Turks in a No-Islam scenario: What could happen?

The Non-Trinitian Christians who have conquered the regions following Trinitian sects have mostly converted to the latter. Goths and Vandals being an example. I wonder the reasons for this. Or could it be avoided?

nestorians where not anti triniterian like the arianisim , they had some conflicts with the trinity but nestorians had more conflict on the nature of chirst

not his postion in the god head
 
Why would the Persians convert to Byzantine Christianity and not just make their own church (probably just Syriac Christianity made more acceptable for imperial needs)? There's no advantage to converting to the sort of Christianity propagated by Byzantium other than letting their clergy from the Patriarch on down pull strings in your state. And in that case the Khazars still have their OTL issue.

And I disagree that Zoroastrianism would be inevitably on the way out. Indian faiths (Zoroastrianism had a pretty broad spectrum of beliefs in the Sassanid era after all) stayed strong against a universal religion for many centuries.

Zoroastrianism would survive

but it would not expand

Zoroastrianism was an ethnic religion and it never had the same fervor to convert the masses or preach to people like christiniaty

also Zoroastrianism was a duellist religion which cast the world as good and evil. The Persians, naturally, were good, and by extension those who opposed it were evil and should be resisted .

so it would make it even harder for outsiders to convert much less the steppe tribes who are considered evil

the only ones who would covert to the religion would be if the turks conquer iran and once assimilated they would pose themselves as sha and adopt the religion
 

Metaverse

Banned
As they existed OTL and it was quite popular for a long while, yes
It was prevalent among the Uyghurs. I don't think the Tatars, Khazars, Bashkirs and the Volga Bulgars would convert to it. The answer is because they are too far and nearer to a stronger religion, Byzantine Christianity. Buddhism could be a stronger contender compared to Mani.
 
The great Göktürk Khaganate was developed independently of Islam. So the spread of the Turks has already occurred across Central Asia and I do not see that trend reversing. Could they have expanded further after that? They likely would because that is sort of a thing Central Asia does periodically. I don't doubt that many Turkic tribes or confederations would spread across Eurasia like what happened in OTL.

But we should compare what happened to the Christian Turks vs the Islamic Turks in OTL. The former conquered areas of Europe and then were assimilated into the Christian population leaving at best, in the case of Bulgaria, the name of their country. The ones that converted to Islam not only managed to keep their identity, but ended up dominating the Middle East and those areas of Asia. Could the latter sort of of thing happen in non Islamic world? I suppose it could, but the Christians and the Zoroastrians have strong national identities and it seems even if they ended up being conquered, it seems more likely that the Turks would assimilate into those populations instead.

So in conclusion, Central Asia and perhaps the Caucuses would be Turkified, but it is more iffy they would expand (in a cultural sense) beyond that.

Not true of the Hungarians.
 
It was prevalent among the Uyghurs. I don't think the Tatars, Khazars, Bashkirs and the Volga Bulgars would convert to it. The answer is because they are too far and nearer to a stronger religion, Byzantine Christianity. Buddhism could be a stronger contender compared to Mani.
The Uyghurs were the only "state" to have it as the "state religion" but on an individual basis Manichaeism was very popular on the silk road and amongst those who raided it.
 

Metaverse

Banned
The Uyghurs were the only "state" to have it as the "state religion" but on an individual basis Manichaeism was very popular on the silk road and amongst those who raided it.
Add Sogdia to that list. But I don't really see how it would catch up with the Tatars, Bashkirs, Bulgars, etc who would be in the Christian sphere of influence. It could catch up with the Oghuz Turks in the present Turkmenistan(the ancestors of the Turkmen, Seljuks and the Azeris) and also the Kazakhs and the Uzbeks.
 
Zoroastrianism would survive

but it would not expand

Zoroastrianism was an ethnic religion and it never had the same fervor to convert the masses or preach to people like christiniaty

also Zoroastrianism was a duellist religion which cast the world as good and evil. The Persians, naturally, were good, and by extension those who opposed it were evil and should be resisted .

so it would make it even harder for outsiders to convert much less the steppe tribes who are considered evil

the only ones who would covert to the religion would be if the turks conquer iran and once assimilated they would pose themselves as sha and adopt the religion
There have been a couple perspectives on Turan, and some peoples living in Turan like the Sogdians were Zoroastrians. As were other people outside Iran's borders, like the Armenians, who perhaps could have been converted to follow the more orthodox Zoroastrianism of the Sassanid state (or a later Persian state, which would likely include a dynasty of Turkic origins). Same with Georgia and the Caucasus in general, which if Zoroastrianism followed a course like Georgian Christianity (maybe in a Byzantium screw) then Zoroastrianism would eventually move north to the various Caucasian and Turkic peoples there (and the culturally related Alans). Zoroastrianism is basically the faith of the culturally Persian (not ethnically or linguistically), so as the Persian cultural realm spreads (OTL this includes Turkic countries like Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, etc.), then so will Zoroastrianism.

