WI: Seleucid survives and establishes a common national identity

Background: Been playing Imperator Rome lately and I converted most of Persia to Greek in the game. While obviously that’s pretty unrealistic, it got me thinking what a common ethnic identity could form in a surviving Seleucid Empire (Similar to how ethnic identities had been formed around Romes conquests and assimilations and the Arabic conquests of the Middle East and Egypt).

Bonus points if you could come up with a common identity name for the Seleucid people (Syrians? Greco-Persians? ...Seleucians?)
 
Background: Been playing Imperator Rome lately and I converted most of Persia to Greek in the game. While obviously that’s pretty unrealistic, it got me thinking what a common ethnic identity could form in a surviving Seleucid Empire (Similar to how ethnic identities had been formed around Romes conquests and assimilations and the Arabic conquests of the Middle East and Egypt).

Bonus points if you could come up with a common identity name for the Seleucid people (Syrians? Greco-Persians? ...Seleucians?)

Sure, if the Seleucids became Persian.

Just like the Turkoman dynasts who have ruled Persia, that doesn't mean they entirely stop being Greek. Instead of a Persian/Arab urban/village culture co-existing with a nomadic Turkman population as the later Muslim Persia would have, this earlier Persianized Selucid dynasty would have a Greek/Persian/Babylonian urban culture co-existing with a Parthian nomadic population. Everyone would be a Persian, but some people would be Greek-speaking Persians, some people would be Aramaic-speaking Persians, some people would be Median-speaking Persians and so on...

The court religion would probably mix respect for the Greek gods with respect for Ahura Mazda and his messenger Zarathustra (and later respect for Buddhism) possibly going so far as syncretism between the different beliefs.

Basically, what the Ptolomies did in Egypt, so still very Greek, but with lots of branding connecting the new dynasty to the pre-Alexander dynasty and bringing Persian power-brokers into the elite the same way that the Ptolomies brought the Egyptian priesthood into the elite of their regime.

fasquardon
 
Sure, if the Seleucids became Persian.

Just like the Turkoman dynasts who have ruled Persia, that doesn't mean they entirely stop being Greek. Instead of a Persian/Arab urban/village culture co-existing with a nomadic Turkman population as the later Muslim Persia would have, this earlier Persianized Selucid dynasty would have a Greek/Persian/Babylonian urban culture co-existing with a Parthian nomadic population. Everyone would be a Persian, but some people would be Greek-speaking Persians, some people would be Aramaic-speaking Persians, some people would be Median-speaking Persians and so on...

The court religion would probably mix respect for the Greek gods with respect for Ahura Mazda and his messenger Zarathustra (and later respect for Buddhism) possibly going so far as syncretism between the different beliefs.

Basically, what the Ptolomies did in Egypt, so still very Greek, but with lots of branding connecting the new dynasty to the pre-Alexander dynasty and bringing Persian power-brokers into the elite the same way that the Ptolomies brought the Egyptian priesthood into the elite of their regime.

fasquardon
Turks expanded a lot in Iran, Iran+Azerbaijan population is 25-33% Turkic.

Also I'm not sure why you talk about Parthians there, if the Seleucid survive it's doubtful we would have many Parthians around, if anything it would be the Medians or Persians proper that would be the more rural population, given Iran wasn't exactly super urban during this time.

Greeks would probably be more partial to Iranian polytheism rather than Zoroastrianism, although this is just my assumption so we would have to see OTL patterns.
 
Turks expanded a lot in Iran, Iran+Azerbaijan population is 25-33% Turkic.

Also I'm not sure why you talk about Parthians there, if the Seleucid survive it's doubtful we would have many Parthians around, if anything it would be the Medians or Persians proper that would be the more rural population, given Iran wasn't exactly super urban during this time.

Greeks would probably be more partial to Iranian polytheism rather than Zoroastrianism, although this is just my assumption so we would have to see OTL patterns.

The Greeks, from what sources have survived for us to read, seem to have thought rather highly of Zoroastrianism (though they were still foreign gods, and thus not relevant to Greeks in Greece) and there are ways to just wedge the Greek pantheon into Zoroastrianism just like the pre-Avestran deities were wedged in there as "angels" if you will. But in any case, I'm not talking about what ordinary people believe, I am talking about what the court religion would look like (it's not like ordinary Greeks or Egyptians are likely to have believed in Thoth-Hermes in OTL - likely they believed in one or the other and the combined entity was only of interest to the Ptolomaic court, the priests when doing propaganda and a few fringe cultists).

