Why did the Sassanids suppress Buddhism and Hinduism?

Anawrahta

Banned
The Sassanids under priest kartir stamped out buddhist and brahmans from the eastern parts of the empire such bactria, margiana, Kapisa and Sogdia. Despite this the Nestorian church suffered some persecution but not to the same extent. Why did Sassanians favor the Christians and Jews over the Buddhists and Hindus? Perhaps similarity to zoroastrianism?
 
Nestorianism was relatively new and evolved alongside the Sassanid empire and borne through schisms in the Roman Empire. Said schism, benefitted the Sassanid empire. Later emperors of the Sassanid realm, who disgruntled with the power of the nobility and certain high priests, sought favor with nestorianism to solidify monarchical power over the forces of traditionalism and decentralization. Further, Nestorianism offered a counter point to the Monothelite, Chalcedonian/Catholic or such positions opposing the Sassanid political agenda and thus Nestorianism could be used to rule the populaces sought after by Sassanid geopolitical machines.

Buddhism and Hinduism on the other hand, were religions among other traditional faiths of Iran, part of that old Iran of the Arsacid Empire. One imagines the Sassanid empire as a sort of progressive remodeling of the Eranshahr, with a new religion, new absolute monarchism and a powerful imposing nature of dominance upon its foes. While, the Arsacid were quickly labeled as over-tolerant, a group of steppe nomads (they were), uncultured, effeminate and failures militarily. As well as the Arsacid issue, the most dangerous foe for Sassanid policy in the early period, was the Kushan empire which promoted actively a counter-system to the zealous imperialism of the Sassanids. Kushan identity revolves around the vast collection of gods worshipped and the encompassing existence of Buddhism, the sort of semi-nomadic Scythian-Saka army and the Kushan imperial family’s cult of personality. Sassanid interests required the crushing of this opposing system and dangerously powerful empire. This included the destruction or degradation/remodeling of Iranian paganism and the overt destruction of Iranic Buddhism.
 

Anawrahta

Banned

So as zoroastrianism was used to unite iranians, nestorianism was a tool to rule over the christian semites of mesopotamia. So basically this implies that the 7 parthian clans were not at all orthodox zoroastrianism and that they espoused heterodox antiquated religious traditions. I thought this was the role zoroastrianism played considering they attempted to convert armenia and assyria.
Perhaps the suppression and destruction of Iranic paganism assisted the muslims when they conquered the Iranian world. Perhaps the Sassanids already completed much of their work.
Considering the danger the Kidara, Alchon and Sveta Huna played, this would make sense as they considered themselves successors to the Kushan.
 
So as zoroastrianism was used to unite iranians, nestorianism was a tool to rule over the christian semites of mesopotamia. So basically this implies that the 7 parthian clans were not at all orthodox zoroastrianism and that they espoused heterodox antiquated religious traditions. I thought this was the role zoroastrianism played considering they attempted to convert armenia and assyria.
Perhaps the suppression and destruction of Iranic paganism assisted the muslims when they conquered the Iranian world. Perhaps the Sassanids already completed much of their work.
Considering the danger the Kidara, Alchon and Sveta Huna played, this would make sense as they considered themselves successors to the Kushan.

I am not sure that one may define the issue between the Sassanid monarch and the 7 great houses as one of religious nature. Though some of the houses likely did practice Iranic paganism and or Mithraism, their issue was different. The issue between the imperial house and the houses were that:

1. The great houses claimed a supernatural investment of the lands east of the Zagros as their domain. That is, a sort of Donation of Constantine situation, that they as large land owners had an ancestral right to rule these lands under the Emperor. They were thus, forces of decentralization no matter their faith.

2. When Peroz I was defeated and slain by the Hepthalites at Herat in 484, the Great Houses uniting their efforts, appointed the new emperor (Bolas). This appointment came too, with the Great Houses defeating the Hepthalite horde in battle and saving the empire. From this point onward, the houses had set a precedence of appointing emperors and also of saving the realm where the emperor had failed and been slain.