As to how you'd get all the Turks to convert to Zoroastrianism, that's a bit trickier, but assuming a strong trans-Caspian trade with the Volga Bulgars plus centers in the North Caucasus like in Alania, then perhaps they might introduce it as their state religion and from there they could convert various steppe hordes that come through the area, and eventually Zoroastrianism becomes the religion of more settled peoples, who by the 16th/17th century perhaps are expanding all throughout Siberia in a manner similar to the Russians. Like Russia, many Turkic groups may not adopt Zoroastrianism, but it will strongly influence their religions regardless. Perhaps this Persian dynasty of Turkic origin would restructure Zoroastrianism in a new manner making it easier to spread.
 
There have been a couple perspectives on Turan, and some peoples living in Turan like the Sogdians were Zoroastrians. As were other people outside Iran's borders, like the Armenians, who perhaps could have been converted to follow the more orthodox Zoroastrianism of the Sassanid state (or a later Persian state, which would likely include a dynasty of Turkic origins). Same with Georgia and the Caucasus in general, which if Zoroastrianism followed a course like Georgian Christianity (maybe in a Byzantium screw) then Zoroastrianism would eventually move north to the various Caucasian and Turkic peoples there (and the culturally related Alans).
Zoroastrianism is basically the faith of the culturally Persian (not ethnically or linguistically), so as the Persian cultural realm spreads (OTL this includes Turkic countries like Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, etc.), then so will Zoroastrianism.

As to how you'd get all the Turks to convert to Zoroastrianism, that's a bit trickier, but assuming a strong trans-Caspian trade with the Volga Bulgars plus centers in the North Caucasus like in Alania, then perhaps they might introduce it as their state religion and from there they could convert various steppe hordes that come through the area, and eventually Zoroastrianism becomes the religion of more settled peoples, who by the 16th/17th century perhaps are expanding all throughout Siberia in a manner similar to the Russians. Like Russia, many Turkic groups may not adopt Zoroastrianism, but it will strongly influence their religions regardless. Perhaps this Persian dynasty of Turkic origin would restructure Zoroastrianism in a new manner making it easier to spread.

Armenian is not a good example since by 400 AD the Armenian cruch became a great part of being armenian
Even when the sassanid Shas forced the religion apon them the chrsitian Armenians would revolt or side with Rome
While not as big as Armenian the georgians had also adopted Christianity the Shas forced zoroastrianisim but despite their efforts it never replaced chirstianity

Mepotamia was also largely chirstian
And the sassanid Eastern provinces had many budhist

Well
For it to expand it would need to reform the religion it is also competing against budishim in the east
Considering that the sassanid empire was basically a rump state after the Byzantine sassanid war of 602-628 and the sassanid civil wars of 628-32
If a new dynasty takes control by let's say the time of the Muslims conquest ( that obviously does not happen)
Around 650

The new dynasty would have to first concentrate on internal refrom
Even if you get higly competent men this will take some time to revive the state

It can't expand zoroastrianisim via trade beacuse well trade is dead for this period

Simply put the Caucases are chirstian by 600 AD with the after math of the war and the civil war Persia is in no condition to reclaim these or any territory or expaned via trade

While this is happening Rome would recover sooner and would have trade and the tang dynasty was expanding

This does give Christianity and budishim a head start to convert the turkic tribes

But we'll like I said for the religion to truely expand it would have to refrom
If a turkic state does it when would it do it ?
Some Uyghurs would apdot the religion in starting from 800 AD

Assuming that turkic migrations go the same
The turks could conquer Persia in the mid 10th century
By this time Bulgaria has converted
The magyars are on there way
Same as the Rus
(Note with a stronger byzantuim the magyars and Bulgaria could convert faster)
So yeah for the western steppe Christianity has more advantages

Volga bulgaria could be chrsirian with out Islam
An area where I can see zoroastrianisim beging to expand is trasoxiana
 
Last edited:
Whatever they convert (edit: Except Judaism), we would still have the fabled recipe of Turkish Pork Roast that was the direct precursor to Kebab, instead of it being lost in time due to Pork becoming Haraam.