And I talk about Parthians because the Iranian plateau has been a mix of settled and urban populations for thousands of years and they're the biggest nomadic group who lived in the Acharmenic Empire (I'm not sure if the Selucids in OTL ever held any sway over the Parthain tribes, but they'd need to in TTL if they want to survive). The Turks weren't forcing themselves into a vacuum where no nomadism had previously existed when they expanded into Persia and Anatolia.

fasquardon
 
The Greeks, from what sources have survived for us to read, seem to have thought rather highly of Zoroastrianism (though they were still foreign gods, and thus not relevant to Greeks in Greece) and there are ways to just wedge the Greek pantheon into Zoroastrianism just like the pre-Avestran deities were wedged in there as "angels" if you will. But in any case, I'm not talking about what ordinary people believe, I am talking about what the court religion would look like (it's not like ordinary Greeks or Egyptians are likely to have believed in Thoth-Hermes in OTL - likely they believed in one or the other and the combined entity was only of interest to the Ptolomaic court, the priests when doing propaganda and a few fringe cultists).

And I talk about Parthians because the Iranian plateau has been a mix of settled and urban populations for thousands of years and they're the biggest nomadic group who lived in the Acharmenic Empire (I'm not sure if the Selucids in OTL ever held any sway over the Parthain tribes, but they'd need to in TTL if they want to survive). The Turks weren't forcing themselves into a vacuum where no nomadism had previously existed when they expanded into Persia and Anatolia.

fasquardon
What do you mean by foreign gods? Zoroastrianism was explicitly monotheist so maybe you are referring to Iranian polytheism actually? Even if we talk about state support I don't think the Greeks would support any kind of Zoroastrian belief considering it's not exactly as open to official syncretism as Iranian polytheism.

Didn't the Parni invade Iran only in the 3rd century BCE? There were already nomadic groups that were not Parni or concentrated around Parthia, so I'm not sure why the distinction between settled Iranians and Parthians is real during this time.
 
What do you mean by foreign gods? Zoroastrianism was explicitly monotheist so maybe you are referring to Iranian polytheism actually? Even if we talk about state support I don't think the Greeks would support any kind of Zoroastrian belief considering it's not exactly as open to official syncretism as Iranian polytheism.

Didn't the Parni invade Iran only in the 3rd century BCE? There were already nomadic groups that were not Parni or concentrated around Parthia, so I'm not sure why the distinction between settled Iranians and Parthians is real during this time.

Remember that the Greeks saw Zoroastrianism through the lens of their own experience. So Zarathustra was a philosopher and the gods were gods (which isn't that strange when you remember that many of the Greek philosophers - Pythagoras for example - were cult leaders).

And you're being kinda loose with your terms so I have to ask, when you say "Iranian polytheism" which Iranian polytheism do you mean? As far as Zoroastrianism being explicitly monotheist, well, sure, Zarathustra's teachings were strictly monotheist, but said faith had already split into many diverse traditions, the only one we know very much of being the one hijacked by a bunch of Median fire-priests. And the Zoroastrianism of the Magi went through some very dualistic and polytheistic periods.

And considering that the Greeks wove aspects of Greek polytheism together with Buddhism and the Egyptian polytheism with Greek polytheism, I don't know where you get the idea that Greeks would never try to weave their gods into a Zoroastrian-compatible narrative. There's some argument that they did so in OTL, it just hasn't been preserved in a way that we've recognized it, while others say the Selucid Greek populations were intentionally keeping themselves at arms length to the dominant faith of their empire as a way to preserve their distinctiveness. (Though for sure Zoroastrianism if it did catch on with Greeks at all never caught on like Buddhism did.)

And there is evidence that the Parthians were subject to the Achaemenids and Parthian horsemen certainly served in Achaemenid armies. Also, the Parthians were as Iranian as the Persians and the Medes. Remember that this is still a period when the peoples of the Iranian plateau are being woven into a single Iranian people. You can call them all "Persian" or "Iranian" or refer to them by their individual group identities (so Persian as in specifically the people from the Pars region, Medes, Turanian etc) but I don't think it is right to say that the Parthians are a group apart from all other Iranian peoples.

fasquardon
 
And you're being kinda loose with your terms so I have to ask, when you say "Iranian polytheism" which Iranian polytheism do you mean?
It doesn't need to be one denomination, I'm not even sure Iranian polytheism explicitly formed distinct traditions.

