Muslim Arab Culture Without Persia

After the rise of Islam, and the consolidation of Arabia, Arab armies ultimately defeated the Byzantines and Sassanid Persians, absorbing the Persian empire outright. The Persians had a strong influence on later cultural developments in what would become the Muslim world, noticeably so in art and architecture.

If the Arabs didn't manage to overrun Sassanid Persia, what changes might there be in the development of Arab culture, or that of Islamic influence in general?

The change required to make this happen probably lies in the brutal and ruinous war between the Byzantines and Sassanids that preceded their defeats by the Arab armies. Trying to avoid excessive butterflies, let's let the Sassainids incur fewer casualties as the war with Constantinople turns against them. The Byzantines advance siege by siege while an intact Sassanid army can pick at them where it so chooses. Both Empires would begin to discuss peace, when the Arabs explode out of the Arabian peninnsula.

The Persians manage to defeat initial Arab incursions into Mesopotemia, while the Byzantines start losing the Levant and Egypt partly because of the local populations' theological differences and political disloyalty.

Ultimately the Sassanids lose Mesopotamia, but hold the mountain passes, while the Byzantines lose what they did OTL, more or less. At least a temporary peace breaks out for everyone to catch their breath, but the Caliphate never is able to conquer and hold Persia proper. (I don't know what wacky things this means for the Turks)

Lacking the strong Persian influences of OTL, what does this Caliphate and developing Arabian culture look like? Relatively speaking, Levant and Egyptian influences may be stronger; but they did exist OTL also.

Thoughts?
 
Interesting idea. I dont have too much time to consider all the ramifications of this, but it would be interesting to see the resulting cultures. I do wonder whether the Sassanids could survive an arab conquest that wiped out the Byzantines (the nominal winners of their war), although you do attempt to explain it. the thing is, the Byzantines won pretty convincingly at the end, although it bled them white to do so. I would expect the Byzantines to survive the muslim conquests in better shape overall as well if the Sassanids manage to weather the storm.

Perhaps the Sassanids negotiate a peace, during which both sides prepare for the eventual byzantine counterstroke. Butterflies advance the arab explosion out of arabia so that they hit right when both powers are ready to resume the war. somewhat weaker muslims defeat the byzantines, but the Sassanids are able to hold them off.
 
Central Asia without Muslim influence will be quite interesting. Afghanistan was mostly Buddhist, with some Hindu influence. Turkestan was a mixture, with Buddhism predominant in the East, Zorosastrianism in the West, and Manichaeism and a lesser extent Nestorianism present throughout. The Uyghurs were, IIRC, the only established nation to have ever had Manichaeism as their official religion.

One thing is sure - the Oghuz Turks will not be Muslim. Hell, if they become Buddhist, they may not even go to Asia Minor at all - Buddhism has a pretty good track record of causing formerly warlike people to settle down (see, Tibetans, Mongolians).
 
Central Asia without Muslim influence will be quite interesting. Afghanistan was mostly Buddhist, with some Hindu influence. Turkestan was a mixture, with Buddhism predominant in the East, Zorosastrianism in the West, and Manichaeism and a lesser extent Nestorianism present throughout. The Uyghurs were, IIRC, the only established nation to have ever had Manichaeism as their official religion.

One thing is sure - the Oghuz Turks will not be Muslim. Hell, if they become Buddhist, they may not even go to Asia Minor at all - Buddhism has a pretty good track record of causing formerly warlike people to settle down (see, Tibetans, Mongolians).
I could see smaller groups breaking off, perhaps those that scorn the Buddhists as weak and decide to decamp and move west creating small Khannates or becoming mercenaries. I think they'd probably continue in the style of the "-ars" semi-Turkic horse peoples (Khazars, Avars, Magyars, Bulgars). No Great Seljuk certainly.

Also I think a lot depends on what Butterflies do to Walid the invincible...
 
I would expect the Byzantines to survive the muslim conquests in better shape overall as well if the Sassanids manage to weather the storm.