Considering they are deemed worthy as foods for Emperors and Kings' Banquets, that should be one hell of a dish, especially when mentioned by Eastern Roman AND Mongolian Sources.

Source on this? I thought kebab as we know it started as an Ottoman street food.

For it to expand it would need to reform the religion it is also competing against budishim in the east
Considering that the sassanid empire was basically a rump state after the Byzantine sassanid war of 602-628 and the sassanid civil wars of 628-32
If a new dynasty takes control by let's say the time of the Muslims conquest ( that obviously does not happen)
Around 650

The new dynasty would have to first concentrate on internal refrom
Even if you get higly competent men this will take some time to revive the state

It can't expand zoroastrianisim via trade beacuse well trade is dead for this period

The Byzantines are weak in that period (overextension thanks to that war, new conflicts in Europe and North Africa), so the Sassanids have some breathing room. There's also the almost-inevitable Arab expansions (without Islam/the Caliphate) which will hit harder on Byzantium (Syria/Egypt) which Persia can seize upon and establish some nice buffers. I was thinking you'll get the total Sassanid collapse in the 9th century at the hands of the Turks. Then the Turks will do what they need to with the religion. They could "reform" it (much as Kartir did) in their own way, separating it from the many varieties of "folk Zoroastrianism". Or maybe they'd just outright convert to Manichaeism in a parallel to how the Romans converted to the once-persecuted Christianity (or course, Persian Christianity could bloom under a Syriac Church or the Nestorians). But if we assume they reform Zoroastrianism and create a new orthodoxy, then they'll be able to expand that faith.

Although my original post did mention that the Sassanids need to be more successful in the 6th-7th century and still have a solid Armenian and Georgian vassal. Go back a century or so before and they can uproot Christianity in that region and keep the common people practicing a "folk Zoroastrianism" of which the elite can be bent toward the "correct" orthodoxy.

Overall, the Turks will be hugely influenced by Persian culture, and the 5th century onward
 
For it to expand it would need to reform the religion it is also competing against budishim in the east
Considering that the sassanid empire was basically a rump state after the Byzantine sassanid war of 602-628 and the sassanid civil wars of 628-32
If a new dynasty takes control by let's say the time of the Muslims conquest ( that obviously does not happen)
Around 650

The new dynasty would have to first concentrate on internal refrom
Even if you get higly competent men this will take some time to revive the state

It can't expand zoroastrianisim via trade beacuse well trade is dead for this period

The Byzantines are weak in that period (overextension thanks to that war, new conflicts in Europe and North Africa), so the Sassanids have some breathing room. There's also the almost-inevitable Arab expansions (without Islam/the Caliphate) which will hit harder on Byzantium (Syria/Egypt) which Persia can seize upon and establish some nice buffers. I was thinking you'll get the total Sassanid collapse in the 9th century at the hands of the Turks. Then the Turks will do what they need to with the religion. They could "reform" it (much as Kartir did) in their own way, separating it from the many varieties of "folk Zoroastrianism". Or maybe they'd just outright convert to Manichaeism in a parallel to how the Romans converted to the once-persecuted Christianity (or course, Persian Christianity could bloom under a Syriac Church or the Nestorians). But if we assume they reform Zoroastrianism and create a new orthodoxy, then they'll be able to expand that faith.

Although my original post did mention that the Sassanids need to be more successful in the 6th-7th century and still have a solid Armenian and Georgian vassal. Go back a century or so before and they can uproot Christianity in that region and keep the common people practicing a "folk Zoroastrianism" of which the elite can be bent toward the "correct" orthodoxy.

Overall, the Turks will be hugely influenced by Persian culture, and the 5th century onward Sassanid Empire will have a huge influence on their later history.
 
There have been a couple perspectives on Turan, and some peoples living in Turan like the Sogdians were Zoroastrians. As were other people outside Iran's borders, like the Armenians, who perhaps could have been converted to follow the more orthodox Zoroastrianism of the Sassanid state (or a later Persian state, which would likely include a dynasty of Turkic origins). Same with Georgia and the Caucasus in general, which if Zoroastrianism followed a course like Georgian Christianity (maybe in a Byzantium screw) then Zoroastrianism would eventually move north to the various Caucasian and Turkic peoples there (and the culturally related Alans). Zoroastrianism is basically the faith of the culturally Persian (not ethnically or linguistically), so as the Persian cultural realm spreads (OTL this includes Turkic countries like Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, etc.), then so will Zoroastrianism.

