arabs don't initially succeed at conquering the Sassanids. Perhaps Khosrau II never engages in his initially successful campaign against the Byzantines. As a result, Heraclius never engages in the counterattack which ravages the empire. With a stronger, less war weary empire, they should be able to block the Arab advance at the Zagros at the worst.

The down side is, of course, the Byzantines are also strengthened, meaning they'd have a chance to stop the Islamic conquest of the Levant and Egypt. And without at least these lands, it's possible Islam will essentially be strangled in the grave.

But let's say the Byzantines do get whipped, but Persia holds. Most likely the Arabs could break into Persia again in the chaos preceding or coming after the Mongol invasions. Which means another 600 years or so of Central Asian history without Islam.
 
Or a religious prophet could emerge in Central Asia forming a new religion based on Tengri the god of the Eternal Blue Sky and unite the Turkic Tribes to invade Persia and stop the Arab advance into Central Asia so the Arabs get the Levant and Egypt but the Turkics much earlier move into the Anatolia.
 
It's not really clear what the predominant pre-Islamic religion was in much of Central Asia. Afghanistan was Buddhist IIRC. To the north, it was a mixture of Buddhism, Manichaeism, Zoroastrianism, and Nestorian Christianity, with no one group really predominant.

Anyway, the only way you'd really keep Islam out of Central Asia is if the Arabs don't initially succeed at conquering the Sassanids. Perhaps Khosrau II never engages in his initially successful campaign against the Byzantines. As a result, Heraclius never engages in the counterattack which ravages the empire. With a stronger, less war weary empire, they should be able to block the Arab advance at the Zagros at the worst.

The down side is, of course, the Byzantines are also strengthened, meaning they'd have a chance to stop the Islamic conquest of the Levant and Egypt. And without at least these lands, it's possible Islam will essentially be strangled in the grave.

But let's say the Byzantines do get whipped, but Persia holds. Most likely the Arabs could break into Persia again in the chaos preceding or coming after the Mongol invasions. Which means another 600 years or so of Central Asian history without Islam.

I don't think we have to prevent Arab conquest of Persia tough. Did Islam only manage to get hold over Central Asian Turks at the late 900s, IIRC ?

How about Battle of Talas being Tang victory, or have the Chinese generally fairing better in Central Asia than IOTL ? Coupled with just a little bit more instability within the Islamic sphere, and a well timed Chinese withdrawal from the region, I think a relieved period can be provided for any potential local emerging fresh movement.

Or a religious prophet could emerge in Central Asia forming a new religion based on Tengri the god of the Eternal Blue Sky and unite the Turkic Tribes to invade Persia and stop the Arab advance into Central Asia so the Arabs get the Levant and Egypt but the Turkics much earlier move into the Anatolia.

O hi thar :p :D
 
Working from memory...

760ish, the khagan of the Uyghurs converted Manichaeism and made Manichaeism the official religion. He planned on invading the Tang a few years later. Someone rebeled against the khagan and the invasion was called off.

If the invasion proceded and was successful ....

I liked the idea, though now after I've rethought it, that way will achieve my secondary objective at the moment far easier than my primary one.

How do you think, though ?
 
I don't think we have to prevent Arab conquest of Persia tough. Did Islam only manage to get hold over Central Asian Turks at the late 900s, IIRC ?

Historically, it did take 50 years for the Arabs to follow up on their conquest of Persia with a move into Central Asia. However, a good deal of this was due to the time it took to hold down and assimilate the huge amount of land they conquered. The Fergana valley was rich during this period, but not rich enough that it could develop a nation to withstand the Muslim onslaught, and unlike somewhere like say Ethiopia, it lacked any defensible borders. Also, historically the region was in a lot of chaos after the Sassanid collapse, so it's not even like political unity seemed in the cards.

Also, remember that at this point the majority of Central Asians were not Turks. Most settled people still spoke Iranian languages, and IIRC, they generally Islamicized well before some of the Turkish tribes. For example, Khwarezm converted around 800 IIRC.