Perhaps the Sassanids negotiate a peace, during which both sides prepare for the eventual byzantine counterstroke. Butterflies advance the arab explosion out of arabia so that they hit right when both powers are ready to resume the war. somewhat weaker muslims defeat the byzantines, but the Sassanids are able to hold them off.

I did have the Sassanids lose Mesopotamia to the Arabs in the OP, so they didn't escape unscathed. With the aid of the mountains and control of the passes into the Iranian plateau, the Sassanids seem to have a better chance of surviving the conflict in a similar way to the Byzantines and their use of the Anatolian plateau.

As for the specific POD, you're probably right that an early Byzantine-Sassanid cease fire or temporary peace might be better or more realistic. Depending on who the Arabs hit first, and when the information reaches the right ranks in both Empires, one may try to kick the other when they're down.

As for the Byzantines doing better, I could see that. The problem is there's no clear geographic point to say where Arab conquests should stop save for the passes into Anatolia. That compounded with the religious conflicts between Constantinople, Egypt and the Levant doesn't bode well for long-term Byzantine resistance in that area.

On the other hand, if the Arabs must maintain some focus on keeping the Sassanids from retaking Mesopotamia, or trying to force the passes, the Byzantines may initially hold part or at least more of their territory. Prolonged combat to seize Syria and Egypt might have interesting effects.

Central Asia without Muslim influence will be quite interesting. Afghanistan was mostly Buddhist, with some Hindu influence. Turkestan was a mixture, with Buddhism predominant in the East, Zorosastrianism in the West, and Manichaeism and a lesser extent Nestorianism present throughout. The Uyghurs were, IIRC, the only established nation to have ever had Manichaeism as their official religion.
I could see smaller groups breaking off, perhaps those that scorn the Buddhists as weak and decide to decamp and move west creating small Khannates or becoming mercenaries. I think they'd probably continue in the style of the "-ars" semi-Turkic horse peoples (Khazars, Avars, Magyars, Bulgars). No Great Seljuk certainly.

Someone on the board here (I think it was Abdul H.P.?) described much of central Asia and the Caspian shores as being rather strongly within the Persian cultural sphere. In that case, I wouldn't discount the possibility of at least some of the Turkish and other semi-nomadic groups converting to Zoroastrianism, or a derivative thereof.

Buddhism is certainly likely for at least some of them as well, but Central Asia might end up being rather more religiously polyglot for at least some time.

Further west toward the Black Sea, Byzantine influence may draw some of the "-ars" as you describe them to Orthodox Christianity, if those groups survive. I suppose there's also a very outside chance that Judaism could take root among the Khazars and spread beyond some of the upper classes, which offers the opportunity for it to be spread further. That doesn't seem the most likely of developments though.

The Indian Ocean Basin on the other hand, ought to remain reasonably Arab-Muslim influenced as OTL, given the monsoon trade from Egypt and Arabia to India. The difference being that the culture providing such influence would be somewhat different. I don't know what Persian influence might be transmitted by sea, but Arabs probably dominate that trade anyway.
 
Interesting idea. I dont have too much time to consider all the ramifications of this, but it would be interesting to see the resulting cultures. I do wonder whether the Sassanids could survive an arab conquest that wiped out the Byzantines (the nominal winners of their war), although you do attempt to explain it. the thing is, the Byzantines won pretty convincingly at the end, although it bled them white to do so. I would expect the Byzantines to survive the muslim conquests in better shape overall as well if the Sassanids manage to weather the storm.

Perhaps the Sassanids negotiate a peace, during which both sides prepare for the eventual byzantine counterstroke. Butterflies advance the arab explosion out of arabia so that they hit right when both powers are ready to resume the war. somewhat weaker muslims defeat the byzantines, but the Sassanids are able to hold them off.

But the Byzantines had lost Syria and Egypt for an entire generation, which had no memory of Roman rule, which is one of the things that made the Islamic conquest easy. If they had shown up just 10 years later it would have been much harder.