As far as Zoroastrianism being explicitly monotheist, well, sure, Zarathustra's teachings were strictly monotheist, but said faith had already split into many diverse traditions, the only one we know very much of being the one hijacked by a bunch of Median fire-priests. And the Zoroastrianism of the Magi went through some very dualistic and polytheistic periods.
Regardless I don't think the Greeks would go for the monotheistic traditions and somehow try to fit Greek pantheon in it, they would more likely preserve polytheism and this would push them towards the pre-Zoroastrian faiths or the less strict Monotheist versiosn.

And considering that the Greeks wove aspects of Greek polytheism together with Buddhism and the Egyptian polytheism with Greek polytheism, I don't know where you get the idea that Greeks would never try to weave their gods into a Zoroastrian-compatible narrative.
Why would they though? The Greeks weren't explicitly looking to build a chimera religion that would satisfy everyone and given that I don't see why they would choose a "Zoroastrian-compatible" narrative as opposed to simply organically incorporate aspects of Iranian faiths in their regional Greek religion.


And there is evidence that the Parthians were subject to the Achaemenids and Parthian horsemen certainly served in Achaemenid armies. Also, the Parthians were as Iranian as the Persians and the Medes. Remember that this is still a period when the peoples of the Iranian plateau are being woven into a single Iranian people. You can call them all "Persian" or "Iranian" or refer to them by their individual group identities (so Persian as in specifically the people from the Pars region, Medes, Turanian etc) but I don't think it is right to say that the Parthians are a group apart from all other Iranian peoples.
And we have evidence that the Persians and Medians were partially nomadic themselves, so there is no real distinctions in terms of lifestyle(Parthians weren't more nomadic and Persians and Medians weren't that urban)
Also you are confusing Parnis and Parthians, Parthians as in "inhabitants of Parthia" were surely present in the Achaemenid empire but the more nomadic Parni seems to have been not and it's those Parni that created the Parthian empire.
By Iranian I mean "from modern Iran" as opposed to the Parni, in theory even the Scythian were Iranian but at this point we need more useful terms to distinguish the various geographical regions.
 
And we have evidence that the Persians and Medians were partially nomadic themselves, so there is no real distinctions in terms of lifestyle(Parthians weren't more nomadic and Persians and Medians weren't that urban)
Also you are confusing Parnis and Parthians, Parthians as in "inhabitants of Parthia" were surely present in the Achaemenid empire but the more nomadic Parni seems to have been not and it's those Parni that created the Parthian empire.
By Iranian I mean "from modern Iran" as opposed to the Parni, in theory even the Scythian were Iranian but at this point we need more useful terms to distinguish the various geographical regions.

Ahhh. I see. And that's very interesting!

Regardless I don't think the Greeks would go for the monotheistic traditions and somehow try to fit Greek pantheon in it, they would more likely preserve polytheism and this would push them towards the pre-Zoroastrian faiths or the less strict Monotheist versiosn.

The Greeks were fine with Buddhist monotheism and in the sources I've seen, they didn't see Zoroastrianism as what we would call "monotheistic" (where there is one jealous god).

(Also, you keep talking about "the Greeks" as if they are a monolithic whole they won't be - for a start there was in OTL and will be in TTL a big difference between Greeks in the royal court and ordinary Greeks in the cities Alexander and his Selucid successors scattered across the region.)

fasquardon
 
@fasquardon and @Gloss

From what I understand of history on this matter, it is unclear whether Zoroastrianism truly existed in the Seleucid period. It most certainly did not exist in the sense of the Sassanid era Zoroastrianism that has defined the religion or the very early roots of the religion in the late-Arsacid era. Arsacid era iconography depicted on coins, reliefs and so forth, we find them paying respects to Iranic, Mesopotamian and Hellenic deities as opposed to appealing to the Imperial cult and Zoroastrianism prevalent in the Sassanid era. In the nearby Kushanshah realms, during the reigns of Kujula Kadphises until the rule of Vasudeva II, we find the same situation, Iranic, Hindu, Hellenic deities and the Buddha placed on coins and reliefs. Zoroastrianism, if it existed to any large degree, we would see the rulers in these areas pander to it at least somewhat, even evidences for Fire temples or fire placed on reliefs or coins would suffice.

In light of this, even assuming that Zoroastrianism existed, but was an urbanite and elite religion; it is totally improbable that such religion would be promoted by the Seleucids. The Arsacids, who pandered directly to the Iranian historical complex, did not even adopt this religion or promote it. Rather, they continued within polytheism and became famed for heterodox cults, religious fragmentation and the introduction of Hellenic Gnosticism, Hellenized Judaism and Christianity into the empire. Early Sassanid high priest Kartir, and his successors and contemporaneous emperors, promoted an image of the Arsacid as foreign, exotic, decadent, heterodox and so forth. In general, though highly revisionistic, I would say that it is very possible that the Sassanid imperial cult in alliance with certain Farsian local religious elements, constructed Zoroastrianism as a means to unify the region and counter signal the previous 400 years of Arsacid reign.

