At the time of the Samanids Zoroastrian temples were all over the Iranian plateau, and there was still a functioning one in Baghdad
Persia without the Islamic Conquests
- Thread starter GeneralInTheShell
- Start date
At the time of the Samanids Zoroastrian temples were all over the Iranian plateau, and there was still a functioning one in Baghdad
My Ancient Iranian history is very limited, but to me it seems likely that the Sassanid state would probably collapse due to its internal problems. It seems likely to me that a noble will manage a revolt and depose the Shah, much like the Sassanids did to the Arsacids and ended the Parthian Empire.
What if the Armenian branch of the Arsacids successfully retook the empire? A Neo-Parthian state could emerge out of the Sassanid, that'd be interesting.
What if the Armenian branch of the Arsacids successfully retook the empire? A Neo-Parthian state could emerge out of the Sassanid, that'd be interesting.
Yeah but that isn't really the point. Zoroastrian temples were being maintained in the countryside, yes, and there was one in Baghdad, but that didn't mean it was a real force. The Nobles had largely abandoned the faith, the urban population had also done the same(Rayy, for example, was in a transition from Zoroastrianism to Islam at the time of Harun al-Raschid. The Samanids were efficient proselytizers and they didn't seem to have much trouble with Zoroastrians among them.
The areas where it did survive, Yazd, Mazandaran, and Gurgan, as well as the countryside of the Iranian plateau were of course still majority Zoroastrian until about the time of the Mongols.
Look at the discussion on the previous page. There doesn't seem much likelihood of the Shah being deposed; he's a good figurehead to keep some semblance of the state alive and tradition is tradition. Since the Sassanid state depended very much on honors and that sort of thing, the Shah could in a sense be like the Japanese Emperor during the warring states era. There could be another ruler attempting to create a new dynasty, but the Parthians are unlikely. The Armenian branch had to compete with the very successful House Mihran, hardly interested in letting them take over the empire.
Well, there goes my romantic vision of a Neo-Parthia. Oh well, the data laid out is pretty thorough.
I'm not saying that they were a strong force, but that it took several centuries to wipe them out. That conversion policies varied by time and location, and that Zoroastrian were still players in the Iranian world. The fact that Mesopotamia was never a strong hold of Zoroastrianism and that Baghdad had a functioning fire temple at the time of the Samanids, despite having kafar status under the Abbassids, is rather telling.
Dumb? Hardly. The Turkic Migration was already shifting during this time frame, history would play similar to OTL with wave after wave of Turkic dynasties setting up across Central Asia, Sub Continent, and the Middle East, but just without Islam, under different persons, and circumstances.
I like how you literally ignored everything I've said in the last four pages.
Just how you have ignored everything I have said? Though, that is not true. I have also approved of your prediction of collapse of the Sassanids regardless of the Arab Invasion, which would lead to intervention by Turkic parties.
What? I refuted your points calmly and politely by explaining why such a thing would not happen with real world examples and why the Turkish invasion was such an unlikely thing in the first place without the Samanids and the exact timing. You then turned around and continued trying to want a Turkish invasion, which is totally fine but not at all close to reality.
I already explained why 'intervention by Turkish parties' is unlikely as all hell. There were no organized Turkish parties, the Confederation can't go like 'let's invade Persia'. It isn't that damn easy.
OTOH, Iran, like China and eastern Europe, is a "front-line" state in dealing with the waves of horse nomads that expand out of the steppe at intervals. In the long run, it seems unlikely that Iran will simultaneously remain strong and nomadic groups feeble right up until well-organized gunpowder armies put paid to horse-bowmen armies [1]: a Turkic (or Mongol, or whatever) interregnun is probable sometime in the 7th-14th centuries interval.
Bruce
[1] OTL this starts happening in what, the 15th century or so?
Bruce
[1] OTL this starts happening in what, the 15th century or so?
The susceptibility of Iran due to the invasions was because all local authority had collapsed and the states were in a decay without any real protection for individual cities or countryside. The Sassanid state is feudal in this case, not anarchic, and in any case, will not always stay that way. There is a general trend in Iran that a hundred years or perhaps less of anarchy is followed up by the rise of a new, vigorous dynasty.
As you said, the long run. I have no doubts that eventually invasions may come the way of Iran, and may conquer a significant amount of the Plateau.
As you said, the long run. I have no doubts that eventually invasions may come the way of Iran, and may conquer a significant amount of the Plateau.
So conquering all the Plateau is harder than conquering all of China?
Bruce
Edit: PS - would you consider the Mongol conquest an unlikely event, and that in most possible TLs no nomadic conquests on quite such a scale occur?
So conquering all the Plateau is harder than conquering all of China?
Bruce
Edit: PS - would you consider the Mongol conquest an unlikely event, and that in most possible TLs no nomadic conquests on quite such a scale occur?
There is a lot more of a geographical difficulty to conquering the area, but I don't know enough about China to comment on anything. As for a Mongol conquest, it seems questionable that any analogue would reach the full extent to which they were successful. That seems, at least, unlikely. For particularly strong conquerors to embark on a conquest of the Middle East or China or what have you? Quite likely.
We disagree, it seems simple as that. I believe the circumstances could allow for a Turkic intervention into the situation. Either through the military intervention of one or several tribes or the more time consuming recruitment process. The Khazars through Transcaucasia would largely be unaffected by the events on the Gokturks in the East. Further the events on the Turkic Khagante would spur tribes and clans to spread out or do things on their own.
