Persia without the Islamic Conquests

[Pachac]

The Eastern Romans were never very interested in expanding their borders; they were at a comfortable size at the time of Maurice or so in the East, and any more expansion would just have resulted in over-extension. Almost every time in the history of the Eastern Romans it was the Persians who started the hostilities. Now, I say EASTERN ROMANS, so don't say anything about Septimus or anything like that.

And a Turkish invasion would require massive coincidences coinciding together. A Turkish confederate breakup right at the same time as a Persian civil war with tribes near the border inclined to invade? Seems unlikely, especially considering these semi-independent border areas would never be involved with civil wars in the interior. There weren't that many, anyways; the Persians didn't really have a lot of infighting as succession was fairly flexible. When it did happen, it was catastrophic, but rare, so it would make it far more difficult for the Turks to invade.

 

[Ganesha]

*snip*

Once they establish themselves in the Ganges Delta and the Panjab, there is little likelihood of them leaving. Some will likely establish states in the Afghanistan area, but the semi-independent ring of marches and cities along the Persian frontier only disappeared because of the Arab conquests. Overall, the state will likely survive, though in a weaker state. A proto-socialist revolution such as Mazdak's is unlikely unless situations get really bad. A war against Byzantium would be out of the question for quite some time; perhaps if the borders in the east stabilize, Persia would turn back to warring against the states of the Sind and Panjab in order to reclaim the original empire of Ardashir. Byzantium and Persia would not decide to be best friends, but the evolution of other neighbors along their frontiers would increase the complexity of the situation.

A Turkish invasion of India rather than Anatolia is a fascinating concept. At what point in time would such a migration occur? As I understand it, the Turks slowly converted to Islam as they moved through Persia, and so would only be partially Muslim if they went to India.

Depending on the time period, they'd be facing a disintegrating Gupta Dynasty, the Pratiharas, the Delhi Sultanate, or the Mamluks, who were also Turkic.

Cheers,
Ganesha

 

[Pachac]

A Turkish invasion of India rather than Anatolia is a fascinating concept. At what point in time would such a migration occur? As I understand it, the Turks slowly converted to Islam as they moved through Persia, and so would only be partially Muslim if they went to India.

Depending on the time period, they'd be facing a disintegrating Gupta Dynasty, the Pratiharas, the Delhi Sultanate, or the Mamluks, who were also Turkic.

Cheers,
Ganesha

Well if we assume no Islam, then the Turks would be an amalgamation of every belief you can imagine. The main ones making the trip would likely be of Manichean, Nestorian, or Tengrii persuasion; Buddhism was more popular with the eastern tribes. The Turks in OTL, at least the Seljuks, were converted in massive missionary sessions by the Samanids, who were quite enthusiastic in their conversion of these Turks. Others converted for political reasons, were slave soldiers, or established themselves within governments and went from there.

In India, their invasion is entirely variable upon the disintegration of their grand confederation in the west. Since it was fairly loose and without the Muslim invasion of Central Asia to really give it that final nudge to destruction, it may last longer. Alternatively, a strong Persia could eventually force it to look to new raiding targets; a lot of the Turkish targets after the Muslim conquest were the now undefended and unfunded marcher lands of the Persian empire. With them still in place, they may need to turn to the autonomous but persianized lords of such areas as Balkh and Kabul, and from there they will jump to Peshawar and the Panjabi plain, as tribes in Afghanistan are wanton to do.

 

[Herzen's love-child]

I wonder if Buddhism in the Eastern parts of the Empire would have spread Westwards if no Islam. Buddhists did have varying fortunes under the Sassinids but mostly were not persecuted. The huge Buddhas of Bamiyan were built under Sassinid rule.

 

[Pachac]

I wonder if Buddhism in the Eastern parts of the Empire would have spread Westwards if no Islam. Buddhists did have varying fortunes under the Sassinids but mostly were not persecuted. The huge Buddhas of Bamiyan were built under Sassinid rule.

The Sassanid invasion and destruction of the remainder of the Kushanas and the Hephthalite invasion crippled Buddhism in Afghanistan and practically removed it in in India. It seems doubtful it would survive that much long in the area, considering that many Afghanis had become either worshipers of the god Zun, Zorastrians for political reasons, Nestorians, or Manicheans. There were still significant populations of Buddhists, especially around Bamiyan, but as the conquests of Islam started the area was probably fairly mixed.