A factor also not mentioned, is that Iran would be only one sector of the empire. Why exactly would the Seleucids prefer Iran, a much less urban and ethnically divided land to the older and more urban and prosperous Mesopotamia? The Seleucids have much more reason without Syria, to appeal itself more to the Mesopotamian religions which are quite compatible to the Hellenic ones and create itself a uniquely Mesopotamian identity of mixture with the Hellenic and Akkado-Aramaic identities.

On the topic of Parhia, the area of Parthia was ruled directly by the Seleucids, but was lost against an alliance between the Greco-Bactrian kingdom on the Oxus and a Dahae steppe conglomeration whose rulers called themselves Arsacids. The Dahae Arsacids would be called Parthians upon this conquest and would later conquer the remaining Iranian plateau, Balochistan, Iraq, etc...

Without this conquest, the understanding of a firmly nomadic Parthia does not exist. Rather, these peoples are similar ultimate to the Medes or even Persians whom they are near. The Arsacids were ultimately not Parthians, but Dahae, a people related to the Saka-Scythians and Yuezhi-Tochari, so without their conquest, the association with Parthia will not exist. It should be remembered that both Sargon II and Alexander encountered steppe issues well north of Parthia. Sargon II in fact subjugated the Parthians, who appear to be a semi-settled people like the Medes, rather than the later Arsacids, who were true nomads like the Scythians.
 
@John7755 يوحنا what about Achaemenid style Zoroastrianism? Or Zoroastrianism from Persia proper during this period?

As far as I know, there is no hard evidence to Zoroastrianism existing prior to the late Arsacid period. References to Ahura Mazda are not framed ever in the sense of the only god or even in the Assyrian Henotheistic way of the only god that we worship. But as simply one of the many gods that we are appealing to as the Shahanshahs. The same goes for during the period that the Seleucids ruled, polytheism was at least the dominant way in which people formatted their life. If Zoroastrianism existed, it was one that was in the far south of the Iranian plateau and limited in its demographic expanse. It is certainly not an issue for the Seleucids any time soon, the same as it never presented a problem for the Arsacids.
 
As far as I know, there is no hard evidence to Zoroastrianism existing prior to the late Arsacid period.

You mean beside the language of the Gathas being so closely related to Vedic Sanskrit and the world portrayed in the Gathas matching the northeastern Iranic world (most likely Ferghana Valley) c. 500 years after the Vedas were written?

There's no evidence that Zoroastrianism was ever a majority faith in Persia and its questionable when Zoroastrianism reached the west end of Greater Iran (so Fars, the Zagros mountains etc). As to whether Zoroastrianism didn't exist before the late Arsacid period, well, you can make the argument, but it takes what is in my view an extremely implausible amount of reaching.

Zoroastrianism, if it existed to any large degree, we would see the rulers in these areas pander to it at least somewhat, even evidences for Fire temples or fire placed on reliefs or coins would suffice.

No, it wouldn't, because the fire cult was a big deal in Media well before Zoroastrianism arrived in the area.

So is a reference to a fire temple evidence of the pre-Zoroastrian Magi fire cult, or is it evidence of the post-Magi conversion fire-cult/Zoroastrian syncretism that would become the dominant thread in Sassanid times?

(Before the Magi converted to Zoroastrianism, there's no reason to think that Zoroastrianism had a particular thing for fire, though its possible that fire was always as big a deal as it was after the Magi converted to the faith.)

And of course, the lack of fire-temples doesn't mean a lack of Zoroastrianism. There's good reason to think that there were other traditions of Zoroastrianism that have been lost to time (I mean, we only have half of Zarathustra's own teachings, and the half we have are his personal conversations with God, so we know about how Zarathustra's favourite daughter was doing but we don't have the laws in Zarathustra's own words only the summaries written much later and in a different language) so especially before the Magi convert, Zoroastrian places of worship may have taken a form we just don't recognize today.

A factor also not mentioned, is that Iran would be only one sector of the empire. Why exactly would the Seleucids prefer Iran, a much less urban and ethnically divided land to the older and more urban and prosperous Mesopotamia? The Seleucids have much more reason without Syria, to appeal itself more to the Mesopotamian religions which are quite compatible to the Hellenic ones and create itself a uniquely Mesopotamian identity of mixture with the Hellenic and Akkado-Aramaic identities.

