what if islam never emerged and zoroastrianism stayed around?

[purple elf]

its a thought thats been in my head what if islam never emerged and zorastrianism stayed a major religion in the middle east how would the world have changed?

[Shaun]

Well, i think there wood have been a lot more Christians in the middle east. Also, the East and West might have had better relations, but something as drastic asa that wood have altered the world a lot more.

[rez]

I always wondered this as well - the continuing conflict of the Zoarastrians with the Christians may have formed the basis for a different set of crusades. Of course this would imply the arabs never emerged as an unbelievable new power and the Persians stayed in control until say the mongols or further hun/turkic incursions toppled the empire.

Certainly an interesting thought - but the rapid accesion of the Arabs to power was all based around unification. If something else were to unify the arabs history might have been slightly more similar

[Ahiga]

Assumably, the possibilites for how this could happen is either:

1) Persia was never conquered by the Muslims
2) Persia was conquered by the Muslims, but were stubborn and kept their religion.

In either case, Persia would have probably retained far more independance and solitude. They may have come to battle the Muslims for influence over Iraq (perhaps we'd see a Zorastor/Sunni split in Iraq, instead of Sh'ia/Sunni), and may also have become a buffer for India, Afganistan, and Pakistan from the muslims, effecting India's development (No Moghul dynasty?). It's dubious, but perhaps the Crusaders would have had more success. They might have seen a link with zorastorism (The three wise men were possibly zorastor magi, after all) and sought to ally with them the way they did the Mongols, before they generally converted to Islam.

Also, it doesn't change the Mongols and Turk's comming west. Perhaps the Seljuk's would have been influenced by the Persians and Zorastorism, and thus converted to Zorastorism. Islam might have been limited to only the Arabian Pennisula and North africa, if the Seljuks would have exterted a dominance in religion and politics in the fertile crescent.

I believe the rift of West and East might not have changed...however, as the rift between Sassanid Persia and Rome was religious purely because of politics (The Armenian's being the religion of your opponent, or there being large populations of Heretical christians in Persia's empire), it may have simply been between the Romans and the Persians...so...we might have witnessed 'crusades' between the two superpowers, with Persia having no viable qualm with the germanic successors to the Roman Empire.


If the Muslims had found a roadblock at Persia, could they have instead exterted more manpower and effort in going through Roman Territory? Might we have seen Constantinople fall? (The Byzantine fanboys here will say no! )

[purple elf]

wow thats cool loads of different possibilities its like recycling the "possibilities are endless!" anyway thanks for the theories its real good food for thought

[Legiondude]

One possibiltey could have been that Persia would dominate the ME, as some sort of western alley over the course of historey.....
But one thing that has to be asked here is, what did the Zarostians think of Science, mind you until the renesanse the Christan world was messed up, killing pople for practicing medicine, and so on. THe Arabs saved a lot of Greek and Roman knowledge from beeing forgotten, by Christiantys hate towards science...

Would Persia, if under its own religion, bee some sort of keeper of know how that the Christans were fund of destroying???


Also, one must remember that the Islam Christianty, is a Europe ME thing, The romans and persians were at war, just for the sake of it, not caring for the religon....

Anyways, huff dunno if Persia is to be considered Middle Eastern couse a lot of Iranians i know get ****** when this is said, couse they see them selfs, and some of them are "aryan" or white or what ever....

You know that skin color that sux, that is purplish, the one i have on my bodey

[Ahiga]

One possibiltey could have been that Persia would dominate the ME, as some sort of western alley over the course of historey.....
But one thing that has to be asked here is, what did the Zarostians think of Science, mind you until the renesanse the Christan world was messed up, killing pople for practicing medicine, and so on. THe Arabs saved a lot of Greek and Roman knowledge from beeing forgotten, by Christiantys hate towards science...

Would Persia, if under its own religion, bee some sort of keeper of know how that the Christans were fund of destroying???

I'm no Christian, but theres more to it than that. I think a lot of knowledge was lost because of the turbulence of the Roman Empire falling and the Barbarians moving in on the remains. The church did likely limit it later on (The whole reinassance, and I think humanism, was the attempt of bringing that ancient knowledge back to the light, either by challenging the church or trying to provide a 'kosher' version).