Without the Arabs and with Persia in the midst of fracturing or a civil war the resurgence of the Second Gokturk Khaganate in 710ish would have no barriers to expand south of the Oxus River and taking Khorasan. Large parts of the eastern Iranian Plateau would fall under their influence through tribute. Depending on the situation in Western Persia would more likely lead to a invasion of the area once again, especially if they can ally with the Khazars or Byzantines. Most likely in the name of political unity as unity was most effectively ensured through victory and conquest, a success in this field may actually butterfly the crippling internal troubles for the Gok Turks that spelled their doom by the Mid 8th Century. Though with Chinese intervention this may lead to the splitting of the Khaganate again or just distract the Turks from moving Westward. Either way it would facilitate a Turkish migration into the Iranian Plateau.
This of course does not take in any 'motivating' factors such as religion, if a Turkic Tengri or Nestorian or Mani counterpart to Muhammad had emerged during this time frame.
The crisis of collapse in Persia may actually affect a doctrinal change to allow the Zoroastrian religion to cope with the situation of their collapse. Probably a decline in Zurvanism and the rise of a less strict form of Zoroastrianism or a whole new doctrine.
Edit: Though, you should note that Turkics did invade Iran and actually conquer it, like Timur or the White Sheep Turkmen or Seljuks.
At this point it seems irrelevant to argue. I wholeheartedly disagree with what you said, but making an argument will simply drag it on for many posts. It is a far easier thing to just agree to disagree, since I'm trying to work up some ideas for my TL, and I have my own arguments. I don't bloody well need someone else telling me how to do it, though on a pure discussion level, I don't completely disagree.
I did note that Turkics conquered Iran. I've written papers on the subject so I don't need you to tell me that.
In essence, I don't entirely disagree mainly on the merit of not having enough information about the structure of the Western Turks to make a valid opinion. I do know enough about the trends of Nomadic peoples and the Turkic invasions which happened in OTL, as well as similar historical analogues of invasions on such decentralized, heavily defended areas. Nevertheless, I digress.
I did note that Turkics conquered Iran. I've written papers on the subject so I don't need you to tell me that.
In essence, I don't entirely disagree mainly on the merit of not having enough information about the structure of the Western Turks to make a valid opinion. I do know enough about the trends of Nomadic peoples and the Turkic invasions which happened in OTL, as well as similar historical analogues of invasions on such decentralized, heavily defended areas. Nevertheless, I digress.
Let me get this straight.
Persia without the Arabs will be "fracturing or in the midst of a civil war" in the early eighth century (events involving the Turks somehow not hit by any butterflies) - despite the fact that the time period we're looking at as the immediate near-collapse is the 630s and 640s.
That's awfully convenient. If by convenient you mean "What the hell, KoM."
I wouldn't say you couldn't have it happen. But it wouldn't be the "the exhaustion of the Sassanids", with any opportunies from there.
Also:
One or more tribes is not going to be enough to conquer Iran (which is a huge place, and not thinly settled in the context of the day), and the "time consuming recruitment process" will see the Turks more likely to be Persianized as OTL than not.
Even if the motive exists to move (compass directions are approximate) southwest instead of southeast, it's not something that easy to do.
And nor is it something where the Turks will be dominant culturally if it's anything like the OTL examples (and if its something unlike the Seljuks or whatever, why bring them up as examples of successful Turkish conquest?)?
Even The One True Faith isn't going to do much good there.
Persia without the Arabs will be "fracturing or in the midst of a civil war" in the early eighth century (events involving the Turks somehow not hit by any butterflies) - despite the fact that the time period we're looking at as the immediate near-collapse is the 630s and 640s.
That's awfully convenient. If by convenient you mean "What the hell, KoM."
I wouldn't say you couldn't have it happen. But it wouldn't be the "the exhaustion of the Sassanids", with any opportunies from there.
Also:
One or more tribes is not going to be enough to conquer Iran (which is a huge place, and not thinly settled in the context of the day), and the "time consuming recruitment process" will see the Turks more likely to be Persianized as OTL than not.
Even if the motive exists to move (compass directions are approximate) southwest instead of southeast, it's not something that easy to do.
And nor is it something where the Turks will be dominant culturally if it's anything like the OTL examples (and if its something unlike the Seljuks or whatever, why bring them up as examples of successful Turkish conquest?)?
Even The One True Faith isn't going to do much good there.
Because the situations are entirely different??? The Arabs actually invaded in a cohesive force that was not a horde. The men left the women and children behind, they weren't all nomads (a significant portion of the Arab armies were Yemenis) and they invaded from an entirely different, and easier, direction with a passionate, well-trained, and well-commanded army.
This. For the love of (Insert God *here*), this.
The Arabs had an almost perfect situation with almost perfect resources with which to take advantage of it.
The Turks never had such, and even if somehow a combination was conjured up, the Turks in Persia would Persianize faster than the Persians would Turkify for the same reasons the Arabs in Persia did.
And even outside Persia, Persian influences spread through the Muslim world - becoming part of what was/is "Arabic" culture. The Turks are in no position to do "better" if "better" means the kind of dominion you (KoM) seem to be envisioning where "barbarian" influences take over from a long established and prestigious civilization.
An example of persian influence in the 'House of Islam' - the early muslim states and armies, if I am right, actually used straight blades like byzantines and european ones, kinda. The scimitars came from persia (or even indian muslims), trickling down as the design was found usefull...