This is a good point. The Achaemenids established their empire on Babylonian culture as much as Median culture, so a Graeco-Babylonian Selucid cultural strategy could work for them.

The Arsacids, who pandered directly to the Iranian historical complex, did not even adopt this religion or promote it.

My understanding was the Arsacids like the Manchus, very much part of the cultural group they'd conquered, but an outer "barbarian" group who resisted assimilating fully after they'd conquered the heartland of the cultural region.

fasquardon
 
@fasquardon

1. Both of your objections of positions regarding he existence of the Zoroastrianism, can be given greater doubt than my views.

-The argument that the Gathas were written in a tongue that is ancient in its grammar and style is your first argument as to the antiquity of Zoroastrianism. This point, I would define as weak, simply by virtue that the concept of grammar and linguistic style can be preserved in older forms than the the current times. There are numerous examples of this. Today, I could compose a document in Classical Arabic from the 8th century and with practice, even in the Kufic script... Does this mean that said work is form the 8th century? No, but the language and style has been preserved and we have a memory of it remaining. A further example, in the Middle Ages, there was a song composed in Catalonia, called "Stella Splendens", in Medieval Latin; this song from the 14-15th century (1399-1401) yet its style, wording and such appear to be derived from the 11th century. Does this song thus and its surrounding works derive from this older period? No, rather it was simply composed by particularly conservative people and lyricists. A further example nearby the region of Iran, even in the time of the Arsacid empire, we have reliefs, depictions, saying and so forth in Akkadian that carry with it a conservative nature reserved for religious texts and general courtly language. Do these examples mean that they derive from the Babylonian Empire or the Assyrian Empire? No, it simply shows the propensity of humans to maintain a language for certain purposes whether poetically, religiously, politically, etc.

-Another point you made, is that the Gathas depict an environment that differs from Fars and correlates to the land of Ferghana. This is an even weaker point in my view, we know that humans have a propensity to imagine environments and discuss these in detail that are not within their existing lands. In the Bible, the book describes the Garden of Eden in ways that may not exist in the place that Jews existed, yet they conceived of this idea. We do not say, oh the Jews must have been residing in some sort of lush river valley, rather we say, that this is something that they have conjured as their reality that is not too different from what they see in home. It would be one thing, if the Gathas described glaciers and vast forests and animals found in only a certain place. Rather, it is describing Ferghana and the Oxus river valley, which is regions that the people of the time even knew of through trade and transit. Regardless, had Zoroastrianism existed in the Ferghana or Oxus, we would see the evidences of Zoroastrianism upon the Kushanshahs. What we find instead, is the Iranic subjects of the Kushan Empire, are being appealed to through the usages of:

Mithra: An Iranic god, which in Kushan coinage is associated with Apollo and often the figure is mixed between the two. Appears 20%
Wesho: The Iranic god of the winds and in Kushan coins, is often equated and accompanied by Hercules. Appears 6-7% (Hercules and Wesho) (during the reign of earlier Kushan emperors, such as Kanishka I the percentage is much higher and is approximately at 30%, while Mithra is 18%, Nanahita is 21%, Atsho is 4%, Mao is 15%, Buddha 1%, Helios 2%, Zeus 2%, etc...)
Mao/Men: The Iranic and Anatolian god of the moon. Appears 12%
Nanahita: Sogdian goddess of water and springs. Appears 10%
Pharro: God of the imperial family and the Kushan clan. Represented splendor and might. Appears 11%.
Shaoreo: Sogdian version of Perso-Median Shahrevar, the god of metal and blacksmiths. Appears 5%.
Atsho: The Iranic god of fire or in Zoroastrian cosmology, the holy fires. In Kushan icons, Atsho is often molded with Hephaestus and Tabiti, the Greek and Scythian deities of fire. Appears 2%.
Oatsho: The personification of the Oxus river. Appears 1%.
Katrikeya: The god of stones and warriors also a Hindu god of war. Appears 2%.
Manaobago: Bactrian rendering of Avestan, good thoughts/Vohu Manah, what this meant to the Kushans, we are not sure. Appears 1%.
Shiva: Hindu god of many things, the eternal dancer. Appears 9%
Ganesha: Hindu god as well, of wealth, wisdom, luck, etc... Appears 1%.
(other gods account the remaining amounts [less than 1%];Ahura Mazda Zeus, Buddha, Nike, Dionysus, Sarapis, Rishti, Yamasho, Teiro [Armenian god of writing], etc)

Percentages of coins depicted during the reign of Huvishka 155-187 CE, prior to the last Emperor of the Kushan Empire. Disclaimer, the Buddha appears less frequently than Hindu or Iranic gods and Buddha is mostly seen in the period of Kanishka I (100-147 CE) and a minority in Vashishka (147-155 CE) Huvishka (155-187 CE) and Vasudeva I (187-230 CE) (Vasudeva I, saw the increase of Hindu deities on coins, before his fall to the Sassanid conquest).

