The activites of Mani, founder of Manichaeism, were initially tolerated by the Sasanian authorities until the reign of Bahram I, during which he was imprisoned and was either executed or died beforehand. How plausible could it be for one of the early Sassanid shahs to not only tolerate Manichaeism, but convert to it? Would such a decision be a big break with Zoroastrianism, or be seen as a reformation of sorts (did the two religions have major differences at this point?)? Would they be deposed?
Plausibility check: Manichean Sassanids?
- Thread starter Vinization
- Start date
The conversion to Manichaeism would weaken the Sassanid power in two distinct ways. Firstly, Manichaeism is a religion based ultimately not in the Iranian cultural zone, but in the Syriac speaking world of Syria and Mesopotamia. Mani himself was drawn from a Syriac speaking millennial Jewish sect residing in Babylonia and his first and most skillful language was Syriac. Mani was immersed in the Judaic-Christian religious milieu and of course to Gnosticism, which at its heart was divergent to the Iranian view of the universe.
Iranian views during the classical period, while often dualistic, understood the world as under the possession of the Great King and the Great Houses, the Iranian elite therefore were ideal rulers, in their material/physical bodies. The Gods of the Iranian peoples co-habited this realm with them and were their ancestors, providing the Great Kings the wisdom, power and legitimacy to not only rule Iran, but in theory to rule all of existence. The Iranian Great King received his mandate by way of divine lineage and the 'aura of kingship' similar to Germanic kings in Europe, wherein the Divine embodied by the 'sun' (Mithra), granted the king his legitimacy through a process of illumination or granting of an aura and this is called the 'divine mandate.' Imparting of a kingly aura was not only a statement of legitimacy, but also that within the Great King, Divine Power was invested and in his words was the divine being, fully and completely divine and the true mediator of all creation to the divine energy of the heavens and the unseen gods all around mankind.
Mani presented the universe differently. According to Mani, the universe was not subdivided into a divine good and divine evil, but rather a realm of light arrayed against a realm of dark, with the earth being the 'mixing' placed of these two realms, with the dark having gained a 'momentary victory.' Mani attempted to try to appeal to the Great King by way of attempting to frame the Great King as 'Master of Light' and as a savior of all humanity and this was an interesting ploy. However, the issue despite all the flattery and grandiosity, was that implicit in the claims of Mani was a rejection of the Iranian kingship model. Yes, the Iranian king could be the savior and Master of Light, but to be that in the way Mani wished, the Great King had to accept the view that the world had been filled with darkness and that the Gods of yore were demonic and hence his claimed ancestors were also.
While that is an issue, I do not believe it is insurmountable... for one, the Germanic peoples of Europe were willing to slowly phase out their traditional gods and many of their religious customs to Christendom. However, there is a key division here between these divergent perspectives. Firstly, the Sassanid Great King, while great in bravado and famed for his sacrality, was of less sacred nature frankly than Germanic kings and his position was beleaguered by the Great Houses. The Great Houses, all supposedly kings in their own right, constructed an alternate mythos of sacrality that excluded the Great King near completely. Portraying the Great Houses as the Lord of the Realm and conquerors who were children of Darius and the mythical Kavanid dynasty, the Great Houses claimed to be of divine birth and of primordial stock ruling the land as near divine beings. The Great Houses would simply have never accepted Manichaeism as their personal dogmas without significant force, one that the Sassanid kings were not willing to utilize or lacked the power to do so.
Finally, Zoroastrianism, while also somewhat divergent and against the agenda of the Great Houses and also against the Sassanid's own dogma in the first decades of rule, was the best religion to adopt for the purposes of the Sassanid Great Kings. Manichaeism as I mentioned was a religion on the fringes of Iranian life, a foreigner faith with bases of power in the areas that produced the least soldiers and often made up people who were of diverse religious background hard to unite. Zoroastrianism meanwhile, was a religion based around a collection of orthodox, educated and zealous priests all deriving from the area of Fars Province and were heavily connected to the Sassanid kings by lineage and ethnic compatibility. The Zoroastrian priesthood were centered in Iran and possessed powers in southern Iran that the Manichaens simply could not gain without the direct support of the King. Further, unlike Manichaeism, Zoroastrianism was a religion that held institutional powers and capabilities within the Iranic world and hence more defensible against the Great Houses.
Eventually, the Great King would use the Zoroastrian religion to impose a clerical order and bureaucratic system to counter the power of the Great Houses and it is possible that the preference of Zoroastrians to Manicahens came from this understanding.
Iranian views during the classical period, while often dualistic, understood the world as under the possession of the Great King and the Great Houses, the Iranian elite therefore were ideal rulers, in their material/physical bodies. The Gods of the Iranian peoples co-habited this realm with them and were their ancestors, providing the Great Kings the wisdom, power and legitimacy to not only rule Iran, but in theory to rule all of existence. The Iranian Great King received his mandate by way of divine lineage and the 'aura of kingship' similar to Germanic kings in Europe, wherein the Divine embodied by the 'sun' (Mithra), granted the king his legitimacy through a process of illumination or granting of an aura and this is called the 'divine mandate.' Imparting of a kingly aura was not only a statement of legitimacy, but also that within the Great King, Divine Power was invested and in his words was the divine being, fully and completely divine and the true mediator of all creation to the divine energy of the heavens and the unseen gods all around mankind.
