Non-Islamic Persia: Sasanian Empire does not fall to Islamic invaders

What if Persia never fell to Islam? The Sasanian Empire not falling seems the most plausible way of keeping Persia Zoroastrian.
 
The entire Sassanid Empire remained intact? Or just the Iranian Plateau?

I'm not an expert on Iranian history. But here are my guesses:

I've read about part of the Sassanid Mesopotamia was actually Christian in majority, so depriving the successive Caliphates of Mesopotamia would not only mean a much weaker Islamdom, but a Christian region in between Persia and the Muslims.

Zoroastrian Iran also meant that the entire Central Asia remains Zoroastrian or Buddhist, causing profound changes (maybe positive) to Indian and Chinese history.

An ongoing Iranian-Arab War might also mean trade route on land would be cut, leaving an earlier developement in a sea route.

As for Iran itself, had it survived the Islamic Conquest, there might be a pious/militant Zoroastrian Revival movement, popularizing the faith among its inhabitants, due to the pressure imposed on the state by foreign forces.
 

GdwnsnHo

Banned
I've read about part of the Sassanid Mesopotamia was actually Christian in majority, so depriving the successive Caliphates of Mesopotamia would not only mean a much weaker Islamdom, but a Christian region in between Persia and the Muslims.

Personally, big fan of this idea. Especially as Mesopotamia was Nestorian, and they never got enough love OTL :D

Perhaps for either Roman help, or massive Mesopotamian levies, they could be offered independence - or it is the result of a treaty at the end of the war between the persians and islam?

It would likely be stuck suffering the Armenian problem on a much greater scale. Stuck between 2 (oh wait, maybe 3?) powers (Caliphate, Persia, Romans), whilst not having the same religion as any of them...

They'd need to be mega diplomatic and damn good at defending to survive that environment - otherwise they'll be eaten alive.

Though as a distraction for all three powers to obsess over rather than constantly invade each other could lead to all three powers having substantially less ravaged territories.

The biggest deal for both Persia and the Byzantines however is essentially an end to the Eternal War - there is too much to risk with a third contender (that they barely stopped), and the logistics through the Caucuses would be horrifying.
 
Interesting idea.

I guess the Sassanids will not stop to dream about a revival of the old Achamaenid persian empire. I assume, that it is easier for them to make peace with the romans, which they already often had done depending on the current rulers.

So one possible scenario is, that the Sassanids are invading (now arabian) Syria and Egypt again. The question is, what would the romans say about this conquest? Starting the eternal war again, or take advantage of the opportunity to get Africa and perhaps Spain back?

However, sooner or later, the eternal war will start again, if the Arabs can not implement their Califate as the third longterm and balancing power in the Mid-East.
 
Last edited:
It would likely be stuck suffering the Armenian problem on a much greater scale. Stuck between 2 (oh wait, maybe 3?) powers (Caliphate, Persia, Romans), whilst not having the same religion as any of them...

Another Romance of Three Kingdoms situation?

There was already a Carthaginian-Roman-Macedonian "three kingdoms" scenario.
 

GdwnsnHo

Banned
Another Romance of Three Kingdoms situation?

There was already a Carthaginian-Roman-Macedonian "three kingdoms" scenario.

Not familiar with the Romance of the Three Kingdoms tbh.

Personally as Macedonian Egypt and Carthage never really had interests in attacking each others territory I can't see the situation of a Monolithic E.Med power balancing two W.Med powers when it doesn't have an interest there.

Whereas in the situation I posited, all three powers have similar interests in their shared area.
 

Deleted member 67076

I cant see Iran not losing territory to the Caliphate. It was too exhausted and divided after the last Roman War.
 
Sure, sure.

Without this 40 year long desastrous war between the Sassanids and the Romans the chances of the Arabs to expand beyond their desert are low.

But that was not the OP's scenario.

The OP scenario was vague, so you don't get to make such pronouncements.
In any event I didn't say NO ERE/Sassanian war, just one that is less fight to the death-ish.
The only Persia that survives the Arabs is one that hasn't recently been in an existential war, has just undergone civil war, is less impoverished by the aforementioned, and is more united against external invaders.
 
I cant see Iran not losing territory to the Caliphate. It was too exhausted and divided after the last Roman War.

The Arabs weren't completely unified though. Even with a weak Persia, there's a possibility that the Caliphate won't pull it off.
 