Later emperors saw the weakness in allowing this situation to continue. Hence the intensification of the conflict between the great houses and the central imperial court in Cteshipon.

Nestorianism was a tool not only to rule the Semitic populaces, but as a tool and model to empower the Sassanid monarch. It is not as simply as Semitic = Nestorian,, many of the Semitic populace of the Sassanid empire continued as pagans or were Manichaens or various other similar faiths.

I would not say the Hepthalites and their conglomerates were/are successors of the Kushan. However, the geopolitical role is slightly similar, yes.

Yes, I would agree that the Sassanids had done much of the work for the Muslims. The destruction and subversion of traditional culture and the play between the monarch and nobility allowed a more thorough top-down transmission of culture and religion to occur than what would have been possible otherwise. This is why Zoroastrianism in the sense of the general established religion played such a meager role during the caliphates. They were so tied to the Sassanid throne and Sassanism, that it ceased to be a power after said empire was lost and its memory extirpated.
 
Yes, I would agree that the Sassanids had done much of the work for the Muslims. The destruction and subversion of traditional culture and the play between the monarch and nobility allowed a more thorough top-down transmission of culture and religion to occur than what would have been possible otherwise. This is why Zoroastrianism in the sense of the general established religion played such a meager role during the caliphates. They were so tied to the Sassanid throne and Sassanism, that it ceased to be a power after said empire was lost and its memory extirpated.
I guess this is also part of the reason why more heterodox versions of Zoroastrianism survived longer(Mazdakism for example)
 

Anawrahta

Banned
I am not sure that one may define the issue between the Sassanid monarch and the 7 great houses as one of religious nature. Though some of the houses likely did practice Iranic paganism and or Mithraism, their issue was different. The issue between the imperial house and the houses were that:

1. The great houses claimed a supernatural investment of the lands east of the Zagros as their domain. That is, a sort of Donation of Constantine situation, that they as large land owners had an ancestral right to rule these lands under the Emperor. They were thus, forces of decentralization no matter their faith.

2. When Peroz I was defeated and slain by the Hepthalites at Herat in 484, the Great Houses uniting their efforts, appointed the new emperor (Bolas). This appointment came too, with the Great Houses defeating the Hepthalite horde in battle and saving the empire. From this point onward, the houses had set a precedence of appointing emperors and also of saving the realm where the emperor had failed and been slain.

Later emperors saw the weakness in allowing this situation to continue. Hence the intensification of the conflict between the great houses and the central imperial court in Cteshipon.

Nestorianism was a tool not only to rule the Semitic populaces, but as a tool and model to empower the Sassanid monarch. It is not as simply as Semitic = Nestorian,, many of the Semitic populace of the Sassanid empire continued as pagans or were Manichaens or various other similar faiths.

I would not say the Hepthalites and their conglomerates were/are successors of the Kushan. However, the geopolitical role is slightly similar, yes.

Yes, I would agree that the Sassanids had done much of the work for the Muslims. The destruction and subversion of traditional culture and the play between the monarch and nobility allowed a more thorough top-down transmission of culture and religion to occur than what would have been possible otherwise. This is why Zoroastrianism in the sense of the general established religion played such a meager role during the caliphates. They were so tied to the Sassanid throne and Sassanism, that it ceased to be a power after said empire was lost and its memory extirpated.
Your post completely changed my view of the nature of sassanids and zoroastrianism. This clarifies a lot of doubt considering the nature of that great but former civilization.
Without the Arab conquests and fall of the sassanids, would Nestorianism and Zoroastrianism come to blows? How about the Manichaeans? Could the empire fragment along ethnic lines with the Aramaeans and ro
I am not sure that one may define the issue between the Sassanid monarch and the 7 great houses as one of religious nature. Though some of the houses likely did practice Iranic paganism and or Mithraism, their issue was different. The issue between the imperial house and the houses were that:

1. The great houses claimed a supernatural investment of the lands east of the Zagros as their domain. That is, a sort of Donation of Constantine situation, that they as large land owners had an ancestral right to rule these lands under the Emperor. They were thus, forces of decentralization no matter their faith.

