Zoroatrian diaspora in Medival Europe

[William Adelin]

There are still Jews in Europe. Yes, there was plenty of ethnic cleansing, but even with all that, they established themselves permanently.



I mean, the Muslims considered them as such. But you're right that they'd be considered more alien than Jews.



They'd carve out some niche even if that were the case. They'd be entering Europe in the tenth century, before Jews carved out a niche in finance.



As far as the Pope would be concerned, yet another minority in Europe wouldn't be a great concern, especially since they're insular and closed to conversion. Certainly not very high on his to-do list, if you know what I mean.

Yes...and the Jews started out in Europe with a population in the millions, during the time of the Roman Empire. A few thousand, at most Zoroastrians who survive the trek to Europe can hardly be compared to them. I've been saying that since the beginning, just because the Jews and Roma survived as distinct groups doesn't mean these Zoroastrians will.

Why closed to conversion? The Pope would certainly want to snag them before the Greeks do. And the Greeks were so notoriously anal about the smallest religious nitpicks that I can't see them tolerating Zoroastrians (who up til the 620s were the Greeks' greatest enemies).

 

[cmakk1012]

And the Greeks were so notoriously anal about the smallest religious nitpicks that I can't see them tolerating Zoroastrians (who up til the 620s were the Greeks' greatest enemies).

This may be the real stumbling block to getting Zoroastrians in Europe. Why would the Greeks take in their ancient mortal enemies, as well as what could be argued to be the reason that the Greeks were weakened enough by the Persian wars to be invaded by the hated Arabs?

 

[Vasilas]

That is not insurmountable. Consider the case of Theophobos and his men (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophobos). They did convert to Christianity-but the Romans may be willing to ignore that detail if the group in question does not want to rise very high (say via the army or so) and will be content with being a peripheral element. If Constantinople could have a mosque (http://constantinople.ehw.gr/Forms/fLemmaBodyExtended.aspx?lemmaID=11800) while fighting the Caliphate, the historical enmity with Zoroastrians is unlikely to be an issue when it comes to tolerating a small group of stragglers. Them explicitly not being heretics who challenge the Constantinopolitan Church definitely helps (than hurts) matters.

Granted, the Zoroastrians have no Caliph who can make life of Chalcedonian Christians in his territory hell should something befall the minority religious institution in Constantinople-but, my point is that the 7th century enmity itself wont likely be a major issue. And there will be significant pressure to get them to convert to the Byzantine Christian flavor of the day, leading to likely rapid assimilation and disappearance of the community. But they likely will tolerate Zoroastrianism to approximately the same extent as they did with Judaism (which is to say discrimination, extra tax, a pogrom every other century and so on). The only issue is that there will not be sufficient numbers present within to lead to a surviving community in the mold of the Romaniotes. And one unfriendly Basileus might be enough to doom them fully.

 

[PhilippeO]

what about Eastern route ?

after Sassanid falls, Zoroastrian holding Merv for another century while converting many nomadic tribes east of Caspian (Magyar/Khazar variant). the religion then spread to steppe north of Black Sea while Merv and Transoxiana slowly falls under Muslim armies.

with Central Asia turn Muslim, the religion slowly pushed West. eventually they settled in Hungarian plain. while successfully converting East Slavs like Lithuanian.

Kiev and Buda become center of fire worship. while Germany and Poland become borders between Christendom and Flame_Realm. missionary from Kiev and Buda spread the faith among Rus, Mordvin, Finn, Balts, and South Slavs.

 

[William Adelin]

what about Eastern route ?

after Sassanid falls, Zoroastrian holding Merv for another century while converting many nomadic tribes east of Caspian (Magyar/Khazar variant). the religion then spread to steppe north of Black Sea while Merv and Transoxiana slowly falls under Muslim armies.

with Central Asia turn Muslim, the religion slowly pushed West. eventually they settled in Hungarian plain. while successfully converting East Slavs like Lithuanian.

Kiev and Buda become center of fire worship. while Germany and Poland become borders between Christendom and Flame_Realm. missionary from Kiev and Buda spread the faith among Rus, Mordvin, Finn, Balts, and South Slavs.

No go, Joe. I mean anything is possible, but it's a large stretch. Can you imagine rulers learning about this religion, which lost a huge, wealthy empire and is now being pursued (slowly) across half of Asia by Islam? Unless the nomads are sure of success against Islam, they wouldn't convert. If this stage manages to occur, the next stage is harder yet, since it was invaders who settled down in Europe and accepted Christianity, never the other way around.

 

[Indicus]

what about Eastern route ?

They took the Eastern route, that's what India was.

Also, I should note that one reason the Zoroastrians fled to India was because they had substantial trade links and positive relations with the local kingdoms. As such, it just makes logical sense to go there. In this scenario, why do they flee to Europe?

 

[Rath]

what about Eastern route ?

after Sassanid falls, Zoroastrian holding Merv for another century while converting many nomadic tribes east of Caspian (Magyar/Khazar variant). the religion then spread to steppe north of Black Sea while Merv and Transoxiana slowly falls under Muslim armies.

with Central Asia turn Muslim, the religion slowly pushed West. eventually they settled in Hungarian plain. while successfully converting East Slavs like Lithuanian.

