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

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).

I admit that I might be anachronistic in my assumptions on the Sogdians. I'd assume that since they were very proximate to the Sassanids, and that Sogdians seem to be the obvious route of transmission of attested Zoroastrian communities in China, they'd have a sizable community of that faith or something similar (all manner of Iranian beliefs). Like a lot of Central Asia, they had their Buddhist, Christian, and Manichaean communities. But certainly their development would continue as OTL with or without Islam.

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).

You have a point, but how do you fit Armenian gods Anahit (Persian Anahita) or Aramazd (Georgian Armazi or of course Persian Ahura Mazda) into this? It seems evident there was since Antiquity plenty of influence from Persia in religious practices in surrounding areas, which might prove fertile ground for some powerful Persia-based empire's religious reform.

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...

I'm using "folk Zoroastrianism" as a synonym for "Iranian polytheism" as opposed to state-supported practice. I'm aware that it's somewhat imprecise (since Zoroastrianism as we know it owes a lot to Kartir and the post-Islamic developments), but as you noted, I've been using imprecise terminology and equating "Zoroastrianism" to "Iranian polytheism" since a lot of Western sources do so. I suppose it's like using "Hinduism" to describe to myriad of Indo-European-derived beliefs in the Indian subcontinent.

I think it depends on the definition of kebab.
Are we just using the skewered meat one common to Anglophone countries or the more generic grilled meat definition?
I'm defining it as the meat you get which is found roasting vertically on a spit.
 
I admit that I might be anachronistic in my assumptions on the Sogdians. I'd assume that since they were very proximate to the Sassanids, and that Sogdians seem to be the obvious route of transmission of attested Zoroastrian communities in China, they'd have a sizable community of that faith or something similar (all manner of Iranian beliefs). Like a lot of Central Asia, they had their Buddhist, Christian, and Manichaean communities. But certainly their development would continue as OTL with or without Islam.



You have a point, but how do you fit Armenian gods Anahit (Persian Anahita) or Aramazd (Georgian Armazi or of course Persian Ahura Mazda) into this? It seems evident there was since Antiquity plenty of influence from Persia in religious practices in surrounding areas, which might prove fertile ground for some powerful Persia-based empire's religious reform.



I'm using "folk Zoroastrianism" as a synonym for "Iranian polytheism" as opposed to state-supported practice. I'm aware that it's somewhat imprecise (since Zoroastrianism as we know it owes a lot to Kartir and the post-Islamic developments), but as you noted, I've been using imprecise terminology and equating "Zoroastrianism" to "Iranian polytheism" since a lot of Western sources do so. I suppose it's like using "Hinduism" to describe to myriad of Indo-European-derived beliefs in the Indian subcontinent.


I'm defining it as the meat you get which is found roasting vertically on a spit.

1. Understood. The reason that Hinduism is an incorrect comparison to Zoroastrian used in regards to Iranic polytheism, is that generally when we people describe particular Hindustani religious traditions that are unique or derived from a certain area, they are termed such. Further,traditions of the Aryans which are within the tradition of Sanatana Dharma and so forth, which have gone a different path totally, such as Buddhism, Jainism, Charvaka, etc... are termed as distinct religions, but from that original system of the Vedic-Aryan peoples. Zoroastrianism in my view, is a uniquely Persian development that drew from oral traditions of a prophet named Zoroaster. This religion developed as part of a priest-king tradition in the region that began after the fall of the Achaemenid empire and the subsequent Seleucid empire. According to the accounts we have, the region of Persia (Fars), corresponding to Elam-Anshan, was a land of priest-kings and ecclesiastical states of which included some city states and more or less council states. These were all under first, the Seleucid empire and later under the Arsacid empire. The Sassanian state began through the rebellion of a particular priest-king who conquered Persia and then defeated the Arsacid emperor, Artabanus IV and likely aligned with the nearby Surenid clan who assisted the nascent Sassanid priest-kings in defeating the final Arsacid claimant, Vologases V in Media.

Zoroastrianism developed principally from this priest-king tradition. High priest Kartir embodied a new movement or at least a new movement outside Persia, toward creating a truly priest-king relation for the Eranshahr that the Arsacids lacked.