How about Battle of Talas being Tang victory, or have the Chinese generally fairing better in Central Asia than IOTL ? Coupled with just a little bit more instability within the Islamic sphere, and a well timed Chinese withdrawal from the region, I think a relieved period can be provided for any potential local emerging fresh movement.

Perhaps. But it's unclear how decisive the battle really was. Chinese power in the region actually continued to rise for four years afterward. It seems more probable that troubles closer to home, like the An Shi Rebellion, caused China to begin disengaging, and their client states in the region to begin switching sides.
 
1) Historically, it did take 50 years for the Arabs to follow up on their conquest of Persia with a move into Central Asia. However, a good deal of this was due to the time it took to hold down and assimilate the huge amount of land they conquered. The Fergana valley was rich during this period, but not rich enough that it could develop a nation to withstand the Muslim onslaught, and unlike somewhere like say Ethiopia, it lacked any defensible borders. Also, historically the region was in a lot of chaos after the Sassanid collapse, so it's not even like political unity seemed in the cards.

2) Also, remember that at this point the majority of Central Asians were not Turks. Most settled people still spoke Iranian languages, and IIRC, they generally Islamicized well before some of the Turkish tribes. For example, Khwarezm converted around 800 IIRC.




3) Perhaps. But it's unclear how decisive the battle really was. Chinese power in the region actually continued to rise for four years afterward. It seems more probable that troubles closer to home, like the An Shi Rebellion, caused China to begin disengaging, and their client states in the region to begin switching sides.

1) Point taken. However, it doesn't seem out of the card for me to slow down a bit the consolidation of Persia and thus slowing down the muslim further advances beyond, to provide Transoxiana the time to stabilize a bit, maybe with this, providing the Chinese easier game ?

Besides, I'm open to different suggestions to realize my idea here, and it's not like I'm all focused to Sogdiana and Fregana Valley here. My first idea was to use Uyghur Khaganate, but that would be after the main competitor for the Arabs in Sogdiana had gone and also that it will be hard to make the Uyghurs not focus to much to China.....

2) Thanks for the nitpick, and clearance :)

3) I'm aware that Talas wasn't probably as decisive as it has been commonly known, though if the Chinese would win then it seems that it will be even better for the Chinese control of the region. Though IIRC the Karluks, before defecting to the Arabs, consisted two third of the Tang army in the region, so one would wonder how things will really go to after a Chinese victory at Talas..... Not sure that it will prevent An Lushan from rebelling but it seems perfectly possible to.....
 

Philip

Donor
Some of the Sassanid Dynasty, including the Peroz II, son of Yazdegerd III, escaped to Tang China. Gaozong recognized Peroz as the legitimate ruler of Persia and established him in Sistan (IIRC). Peroz (or maybe his son) received some support from the Tang in an attempt to retake Iran. It does not seem too far fetched that if he had been more successful (better commander? received more support?) then he could have delayed the advance of Islam in Central Asia.
 
Some of the Sassanid Dynasty, including the Peroz II, son of Yazdegerd III, escaped to Tang China. Gaozong recognized Peroz as the legitimate ruler of Persia and established him in Sistan (IIRC). Peroz (or maybe his son) received some support from the Tang in an attempt to retake Iran. It does not seem too far fetched that if he had been more successful (better commander? received more support?) then he could have delayed the advance of Islam in Central Asia.

Maybe a more success in other muslim front elsewhere can setback this one a little bit ?

For example, just for the sake of argument, if the Arabs manage to conquer Byzantine Empire. I think that should make the Arabs a little bit to busy to maintain optimal guard in Persia during their campaign in Byzantine..... And a Roman Empire is certainly big enough to make it worth it.
 

Philip

Donor
Maybe a more success in other muslim front elsewhere can setback this one a little bit ?

That seems reasonable, especially if elsewhere is richer than Central Asia. Is controlling the western end of the Silk Road good enough, or is control of the Central Asia portion of the Road too important to ignore?

For example, just for the sake of argument, if the Arabs manage to conquer Byzantine Empire.

They were at the gates of Constantinople around then, weren't they?
 
Top