Sassanid wank POD no earlier than 600 AD
- Thread starter Eivind
- Start date
Philip
Donor
For the political end, as stated, a quick defeat of the Romans. Avoiding overreaching in the war would help. This should help provide some much needed dynastic stability.
Religion might be a bigger issue. Miaphysitism was growing in popularity among the elites in Ctesiphon. A victory over Rome that adds Armenia, the Levant and Egypt to the empire will add more Miaphysite subjects. If the shahanshah sees this as the opportunity to break the power of the Zoroastrian nobility, there could be ... well, religious conflict never ends well.
Religion might be a bigger issue. Miaphysitism was growing in popularity among the elites in Ctesiphon. A victory over Rome that adds Armenia, the Levant and Egypt to the empire will add more Miaphysite subjects. If the shahanshah sees this as the opportunity to break the power of the Zoroastrian nobility, there could be ... well, religious conflict never ends well.
Philip
Donor
Your question might attract more attention if it were more tightly scoped. 'As strong as possible' could be OTL, or it could be everyone person on earth a believer. Since you allow for 1400 years of development, nearly anything inbetween could occur.
In the short term, if you want to maximize Sassanian power, I suggest a quick victory over the Romans but with limited gains --- mainly in Armenia and Iberia. End the war with a reestablishment of the Perpetual Peace, religious guarantees in conquered lands, and an exchange of heirs/dynastic marriages.
Assuming Islam rises in a manner resembling OTL, the Romans and Sasanians support each other in defence. (I suspect this would be unlikely. It seems more likely that either Rome or Persia would try to exploit the Arabs against the other.) This gives the Sasanians some time to get their house in order both religiously and politically. If they can then gain control of trade across Central Asia and the Indian Ocean, Zoroastrianism could spread along the trade routes. Note that this is at least as likely to be Zurvanism as it is Mazdaiam.
I think more interesting to me is where Rome temporarily takes enough of Persia to have a measurable Zoroastrian population. (The Adoration of the Magi is exploited to make them religiously tolerable, if restricted.) The Arabs overrun Persia, but Rome holds. This results in a Zoroastrian diaspora within eastern Europe. If they take a place analogous to the Greeks under the Ottomans, you could eventually end up with a globally distributed religion with millions of adherents. Unlikely? Maybe, but interesting.
I disagree, the Sasanian nobility murdered Ardashir III, along several other reasons, for being raised by his Christian mother and the Persian faction when crowned Boran proclaimed her "Restorer of the lineage of the gods" in the old-style Mazdean fashion of Ardashir I. So the old "Zoroastrianism was being replaced by Christianity during the end of the Sasanians era" stuff people keep repeating here seems to not have so much base as it is often said, as long as Iran remains unconquered, the faith shall remain.
It is the same thing, Zoroaster is the greek reading of the original Avestan Zarathustra.
Philip
Donor
Opinions differed as to their origin. Commentary focused more on the geographical origin.
John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria and others thought them Persian based on the study of astrology. Justin Martyr, Cyprian, and others claim they were from Arabia based on the gifts. A Persian origin makes it easier for them to be seen as Zoroastrian. An Arabian origin does not preclude it. If it came down to a theological battle, John and Cyril carry a lot of theological capital.
Traditionally, later documents say the Magi were baptized and ordained bishops by Thomas Didymus as he traveled through Persia to India.
Personally, I think the author of Matthew intended them to be seen as either Zoroastrian priests or Jewish officials in the service of the Persian emperor.
I think boran herself has a lot of potential when it comes to reviving Sassanid fortunes- her efforts at stabilisation at a cursory glance look like they might have been very successful had she not been murdered
Are synonyms. IIRC, Zoroaster is the Greek name of Zarathustra.
@Philip, as for the strength of the religion, it is quite obvious that it could have been much stronger than today if Persia was not conquered by the caliphate. Also, from my understanding, Zarathustrianism is an ethnic religion, so it is not proselytizing. In other words, "as strong as possible" should be understood with this in mind. Of course the understanding of who are Iranians might change, making more people potential members of the religion. However, I was mostly thinking in terms of the religion not being significantly weakened.