2. My view is not that Persia had no influence, only that it is not the principle vector for this transmission and is not to be conflated with Iranian. Anahita regardless, was known outside of Persia, the distinction was the idea of a priest-kingship that is derived from Anahita, Ahura Mazda, etc etc... But Persia is part of the wider Iranian tradition, with its own style and system, so it is no wonder that they worshiped Anahita at one point and or the Iranian god, Ahura Mazda or Ahtar. The issue is that, the power in the region prior to Islam and since the fall of the Seleucid empire, was in the hands of the non-Persian nobles. When the Arabs invaded, the first domino to fall was the Persian Sassanids, the nobles would remain resisting and or assisting Islam/Arabs long after the fall of the Sassanid empire. In fact, Arab rule was made easier via the pragmatism of the Umayyad regarding the traditional Iranian nobility of the region, which they slowly phased out of power, but nonetheless, kept from rebelling aside from a few cases. If the Turks are to conquer the Sassanids, they will form into a confederation with the noble houses like the Sassanid did and begin a new dynasty, except without the priest-king tradition of the Sassanian family.

3. Sogdia is quite far from the Zoroastrian nexus in Persia, especially considering our lack of evidences of Zoroastrianism existing east of Persia aside from Sassanian related royalty, such as the tombs and communities in China or Hindustan. Sogida though, is ultimately an area that was conquered by the Sasanians and never a core region; it was part of the empire for around 160-190 years, before the area revolted or was part of the wider Neo-Kushan realms.
 
A Turkish Orthodox Church ?
Could be , but in this alternate timeline the Turks have even less chances to conquer byzantuim
In our time
The turks won do to the polital instability following basil 2 death

The great leadership of Al arslan

And the main reason was Byzantine infigthing led the Turks to win

With a more powerful Byzantine empire the Turks may never settle in anatolia

So much he chances of a turkic cruch are slim
 
Last edited:
Could be , but in this alternate timeline the Turks have even less chances to conquer byzantuim
In our time
The turks won do to the polital instability following basil 2 death

The great leadership of Al arslan

And the main reason was Byzantine infigthing led the Turks to win

With a more powerful Byzantine empire the Turks may never settle in anatolia

So much he chances of a turkic cruch are slim

No, the Saljuqs defeated the Byzantines at their supposed apogee of power post-Islam. Considering the state of Byzantine empire during the late Sassanid Empire, the eastern sections most certainly could fall to a Turkic Eranshahr; especially if they possess their own Turkic army in addition to an alliance with the nobles of Iran... Their army would certainly be one to be feared, more so than the army under Khosrow II which held Byzantium under Phocas and Heraclius down. Byzantium can most certainly fall...
 
Buddhism is the most likely bet for religion-- you've got several points of contact (the Tarim city-states, Tibet, China) from which it can spread into the wider Turkic sphere and the Uyghurs at the very least were already responding to this OTL (and might have gone further if not for the rise of the Islamic Karakhanids). Nestorianism and Manichaeism are fun to think about, but once trade stops being the purview of mobile minorities (and merchants of more populous religions backed by state power start entering the mix) such esoteric faiths will likely flame out completely or become unrecognizably heterodox.

As for other aspects of life; assuming the practice of slave-soldiers predates the Arabs, you'd probably see neighbors raid Turkic lands for that. But as they grow more populous, eventually they could bring the fight to these very same neighbors. It's hard to know if they'd be as successful as the Seljuks; a surviving Sassanid empire could put up much more or much less of a fight than the Buyids, depending on the manner of its survival. And if they do take over, their rule of Persia could go a lot of different ways-- the civil wars of the later Sassanids were fueled by feuds between the Parthian and Persian aristocratic houses, and the introduction of a third set of aristocratic houses could just as easily lead to a resolution of deadlock (there's a tiebreaker now!) as a 3-way civil war.
 
Buddhism is the most likely bet for religion-- you've got several points of contact (the Tarim city-states, Tibet, China) from which it can spread into the wider Turkic sphere and the Uyghurs at the very least were already responding to this OTL (and might have gone further if not for the rise of the Islamic Karakhanids). Nestorianism and Manichaeism are fun to think about, but once trade stops being the purview of mobile minorities (and merchants of more populous religions backed by state power start entering the mix) such esoteric faiths will likely flame out completely or become unrecognizably heterodox.

