Is this the same Freddie Mercury that was the lead singer for Queen cause if it is I guess you really do you learn something every day
A Light Shines East: The World of a Christian Persia
- Thread starter Merovingian
- Start date
I'm guessing that medieval Christian proscriptions against usury still lead to a non-Christian minority dominating finance, only it's the Zoroastrians this time. That being said, some of the worse stuff like the blood libel will likely be avoided given how it's Rome that's the subject of ire.
And how the Zoroastrians cannot exactly be accused of murdering Christ.
The lack of any sort of blood libel will mean that persecution of Zoroastrians ITTL won’t be quite as bad as Jews IOTL. There will still be pogroms, expulsions, and the like, but being perceived as greedy pagans is still a step up from murderers of Christ.
And Cyrus The Great, who is portrayed very positively in the Old Testament was Zoroastrian, although I'm not sure how much that'll matter at this point.
EDIT: Nah, it won't matter. The Jews were the protagonists of the Old Testament, and yet that didn't improve how they were treated.
Last edited:
danteheadman
Banned
Why would Zoroastrians dominate the niche of moneylender / banker / merchant, when (1) Jews are able to lend money with interest to Christians and (2) Zoroastrians aren't pushed away from land- and property-ownership trades?
Jews in OTL medieval Christian Europe were forced into that niche because they were forbidden from owning rural tracts of land (encouraging urbanism) and regularly had their property expropriated (encouraging the acquisition of wealth which can be easily hidden or secured), as well as being regularly expelled from realms large and small (encouraging wealth portability). If Zoroastrians are, like OTL pagans, seen as backwards and rural, then they must in large part be perceived as people who work farmlands and do menial, manual labor.
They're separate social perceptions. The country bumpkin is not perceived as the same group as the greedy banker, and the negative stereotypes of each group contradict one another. As a purely social and material justification for intergroup conflict, they don't mesh. There are plenty of instances of social oppression of a ghettoized menial-labor group (see e.g. Dalit in India) but those groups don't become wealthy enough to moneylend.
I'm also not aware of any east Asian hangups about a specific minority group due to usury restrictions. Since there are at least two extant social groups permitted to lend at interest, I don't see why one would necessarily dominate the other in that industry.
I can see the in-universe reason for the Christian majority to try persecuting Zoroastrians after coopting their traditions and symbols (to fully prevent that ideology from regaining ground against them). I can also see the narrative appeal of making a "the X are the new Jews under Christiandom," as it is a verifiable historical trope. But this isn't it.
Maybe a better set of justifications for persecution could be more similar to the OTL Christian antisemitic propaganda of the "Synagogue of Satan". Leaning in to the "Zoroastrians are backwards and rural" !pagan thing, Zoroastrians could be seen as having lost the true way and, though they once correctly worshiped the Father (syncretized Ahura Mazda) and despised Satan (syncretized Angra Mainyu), their rejection of the New And Correct Religion TM is proof that they are consorting with Satan and lying about what they actually worship. ITTL Christians could point to "the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matthew 25:41) and link that with Zoroastrian fire worship rituals as "evidence."
Last edited:
Yeah, that’s probably more likely. It’ll probably still be Jews who dominate moneylending professions while the Zoroastrians are seen as backwards, superstitious pagans who live off in the countryside. I’ll retcon this.
What percentage of the Persian population is Jewish and Zoroastrian respectively?
Both are minorities, although their are more Zoroastrians than Jews. About 10% of the population is Zoroastrian, while roughly 5% is Jewish. The Jews are a heavily urban minority(as OTL), while the Zoroastrians have a significant plurality in the countrysides.
Rise of Abu Yusuf
Arabian Desert, circa 640 AD
Majid ibn Abdul-Yasu stared at the night sky with his son, Yusuf ibn Majid, standing beside him. “Abbi”, his son asked, “why are the stars there?” Majid initially responded “because our Lord put them there”, only for Yusuf to ask “but why did He put them there”, to which Majid had no answer. This conversation between father and son was interrupted by cries of panic and calls to battle. Another Bedouin tribe had raided their encampment. A great battle ensued, and Majid’s tribe(the Banu ‘Alaa) had emerged victorious. Majid would return to his tribe’s encampment.
He called out for his son, but it would be to no avail. He would soon realize, but take much longer to accept, that his son had died in the fighting. This event would live with him for years to come, and he would take “Abu Yusuf”, or “father of Yusuf”, as the title by which the world would know him. He would nevertheless continue on, eventually becoming the sheikh of the Banu ‘Alaa tribe. His story had only just begun.
From “History of Arabia” by Abdul-Yasu ibn Ismail
After becoming the sheikh of the Banu ‘Alaa, Abu Yusuf set out to unify the Arabian peninsula under his rule. This would take five long years to accomplish, but it happened nevertheless. Abu Yusuf’s unification of Arabia took place within the context of the larger war between the Palmyrenes and Sassanids. The Sassanid Shah, Ardashir III, had taken Palmyra and forced Palmyrene Emperor Antiochus II to flee northwards, establishing his capital at Byzantion[1]. Despite the Persians’ initial successes, the Palmyrenes would ultimately retake Palmyra and sack Ctesiphon, winning the war.