Meanwhile, Ahura Mazda is depicted in coins less than 1%, quite low than what we would expect should Zoroastrianism be a major religion in the Iranic world. However, the dilemma becomes, very rapidly after 230, with the fall of Vasudeva I (187-230 CE) against the Sassanid Empire, we find the approximate changes begin with Zoroastrianism becoming existent and this once obscure god, Ahura Mazda becoming a common coin in the Kushan vassal states of the Sassanid Empire. In otherwords, the Sassanids carried this religion of Zoroastrianism to Ferghana and the regions of the east, but did not carry the polytheistic Iranic gods that were highly revered by the Kushans. I am not too familiar with Arsacid coins, but I expect that the trend is the same or similar and the Kushan and Arsacid had many things in common between each other.

2. On the point of the Fire symbol, fair enough. I retract that statement of mine.

3. You could say the Arsacid were related to the Persians in the same way that the Scythians were, but otherwise, no. The Sassanid did much to promote this understanding also and the arrival of the Dahae invasions of Seleucid Parthia and Mazandran, reminds of this reality.
 
Last edited:
-The argument that the Gathas were written in a tongue that is ancient in its grammar and style is your first argument as to the antiquity of Zoroastrianism. This point, I would define as weak, simply by virtue that the concept of grammar and linguistic style can be preserved in older forms than the the current times. There are numerous examples of this. Today, I could compose a document in Classical Arabic from the 8th century and with practice, even in the Kufic script... Does this mean that said work is form the 8th century? No, but the language and style has been preserved and we have a memory of it remaining. A further example, in the Middle Ages, there was a song composed in Catalonia, called "Stella Splendens", in Medieval Latin; this song from the 14-15th century (1399-1401) yet its style, wording and such appear to be derived from the 11th century. Does this song thus and its surrounding works derive from this older period? No, rather it was simply composed by particularly conservative people and lyricists. A further example nearby the region of Iran, even in the time of the Arsacid empire, we have reliefs, depictions, saying and so forth in Akkadian that carry with it a conservative nature reserved for religious texts and general courtly language. Do these examples mean that they derive from the Babylonian Empire or the Assyrian Empire? No, it simply shows the propensity of humans to maintain a language for certain purposes whether poetically, religiously, politically, etc.

That's true, and language conservatism is a thing. Heck, look at the sister language of Gathic - Sanskrit became a sacral language and changes very slowly from when the Vedas were written to the modern day. It's possible Gathic was the ritual language being used by those who remained in the mountains and Zarathustra learned that sacral language as part of his day job and spoke something else when doing his day-to-day business.

So you're right, the language being closely related to Vedic isn't hard evidence. Now most languages aren't so conservative and most languages aren't ritual languages, so the odds are against it, but not so much that it constitutes strong evidence on its own. It is definitely an Eastern Iranic language though.

Another point you made, is that the Gathas depict an environment that differs from Fars and correlates to the land of Ferghana. This is an even weaker point in my view, we know that humans have a propensity to imagine environments and discuss these in detail that are not within their existing lands. In the Bible, the book describes the Garden of Eden in ways that may not exist in the place that Jews existed, yet they conceived of this idea. We do not say, oh the Jews must have been residing in some sort of lush river valley, rather we say, that this is something that they have conjured as their reality that is not too different from what they see in home. It would be one thing, if the Gathas described glaciers and vast forests and animals found in only a certain place. Rather, it is describing Ferghana and the Oxus river valley, which is regions that the people of the time even knew of through trade and transit. Regardless, had Zoroastrianism existed in the Ferghana or Oxus, we would see the evidences of Zoroastrianism upon the Kushanshahs. What we find instead, is the Iranic subjects of the Kushan Empire, are being appealed to through the usages of:

But the Gathas are a VERY different beast to the first chapters of the Bible. They are the prayers Zarathustra was chanting while doing his day job (he was a sacrificing priest). So they aren't histories, or moral tales, or genealogy. They are Zarathustra's conversations with God while he was working. So they are full of little details about his life, what's going well, what's going badly, titbits about the events of his time, jokes. For most of the history of Zoroastrianism the Gathic language was lost and the Magi didn't know what they were reciting when the sung the Gathas (which is why they were the portion of Zarathustra's own words that endured, everything else was important enough to translate into Western Iranic languages and politically muck with). I think it is very unlikely that we're looking at things that have been fictionalized/mythologized.

