Several Sassanid WIs

I was looking through an old research project I did on Zoroastrianism, which made me think of several interesting points of divergence. Determining the outcomes may be difficult due to the relative lack of information available on these topics.

WI the First: Shapur I converts to Manichaeism.

-Mani had a good relationship with Shapur I (reign started 240) to the extent that he named one of his books after him (the Shapuragan). His brother Mihrshah even converted. However, Zoroastrian propaganda and patronage of the religion was used to justify the Sassanid dynasty's overthrow of the Arsacids/Parthians in the first place. Could Shapur I become a Manichee while being able to deal with dangerous priests such as Kirdir?

WI the Second: Mazdakism succeeds in the Sassanid Empire.

Little is known about Mazdakism because it was so brutally repressed in OTL, and the later Pahlavi works treat it as a great heresy. It is believed that it was a proto-socialist movement that attempted to distribute the wealth of the Zoroastrian temples and clergy to the people. It also combined Zoroastrianism with Gnostic elements. Kavadh I (first reign started 488) appeared to support it, but was overthrown by the priesthood for his trouble. He came back to the throne, but had to give major concessions to the Zoroastrians to do so. His son Khosrau I later invited Mazdak to a banquet and murdered him. Could this movement survive and radically alter Sassanid society?

WI the Third: Yazdegird I converts to Christianity

Yazdegird I (ruled about 399-421) was a controversial ruler because he allowed Christians to bury the dead. Zoroastrians called him the "Sinner" ever since because of this, because burial ritually pollutes the sacred earth in that religion. In OTL, the Christians became a bit too zealous when they suddenly received religious liberty, so they destroyed several fire temples and refused to obey the king's orders to rebuild them. What if the rumors whispered at the time became true, and the Sassanid Empire was ruled by a Christian?

My sources on these WIs are the works of Mary Boyce and Ehsan Yarshater, which are highly valuable for anyone interested in this.
 
Poor, poor Sassanid Empire. My computer doesn't even recognize 'Sassanid' as a word.

I could definitely see Mazdakism remaining a thorn in the side of the Sassanid royalty and priesthood long, long after the man himself has died. The movement itself would change as different people (and possibly writings) came to define it, but it would have to come a long way before it could gain the strength to really change society in the face of oppression. I think it's even more likely that the ruling classes would just describe any insurrectionist movement as 'Mazdakist' regardless of its actual and connection or lack thereof with the original movement, and remain in perpetual fear of rebellion - like the British with Jacobites.

If Yazdegird is outed as a secret Christian, he won't be around for much longer. His country is firmly Zoroastrian at the time. Shapur... It's doable, but not politically expedient for him to espouse Manicheanism. I guess it would mean he had faith to the extent that he thought it the best religion for his people (a king's religion is the people's religion) even in light of the social-political situation, which would seem to say otherwise. Perhaps an earlier POD could tip the scales in the Manicheans' favour. I have a pretty high opinion of Shapur, so I think he'd be able to manage any challenges, but I also don't think he'd create such challenges for himself without good reason.

The real question is what happens to these religions when Islamic Arabs inevitably thoroughly conquer Persia. I mean, it's a rule that the Sassanids can't survive the 7th Century, isn't it?
 
Poor, poor Sassanid Empire. My computer doesn't even recognize 'Sassanid' as a word.

I could definitely see Mazdakism remaining a thorn in the side of the Sassanid royalty and priesthood long, long after the man himself has died. The movement itself would change as different people (and possibly writings) came to define it, but it would have to come a long way before it could gain the strength to really change society in the face of oppression. I think it's even more likely that the ruling classes would just describe any insurrectionist movement as 'Mazdakist' regardless of its actual and connection or lack thereof with the original movement, and remain in perpetual fear of rebellion - like the British with Jacobites.

If Yazdegird is outed as a secret Christian, he won't be around for much longer. His country is firmly Zoroastrian at the time. Shapur... It's doable, but not politically expedient for him to espouse Manicheanism. I guess it would mean he had faith to the extent that he thought it the best religion for his people (a king's religion is the people's religion) even in light of the social-political situation, which would seem to say otherwise. Perhaps an earlier POD could tip the scales in the Manicheans' favour. I have a pretty high opinion of Shapur, so I think he'd be able to manage any challenges, but I also don't think he'd create such challenges for himself without good reason.

The real question is what happens to these religions when Islamic Arabs inevitably thoroughly conquer Persia. I mean, it's a rule that the Sassanids can't survive the 7th Century, isn't it?

With these PODs, Islam wouldn't exist at all because history was changed earlier. Unless you're making a joke about AH cliches or something. :)

The Sassanids were in pretty serious trouble even without the Muslim invasion, as there were wars of succession shortly after Khosrau II's death, and recently lost a major war to the Byzantines. They just might have been able to hang on for a while if they didn't face a strong opponent, as Rome had plenty of civil wars during its history but still managed to survive for centuries.

OTL developments:

Even though the Qu'ran does not classify some of these religions as "People of the Book" like Jews, Christians, and the relatively unknown Sabeans were, "Magians" (i.e. Zoroastrians) are referenced as something other than "polytheists" on occasion, hinting at a more favorable treatment than pagans (See 22.017). Zoroastrians were protected in practice, but they sometimes faced persecution. To flee Muslim Persian oppression, many Zoroastrians fled to western India. They had a fairly strong presence in Persia for centuries after the conquest. However, without state support or a missionary zeal, Zoroastrianism gradually dwindled. I can't find much about their Manichaeism policy though. It must not have been that big in Persia by the time of the Arab conquest, or it would have been mentioned in the Qu'ran or something.

If you believe Wikipedia, Muslims persecuted Manichaeism. Considering how hard Christianity and Buddhism worked to stamp it out, it makes sense.


Manichaeism never became dominant except in a Uighur kingdom for some reason, although it survived in Western China until the 1400s IIRC. The religion then became extinct.

Mazdakism had a brief revival under Islamic rule, and its ideas influenced some of the more radical Shia sects of the time. The historian Biruni refers to this form of Shiism as "Khurrumis".

As for your computer not recognizing "Sassanid", the trouble with Persian history is that nothing is spelled consistently in the Roman alphabet.

EDIT: While writing this post, I found out that the Encyclopedia Iranica by our good friend Ehsan Yarshater is online, but not yet complete. I used one of his earlier encyclopedias "The Cambridge History of Iran" to do the research project.
 
Top