Having defeated the Persians’ Arabian proxies, Abu Yusuf prepared for a full invasion of the Sassanid Empire. Ardashir III had died in the conflict, and his young son Yohnan II was placed on the throne, with his brother Shapur made regent. Abu Yusuf’s armies would successfully sack Ctesiphon, holding the Shah and regent captive, and continued to march further into Persia. Persia was in a succession crisis, as Ardashir’s brother Kurush claimed that Yohnan was illegitimate and thus he should be Shah. Abu Yusuf’s forces would finally defeat Kurush’s at the Battle of Hamadan, ending the Sassanid Empire. With Persia fully incorporated into Abu Yusuf’s burgeoning empire, he turned his eyes west; to the holy land, occupied by the pagans whose ancestors had murdered Christ.
[1]I might or might not have OTL Constantinople become a major city ITTL. It’s at an ideal location, and is much more easily defensible than Palmyra, but without Constantine it’s still a small-ish city away from the centers of power
Majid ibn Abdul-Yasu stared at the night sky with his son, Yusuf ibn Majid, standing beside him. “Abbi”, his son asked, “why are the stars there?” Majid initially responded “because our Lord put them there”, only for Yusuf to ask “but why did He put them there”, to which Majid had no answer. This conversation between father and son was interrupted by cries of panic and calls to battle. Another Bedouin tribe had raided their encampment. A great battle ensued, and Majid’s tribe(the Banu ‘Alaa) had emerged victorious. Majid would return to his tribe’s encampment.
He called out for his son, but it would be to no avail. He would soon realize, but take much longer to accept, that his son had died in the fighting. This event would live with him for years to come, and he would take “Abu Yusuf”, or “father of Yusuf”, as the title by which the world would know him. He would nevertheless continue on, eventually becoming the sheikh of the Banu ‘Alaa tribe. His story had only just begun.
From “History of Arabia” by Abdul-Yasu ibn Ismail
After becoming the sheikh of the Banu ‘Alaa, Abu Yusuf set out to unify the Arabian peninsula under his rule. This would take five long years to accomplish, but it happened nevertheless. Abu Yusuf’s unification of Arabia took place within the context of the larger war between the Palmyrenes and Sassanids. The Sassanid Shah, Ardashir III, had taken Palmyra and forced Palmyrene Emperor Antiochus II to flee northwards, establishing his capital at Byzantion[1]. Despite the Persians’ initial successes, the Palmyrenes would ultimately retake Palmyra and sack Ctesiphon, winning the war.
Having defeated the Persians’ Arabian proxies, Abu Yusuf prepared for a full invasion of the Sassanid Empire. Ardashir III had died in the conflict, and his young son Yohnan II was placed on the throne, with his brother Shapur made regent. Abu Yusuf’s armies would successfully sack Ctesiphon, holding the Shah and regent captive, and continued to march further into Persia. Persia was in a succession crisis, as Ardashir’s brother Kurush claimed that Yohnan was illegitimate and thus he should be Shah. Abu Yusuf’s forces would finally defeat Kurush’s at the Battle of Hamadan, ending the Sassanid Empire. With Persia fully incorporated into Abu Yusuf’s burgeoning empire, he turned his eyes west; to the holy land, occupied by the pagans whose ancestors had murdered Christ.
[1]I might or might not have OTL Constantinople become a major city ITTL. It’s at an ideal location, and is much more easily defensible than Palmyra, but without Constantine it’s still a small-ish city away from the centers of power
…I see you’re excited.YES!
CHRISTIAN CALIPHATE!
PLEASE TAKE THE PALMYRENES OUT! BYZANTIUM IS WEAK YOU CAN DO IT!
Okay my sheer excitement aside, look @Miyako! You got your Pagan ERE after all!
We can now start making bets on who will win
In all seriousness, Abu Yusuf’s empire will come into conflict with the Palmyrenes. Palmyra is a lot less easily defensible than Constantinople and Egypt and Syria both have significant Christian minorities who would greet the Arabs as liberators, but that’s not to say that the Palmyrenes can’t hold off the onslaught…
Happy Aluma noises
Happy Miya noises
Wonder how different and similar his figure will be portrayed to that of Muhammed in oir own timeline...
He sure is a interesting figure
I admit that Abu Yusuf’s conquests ITTL do have a few major similarities with the rise of the Caliphate IOTL, but I think events soon to come will make it different enough so as not to be a direct parallel. I’d say that the most obvious difference between Abu Yusuf and Muhammad is that Abu Yusuf is a purely secular conqueror, more akin to Charlemagne or Ghengis Khan than the Caliphs of OTL in that regard.
Would be amusing if in counterweight to our Arab Charlemagne we get a Germanic answer to Muhammad or something.