Kiev and Buda become center of fire worship. while Germany and Poland become borders between Christendom and Flame_Realm. missionary from Kiev and Buda spread the faith among Rus, Mordvin, Finn, Balts, and South Slavs.

I'd say it would be more likley for them to ride along with a bunch of nomads (who were pretty tolerant) and when they settle, the Zoroastrians settle. From there, they have a decently tolerant "home" where everybody has that one Zoroastrian childhood friend and from there spread to more prosperous countries.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

This may be the real stumbling block to getting Zoroastrians in Europe. Why would the Greeks take in their ancient mortal enemies, as well as what could be argued to be the reason that the Greeks were weakened enough by the Persian wars to be invaded by the hated Arabs?

They took them in as mercenaries and allies against the Abbasids. The issue was, these mercenaries and the Byzantines were routed at the battle of Dazimen. The Byzantines as well as the Abbasids and inumerable nations accepted objectionable groups in order for this group to fill a role. Europe is no different.

 

[Jürgen]

Like @John7755 يوحنا I don't think the existence of tolerated non-Christian minorities are impossible. But I think they need to sell themselves as Abrahamic religion and they can't be post-Christians. I would say that Sarmatians and Zoroastrians are the two group, which are in the best position to sell themselves as this, as both are mentioned in the Bible and in a positive manner. I think the best oppotunity would be if the Byzantines settle Zoroastrian POWs as confederalis in Italy after the reconquest. When the Langobards overrun the peninsula, I could see such a group change side fast enough, that they're tolerated, this create a tradition of tolerance, as the Franks conquer Italy, we see further spread of the group, and many of them settle in the new Frankish/German marches. As the Scandinavians and Slavs convert to Christianity they decides to invite Zoroastrians to settle in their land, as the group lack loyalty to the Franks/Germans and they can bring important skill into the countries in the question. As these areas have a growing population we see a large Zoroastrians (through here they're called the Magi/Magus by their neighbours) in these frontier regions.

 

[Lampiao]

Weren't the Persian religions widespread in Central Asia before Islam? Zoroatrism can get into a mostly pagan Europe through an Alternative Central Asian invader for instance.

EDIT:Somehow I skipped Phillipe's post. I'll add a question to someone more knowledgeable in the matter:
Wasn't manichaeism more relevant than zoroastrism in Central Asia?

 

[PhilippeO]

No go, Joe. I mean anything is possible, but it's a large stretch. Can you imagine rulers learning about this religion, which lost a huge, wealthy empire and is now being pursued (slowly) across half of Asia by Islam? Unless the nomads are sure of success against Islam, they wouldn't convert. If this stage manages to occur, the next stage is harder yet, since it was invaders who settled down in Europe and accepted Christianity, never the other way around.

It is large stretch, but plausible scenario.

1) nomad convert because Merv is large and successful city, also Zoroastrian held Merv would mean less successful and wlower l Arab conquest of Iran.
2) Nomad can also establish large Zoroastrian empire north of black sea, there are pagan and jewish empire established there, large distance from Christian in Balkans and Muslims in ME and acentral Asia would allow them to religiously independent.
3) since Zoroastrian had stronger priesthood and scriptural / philosophical / theology knowledge than paganism, they might Christianity far better, especially wh3n they have large empire in Hungary and Ukraine.

 

[Dfront21]

They took the Eastern route, that's what India was.

Also, I should note that one reason the Zoroastrians fled to India was because they had substantial trade links and positive relations with the local kingdoms. As such, it just makes logical sense to go there. In this scenario, why do they flee to Europe?

They ended up in China also.

 

[Roger II]

IIRC, there are Lipka tartars/Lithuanian/Crimean/etc Muslims still around in Europe. So that's a chunk of non-Christian migrants to Europe who remained their ancestral religions.

 

[Dfront21]

Unlikely, Zoroastrianism is not part of the Abrahamic tradition. There were Zoroastrians communities in the eastern Mediterranean and Anatolia up until the 600s, but were constantly persecuted by the Byzantines. I don't see why this would change in a post-Islamic conquest. I'm sure there were migrations into Europe, but obviously didnt survive like they did in India. Monotheistic societies are naturally intolerant and Hinduism shares the same roots with Zoroastrianism.

 

[William Adelin]

It is large stretch, but plausible scenario.

1) nomad convert because Merv is large and successful city, also Zoroastrian held Merv would mean less successful and wlower l Arab conquest of Iran.
2) Nomad can also establish large Zoroastrian empire north of black sea, there are pagan and jewish empire established there, large distance from Christian in Balkans and Muslims in ME and acentral Asia would allow them to religiously independent.
3) since Zoroastrian had stronger priesthood and scriptural / philosophical / theology knowledge than paganism, they might Christianity far better, especially wh3n they have large empire in Hungary and Ukraine.

Alright, I can see your first two points, but not the third. As soon as they cross the Vistula, Carpathians, or the Danube, they are bound to Christianize (or Islamize if Arabs take Constantinople).