Sassanid Empire Hold Off The Caliphate

Sorry I'm posting so frequently I have a lot of ideas and questions in my head about Alternate History.

So, how could the Sassanid Empire hold off against the Rashidun Caliphate?

Is it even possible?

Is there anyway that in our modern world we could see a Zoroastrian Persia instead of an Islamic Iran (Persia)?

Any other comments would be great as well. Thank you to those who comment, as usual.
 
Sorry I'm posting so frequently I have a lot of ideas and questions in my head about Alternate History.

So, how could the Sassanid Empire hold off against the Rashidun Caliphate?

Is it even possible?

Is there anyway that in our modern world we could see a Zoroastrian Persia instead of an Islamic Iran (Persia)?

Any other comments would be great as well. Thank you to those who comment, as usual.

A possible scenario for this could be Shah Khosrau II being spared by the byzantines.
As seen in this thread: https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/persia-defeats-the-arabs-scenario.5390/
According to them, persia's fall to the arabs was a result of multiple dynastic crises.

As to persia converting inevitably to islam like some could start saying in this thread, I think it's implausible. It's hard to religiously convert a person, and persian zoroastrians could still live in harmony with persian muslims if the sassanids remain tolerant after successfully repelling the arabs.

Implications for this scenario could be:
-A stronger, yet more divided, polytheist India, since islam's advance in the area would be severely curtailed, causing conversions to mostly be restricted to mercantile coastal areas.
-As for the Byzantine Empire, i wouldn't be sure on it being more endangered by a stronger Sassanid Empire.
-The Khazars would be stronger, with less religious differences causing trouble in the region.
-Islam being predominant in Turkestan could also be butterflied away, what with a zoroastrian religious blockade in the way.
-However, the Ummayads could still expand westwards across northern africa, still taking advantage of egypt's religious turmoil.
 
Last edited:
A possible scenario for this could be Shah Khosrau II being spared by the byzantines.
As seen in this thread: https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/persia-defeats-the-arabs-scenario.5390/
According to them, persia's fall to the arabs was a result of multiple dynastic crises.

As to persia converting inevitably to islam like some could start saying in this thread, I think it's implausible. It's hard to religiously convert a person, and persian zoroastrians could still live in harmony with persian muslims if the sassanids remain tolerant after successfully repelling the arabs.

Oh thank you I didn't see this was addressed before.

See I agree with you. I think if Persia could win against the Islamic Rashidun Caliphate that Persia would still be majority Zoroastrian with Islamic, Christian and Jewish minorities.
 
I doubt Iran at this point can eat the Islamic or any United Arab armies when united under the government of the Sassanid in the 500s-600s. The Sassanid state at this point showed extreme amount of incompetence even with the ability of Khisrau and a well powered army. Not long before the Sassanid war of aggression on Phocas, Maurice had utterly shamed the Sassanids in Iraq, it was clear at that point that the Sassanids were not the same power that they were years before and had descended to a level of status to that of the Parthians.

Sassanid power at this point can be gauged at its supposed full power when at war with Phocas and later Heraclus. In these wars the Sassanids taking advantage of the Avar Khaganate and the fall of the Danube front after the death of Maurice, took the Middle East quickly which already had to reposition to defend Greece from the thrust from the Avars and their confederates. Once in control, Khisrau despite skill in battle and talent shown in his alliance with Maurice previously, was then defeated utterly by Heraclus, despite every advantage and then his empire collapsed under him forcing him to surrender just to defend Cteshipon.

Something serious was wrong within the Sassanid state that made it weak on the defense and a failure in terms of planning. The armies of the Rashidun did the same as Heraclus but this time the Sassanids faced an enemy who wasn't in a serious handicapped position (strifed Byzantium), we see the result of such a war.

Basically, the Sassanids when one takes a reasoned approach could easily categorize the Sassanids a true paper tiger in their later reign, and the only power at the time that could defeat the Arab state completely without extremely competent rule, is Byzantium.
 
Sorry I'm posting so frequently I have a lot of ideas and questions in my head about Alternate History.

So, how could the Sassanid Empire hold off against the Rashidun Caliphate?

Is it even possible?

Is there anyway that in our modern world we could see a Zoroastrian Persia instead of an Islamic Iran (Persia)?

Any other comments would be great as well. Thank you to those who comment, as usual.

The Sassanids got really unlucky against the Arabs. It is difficult for them to stem the Arab tide in Mesopotamia (the country was really wrecked by Khosrau II). However, it isn't implausible for the Persians to retain some of Mesopotamia. It is absolutely plausible for the Persians to lose only Mesopotamia, but retain the rest of the empire.