As to how you'd get all the Turks to convert to Zoroastrianism, that's a bit trickier, but assuming a strong trans-Caspian trade with the Volga Bulgars plus centers in the North Caucasus like in Alania, then perhaps they might introduce it as their state religion and from there they could convert various steppe hordes that come through the area, and eventually Zoroastrianism becomes the religion of more settled peoples, who by the 16th/17th century perhaps are expanding all throughout Siberia in a manner similar to the Russians. Like Russia, many Turkic groups may not adopt Zoroastrianism, but it will strongly influence their religions regardless. Perhaps this Persian dynasty of Turkic origin would restructure Zoroastrianism in a new manner making it easier to spread.

There is a huge assumption that Sogdians were Zoroastrian... Islamic evidence assumes that they were polytheistic, Buddhist or otherwise varied other religions (some may have been Zoroastrian, but a slim minority if any). The nobility who ruled lands near the region of Sogdiana, were the ones who reviled the Persian religion of Zoroastrianism. Such was their hatred that when Bahram Chobin rebelled against Hormizd IV and Khosrow II he insulted Ahura Mazda completely and said that he was there to shame the religion of Khosrow II and 'his god' (Ahura Mazda). When Vitstahm Isphabudhan rebelled some time after Bahram, he stated that Khosrow should know his place as of inferior lineage, that his ancestor Sassan was a poor peasant. Sassan and his children, were priests in the region of Persia under the Arsacids, to the god Anahita, a precurssor to the Zoroastrian religion. In essence, the noble was saying that the high priest, thus a place among the Zoroastrian or proto-Zoroastrian religion was a peasant and of lowly stature, compared to his nature, a descendant of the great mythical kings of Iran, endowed by the great gods since time immemorial.

The Sogdians were also not culturally Persian until the Samanids and the general Islamic rule entered the region. It was a domain of Scytho-Tocharo-Sogdians who practiced sedentary life supplemented by periodic nomadism and long-distance trading. It has very little similarity to sedentary Persia (as in modern southwest Iran).

If Zoroastrianism was the religion of the culturally 'Persian,' then we would expect the Aremenians to have been so prior to Christianity, yet it was not so.... They were practitioners of Iranian polytheism and generally pre-Zoroastrian religious systems that were en vogue until the rise of Islam. The Kushanshahs seemed to completely disregard this supposed culture of Persia, despite ruling the supposed homelands of Zoroaster. This is a very clear-cut issue in my opinion, but one that is hampered by modern Iranian nationalism, Sassanid distortion, Persianism from the Western world (denying other Aryan traditions except that of Elam-Persia), mass media through strategy video games (especially Crusader Kings 2 and the recent Imperator Rome) and the subsequent Islamization of Persia and thenceforth conflation of Iran = Persia (in fact there is nothing the same, the noble houses seem to have held Persia as a despicable place of lowly people; while the Persian Sassanid royals, viewed the exterior lands of Persia, as lands of impiety and fraction).

There is no such thing as folk-Zoroastrianism, this was just a system by which the Sassanid royalty could negate and erase the nature of Iranian religion. It is akin to a Christian conquered Middle-East, referring to Islam as some sort of folk-heresy of Christianity or Jewish thinkers called Christianity a deviant folk tradition. Folk traditions are either just a general description of traditional polytheism or a reference to a situation where there is a clear religion and the peasantry are of such an opinion that they cannot tell the difference between where their religion begins and where the custom ends. So they mold the two together and reinterpret meanings. If anything, it was the Sassanid royalty who was practicing this, attempting to appeal to the nobles constantly, whilst reviling their polytheistic ways. This too is proven by Islamic accounts after 700, they mentioned that few if any of Iran is Zoroastrian aside from priests, everyone else practices other faiths; even the more Gnostic varieties of Zoroastrianism outlasted mainstream Zoroastrianism in Iran. Once the head was cut, it was in free fall...
 
Last edited:
The Byzantines are weak in that period (overextension thanks to that war, new conflicts in Europe and North Africa), so the Sassanids have some breathing room. There's also the almost-inevitable Arab expansions (without Islam/the Caliphate) which will hit harder on Byzantium (Syria/Egypt) which Persia can seize upon and establish some nice buffers. I was thinking you'll get the total Sassanid collapse in the 9th century at the hands of the Turks. Then the Turks will do what they need to with the religion. They could "reform" it (much as Kartir did) in their own way, separating it from the many varieties of "folk Zoroastrianism". Or maybe they'd just outright convert to Manichaeism in a parallel to how the Romans converted to the once-persecuted Christianity (or course, Persian Christianity could bloom under a Syriac Church or the Nestorians). But if we assume they reform Zoroastrianism and create a new orthodoxy, then they'll be able to expand that faith.