The biggest cliché I've seen in AH is the idea of a Christian Iran with the absence of Islam, but this isn't very likely at all. Zoroastrianism was firmly rooted in Persian society and supported by the government and without the empire being conquered by a non-Zoroastrian force that has a religious motive like the Caliphate, Iran proper will stay Zoroastrian.

Islam not conquering or further-weakening the Sasanid Empire immediately opens space for a number of optional scenarios. The Sasanids at the time of conquest had exhausted their money and army on the eternal war with the Byzantines and as such they were at risk of collapse anyway. It could potentially go the way that many Islamic dynasties went later, with a Satrap rising up and overthrowing the Sasan family and becoming the new ruling dynasty.

Another option is for the Empire to balkanize. You'd most likely end up with central asia, Iran up to the Indus river and Azerbaijan + modern day Kurdistan as a single Persian state, with an independent, Christian Kingdom in Mesopotamia and an independent Kingdom of Armenia. everything else would be absorbed by the Byzantines or the Muslims, if they aren't utterly defeated by the Sasanid repulsion.

The third option would be for the Sasanids to have some sort of miracle revival. This isn't impossible at all but somewhat difficult. Let's not forget that the Sasanids had ruled for 400 years which, in Persian terms, is a very long time for one dynasty :D


Outside of the effects on Iran itself, let's assume that the POD is that the Sasanids and Byzantines both successfully defeat the early Caliphate. Egypt was briefly taken back by the Byzantines at this time and would most likely stay with them, albeit more rebellious than before - perhaps an independent, Coptic Egypt is plausible.

The Turkic tribes would continue to migrate into Central Asia and would likely all convert to Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Manichaeism and to a lesser extent Nestorianism. Nestorianism would continue to spread east and probably more so than in OTL, though Zoroastrianism and Buddhism would still dominate the east without Islam to block their progress.

The knock on effects would be immense, of course. Hindu-Buddhist Malaya, no Islam in India, who knows how different the east would be. The west would be significantly different too.

You can also bet that the Sasanids and Byzantines will both want revenge against the attacking Arabs. Arabia could well be subdued.
 
perhaps an independent, Coptic Egypt is plausible.

It's not.

Anyway, I'd like to see a surviving Eransahr, although I do think that Zoroastrianism probably is on its way out: it certainly did hold a good deal of support amongst the Iranian aristocracy, but then the same is true for paganism and the Italian aristocracy in the fourth and fifth centuries.

There's a nice collection of sources on the Sasanians here.
 
It's not.

Anyway, I'd like to see a surviving Eransahr, although I do think that Zoroastrianism probably is on its way out: it certainly did hold a good deal of support amongst the Iranian aristocracy, but then the same is true for paganism and the Italian aristocracy in the fourth and fifth centuries.

There's a nice collection of sources on the Sasanians here.

Why is it not?

I don't see why Zoroastrianism would be on the way out, either. OTL the only reason it ended was because of the Islamic conquests which removed the clergy and hierarchy, and even then it took several centuries for Zoroastrianism to cease being the dominant faith, and even longer for it to become an obscure minority.
 
For a long time I was very interested in Nestorianism, to the point people called me "The Nestorian Candidate."

A Nestorian Mesopotamian buffer state would be kind of cool, but it's geographic position isn't very good and it lacks Armenia's mountains to defend it. Plus it's got three "We Are The One True Monotheism" neighbors (less so with Persia), which could be a real problem.
 

abc123

Banned
For a long time I was very interested in Nestorianism, to the point people called me "The Nestorian Candidate."

A Nestorian Mesopotamian buffer state would be kind of cool, but it's geographic position isn't very good and it lacks Armenia's mountains to defend it. Plus it's got three "We Are The One True Monotheism" neighbors (less so with Persia), which could be a real problem.

OK, so what if divided Mesopotamia?

Say Arabs on southern side of Tigris/Euphratus, Persians on northers, while western parts under Byzantines..
 

Delvestius

Banned
It's not.

Yeh, you really haven't convinced anyone.

