No Zoroaster / Iranian Polytheism

[pa_dutch]

Lately I've been reading about the religious development of the Indo-Aryans and the origins of Zoroastrianism, which I had never really delved into before. I was fascinated (but not entirely surpised) to find that the devas of Vedic India also existed in pre-Zoroastrian Iran, and their conceptions evolved very differently.

For example, the Vedic character of Indra, who was once very important to early Hinduism (and is still revered to some degree in Rajasthan and in Southeast Asian Buddhist communities) was declared a "false god" by Zoroaster. He and other devas, many of whom don't have obvious Vedic parallels, later became classified as demons, actual evil entities, rather than simply other gods declared unworthy of worship.

So, now I'm curious about the possibility of an Iran in.which Zoroaster didn't exist or never became popular, leading to an Iran that remains spiritually similar to Hindu India. Would it still follow its own path, maintaining gods that became irrelevant to later Hindus, or would a shared polytheism allow greater religious influences between India and Iran, thus resulting in a much bigger and more direct cultural sphere encompassing both regions?

Obviously these developments would butterfly Christianity, Islam, and possibly Buddhism out of existence, but Judaism might still be around...

 

[fi11222]

Lately I've been reading about the religious development of the Indo-Aryans and the origins of Zoroastrianism, which I had never really delved into before. I was fascinated (but not entirely surpised) to find that the devas of Vedic India also existed in pre-Zoroastrian Iran, and their conceptions evolved very differently.

[...]

So, now I'm curious about the possibility of an Iran in.which Zoroaster didn't exist or never became popular, leading to an Iran that remains spiritually similar to Hindu India. Would it still follow its own path, maintaining gods that became irrelevant to later Hindus, or would a shared polytheism allow greater religious influences between India and Iran, thus resulting in a much bigger and more direct cultural sphere encompassing both regions?

Actually, such a situation seems to have existed in the second half of the IInd millenium BC. Most of the elites, and gods, of the empire of Mitanni are clearly Indo-Aryan and some of them are precisely the theonyms which were later demonised by the Zoroastrian reform. If such cultural influences are perceptible so far to the west of Iran, it is quite likely that in Iran itself Indo-Aryan culture and religion were still dominant at that time (ca 1300 BC).

In a world where the Zoroastrian reform does not occur, it is likely that the biggest immediate consequence would be the absence of the Achaemenid Empire. Zoroastrism was an important unifying factor in the rise of the first Persian Empire and it is likely that without it the Iranian peoples (or rather Indo-Iranians) would have a lesser impact on the semitic middle East. Assyria, Babylon and Egypt would therefore continue to be the main regional powers for a longer period.

Obviously these developments would butterfly Christianity, Islam, and possibly Buddhism out of existence, but Judaism might still be around...

Judaism actually benefited from Persian hegemony IOTL (return from Babylonian exile). It would therefore turn out very differently without the Achaemenids.

 

[pa_dutch]

Might we still see unified Persian empires the same way India had the Mauryas and the Guptas? I can't help but think there must be some level of geographic determinism at play in the rise of Persian hegemony beyond the role of Zoroastrianism. Perhaps the Persians would simply arise later than in OTL, or have a more eastward focus on the Indus Valley rather than on Mesopotamia?

 

[fi11222]

Might we still see unified Persian empires the same way India had the Mauryas and the Guptas? I can't help but think there must be some level of geographic determinism at play in the rise of Persian hegemony beyond the role of Zoroastrianism. Perhaps the Persians would simply arise later than in OTL, or have a more eastward focus on the Indus Valley rather than on Mesopotamia?

It seems to me that the Mitanni example shows that the Indo-Iranian element dissolved pretty easily into the cultures of the ancient Near-East rather than dominating it as the Persians did. In India, the Indo-Aryans were conquering small-scale neolithic societies. By Contrast, in the Near-Est they were up against very strong and ancient cultures. In order to dominate them without being absorbed as the Mitannian elites were, a stonger cultural bonding element was needed, and that is what Zoroastrianism provided.

A wider Mauryan Empire, encompassing both the Iranian plateau and the Ganges and Indus valleys is of course a possibility if Iran remains culturally Indo-Aryan.