As to the coins, they are certainly strong evidence that Sassanid-style Zoroastrianism wasn't existent in the area before the Sassanids arrive. I don't think that's evidence that Zoroastrianism wasn't a major presence (or hadn't been a major presence in the past before being mostly displaced by Buddhism spreading through the region) in the area before the Sassanid conquest though. Zoroastrianism, as we know it, is pretty much the Sassanian court religion. We have fragmentary hints that other traditions existed during the Sassanid period (and were being "corrected" out of existence) and just as becoming the court cult of the Roman Empire led to convulsive changes in Christianity, it seems likely the same happened to Zoroastrianism, and that convulsive changes also happened when the Magi became Zoroastrian. So before those big changes, or in strands of the tradition where those changes didn't happen, did earlier/more conservative Zoroastrian practice encourage leave the sort of hard evidence people look for?

I think a good cautionary tale here is from Norse mythology where we have lots of stories about Odin, Thor and Loki. We have no evidence that Loki was ever a major object of worship for the Norse. By contrast, Freyr was likely for most of Norse history more important than Thor and waaaay more important than Loki (being a god of fertility, and fertility being real important for any agricultural people) but who we have few surviving stories about. The Roman Mars and Greek Demeter also have the same problems, they are fertility deities and there's evidence they were really important in the day to day lives of people, but relatively few stories survive. The theory is that fertility deities appeared less in the stories because at the time people were composing stories about Athena (most of which are actually Athenian propaganda), everyone knew the stories about Demeter, so there was no need to propagandise for her. And in any case, the people most concerned with fertility were peasants, so had little disposable income while people concerned with rulership and war tended to have lots of disposable income, so of course more marble statues were made of Zeus and Athena. So the surviving evidence is skewed in such a way that just looking at the stories and artefacts that have survived, we might think that Demeter was a less important god than Athena.

So what classes was early Zoroastrianism popular with? What was the attitude to building grand temples and to putting the symbol of the spirit of truth and goodness on coins? What was their attitude to honouring gods like Mithra, who could easily fit into the Zoroastrian view of the universe as lesser and more relevant to the day-to-day spirits looking after various aspects of the world and life in it? We don't know. What we do have is one set of evidence that points to Zoroastrianism being more than a thousand years old at the time the Sassanids turn it into a rigid court (and eventually state) religion. We also have other evidence that are good, but not inarguable evidence that Zoroastrianism was starting to be important in Persia from the 6th and 7th Century BC.

You could say the Arsacid were related to the Persians in the same way that the Scythians were, but otherwise, no. The Sassanid did much to promote this understanding also and the arrival of the Dahae invasions of Seleucid Parthia and Mazandran, reminds of this reality.

Ahhh, OK. So I am buying into Sassanid propaganda too much. Well, that explains alot.

fasquardon
 
@fasquardon

If it was not for Islam erasing the prestige and injustices that the Sassanid and Zoroastrian clergy committed, I would label you extremely Sassanid biased and pro-Zoroastrian clergy. The Sassanid clergy and the court took all the preexisting religious worships within Iran, Iraq, Bactria, Kwarezm, Sogdia, etc and reevaluate these as just heretical off-shoots of their religion. In this sense, they promoted a hyper progressive take on religion in their region that had never existed before and the upheaval that they created is evident... However, the Sassanids cannot erase the coins and evidences we possess that clearly tell us stories.

On the point of depictions, sure, we see this in the Kushan coins between Kanishka I and Huvishka. As time changes, there are different gods that are preferred, the decline of Wensho especially is noted, or the lessening importance of some Greek gods such as Helios, Nike, Zeus-Indra which were extremely common in the reign of Kujula Khadphises and the early period of Kanishka I. However, Ahura Mazda appears very rarely in any ruler prior to Kanishka II (the first vassal shah of the Sassanids, the Sassankushanshahs), approximately 1-2 coins and this Ahura Mazda is on Kushan coins a god of wisdom and royalty, so it makes little sense that he is not displayed more frequently. Perhaps it is due to the reality of the people of Bactria, Sogdia, Kwarezm, etc prior to Sassanid imperialism, were firmly polytheistic and non-Zoroastrian... If Zoroastrianism existed in the Kushan Empire, why would they depict only a small number of coins with Ahura Mazda for 260 years?