 

[Malta]

It wouldn't take as much as possible for the Turks to expand. The Sassanids already feared attacking into the east by this point. A Persian Empire weakene by the Arab Invasions would soon face attack. Religious Unity is an powerful excuse for invasion, but it still stands that another internal reason could emerge for Turkish Unity.

 

[Pachac]

It wouldn't take as much as possible for the Turks to expand. The Sassanids already feared attacking into the east by this point. A Persian Empire weakene by the Arab Invasions would soon face attack. Religious Unity is an powerful excuse for invasion, but it still stands that another internal reason could emerge for Turkish Unity.

There is literally no reason for the Turks to invade Persia instead of India, which is comparatively far richer, easier to conquer, and more juicy in pretty much every way. The Seljuk invasions were borne of circumstance and the fact that the route to India was blocked by the Ghaznavids, another Turkish group.

 

[Herzen's love-child]

The Sassanid invasion and destruction of the remainder of the Kushanas and the Hephthalite invasion crippled Buddhism in Afghanistan and practically removed it in in India. It seems doubtful it would survive that much long in the area, considering that many Afghanis had become either worshipers of the god Zun, Zorastrians for political reasons, Nestorians, or Manicheans. There were still significant populations of Buddhists, especially around Bamiyan, but as the conquests of Islam started the area was probably fairly mixed.

My understanding is that Buddhism was still dominant in Afghanistan during Hephthalite rule. Some interesting documentation by Buddhist travellers during this period which includes a lot of what is known of Hephthalite society. Buddhism in Afghanistan absorbed the initial shock and persecution of the Invasion and arguably bounced back. The ancestors of what became known as the Pashtuns were majority Buddhist until the Islamic conquest. The Zorastrians, Nestorians, Zun worshippers, even Hindus were a significant presence but remained minority religions in this region.

 

[Pachac]

My understanding is that Buddhism was still dominant in Afghanistan during Hephthalite rule. Some interesting documentation by Buddhist travellers during this period which includes a lot of what is known of Hephthalite society. Buddhism in Afghanistan absorbed the initial shock and persecution of the Invasion and arguably bounced back. The ancestors of what became known as the Pashtuns were majority Buddhist until the Islamic conquest. The Zorastrians, Nestorians, Zun worshippers, even Hindus were a significant presence but remained minority religions in this region.

The region isn't really well-defined. If you mean Afghanistan by the eastern part where a large number of the Pashtuns lived, then yes, they were mainly Buddhist, and I concede since I don't really have much information on the time period and region. The western part, specifically Balochistan, Farah, and Zaranj, was Zunbil.

 

[Herzen's love-child]

There is literally no reason for the Turks to invade Persia instead of India, which is comparatively far richer, easier to conquer, and more juicy in pretty much every way.

But Persian women and men are so beautiful!

 

[Herzen's love-child]

The region isn't really well-defined. If you mean Afghanistan by the eastern part where a large number of the Pashtuns lived, then yes, they were mainly Buddhist, and I concede since I don't really have much information on the time period and region. The western part, specifically Balochistan, Farah, and Zaranj, was Zunbil.

True. The region is rather amorphous. But I'm talking about Afghanistan more centered around Balkh and Kabul. Which would make them more Sassinid vassals than core Empire, admittedly.

 

[Pachac]

True. The region is rather amorphous. But I'm talking about Afghanistan more centered around Balkh and Kabul.

Oh. I don't really know enough about it to really state much now that I think about. Balkh seemed a bit more Persian-aligned but Kabul-Bamiyan area seems Buddhist.

 

[Pachac]

After re-evaluating my sources, I've basically realized that the Sassanid state was over. Every single noble was carving out land for himself. The Turks had broken the marcher lords when Xusro had died and every single heir to the throne had been annihilated. Khazars raided the northwest. The very fabric of the state had been irreversibly shattered and there was no chance for any real survival. Xusro's heir died in a plague which wiped out a significant amount of Western Persia's population, and the maintenance of the canals ceased, causing much of Iraq to turn into infertile swamp.