Philip
Donor
This was not the case at the time of the Sasanians or immediately after the collapse of their empire. The religion had already spread along the silk road, largely by Sogdians. During the Tang dynasty, it was spreading among the Chinese, not just being practiced by merchants and migrants, until it was caught up in the Buddhist purge.
While it is obvious that it could be larger, it is not obvious that it would be larger. Persia and it's Zoroastrian population could have been devastated by later invasions by Hundu, Buddhist, Christian, Manicheanist, Tengriist, <unknown ATL religion> empires.
Keep in mind that if the Sassanians survive the Arab invasions, the it is the the official imperial Zurvanism that will greatly benefit, not the Mazdaiasm that survives today.
@Philip
OK, so let me change the question: How do you keep Zarathustrianism as the dominant religion in the area that roughly covers the present day Iran? Also, what would/could be some important butterfly effects from this? Would this mean that there would be no Islamic-dominated areas east of Iran? Could the Caliphate succeed in conquering areas to the west, like North Africa and the Fertile Crescent, while still not being able to conquer Iran? This scenario also presupposes that other religions than Islam are not able to make significant inroads into Iran.
Yazdegard III holds the line in the Zagros while Gregory the Patrician marches against Mecca with his ungodly large army because (?), and this collapse of Arab forces allow Yazdegard to reconquer the lost territory.
The Sassanids besieged Constantinople twice. Heraclius was considering fleeing to Carthage, but was persuaded to stay at Constantinople. If he had fled, morale would likely have collapsed, and an opportunity to take Constantinople might have opened up.
IIRC Heraclius was considering surrendering to Khosrow, ceding most of the Empire to him and becoming a vassal, but a significant victory in Anatolia put that thought to rest. If the Romans had been defeated, perhaps Heraclius would've sued for peace.
The Avars nearly captured Thessalonica, and more importantly, they nearly captured Heraclius at Heraclea while in negotiations, though Heraclius managed to escape back to Constantinople. If this had been successful, this would've immensely helped the Avars, and through them, the Persians.
For a true victory in the war of 602-28, someone needs to capture Constantinople (or force it into a peace agreement, as Shahin's campaign nearly did). As long as an Emperor held Constantinople and had an army, the Roman Empire could resist onslaught. Khosrow also needs to ensure the loyalty of his generals, notably the loyalty of Shahrbaraz, who was likely contemplating revenge against him after Khosrow plotted to remove him from power due to his successes. Khosrow also needs to ensure foreign powers, like the Gokturks (who did quite a lot of damage to the Persians and were a large part of success the Roman counterattack. The Persians had many opportunities to win the war. The Persians had their own administrative, dynastic, and religious issues, not to mention the issues that may arise from how they are going to administer and interact with the new provinces they have conquered... So I think the greater question than winning the war is how they will win the ensuing peace.
IIRC Heraclius was considering surrendering to Khosrow, ceding most of the Empire to him and becoming a vassal, but a significant victory in Anatolia put that thought to rest. If the Romans had been defeated, perhaps Heraclius would've sued for peace.
The Avars nearly captured Thessalonica, and more importantly, they nearly captured Heraclius at Heraclea while in negotiations, though Heraclius managed to escape back to Constantinople. If this had been successful, this would've immensely helped the Avars, and through them, the Persians.
For a true victory in the war of 602-28, someone needs to capture Constantinople (or force it into a peace agreement, as Shahin's campaign nearly did). As long as an Emperor held Constantinople and had an army, the Roman Empire could resist onslaught. Khosrow also needs to ensure the loyalty of his generals, notably the loyalty of Shahrbaraz, who was likely contemplating revenge against him after Khosrow plotted to remove him from power due to his successes. Khosrow also needs to ensure foreign powers, like the Gokturks (who did quite a lot of damage to the Persians and were a large part of success the Roman counterattack. The Persians had many opportunities to win the war. The Persians had their own administrative, dynastic, and religious issues, not to mention the issues that may arise from how they are going to administer and interact with the new provinces they have conquered... So I think the greater question than winning the war is how they will win the ensuing peace.