Mani presented the universe differently. According to Mani, the universe was not subdivided into a divine good and divine evil, but rather a realm of light arrayed against a realm of dark, with the earth being the 'mixing' placed of these two realms, with the dark having gained a 'momentary victory.' Mani attempted to try to appeal to the Great King by way of attempting to frame the Great King as 'Master of Light' and as a savior of all humanity and this was an interesting ploy. However, the issue despite all the flattery and grandiosity, was that implicit in the claims of Mani was a rejection of the Iranian kingship model. Yes, the Iranian king could be the savior and Master of Light, but to be that in the way Mani wished, the Great King had to accept the view that the world had been filled with darkness and that the Gods of yore were demonic and hence his claimed ancestors were also.
While that is an issue, I do not believe it is insurmountable... for one, the Germanic peoples of Europe were willing to slowly phase out their traditional gods and many of their religious customs to Christendom. However, there is a key division here between these divergent perspectives. Firstly, the Sassanid Great King, while great in bravado and famed for his sacrality, was of less sacred nature frankly than Germanic kings and his position was beleaguered by the Great Houses. The Great Houses, all supposedly kings in their own right, constructed an alternate mythos of sacrality that excluded the Great King near completely. Portraying the Great Houses as the Lord of the Realm and conquerors who were children of Darius and the mythical Kavanid dynasty, the Great Houses claimed to be of divine birth and of primordial stock ruling the land as near divine beings. The Great Houses would simply have never accepted Manichaeism as their personal dogmas without significant force, one that the Sassanid kings were not willing to utilize or lacked the power to do so.
Finally, Zoroastrianism, while also somewhat divergent and against the agenda of the Great Houses and also against the Sassanid's own dogma in the first decades of rule, was the best religion to adopt for the purposes of the Sassanid Great Kings. Manichaeism as I mentioned was a religion on the fringes of Iranian life, a foreigner faith with bases of power in the areas that produced the least soldiers and often made up people who were of diverse religious background hard to unite. Zoroastrianism meanwhile, was a religion based around a collection of orthodox, educated and zealous priests all deriving from the area of Fars Province and were heavily connected to the Sassanid kings by lineage and ethnic compatibility. The Zoroastrian priesthood were centered in Iran and possessed powers in southern Iran that the Manichaens simply could not gain without the direct support of the King. Further, unlike Manichaeism, Zoroastrianism was a religion that held institutional powers and capabilities within the Iranic world and hence more defensible against the Great Houses.
Eventually, the Great King would use the Zoroastrian religion to impose a clerical order and bureaucratic system to counter the power of the Great Houses and it is possible that the preference of Zoroastrians to Manicahens came from this understanding.
This is a great summary on the whole, but the bolded part isn't accurate. Manichaeism typically addressed Persian deities as part of the "family of light", including Mithra.
As did Zoroastrianism, but this did not stop members and ideologues of the Great Houses from espousing the view that the 'gods' and names used within Zoroastrianism were perversions of their 'Great Gods.' Bahram Chobin said of the Zoroastrian religion that it was inferior and that the god of Khosrau II was inferior to his gods, etc... In my view, the elites of Iran will view the Manichaens as delegitimizing their gods no matter what Mani attempts or tries to bend around in various odd ways like Manichaeism tried to do otl.
It's always a pleasure to see one of your posts, they're always very informative.
Anyway, you said Manichaeism was based in Syria and Mesopotamia, so here's an idea: would it be more likely for the Sasanians to convert to said religion if they somehow conquered the Levant in the 3rd century? Say the crisis Rome goes through is even worse, they had a few lucky breaks so it shouldn't be too hard to come up with a POD.
Carter I'm Yog
Banned
That does not change the situation where Mazdayasna is rooted on the conquering Iranian population and Manichaeism of the various conquered peoples in the area. It could lead to a more successful spread of Manichaeism in the Roman Empire, perhaps.
Mazdayasna is also a very rite-heavy faith. In addition to the "contest for the gods" John7755 mentioned, in his rebellion Chobin also proposed to cancel the Hundred Days' Feast, an important ritual for the Shahanshahs marking that spring is only a hundred days away, hence "Hundred Days' Feast" (Jashn-e Sadeh).
Last edited:
Yeah, although this is a silly generalization and I fully expect to get lambasted for saying this, throughout history it's rare with a conqueror to adopt the religion of the conquered, unless the conqueror is a migrant and has no real "home territory" as a base of support. At the end of the day, the Sassanians drew the overwhelming bulk of their military strength from the Iranian plateau and the eastern fringe of their empire. This was a region with its own long religious tradition that was fundamentally distinct not just from the Greco-Roman world but also the Mesopotamian / Syrian one. Even if the Sassanians conquered an area roughly corresponding to the Diocese of Oriens and Egypt, and held it successfully, they'd still be stuck with approximately the same state structure.
All this is not to say that the Sassanians could not be nice / tolerant to Manichaeism, within certain parameters. Individual Sassanian rulers, especially successful ones who worked their way free of the powerful noble houses to some degree, could indulge such proclivities. They might see it as less of a potential fifth column than Christianity, for example. But conversion to Manichaeism would basically be a bottom-up revolution of the Sassanian state, such that the ensuing polity would be something fundamentally different imo.