I thought of a TL in which the Arabs send all their strength against the Byzantines, who defeat their invaders at the Pyrrhic victory at the Battle of Hatay. The Egyptians could well take advantage of the weakened Romans and cast off Byzantine rule. I doubt Persia would be strong enough to take them quite yet but it is probable in the future.
 

trajen777

Banned
To make this work you need either one of two things to happen
1. Better coordination between Persians and Byz would have not allowed significant reinforcements reaching the Muslim forces at Yarmuk most likely leading to a Byz victory in day 1 or 2.
2. This would not have allowed for the 6000 + Muslim elite troops marching back to fight the Persians at the Battle of Al-Qadisiyyah leaving the Persians most likely victorious.
3. After this you would have seen a concerted effort that would have allowed the Byz / Persians to hold the borders and regain their normal strength
a. Since Khalid left Iraq for Syria, Suwad, the fertile area between the Euphrates and the Tigris, remained unstable. Sometimes it was occupied by the Persians and sometimes by the Muslims. This "tit-for-tat" struggle continued until emperor Yazdgerd III consolidated his power and sought alliance with Heraclius in 635 in an effort to prepare for a massive counterattack. Heraclius married his daughter to Yazdegerd III, in accordance with Roman tradition to seal an alliance. Heraclius then prepared for a major offense in the Levant. Meanwhile, Yazdegerd ordered a concentration of massive armies to pull back from Iraq for good. This was supposed to be a well coordinated attack by both emperors to annihilate the power of their common enemy, Caliph Umar.
b. When Heraclius launched his offense in May 636, Yazdegerd could not coordinate, so the plan was not carried out. Umar, allegedly having intelligence of this alliance, devised his own plan. He wanted to finish off business with the Byzantines first and then to reinforce the Muslim army at Yarmouk. He sent 6000 soldiers in small bands to give the impression of a continuous stream of reinforcements. Meanwhile, Umar engaged Yazdegerd III, ordering Saad ibn Abi Waqqas to enter in peace negotiations with him by inviting him to convert to Islam.[18] Heraclius had instructed his general Vahan not to engage in battle with Muslims until his orders. However, fearing more reinforcement for the Muslims from Madinah and their growing strength, the Byzantines felt compelled to attack the Muslim forces before they got stronger. Heraclius's imperial army was annihilated at Battle of Yarmouk in August 636, three months before Qadisiyyah, ending the power of the Roman Emperor. Nevertheless, Yazdegerd continued to execute his ambitious offensive plan and concentrated armies near his capital Ctesiphon. A large force was put under the control of veteran general Rostam and was cantoned at Valashabad near Ctesiphon. Receiving news of the preparations of this massive counter-attack, Umar ordered Muthana to retreat to the edge of Arabian Desert and abandon Iraq. The campaign of Iraq was now to be started again from the beginning.[16]
c. Caliph Umar raised new armies from all over Arabia to send a large enough force to re-invade Iraq. Umar appointed Sa`d ibn Abī Waqqās, an important member of the Qurayshtribe as commander of this army. In May 636, Saad marched from his camp at Sisra (near Madinah) with an army of 4,000 men and was instructed to join other armies, concentrated in northern Arabia, on his way to Iraq. Saad, being less experienced in the matter of war, was instructed by Caliph Umar to seek the advice of the experienced commanders. Once Saad entered Iraq, Umar sent orders to him to halt at al-Qadisiyyah, a small town 30 miles from Kufah. Muslims marched to Qadisiyyah and camped there on July 636.
d. Umar continued to issue strategic orders and commands to his army throughout the campaign. He wanted victory on the Persian front, but he ran short of manpower and decided to lift the ban on the ex-apostate tribes of Arabia from participating in state affairs. As a result, the army raised was not professional but was instead composed of newly recruited contingents from all over Arabia. Umar was therefore more concerned about providing it with strategic aid. Umar was quite satisfied with developments on Byzantine front, however, as the veteran army there was commanded by Abu Ubaidah ibn al-Jarrah and Khalid ibn Walid, a military genius. After they won a decisive victory against the Byzantine army at the Yarmouk, Umar sent orders to Abu Ubaidah to immediately send a contingent of veterans to Iraq. Later, a force of 5,000 veterans of Yarmouk were also sent and arrived on the second day of the battle. This proved to be the turning point. The battle was fought predominantly between Umar and Rostam, rather than between Saad and Rostam. On the other hand, the bulk of the Sassanid army was also made up of new recruits since the bulk of regular Sassanid forces was destroyed during the Battle of Walajaand the Ullais.[16]
 
If Persia held, then that means no Islam reaching Pakistan, Afghanistan, or Central Asia (save through traders). Zoroastrianism would likely rank as a major world religion today. Islam might have developed a more evangelical bent.

My question is, what happens to Central Asia? Maybe Tengriism dominates? Or even an exported Zoroastrianism?
 
Top