Also, the mountain barrier between Persia and Mesopotamia is formidable - it wouldn't be that hard to come up with a scenario where the Sassanids hold out. This will give you Zoroastrian Turks, BTW.
 
Damned fascinating stuff!

As the the question of the OP, we're seeing a non-Islamicized Persia; this does not necessarily mean a not-Persianized Islam. How much of Persian culture had already permeated Mesopotamian and Assyrian cultures at this point? Certainly every other Persian Empire had overrun the ME since near the dawn of civilization. I'd suspect some level of Persian and for that matter Greek culture will get absorbed into the Arabic over-culture. But perhaps less than OTL. Does Islamic culture remain more fundamentally Old Arabic? Or do we see a more Mesopotamian-Assyrian Islam?
 
About Zoroastrianism—I was under the impression that it was largely a state-sponsored court religion with little emphasis on proselytizing and little appeal for those outside of the Sassanid aristocracy, and that as such the poor tended to belong to other religions. Heck, I’ve seen estimates that a plurality of the population of Mesopotamia was Nestorian Christian at the time of the Arab conquest. Assuming I’m not horrifically off-base here, it’s entirely possible that the Sassanids might see either a significant reform in Zoroastrianism as a reaction to the defeat or an increasingly powerful Nestorian church—the latter of which might even have enough clout to began spreading into the steppes, leaving us with all sorts of bizarre butterflies (Nestorian Turks invading Iran, anyone?).
 
The Koran talks about Male/Female Equality. If Culturally whe see less Oriental Influence in the Male/Female Roles. Then there is a chance that the Harem is never adopted in North Africa/Arabia.
An Islam without the oriental subjugation of Women, would be a lot different than OTL.
 
About Zoroastrianism—I was under the impression that it was largely a state-sponsored court religion with little emphasis on proselytizing and little appeal for those outside of the Sassanid aristocracy, and that as such the poor tended to belong to other religions.
No, no, no! :mad:
Before Islam, Zoroastrianism was a proselytizing religion! They were fairly active in Central Asia. IIRC the entire Bactrian population was converted to Zoroastrianism. There are also reports that during his campaign in the 260s-270s, Shapur I demolished pagan temples in Armenia and Anatolia and replaced them with Zoroastrian ones. He encouraged the spread of both Zoroastrianism and Manichaeanism, and later emperors would at least make efforts to spread the former.
 
I'm pretty sure there was a significant Nestorian population in Mesopotamia, Persia and Central Asia at the time (though I'm open to correction).

It just seems a little unlikely that Nestorianism would effectively thrive and expand in Persia proper or the Arab conquests. As was mentioned up thread, Zoroastrianism was quite vigorous at the time. While the Arab Caliphate wasn't actively hostile to local religions, local Christian sects don't seem well placed to expand in the situation.

One thing that changes here compared to OTL is that the Islamic conquests contain a far higher proportion of Christians, with far fewer Zoroastrians and effectively no Buddhists. How does Islam adapt with a greater share of its converts coming from Coptic or Monophysite Christian sects?

Do the Arabs go about governing all these areas differently? For a while at least, Christians of all denominations may outnumber Muslims substantially. That population shift over OTL also might suggest a stronger Hellenistic influence in philosophy and culture.
 
Last edited:
I'm pretty sure there was a significant Nestorian population in Mesopotamia, Perisa and Central Asia at the time (though I'm open to correction).

There was. And Nestorians/Jacobites were also very much present in Bahrain region, Socotra, parts of Yemen, very much so in Central Asia and elsewhere. I doubt their fate in this TL in Persia would be much different from OTL's elsewhere.
 
But the Byzantines had lost Syria and Egypt for an entire generation, which had no memory of Roman rule, which is one of the things that made the Islamic conquest easy. If they had shown up just 10 years later it would have been much harder.