There are only two possible courses of actions. Revolution or collapse.

 

[Malta]

Persia becomes Turkestan.

 

[Pachac]

Persia becomes Turkestan.

Unlikely; there was no impetus for a Turkish invasion to any significant degree. The northeast will be lost, and areas such as Marv and Khorasan will probably be under their control, or under that of independent lords paying tribute, for a long time. But the assumption that the Turks could actually hold the land seems a bit silly, since they preferred to exact tributes out of cities that more or less ran themselves and had their own disputes. They had not yet had much interest in migration, either- Central Asia was notably stable and the confederation was still intact. I do not doubt that Turkish raiding will impede the Persians in the northeast for some time, though.

 

[Elfwine]

Persia becomes Turkestan.

given that the term -stan comes from Persian, doesn't that imply Persian influence/culture mattering?

 

[GeneralInTheShell]

After re-evaluating my sources, I've basically realized that the Sassanid state was over. Every single noble was carving out land for himself. The Turks had broken the marcher lords when Xusro had died and every single heir to the throne had been annihilated. Khazars raided the northwest. The very fabric of the state had been irreversibly shattered and there was no chance for any real survival. Xusro's heir died in a plague which wiped out a significant amount of Western Persia's population, and the maintenance of the canals ceased, causing much of Iraq to turn into infertile swamp.

There are only two possible courses of actions. Revolution or collapse.

So in the event of a collapse would Persia might we see feudalism?

 

[Pachac]

So in the event of a collapse would Persia might we see feudalism?

Very likely. The state already functioned a bit like a more centralized early HRE; the nobles had a considerable control over their own land, their titles were hereditary, they provided levies to the state, and so on. Their actual power was never formalized and depended more on political influence. At the time of the Arab conquests there was already a collapse happening. It is quite likely that without it the Royal demesne would have been seized for the most part by the nobles and the king turned into a figurehead even worse than the Parthian one. The nobles will be Zoroastrian, but especially in Iraq, their subjects will be Nestorian or other religions. The Zunbils, only really sworn to the Sassanid state and nothing else, will likely go their own way; the change there will be hardly noticeable.

 

[Malta]

given that the term -stan comes from Persia, doesn't that imply Persian influence/culture mattering?

It does seem likely, especially the further west they move. Though it is funny that the Turks called the Persians. Tajiks.

Though I do think that any confederation at the time would expand into Persia territory especially as news of the greater breakdown of the Empire they would take the chance to expand the 'frontier' zone of their raids. The White Huns subjugated the Persians before and they would extract tribute and move into the region. Especially if the chance arose to take over.

 

[Pachac]

Though I do think that any confederation at the time would expand into Persia territory especially as news of the greater breakdown of the Empire they would take the chance to expand the 'frontier' zone of their raids.

The problem is that paradoxically a state with less centralization has a better chance of standing up to such raids. Without a central army and local levies and armies, lords and city rulers are able to far more competently stand up to Turkish raids short of any large scale invasion which would be impossible without a Seljuk situation. The expansion of the raids would be rather like the Viking raids into Europe; local rulers would either learn to combat these by catching them at sea or through their armies, or pay them tribute to leave them alone. The situation which happened in the Sassanid collapse was temporary, as many of the nobles needed to find their footing and prepare themselves for defense. The marcher lands were broken, but this did not mean that they would eventually rebuild themselves and push the Turks back.

Eventually the frontier lords would become competent enough to push the Turks back, and again, without a nearly impossible Samanid effort, large-scale invasion is impossible, Migration is, but the problem is that Persia would have represented far too much of an effort considering all the families needed to be brought along; the lack of centralized rule means that a few decisive battles aren't going to free up huge amounts of land for you or capsize your opponents, which is detrimental to large movement. Much easier to go into India where local rule was fragmented, weak, or non-existent, and the rewards far higher.

It is notable that the collapse of central authority would also mean the loss of Zoroastrian state support. While a clerical apparatus may still exist, the Zoroastrian Magi would find themselves in a situation amusingly near that of Migrations period Europe. They would have respect and even authority in The central lands of the feudal mess, but otherwise they would have no help from the local nobles. I think the Shah would still exist, but his authority would be essentially castrated.