This is what I have planned. The Arab conquests ITTL will turn out more like the conquests of Charlemagne, Alexander, or Ghengis Khan IOTL where the empire fractures after its founder dies.
This will probably happen ITTL. Even if it doesn’t happen exactly as you describe it, something akin to this will still happen and the Apostolic Church will regain control of Persia once the Arabs are forced out.
While some degree of Arabization might happen in Mesopotamia and the Levant due to Arabs moving into the region, Egypt will definitely keep its own independent identity ITTL. The Arabic language ITTL won’t have anything near the prestige that it has in the region IOTL. Aramaic will be the liturgical language and lingua franca, while Persian and Coptic will be the most prestigious secular languages. Arabic will simply be the language of a peripheral desert tribe who briefly managed to establish their own empire before assimilating into Persian and Egyptian culture.
While the Crusades as we know them won’t happen ITTL, there will still be trade between Europe and Asia. In general, Europe is much more peripheral ITTL due to the lack of a unified religious or cultural identity, with Asia instead having a much more dominant role.
We won’t be getting there for a while, but Persian South Africa will eventually become a thing ITTL.
It dominates the south due to Western colonialism and proselytising. With no Christianity in Europe, this will be very different.
And we have Persian South Africa.
The same process likely still happens, just that it will be spread to Africa by a different proselytizing colonialist.
The reformed Norse religion will spread southwards to other Germanic peoples.
.Coming in late to this, but a Christianity that initially takes root in Persia instead of Rome would emphatically not blame Jews for deicide. Instead, the Romans would be blamed, as the actual government which killed Jesus and oppressed both Jews and Christians. This would lead to a much more positive relationship between Christianized Persians and Jews that, compounded with the historical good relationship between Zoroastrian Persians and Jews (Cyrus the Great etc.), would make ITTL Christians way less antisemitic than it was OTL.
And with the seeds of Marcionist antisemitism planted in the rival Church, the Apostolic Persians would be even more encouraged to double down on pro-Jewish concepts. Perhaps we will see an early development of Two Covenants theology and a diminishing of Pauline antiJudaic theology in Persia.
Put some pro-Judaic theology in Saint Kaveh's Epistle put some pro-Judaic theology in Saint Kaveh's Epistle cmon cmon cmon!
Yesssssss
Christianity will spread ITTL, especially when the Arab and Turkic invasions begin. As for the spread of Christianity to Nusantara, that is yet to be revealed. Trust me, there will be crusades ITTL. The Christian Persians are bitter enemies with the pagan Palmyrene Empire. The Roman Christians are still there, mostly in Egypt and the Levant, but since many of them don’t belong the the Persian Apostolic Church, they’re taking their chances with the Palmyrenes who view them as a nuisance at worst and some weird cultists at best as opposed to the Persians who view them as heretics to be set on the “right” path.Ttl's Christianity seems weaker(?) I wonder what stopped Christianity from spreading in Nusantaran Region and what do they mean when they mention Nusantara, Just otl Indonesia/Malaysia? Or does it Include everything in Maritime Southeast Asia? Also will Crusades even happen here especially since Roman Empire just fractured apart? There's too many surviving Pagan religion ittl too. What happened to the Roman Christians? There's just way too many pagans to Crusade here. I have so many questions
Saint Kaveh’s Epistle is mainly addressed to the Zoroastrian Persians, and so it doesn’t really mention the Jews much except when referring to Jesus’ life. However, TTL’s Persian Christians aren’t very anti-semitic, viewing the Jews as misguided brothers at worst and instead blaming the Romans and their successor states for the death of Christ.
Shaivists(at least in Northern India) didn't persecute the followers of what we now consider other major Hindu deities, their main targets were for most of the time Buddhists. Shashanka, king of the Gauda dynasty was a staunch Shaivist and was the only North Indian ruler capable of challenging Harsha's rule. According to ancient texts, he had once respected Harsha, who was also a Shaivist at that time, and even had considered submitting to him as a vassal ruler but he started hating Harsha with a passion after the latter's conversion to Buddhism, he murdered Harsha's brother-in-law and captured his sister. He was also the one to cut down the main trunk of Bodhi tree. Shaivist of North India didn't have as many conflicts with the Vaishnavas and the Saktyas as their South Indian counterparts.
I wasnt arguing so much for the possibility of it so much as saying that christian persecutions(in particular persian ones) are not necessarily a inevitability and if there was a christian dynasty in India(not arguing wheter its plausible or not, I think it is as plausible as OTL Islam's success or lack of there) it could serve as a buffer against the future hunnic invasions
Yeah that was what I was arguing
Didnt the Indo-Parthians do so? At least the area around Bactria I mean
Bactria is in north of the HinduKush, around the Amu Darya, quite far from India proper.
As, I said, even if the Buddhists don't play the Christians and Hindus against each other, North India is still open for an invasion if there is no powerful polity present in the Northern part of the subcontinent.
A state based on religion is going to be intolerant especially when in a situation where a minority rules over a majority, but as seen in OTL, although there would be conversions, but the number would still be in minority.
True, but there were just as much zoroastrian elements to them as hellenic ones, it heavily depended on who was in charge at the time
Indeed
I think that depends a lot on the state and how much leverage it has over the population
Zoroastrianism during Sassanid rule had turned into Monotheism and that's what I mentioned and even during the Parthian rule, it was never oppressive as Parthians were religiously tolerant over the subjects they ruled.
There are many factors and while I wish to write as much as I can, I don't think I'll be able to explain it all in even 1000 words.
very true, it all comes to politics, as long as it benefits the rulers.
!!!!!!!!
How does Axumite Judaism, now the state religion of an empire far from the Levant and predominantly populated by non-Jews or converts, develop differently than Judaism elsewhere?
What a relief haha
So is there a distinct concept of Europe as separate continent from Asia? Or does this TL avoid that arbitrariness and lets a "Eurasian" continental conception develop?
Neat!
TTL’s Gudit is a fictitious individual who happens to share a name with someone who laid waste to the Axumite Empire IOTL.
Axumite Judaism is similar to the form of Judaism practiced by the Beta Israel IOTL.
The concept of Europe as separate from Asia predates the POD, so probably yes. However, “Europe” ITTL is likely seen as a purely geographical term rather than a cultural one.