As for other aspects of life; assuming the practice of slave-soldiers predates the Arabs, you'd probably see neighbors raid Turkic lands for that. But as they grow more populous, eventually they could bring the fight to these very same neighbors. It's hard to know if they'd be as successful as the Seljuks; a surviving Sassanid empire could put up much more or much less of a fight than the Buyids, depending on the manner of its survival. And if they do take over, their rule of Persia could go a lot of different ways-- the civil wars of the later Sassanids were fueled by feuds between the Parthian and Persian aristocratic houses, and the introduction of a third set of aristocratic houses could just as easily lead to a resolution of deadlock (there's a tiebreaker now!) as a 3-way civil war.

Concerning the slave warrior custom, as far as I know, this was an invention of the Islamic period, especially in terms of steppe nomadic warrior class, usage of slave soldiers. The closest practice we get to this, that I am aware, would be the Assyro-Babylonian practice of subjugating peoples and then moving their tribes/clans to different lands and then to use them as labor or soldiers. However, this is not a Mamluk system at all, the Assyrians would simply move a large populace, settle them and then draw from this tribe soldiers in exchange for not destroying them in battle and or taking them as slaves. The Islamic example, was where there were grown men who were slaves captured from the steppe with existing martial capabilities and then are purchased by the Abbasid clan and used for military purposes.

Sassanid era situation was completely the opposite of the Islamic situation. During the Sassanid period, the varied cities that funneled these numbers of slaves into the wider Islamic world and victorious loot capturing armies in the north/east, were non-existent. Sassanid situations were that the steppe was controlled by strong powers, cities were less prone to slave trading than in the Islamic era or during the prior Kushan era and the power of the nobility was such that they discouraged slave trading and creation of such classes in both cities and in the royal circle. There most certainly was mercenary hired by the Sassanid royalty and hired by nobles, but this is not similar to the slave trade of warriors that became vogue during the Abbasid period. The only way that this could be created in a system, is for Byzantium, who enjoyed more distinctly the usage of mercenary than any of the powers of the Middle East at the time. If the Arabs still do conquer lands in the Middle East, there will not be the system developing of slave soldiers, which are borne from the following situations:

1. A state that has limited central government prerogative in terms of conscription. The state in said society has some sort of taboo toward mass conscription or inability logistically/politically to conscript enough soldiers from among its general populace. Abbasid period caliphs, were restricted from the creation of mass conscripted armies or standing armies due to the Islamic laws and rulings regarding the issue, which created a taboo and general resistance to such levies unless there was reasons. Abbasid armies were such that if there was not a societal wish for large invasion, it could be difficult to effectively wage war without support of local magnates.

2. The non-existence of powerful agnatic noble clans who guard their rights to provide military force for the empire/kingdom/society. In the Abbasid case, Arab clan power had been broken via the Islamic reformation of Arab customs and society, creating a regime that mixed varied systems under Sharia law and with systems of governors appointed by Abbasid powers who became local magnates and power brokers. In other words, there was no landed nobility in the sense of Sassanid period Iran or other states, the state of the nobility was more akin to China during the Tang or Byzantium. Nobles were just representatives of the Caliph, who often could 'go-local' and become a detriment to Abbasid policy.

3. A royal authority who generally wish to save money. The Abbasid caliphate was more interested in saving money and purchasing slaves who most likely had a lower long term price, than the idea of purchasing entire companies of freemen. Slaves were abundant in the Abbasid period and could be bought cheaply relatively, these could then be armed as you wish and like and also be brought into your religious and cultural situation. This was by all accounts Islamically permitted and seen as positive, it provides greater numbers of potential converts and limits military burden upon the Muslims who are freemen. Hiring of mercenary who are not Muslim, costs strains on the Muslim who must tolerate these people and also you are asking help from the disbelievers, which is disliked.

4. A large numbers of slaves who are men. There must be a large proportion of slaves funneling into the realm, especially of a quality who can be used in war. This means, that the slaves taken as loot, must have military experience and not just masses of peasants and also must be men/older boys and not women.

Most of the states in the Middle East do not meet these criteria. The closest is the Byzantine example, if say the bureaucrats become even stronger and limit so much the idea of local generalship and military, that the standard becomes armies solely of mercenary and slaves.
 
