WI: Persia remains Zoroastrian

Persia was historically conquered by the Arab invasions, and converted to Islam steadily in the decades and centuries that followed.


However, what effect might there have been if the Persian Zoroastrian faith had remained the pre-dominant religion of Persia?
 
Persia was historically conquered by the Arab invasions, and converted to Islam steadily in the decades and centuries that followed.


However, what effect might there have been if the Persian Zoroastrian faith had remained the pre-dominant religion of Persia?

So long as the ruling powers remain slightly opposite the conservative side Iran might end up a bit more egalitarian.
 
Persia was historically conquered by the Arab invasions, and converted to Islam steadily in the decades and centuries that followed.


However, what effect might there have been if the Persian Zoroastrian faith had remained the predominant religion of Persia?

India never goes Muslim which means no Pakistan, also the Trans-Oxis states will either remain Zoroastrian or with the coming of the Turks be Tengri (Which means the Mongols will not go Muslim either if they still show up). Overall Islam's power is limited to South-Western Asia. It's possible that the Indian Ocean Trade network doesn't come under Muslim control, which would keep Indonesia Muslim free too. Should Mesopotamia remain Persian then it becomes highly likely the Romans will keep Anatolia and Islam is blocked from entering Europe from the east.

So in summation a Zoroastrian Persia (With or without Mesopotamia) means Islam loses around half of its territory, maybe more. Africa Will be the main area of Islamic power for certain. Though this mainly hinges on Persia surviving the initial Muslim storm and not faltering at all after that to Islam's power.
 

Dirk

Banned
As far as I know Zoroastrian Persia was taken over so quickly by the newborn Caliphate because it had lost the thirty-odd year war against the Roman Empire, rendering it economically weak and leaving its people with less and less faith in their corrupt ruling and priestly classes.

If Chosroes II manages to defeat Heraclius, or perhaps you can have an even earlier POD where Phocas stays in power longer with anarchy in the Roman government coming with it, Persia is in a much stronger position, holding Syria, Egypt, Armenia, and perhaps even much of Anatolia.

Now the Arabs will burst out of Arabia, probably taking Syria and Egypt as in OTL, but unable to penetrate the vast, victorious Persian armies in Mesopotamia and Persia, in the highest fettle after defeating the Romans. So they turn west, taking the north African coast and Spain as in OTL, and having even more resources against the Franks through Spain and the Byzantines through Anatolia.
 
Interestingly enough, there are still Zoroastrian villages in Iran and the Iranian constitution recognizes them as a minority religious group. There is a representative of the Zoroastrian people in the Majlis.
 
Zoroastrianism has a problem though. It's patrilineal and you can't convert to it. That kind of thing is always going to lose out to an evangelical, expansionist faith like Islam. It's a question of inclusivity vs exclusivity. If they hold off the Arab armies, it'll just come through in fits and starts by missionaries. And if it can't there's always the equally evangelical and expansionist Christians not too far distant.

And if near extinction hasn't compelled them to change over a period of 1500 years, it makes it seem like those things are too ingrained to be handwaved away.
 
Zoroastrianism has a problem though. It's patrilineal and you can't convert to it. That kind of thing is always going to lose out to an evangelical, expansionist faith like Islam. It's a question of inclusivity vs exclusivity. If they hold off the Arab armies, it'll just come through in fits and starts by missionaries. And if it can't there's always the equally evangelical and expansionist Christians not too far distant.

This is possible, but not necessarily. A defeat of Islam at this early stage is likely to discredit the religion. Islam might collapse and remain a minor religious belief of some Arabs. After Mohammed died, a lot of Arabs became apostates and only came back to Islam after being conquered during the Wars of the Ridda. If the Muslim armies are subsequently defeated by Persia, they may be a second great apostasy.

That does leave the possibility for Persian mass conversion to Nestorian Christianity, but this is not definite. The "capital" of Christianity is clearly in the Roman Empire, and no Persian ruler is going to be comfortable with that. Even if the Persians take Nestorianism and establish a separate state church from the Roman-Byzantine version, it creates political problems.

I think that while Nestorian Christiniaty would survive, and perhaps even thrive, that a more likely candidate would be a "reformed" Zoroastrianism. In the late sixth and seventh centuries, Persia was racked by social turmoil by Mazdakites attempting social reform of the empire. Some reformed variant, in my opinion, becoming dominant is at least as viable or plausible as the triumph of Nestorian Christianity.
 
This is possible, but not necessarily. A defeat of Islam at this early stage is likely to discredit the religion. Islam might collapse and remain a minor religious belief of some Arabs. After Mohammed died, a lot of Arabs became apostates and only came back to Islam after being conquered during the Wars of the Ridda. If the Muslim armies are subsequently defeated by Persia, they may be a second great apostasy.

That does leave the possibility for Persian mass conversion to Nestorian Christianity, but this is not definite. The "capital" of Christianity is clearly in the Roman Empire, and no Persian ruler is going to be comfortable with that. Even if the Persians take Nestorianism and establish a separate state church from the Roman-Byzantine version, it creates political problems.

I think that while Nestorian Christiniaty would survive, and perhaps even thrive, that a more likely candidate would be a "reformed" Zoroastrianism. In the late sixth and seventh centuries, Persia was racked by social turmoil by Mazdakites attempting social reform of the empire. Some reformed variant, in my opinion, becoming dominant is at least as viable or plausible as the triumph of Nestorian Christianity.