2. When Peroz I was defeated and slain by the Hepthalites at Herat in 484, the Great Houses uniting their efforts, appointed the new emperor (Bolas). This appointment came too, with the Great Houses defeating the Hepthalite horde in battle and saving the empire. From this point onward, the houses had set a precedence of appointing emperors and also of saving the realm where the emperor had failed and been slain.

Later emperors saw the weakness in allowing this situation to continue. Hence the intensification of the conflict between the great houses and the central imperial court in Cteshipon.

Nestorianism was a tool not only to rule the Semitic populaces, but as a tool and model to empower the Sassanid monarch. It is not as simply as Semitic = Nestorian,, many of the Semitic populace of the Sassanid empire continued as pagans or were Manichaens or various other similar faiths.

I would not say the Hepthalites and their conglomerates were/are successors of the Kushan. However, the geopolitical role is slightly similar, yes.

Yes, I would agree that the Sassanids had done much of the work for the Muslims. The destruction and subversion of traditional culture and the play between the monarch and nobility allowed a more thorough top-down transmission of culture and religion to occur than what would have been possible otherwise. This is why Zoroastrianism in the sense of the general established religion played such a meager role during the caliphates. They were so tied to the Sassanid throne and Sassanism, that it ceased to be a power after said empire was lost and its memory extirpated.
This is an excellent response. I thought zoroastrianism was present since the achaemenids or even during the Bronze and Iron ages, perhaps the zoroastrianism we know of and of the Sassanians are both reimaginings of zoroaster's reforms of the traditional Iranian paganism. It would be interesting to conjecture the potential religious and cultural trajectory without the islamic conquests. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why the Barmakids, the pramukh of the Nava-Vihara buddhist monastery in balkh converted to Islam right after the islamic invasion, it may have been tradition to try to appease any overlords in order to protect the monastery from almost certain iconoclasm.
I've not been able to find good articles on Pre-Islamic Zoroastrianism that discuss about the structural aspects that led to the rapid demise of Zoroastrian iran. Thanks and looking forward to more of your posts!
 
Your post completely changed my view of the nature of sassanids and zoroastrianism. This clarifies a lot of doubt considering the nature of that great but former civilization.
Without the Arab conquests and fall of the sassanids, would Nestorianism and Zoroastrianism come to blows? How about the Manichaeans? Could the empire fragment along ethnic lines with the Aramaeans and ro

This is an excellent response. I thought zoroastrianism was present since the achaemenids or even during the Bronze and Iron ages, perhaps the zoroastrianism we know of and of the Sassanians are both reimaginings of zoroaster's reforms of the traditional Iranian paganism. It would be interesting to conjecture the potential religious and cultural trajectory without the islamic conquests. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why the Barmakids, the pramukh of the Nava-Vihara buddhist monastery in balkh converted to Islam right after the islamic invasion, it may have been tradition to try to appease any overlords in order to protect the monastery from almost certain iconoclasm.
I've not been able to find good articles on Pre-Islamic Zoroastrianism that discuss about the structural aspects that led to the rapid demise of Zoroastrian iran. Thanks and looking forward to more of your posts!

The question of Nestorianism and Manichaeism without Islam may be a question for a separate thread as it goes more into fundamentals of the late Sassanid state, which are not shared with the early Sassanid period.

That is a plausible postulation regarding the Barmakids, also an example of this is the reaction to Islam among the Sogdiana elite, such as al-Afshin. Whose conversion to Islam is somewhat dubious or at least his conversion came with a certain respect and religious preference to what existed prior, that being his Iranic paganism and Zoroastrianism. As the Abbasid Caliphate evolved, the pretense of an Iranic person converting to Islam and maintaining their prior customs became taboo and seen as kufr, this is a known topic and was the downfall of many during that period under the Mihna and the birth of a modern and universal Islamic Caliphate after the period of Arab hegemony under the Umayyad had ended.
 
Top