No, the Saljuqs defeated the Byzantines at their supposed apogee of power post-Islam. Considering the state of Byzantine empire during the late Sassanid Empire, the eastern sections most certainly could fall to a Turkic Eranshahr; especially if they possess their own Turkic army in addition to an alliance with the nobles of Iran... Their army would certainly be one to be feared, more so than the army under Khosrow II which held Byzantium under Phocas and Heraclius down. Byzantium can most certainly fall...

i have to desagree here the apogee was late 10th to the mid 11th century

basil 2 succesor , Constantine VIII (1025 to 1028), who lived a lavish life style as co emperor not carring for the state, ended when he took the throne

He met challenges with impulsive cruelty, persecuting the nobility and ordering an orgy of torture; blindgind was a favoured punishment for crimes real or imagined. He filled the senior court and state positions with nonentities. Within months the land laws of Basil II were dropped, under pressure from the Anatolian aristocracy. "Devoid of any semblance of moral fibre" he would grant any concession. Favouritism failed to win him friends and he persecuted the nobility when he felt threatened by conspiracy. The start of the decline of the Byzantine Empire has been linked to Constantine's accession to the throne. His reign has been described as "an unmitigated disaster", "a break up of the system" and causing "a collapse of the military power of the Empire".

romanos III (1028 - 1034)

tried to be good emperor but failed , since he wanted to imitate marcus aureliuis he

He spent large sums on new buildings and in endowing churches and monasteries. He endeavoured to relieve the pressure of taxation on the aristocracy, which undermined the finances of the state. Previous emperors had attempted to control the privileges of the nobles over the common people. Coming from the aristocracy himself, Romanos III abandoned this policy. This failure to stand up to the aristocrats allowed them to exploit the rural mass of landed peasantry, who increasingly fell into a condition of serfdom. This in turn undermined the traditional recruiting base of the Byzantine army. The combination of a reduced tax base and fewer native-born troops had long-term consequences. As revenue declined, the subsequent impoverishment of the state weakened the military's recruitment power .

he led unsecusfull campiangs against the arabs even thougth he had many advatages he lost and became a laughing-stock



Michael IV ( 1034 to 1041)

do to health he left the goverment mostly in the hands of his brother Jhon, John's reforms of the army and financial system revived the strength of the Empire against its foreign enemies but increased taxes, do to this and bad harvest and locust outbreaks revolts ocurred in major cities , this period is filled with conspiracies and some assination attemps

in military affairs he had some succses

Michael V (1041 to 1042)

did nothing since he didnt last long

zoe( 1042 to 1050)

the rivarly with thedora did not help the empire , and her purges didnt help either

Constantine IX
his purges didnt help , and he failed at the reconciliation of the 2 cruches , but he did have some military victories

Thedora good empress ad did her best to rule the empire

Michael VI did almost nothing since he died soon after

Isaac I Komnenos best emperor after Basil 2 death , doing necessary reforms to the state the bad thing is he died only 2 years in to his rule

Constantine X Doukas

policy favorable to the interests of the court bureaucracy , Severely undercutting the training and financial support for the armed forces, he fatally weakened Byzantine defences by disbanding the Armenian local militia at point of time, coinciding with the advance of the Seljuks Undoing many of the necessary reforms of Isaac I Komnenos he bloated the military bureaucracy with highly paid court officials and crowded the Senate with his supporters.

His decisions to replace standing soldiers with mercenaries and leaving the frontier fortifications unrepaired led Constantine to become naturally unpopular with the supporters of Isaac within the military aristocracy, who attempted to assassinate him in 1061. He also became unpopular with the general population after he raised taxes to try to pay the army.

Constantine lost most of italy
He also suffered invasions by Alp Arslan in Asia Minor in 1064, resulting in the loss of the Armenian capital and by the Turks in the Balkans in 1065, while Belagrade was lost to the Hungarians.

as we can see the 50 years after Basil 2 death was not a golden age for the byzantine empire , there is attemps to solve the problems that where caused , mainly Thedora and Isaac but the rule of Constantine X made their efforts null
 
@Goldensilver81

Fair enough, we can agree that the empire was in a weaker position relatively than say 1000. However, it was certainly not in a death spiral, it was simply making poor choices whilst in a position of an apogee of power. So yes, it was weaker, but due to poor decisions and so forth.
 