Although my original post did mention that the Sassanids need to be more successful in the 6th-7th century and still have a solid Armenian and Georgian vassal. Go back a century or so before and they can uproot Christianity in that region and keep the common people practicing a "folk Zoroastrianism" of which the elite can be bent toward the "correct" orthodoxy.

Overall, the Turks will be hugely influenced by Persian culture, and the 5th century onward Sassanid Empire will have a huge influence on their later history.

while true that the byzantine empire was not doing so hot heraclius does not have to deal with the arab invasions he only has to deal with internal reforms rome while exhuasted is a way better condition that than sassanid persia

Heraclius would live for another 14 years even if like the OTL he becomes senile by 640 that is still enougth time (more than a decade ) for byzantuim to recover

2) with out islam the concept of the arab invasions dimnishes do to not being a united force even if abu bakar or khalid decide to unite the arabs , and taking that in to consideration the attacks would have to be later down the line i say i decade or 2

if the arab invasions beging in 640s or 650 persia is no conditions to establish anything as the arabs would also attack mesopotemia , and rome has been given an extra decade to recover , and if khalid dies in the unification wars , say goodbye to most of the arab gains

3) if the arab invasions beging aroud 640 to 650 , rome has been giving a decade to recover , even in the best cirusmtance and let say Yazdegerd III was deposed in 635 , the new dynasty has to unite the warring independent nobles , and reconstruct the shater state

this gives him 5 to 15 years , there is no way in heck persia is gonna recover in that short range unless the new rulers are extraordenary competent iron willed like Adashir I



"Although my original post did mention that the Sassanids need to be more successful in the 6th-7th century and still have a solid Armenian and Georgian vassal. Go back a century or so before and they can uproot Christianity in that region and keep the common people practicing a "folk Zoroastrianism" of which the elite can be bent toward the "correct" orthodoxy."

but doest that go on to more alternate history , arent we viewing no islam , so the curse of the 6th and early 7th century stay the same?

"Go back a century or so before and they can uproot Christianity in that region and keep the common people practicing a "folk Zoroastrianism" of which the elite can be bent toward the "correct" orthodoxy."

such thing never existed before they praciticed chrisnitinanity we see a lot of polytheisim , not zoroastrianism


once armenia became chirstian even when the sassanids tried to enforece d there religion ithey would not convert them just look at Avarayr in 451


"Overall, the Turks will be hugely influenced by Persian culture, and the 5th century onward"

not true most of them did not adapt persian culture till after the muslim invasions
 
It would be interesting if some group of Zoroastrian Turks still conquers Constantinople in this timeline and turn the Hagia Sophia into a fire temple.

Fire temple =/ Zoroastrianism. Prior to the Sassanid era, worship of Ahtar/Hephaestus/Girra was independent of Zoroastrian connotations. In fact, worship of flames and fire temples have correlations to traditions preceding the arrival of Indo-Europeans into Elam-Anshan/Persia in Mesopotmian worship of Girra/Gibil.
 
Fire temple =/ Zoroastrianism. Prior to the Sassanid era, worship of Ahtar/Hephaestus/Girra was independent of Zoroastrian connotations. In fact, worship of flames and fire temples have correlations to traditions preceding the arrival of Indo-Europeans into Elam-Anshan/Persia in Mesopotmian worship of Girra/Gibil.

Fair enough, but in my defense, the misconception must be pervasive, as the term "fire temple" is associated with Zoroastrianism on the Wikipedia page for that topic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_temple
 
Fair enough, but in my defense, the misconception must be pervasive, as the term "fire temple" is associated with Zoroastrianism on the Wikipedia page for that topic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_temple

No, I do not blame you, in a previous post on this thread, I mentioned this enormous misconception and often times, intentional conception. It is constructed via:

-Modern Iranian nationalism
-Post-Islamic extrapolation of Persia to Eranshahr/Iran
-Western bias and simplification of events
-Poor reading of Greek historiography
-Sassanid imperialism as in Sassanian distortionism
-Mass-media simplification, seen in video games such as Crusader Kings or Imperator Rome, which to make the games easier, revert to simplifying situations in ways that appeal to the general popular notion
 
Top