Ottoman Empire vs Sassanid Empire

So, in OTL Sassanid (Sasanian) Persia was destroyed when it was absorbed into the Abbasid Caliphate. Flash forward many years and we have the Ottoman Empire in control of the region (plus Anatolia).

So we know how the Ottomans did when it came to their empire. They defeated the Eastern Romans and ruled for quite a few centuries, expanding Islamic influence throughout the Mediterranean. However, what if Islam never existed, preventing OTL's collapse of Sassanid Persia? If the Persians became strong enough to conquer the Eastern Roman Empire in a similar fashion to how the Ottomans did it, how would their empire have fared? Would they have been successful in spreading Zoroastrian influence? How would their relations with the west be? Would the pope/the rest of western Europe see Zoroastrians the way OTL's pope/western Europe see Muslims? Would there have been crusades led against the Persians? Discuss below!
 
With Sassanid Empire intact and without Islam,the Ottoman Empire wouldn't have existed.Period.

Although it isn't clear, I think I he is comparing them across the timelines rather than in the same timeline.

A better way of putting it would be (if I am understanding it correctly)

Which would fare better, an ATL Sassanid empire that successfully conquered Constantinople, or the OTL Ottoman Empire.
 
Presuming my interpretation is correct, I predict that you are going to see a Sassanid defeat either way. It took most of their strength to merely survive against Constantinople so a realistic victory would have utterly drained them. Arab uprisings may have been just as if not more effective and on top of that you would have the ire of the west far earlier. Not even an abrahamic faith but a pagan (to Christians of the time) faith which at the time was exceedingly anti-Christian taking such a holy location to Christianity? A successful Sassanid empire would have to deal with perhaps both an early crusade AND an Arab uprising (be it Islam based or not).
 
I would actually suggest that without Islam and with a Sassanid conquest of the ERE, there would be less tension between the 'East' (typified by Persia) and the West.

First of all, the Ottomans characterised their empire as a 'ghazi' state, dedicated to adding as many lands to the Dar-ul Islam as possible. Whilst the jizya tax suggests that they became more lax on this post-1453, that was still how they were perceived by Europe, especially the Hapsburgs of Austria and Spain.

Zoroastrianism differs in that it's the ancestral religion of the Persian peoples. Whilst there was some proselytising, it was never as universalist (or aggressively expansionist) than the abrahamic faiths. The reason Christians were persecuted by the Sassanids is due to fears that they would be a fifth column in Mesopotamia, the single-most important region in the empire. Without the ERE, I believe that the Persians would do what they can to reconcile the Christians with the imperial structure, making them just more tax-paying subjects. Without the widespread attempts at conversion, we would see less Christian 'counter-zealotry.
 
Top