(the first coins we see are from Huvishka, only a few decades before the Sassanid Empire; this is why I say Zoroastrianism began perhaps in the late Arsacid period in the Fars region of Iran, working from existing polytheistic practices that spoke of prophets and holy men)

Then, as if a change occurred, in 231-onward we see the increase in depictions of Ahura Mazda and the removal of non-‘Zoroastrian’ depictions and syncretic icons (such as Athar depicted more likened to Hephaestus). It seems likely that the Sassanids enforced this procedure and changeband we know the Sassanids did this to the people of the Kwarezm, Sogdia, Bactria and the later Kabul Shahi. Actively striking at high court polytheism such as the god Pharro or Mithra-Apollo and Buddhism.

This is part of the issue also, Sassanid era propagandists appropriated all things polytheistic and attempted to recreate these as just aspects of Ahura Mazda. You, yourself are falling into this act made by Sassanid era writers, while the coins and reliefs or experience of the Greco-Bactrians, Arsacid and Kushanshahs are countering the points as whispers from the past.

In regards to the reference to Sassanid Zoroastrianism, surely you hold that Zoroastrianism requires the worship of Ahura Mazda? We have to create some parameters, or else we could say that Islam is Christianity but it does not worship Allah or vice versa. If the Kushan are appealing to their subjects with Iranic deities and not with Ahura Mazda, this at least casts massive doubts. To make matters worse, the Kushan often copied Arsacid styles in the depiction of Iranic gods, except the Kushan added several gods such as Pharro, Hindu gods such as Shiva and the large assortment of Hellenic gods depicted by the Kushan.
 
Avestan is largely mutually intelligible with Sanskrit, so this is good evidence for the age of the Gathas. I'm not sure why the Zoroastrian clergy would find it necessary to create a holy text in an extinct language if it wasn't already being passed down as oral tradition. I believe the Rigveda also wasn't written for several centuries and was an oral tradition.
 
I believe the Rigveda also wasn't written for several centuries and was an oral tradition.

That's right, the Vedas are meant to be sung aloud.

This is part of the issue also, Sassanid era propagandists appropriated all things polytheistic and attempted to recreate these as just aspects of Ahura Mazda. You, yourself are falling into this act made by Sassanid era writers, while the coins and reliefs or experience of the Greco-Bactrians, Arsacid and Kushanshahs are countering the points as whispers from the past.

I am aware the Sassanids were doing alot of this. But is it clear what was happening before? We know it happened at least once when the Magi mixed their prior cult into Zoroastrianism that we're not sure where the pre-Zoroastrian fire cult beliefs end and Zoroastrianism begins. We know that there are cognates of Vedic demons and gods playing the role of devils and angels in Zoroastrianism. I am not aware of any work that has concluded when these gods and devils became part of Zoroastrianism though. (Or even whether the Zoroastrian inversion of Devas/Daevas and Asuras/Ahuras happened before Zarathustra, or was an innovation of the new religion.)

If it was not for Islam erasing the prestige and injustices that the Sassanid and Zoroastrian clergy committed,I would label you extremely Sassanid biased and pro-Zoroastrian clergy.

Oh wow! That's kinda flattering, given my actual opinions on the Sassanid-era innovations.

However, Ahura Mazda appears very rarely in any ruler prior to Kanishka II (the first vassal shah of the Sassanids, the Sassankushanshahs), approximately 1-2 coins and this Ahura Mazda is on Kushan coins a god of wisdom and royalty, so it makes little sense that he is not displayed more frequently.

Yeah, that is pretty compelling. So if Zoroastrianism had started in that region, it is very likely barely there during Kushan times.

In regards to the reference to Sassanid Zoroastrianism, surely you hold that Zoroastrianism requires the worship of Ahura Mazda?

On a personal level? Sure. But there are scholars who class Zuvanism as Zoroastrianism. So I try to let go of my own definitions and try to talk in terms that aren't too alien to people who are coming at this topic with only Western historiography and religiology.

We have to create some parameters, or else we could say that Islam is Christianity but it does not worship Allah or vice versa.

Which is nuts because Allah is Allah for Arabic speaking Christians and Arabic speaking Muslims alike. :-D Your point is well taken.

We're kinda going off into the long grass and away from the original question though.

Considering the prestige Babylonian culture had across the Achaemenid empire, yes a Greako-Babylonian strategy could work for the Seleucids. Though in such a strategy they need to be providing a place and opportunities for loyal members of the Persian/Median aristocracy. A more successful Seleucid regime is one that enjoys more buy-in from the prior power holders (who still held considerable power post-conquest).

fasquardon
 
Top