Also, the mountain barrier between Persia and Mesopotamia is formidable - it wouldn't be that hard to come up with a scenario where the Sassanids hold out. This will give you Zoroastrian Turks, BTW.
There are enough Nestorians, and enough limits on Sassanid power between the war and the holding action on the Zargos, for the Nestorians to make headway (although the Zorastorians and Buddhists will also). OTL's Ukranian/Cuman steppe is going to end up under Chalcedonian influence for the most part though.

As for the Caliphate? This is a considerable change with stronger Greek/Roman influences on both law and the early development of Sharia. North Africa/Iberia is still gone in all likelyhood, and maybe more pressure on Francia.

HTG
 
No, no, no! :mad:
Before Islam, Zoroastrianism was a proselytizing religion! They were fairly active in Central Asia. IIRC the entire Bactrian population was converted to Zoroastrianism. There are also reports that during his campaign in the 260s-270s, Shapur I demolished pagan temples in Armenia and Anatolia and replaced them with Zoroastrian ones. He encouraged the spread of both Zoroastrianism and Manichaeanism, and later emperors would at least make efforts to spread the former.
:eek:

That’s really odd—for some reason I had a distinct impression that it wasn’t…though on reflection, I can’t remember where I gained that idea, which could mean that I was just mixing up Zoroastrianism with something else completely.

Also, as a lesson for the future, I should probably stop talking about topics on which I know almost nothing in the company of people who aren’t similarly ignorant. :eek:
 
That’s really odd—for some reason I had a distinct impression that it wasn’t…though on reflection, I can’t remember where I gained that idea, which could mean that I was just mixing up Zoroastrianism with something else completely.
Maybe because todays Zoroastrianists, [almost all living in India] are very Insular, and refuse to accept anyone from outside the Community.
 
Maybe because todays Zoroastrianists, [almost all living in India] are very Insular, and refuse to accept anyone from outside the Community.

After more than a thousand years of being socially marginalized by the agents of a more dominant religion, smaller denominations tend to become insular, exclusive, and reluctant to accept new blood.

I think without Sassanid Persia becoming weak from their wars with the Byzantines, and thus becoming easy pickings for the dynamic and upstart Muslims, Islamic culture would definately be alot poorer for it. Islam may have come from the Arabian Peninsula, but it's historical political centres, such as Baghdad, Damascus, Cairo, Cordoba, and later Turkish Constantinople, were frequently outside the Peninsula itself. Even if the early Caliphs managed to capture places like Egypt and Syria, there might be no further push into North Africa. And Syria itself may be constantly contended for between Persia and the Caliphate. And Muslim rule in the Levant might not be secure enough for the Arabs to make the needed revisions in their government and legal codes. The conquest of Persia, when it was at it's most vulnerable, was one of the best things to happen to the Arabs.

Conquests of, and the stabilization of Arabic rule in Persia, Syria, and Egypt were vital to the monumentum of Islam.
 
Last edited:
Conquests of, and the stabilization of Arabic rule in Persia, Syria, and Egypt were vital to the monumentum of Islam.
In what direction?

Like it or not, Roman (or rather post-Roman, the local governor just rebelled) North Africa was not a real barrier (the real resistance came from the local Berbers). A Persia-less Caliphate would have been far more influenced by Roman/Greek/Christian culture/law but a stable front on the Zargos is possible.

HTG
 
In what direction?

Like it or not, Roman (or rather post-Roman, the local governor just rebelled) North Africa was not a real barrier (the real resistance came from the local Berbers). A Persia-less Caliphate would have been far more influenced by Roman/Greek/Christian culture/law but a stable front on the Zargos is possible.

HTG

Well, east if we're talking about the advance of Islam through Persia. If the Persians managed to protect their territories behind the Zargos Mountains, this might give them time to recover strengh before they could attempt to recover lost lands in Mesopotamia (barring Turkic invasions).

And if the Sassanid Persians weren't so battered from their previous wars with the Byzantines, they might have interfered with the Muslim incursion into the Levant, as they themselves had frequently desired to rule the region.
 
Top