I agree. We are most likely to see a reformed version of Zoroastrianism. At the time of the Islamic conquest Persia was in the middle of a civil war. Some type of reorganization of society was going to happen with or without Islam. Finally, the current ban on conversion is a post Islamic phenomenon and is currently not widely accepted either in the Zoroastrian community.
 
The current state of the Zoroastrian religion, super-inclusive and banning conversions, was not the state of the religion at the time of the Islamic conquests. Furthermore, back then the current state of the religion was only as old as the Sassanian empire, which had massively reformed it. One way or another, the Sassanians aren't going to rule Iran forever, so it would be perfectly plausible for them to fall and get replaced by a new dynasty that promotes an evangelical form of the religion.
 
If Chosroes II manages to defeat Heraclius, or perhaps you can have an even earlier POD where Phocas stays in power longer with anarchy in the Roman government coming with it, Persia is in a much stronger position, holding Syria, Egypt, Armenia, and perhaps even much of Anatolia.

Oh god, Phocas! :mad: If that bastard hadn't killed and usurped Maurice then Khosrau II wouldn't have invaded because Khosrau was a friend of Maurice (Who had helped Khosrau gain his throne in the first place). Without the Byzantine-Sassanid Wars then Islam wouldn't have been as successful, kill Khalid ibn al-Walid off as well and boom Islam not only fails against the Romans and Persians but also schisms in Arabia before even getting out of the peninsula!
 

Deleted member 67076

You know there's always the possibility of another Zoroastrian dynasty arising after the Arab conquest. It took centuries after the initial invasions for Islam to become the majority religion. IIRC Iran was 1/5 Zoroastrian in 1100.
 
Zoroastrianism has a problem though. It's patrilineal and you can't convert to it. That kind of thing is always going to lose out to an evangelical, expansionist faith like Islam. It's a question of inclusivity vs exclusivity. If they hold off the Arab armies, it'll just come through in fits and starts by missionaries. And if it can't there's always the equally evangelical and expansionist Christians not too far distant.

And if near extinction hasn't compelled them to change over a period of 1500 years, it makes it seem like those things are too ingrained to be handwaved away.

Not actually the case though it was never as evangelical as Christianity, much more like Judaism. It is Patrilineal only in the Parsee diaspra and the Iranians where reluctant to convert Muslims after the conquest. I say this as a Zoroastrian myself in the Iranian tradition
 

Dirk

Banned
You know there's always the possibility of another Zoroastrian dynasty arising after the Arab conquest. It took centuries after the initial invasions for Islam to become the majority religion. IIRC Iran was 1/5 Zoroastrian in 1100.

Mmm, I really don't think that's gonna happen. Social, political, and most importantly military power were all in the hands of Muslims, whether Arab or Persian. Persian nobles were either peaceably converted or else driven in front of the Caliphate's advancing armies.
 
Interestingly enough, there are still Zoroastrian villages in Iran and the Iranian constitution recognizes them as a minority religious group. There is a representative of the Zoroastrian people in the Majlis.

IIRC the Pahlavi's were also quite big on emphasizing Iran's Zoroastrian heritage as a way to further distinguish it from the rest of the Islamic world (well, mostly from the Arabs, but).

I think that while Nestorian Christiniaty would survive, and perhaps even thrive, that a more likely candidate would be a "reformed" Zoroastrianism. In the late sixth and seventh centuries, Persia was racked by social turmoil by Mazdakites attempting social reform of the empire. Some reformed variant, in my opinion, becoming dominant is at least as viable or plausible as the triumph of Nestorian Christianity.

This seems the most likely to me. Even without an Islamic conquest, after the Final War the Sassanian establishment was on its last legs, and something was going to have to give. Barring foreign conquest, whoever ends up on top seems very likely to include some sort of reform to Zoroastrianism, if only because AFAIK by that point the priestly class as a whole held basically zero moral authority (See how much trouble the Mazdakis caused not long before).

Mmm, I really don't think that's gonna happen. Social, political, and most importantly military power were all in the hands of Muslims, whether Arab or Persian. Persian nobles were either peaceably converted or else driven in front of the Caliphate's advancing armies.

Weren't there some relatively important Zoroastrian centers of power in Gilan and Transoxinia until fairly late in the game? An earlier collapse of the Caliphate might give one of them the chance to be a new conquering dynasty.
 
Weren't there some relatively important Zoroastrian centers of power in Gilan and Transoxinia until fairly late in the game? An earlier collapse of the Caliphate might give one of them the chance to be a new conquering dynasty.

Well if Crusader Kings is anything to go by, the Karen Dynasty (One of the seven Parthian Clans that retained prominence in Sassanid Persia), the Kurdish Justinids, and a direct descendant of the Sassanids retained power in the north at the time of the treaty of Verdun in 843. So I would say that the Zoroastrians weren't completely powerless even 2-3 centuries after their fall.
 
Well if Crusader Kings is anything to go by, the Karen Dynasty (One of the seven Parthian Clans that retained prominence in Sassanid Persia), the Kurdish Justinids, and a direct descendant of the Sassanids retained power in the north at the time of the treaty of Verdun in 843. So I would say that the Zoroastrians weren't completely powerless even 2-3 centuries after their fall.

Yes, there were Zoroastrian polities on the southern Caspian. However, they eventually converted to Islam. There were also several large Zoroastrian revolts in Central Asia and Azerbaijan. I recall reading that Bukhara had to be reconquered three times by the Muslims.
 
Top