@Goldensilver81

Fair enough, we can agree that the empire was in a weaker position relatively than say 1000. However, it was certainly not in a death spiral, it was simply making poor choices whilst in a position of an apogee of power. So yes, it was weaker, but due to poor decisions and so forth.

not a death spiral it just that mazikert was unique , the turks had a great leader , the roman army was not the best do to Constantine X changes , the nobility hated Romanos IV

even with of that Romanos still had the advatage , if it where not for byzantine ingthing romanos would have destroyed the turks

even so the defeat at mazikert was not the thing that allowed the turks to rule it was the civil war that came from it

these are very specific conditions that may not be repeated in this timeline

in this timeline the romans have more men , provinces etc

" possess their own Turkic army in addition to an alliance with the nobles of Iran... Their army would certainly be one to be feared, more so than the army under Khosrow II which held Byzantium under Phocas and Heraclius down. Byzantium can most certainly fall..

actually if the turkic invasion of iran happens at the same time as our own , we may not see a swift conquest , the turks came at a perfect time where the place had not recovered from the decline of the abassid caliphate

a more stronger iran , could make the turkic invasion longer ,

and even if the turks conquer the iranian platu in a decade , i wouldt see many nobles flocking to their side as they would be invaders , in fact i see the opposite the persian begging for the romans to help them saying that the turks will go after them

i fact i see byzantuim and persia surviving this , persia migth be harmed way more but the turks would assimilate to persian culture

in fact the only way i see byzantium being conquered by the turks is after the mongol invasions
 
1. A state that has limited central government prerogative in terms of conscription.
2. The non-existence of powerful agnatic noble clans who guard their rights to provide military force for the empire/kingdom/society.
3. A royal authority who generally wish to save money.

So the Sassanids are unlikely to begin a slave-soldier system-- but I think that leaning heavily on #1 and #3 you can produce some contenders. If I remember correctly, the Saffarids were the first Islamic-Persian dynasty to start mass-buying Turkish soldiers, and used them to conquer Afghanistan. It would make sense for a similar group initially based in a low-population frontier area (and expecting a confrontation with a stronger enemy with control of major population centers, like the central government in a civil war) to buy soldiers after it recruits/conscripts the maximum number of freemen.

We may also consider the case of Tang China's An Lushan rebellion, in which both sides purchased mercenaries from the west. I was initially going to suggest that an expansionist Tang unencumbered by Talas could begin the slave-soldier phenomenon, but it doesn't have much reason to (and the slaves that were sold in China by Sogdians seem to have been meant for civilian purchasers). But if the Tang is instead engaged in a protracted struggle with some internal nemesis and desertion rates are too high to bear, Central Asian cities might get some utility out of their war prisoners; if instability in China persists (and is perhaps accompanied by instability in Persia or Byzantium), the sustained demand could lead to a full maturation of the slave-soldier industry.
 
So the Sassanids are unlikely to begin a slave-soldier system-- but I think that leaning heavily on #1 and #3 you can produce some contenders. If I remember correctly, the Saffarids were the first Islamic-Persian dynasty to start mass-buying Turkish soldiers, and used them to conquer Afghanistan. It would make sense for a similar group initially based in a low-population frontier area (and expecting a confrontation with a stronger enemy with control of major population centers, like the central government in a civil war) to buy soldiers after it recruits/conscripts the maximum number of freemen.

We may also consider the case of Tang China's An Lushan rebellion, in which both sides purchased mercenaries from the west. I was initially going to suggest that an expansionist Tang unencumbered by Talas could begin the slave-soldier phenomenon, but it doesn't have much reason to (and the slaves that were sold in China by Sogdians seem to have been meant for civilian purchasers). But if the Tang is instead engaged in a protracted struggle with some internal nemesis and desertion rates are too high to bear, Central Asian cities might get some utility out of their war prisoners; if instability in China persists (and is perhaps accompanied by instability in Persia or Byzantium), the sustained demand could lead to a full maturation of the slave-soldier industry.

According to our sources, the first purchases with the intention of creating armies of Turkic slaves, was in the years of 819-820. Such that by 830, the Abbasid had already accumulated armies of slaves at least to a degree. The Saffarid purchases would have been several decades later.

Though, I think your assessment is good. It just takes the creation of such local magnates like in the Abbasid period. Most states are without the idea of local ‘big men’ arising like this. This sort of requires a sort of meritocracy when it comes to military matters, and private initiatives for war; both of which Islam at that period possessed.

On the Tang point, I frankly, had never thought of this. A great idea, considering a Tang faction may have low numbers of recruits and Conor dates with slave soldiers due to some taboo regarding mercenary or just some type of visionary initiative. Perhaps the Tarim basin Tocharian cities could be revitalized as zones of transit and storage for said slaves and even places to train armies of slave men/boys to then be used to invade east and retake or sustain control in China or project into the weakening Sassanid empire. Good thoughts.
 
Top