How things play out in the long run is more difficult. It is quite possible that, just like the Romans and the Indians, the Persians resist the initial attempts at conquest, but fall to a later set of Muslim conquerors. It is also quite possible that Persia is converted to Islam by missionaries, rather than by conquerors.

The effects on Persian culture and on Islam itself would be fairly huge - the evolution of the early faith is changed, there may be no Islamic agricultural revolution, there may be no Islamic scientific revolution (Persians as well as trade across Persia and Central Asia were key to how both of the latter unfolded in OTL). Likely, the Persian literary flowering that followed the conquest is delayed for some centuries, since the nobility of the country can continue to act in their traditional military capacity - in OTL, the Arabs kept the Persians out of military work for some time, pushing talent into the civil service, which encouraged the wealthy classes to develop the literacy and numeracy of their sons - which meant those same sons started writing poetry and writing histories of their grand culture (since that culture was under thread from Arab domination).

I suspect that absent the conquests, while the decline of Zoroastrianism would be slower, it would continue. The religion had already been losing ground to Christianity before the Arab conquests, and most accounts I've read have thought that Christianity was equal in popularity with Zoroastrianism by the time of the conquest, with each accounting for about 40% of Persia's population. The remaining third was mostly accounted for by Buddhists and Jews.

So even if Persia continues to resist Islam (both in missionary and conquering forms) I doubt it would be a Zoroastrian majority country. More likely it is, like India, a bewildering mix of faiths.

fasquardon
 
I suspect that absent the conquests, while the decline of Zoroastrianism would be slower, it would continue. The religion had already been losing ground to Christianity before the Arab conquests, and most accounts I've read have thought that Christianity was equal in popularity with Zoroastrianism by the time of the conquest, with each accounting for about 40% of Persia's population. The remaining third was mostly accounted for by Buddhists and Jews.

So even if Persia continues to resist Islam (both in missionary and conquering forms) I doubt it would be a Zoroastrian majority country. More likely it is, like India, a bewildering mix of faiths.

fasquardon

I may be mistaken, but it's my understanding from prior readings that I've done that Zoroastrianism was heavily dominant in Iran proper, among Farsi speakers, while Christianity predominated in the Mesopotamian portions of the Sassanid Empire, among the Aramaic speakers, as well as in Sassanid Armenia and some of the southern parts of the Empire like Bahrain. Buddhism (and some Hinduism) was mostly in the eastern parts like Bactria, although it competed with Zoroastrianism and wasn't necessarily dominant.

Consequently, I think the dominant religion in Persia depends on how much of it is conquered by the Rashidun. If the Rashidun don't take Mesopotamia, the Sassanids will be left with the status quo; Christian-majority Mesopotamia, Zoroastrian Iran, and a Buddhist east. But if the Rashidun take Mesopotamia, the demographics would shift dramatically in favor of Zoroastrianism.
 
IIRC it was argued in an earlier discussion about the battle of Yarmouk (between the Arabs and Byzantines) that if the Byzantines had won this battle, the Arabs would have been sufficiently weakened for them not to be able to conquer the Sassanid Empire, because they would not get sufficient reinforcements. I don´t know sufficiently about the situation myself to judge whether this is a fair assessment. As far as I understand, Zoroastrianism was already becoming a weaker force in the Sassanid Empire. Maybe the Manicheans or Christians would have grown stronger if the Arabs had not conquered the empire. Probably some would also convert to Islam, but much fewer than if the empire was conquered.
 

Spengler

Banned
I guess you could have them victorious over the Roman Empire in that war instead of how it was historically.
 
I may be mistaken, but it's my understanding from prior readings that I've done that Zoroastrianism was heavily dominant in Iran proper, among Farsi speakers, while Christianity predominated in the Mesopotamian portions of the Sassanid Empire, among the Aramaic speakers, as well as in Sassanid Armenia and some of the southern parts of the Empire like Bahrain. Buddhism (and some Hinduism) was mostly in the eastern parts like Bactria, although it competed with Zoroastrianism and wasn't necessarily dominant.

Certainly, the different religions were more concentrated in the areas you mention. From what I've read, there seem to have been Christians and Zoroastrians throughout the empire though.

So yes, losing Mesopotamia drastically reduces the Christian population - it doesn't eliminate it though.

And the decline of Zoroastrianism and Buddhism in the region seems to be a deeply rooted phenomenon, not linked to the arrival of Islam. There's some argument as to what the causes are, and it is possible that either decline could be reversed by some sort of religious reformation.

fasquardon
 
Top