WI: A Monophysite ruled Persia

Is it possible for Persia to be ruled by Monophysites if the Sassanids crumbled if Islam is Butterfield, how would the Byzantines treat this new Monophysite Persia.
 
a deadly rival. without Islam to crush the Persians, well, the Sassanids were going to collapse even without them. if Monophysites rise in their place, the Byzantines will go crazy. the entire eastern half of the Empire is Monophysite, which means vulnerable to rebellion and Persian infiltration.

though, i thought the Persian Christian churches were Nestorian.

ah, yes. the Oriental Orthodox churches are Monophysite, while the Church of the East is Nestorian.

long story short, very hard to say, but it'll result in more Christological disputes.
 
Is it possible for Persia to be ruled by Monophysites if the Sassanids crumbled if Islam is Butterfield, how would the Byzantines treat this new Monophysite Persia.

I think you would need a conquest from the outside. As another poster stated, the Christians in Persia were Nestorian. Also, Christianity was mainly contained to Aramaic speakers, there weren't that many Persian Christians.
 
Presuming that, somehow, the Persians were to convert to Monophysitism/Miaphysitism instead of Nestorianism (which, as previously mentioned, is far more likely), I think the biggest impact you'd see is inside the Roman borders, as Timeaus says.

Syria and Egypt now have more in common with Persia, religiously speaking, than they do with Constantinople. Further, the traditional arab allies of Rome, the Ghassanids, would likely drift into the Persian camp (the Lakhmids might switch over to Rome out of spite, unless they also convert, in which case, I got nothing, no clue how that plays out).

The Imperial government might be paralyzed by this, without any idea of how to handle it. Cracking down on heresy might provoke revolt that the Persians could capitalize on, or jsut give them a convenient Casus Belli. And given that the locals were pretty content with Persian rule for the most part in the 20 years they were under effective Persian occupation in the 7th century, they might be even more prone to siding with Persia.

You could see something similar to the old Achaemenid borders, minus Anatolia and Thrace.

Now, one thing that might be interesting is what if they did this before Islam came on the scene, and the Arab ran up against a victorious Persia? (actually, thats an interesting scenario regardless of what religion Persia was)
 
Don't forget the remaining Zoroastrians and Manichaeans in Persia, even if "Islam' is butterflied away either group could easily launch a missionary campaign in Arabia and cause similar problems.
 
I'm curious how a monophysite Persia might affect the central Asian people. I can imagine that the conditions for a timur, Senjuk, etc. would arise that case a large migration conquest. And if we do have a Monophysite persia what would their religious affliction be? Nestorian, Tengri, various other pagan beliefs? Assuming all things stay the same and a Senjuk comes forth and conquers Anotolia but is Nestorian instead, how much would the various states care?
 
Don't forget the remaining Zoroastrians and Manichaeans in Persia, even if "Islam' is butterflied away either group could easily launch a missionary campaign in Arabia and cause similar problems.

^ this. A Christian, Assyrian dynasty wouldn't go down any better than the Caliphate amongst the Iranian people. You'd more than likely get some severe rebellions that would more than likely topple the dynasty (The Caliphate survived because of strength, something the Monophysites would not have, at least not on the same scale).

The Zoroastrians are an equally formidable threat to the Byzantines, though.
 
I'm curious how a monophysite Persia might affect the central Asian people. I can imagine that the conditions for a timur, Senjuk, etc. would arise that case a large migration conquest. And if we do have a Monophysite persia what would their religious affliction be? Nestorian, Tengri, various other pagan beliefs? Assuming all things stay the same and a Senjuk comes forth and conquers Anotolia but is Nestorian instead, how much would the various states care?

Butterflies good man, the butterflies! No Islam = Egypt stays Byzantine/Persian = No certainty of Turkic conquest of the Iranian Plateau, let alone Anatolia.
 
Monophysitism in Persia generally means the Byzantines can kiss Syria and Egypt goodbye. It's just too difficult, in the long-term, for the Byzantines to defend these lands against Persia forever. Of course, this doesn't necessarily mean that Persia will have the easiest time running these lands - eventually you'd still have independent Egyptian dynasties being established in their stead.

It's interesting to see what would happen to Chinese Christianity had Persia, an important conduit of the Silk Road, been Christian. Unlike Islam, Nestorian Christianity managed to gain followings in China during the Tang Dynasty; it's not unreasonable to expect Monophysitism to have a similar effect. Historically, the Chinese managed to suppress Nestorianism quite successfully in the 800s, but would they be as successful with Monophysitism if they had an official backer in the form of Persia (and maybe even the Turkics, if they convert)?
 
Butterflies good man, the butterflies! No Islam = Egypt stays Byzantine/Persian = No certainty of Turkic conquest of the Iranian Plateau, let alone Anatolia.

Of course it means butterflies. I admit to knowing little on central Asian Turkic groups. However I know that those hordes did not originate in a vacuum in a one off intense especially because it happened more than once. That makes me assume that a horde of some sort will probability emerge. Maybe they go East this time? or South into India. But my money is on watching what will emerge from there.

Also, I doubt the situation in Egypt will remain stable, Egypt is too much of a power center. My money is it will go independent one way or the other, weather it is from outside help or not will determine if they remain Coptic/Miasphytes, or not.
 
And don't forget the Arabian peninsula, without Islam the entire region is pretty much open to any sufficiently inspired missionary of any of the regions major faiths for a mass conversion, followed by the founding of a rival empire.
 
Monophysitism in Persia generally means the Byzantines can kiss Syria and Egypt goodbye. It's just too difficult, in the long-term, for the Byzantines to defend these lands against Persia forever. Of course, this doesn't necessarily mean that Persia will have the easiest time running these lands - eventually you'd still have independent Egyptian dynasties being established in their stead.

It's interesting to see what would happen to Chinese Christianity had Persia, an important conduit of the Silk Road, been Christian. Unlike Islam, Nestorian Christianity managed to gain followings in China during the Tang Dynasty; it's not unreasonable to expect Monophysitism to have a similar effect. Historically, the Chinese managed to suppress Nestorianism quite successfully in the 800s, but would they be as successful with Monophysitism if they had an official backer in the form of Persia (and maybe even the Turkics, if they convert)?
Not just Syria and Egypt but also Armenia, Persian Armenia could be no happier.

Monophysites in OTL absorbed the Nestorians.
 
Top