It's an interesting point. The Persians were generally snubnosed towards Greek things. We saw how the parthians were the only Persian dynasty to actively be hellenistic, and the Sassanid's quickly dropped it. However..I'm curious - The Muslims saved much of the ancient's knowledge, that is undeniable...but how did they save it, when they conquered mostly lands of the Eastern empire?

Was it that the Byzantines knew about the sciences and the ancients arts as well? Ok, Sher Khan answered it, I think...

Also, one must remember that the Islam Christianty, is a Europe ME thing, The romans and persians were at war, just for the sake of it, not caring for the religon....

Correct to a degree. There was no religious crusading against one or the other, but there were cases of religious conflict between the two, primarily after Rome chose to become Christian. For the Persians, that made them worry about the christians in their territory and also those in Armenia, which caused them to crack down on them (Though they might have been friendly to the christians who were heretics of the Roman's Christianity).

[Sher Khan]

Way too complicated to say. All 'what if' questions are just the same in this light.

Perhaps...


Without a new threat of religious power, growing hostilities between Catholic and Orthodox churches may reach the breaking point. While keeping steppe hoardes of Turks at bay in the East, thousands of papal soldiers would march on the Balkans to decide on the dominant leadership of Christianity. Hundreds of smaller Christian communities in the Middle East would side with one side or the other, as circumstances would invariably draw them into the schism wars. Persia would either stagnate, ally with the Hunas and Turks in the wars against the Indians and Byzantines, or utilize the break in fighting the Byzantines (letting the steppe hoardes do the work) to develop their trade routes into India to become a serious economic power.

Unless a new surge of religious zeal hit Persia, the Middle East would not have enough willpower to go forth and conquer as far and wide as the Arabs under Islam.

The Renaissance and later the Age of Enlightenment would have been much delayed. The Jews in Spain might never have reached such academic power and volumes upon volumes of Latin and Greek works would have disappeared or remained untranslated into European languages.

Scientific advancements would focus more on warfare and there would have been even less unity in Europe.

And I'm already tired of thinking this through. Maybe I'll come back to it and pick up where I left off.

[Legiondude]

I get your point, i was a little simpley in my text, how ever it is possible that had islam not come, the same things would have happened, Byzant would stil lost land to turkmen and semitic[arab?] tribes, even dough they were no muslim.....

BUt it is possible that the old worl might have been saved, the germanic barbarians tamed, and rome brought back..
In turn this might have led to a faster developing world, something that would have been good...
A world concentrated around the MEDiteranian, not split by it.....

So if there was someone to save science except the muslims arabs, then islam might be something bad that stopped progress, but so was christianity, and the barbarian hordes of northern europe.....


Dunno might be that persia and europe would have melted together into one biog "WEst" ern world, dunno

[rez]

"Anyways, huff dunno if Persia is to be considered Middle Eastern couse a lot of Iranians i know get ****** when this is said, couse they see them selfs, and some of them are "aryan" or white or what ever..."

Its not being called middle eastern that is bad - its when you call a Persian an Arab that he will get annoyed. And vice - versa probably has the same concequences.


I had the interesting idea of an entire lack of the renaissance meaning a new set of artistic values would have to have inspired the west instead. Arabic or even persian art may have influenced the declining Byzantines to the point of spreading to Europe. This cultural meld may even have halted much of the east/west antagonism we have today

[I Have a Clever Name]

its when you call a Persian an Arab that he will get annoyed.

In my experience its when you call an Iranian an Arab or Persian!

I would also like to make the observation that Zoroastrianism has indeed survived to the present day, as a minority religion within Iran. Their corpses are not consumed by vultures these days of course, it conflicts with Islamic doctrine.

[rez]

"In my experience its when you call an Iranian an Arab or Persian!"

Well im half Iranian and an Iranian citizen. I'd sure get angry if you were to call me an Arab. But my compatriot, Persian and Iranian are practically the same thing in the modern world. The official word of Mohammed Reza Phalavi was that Iranian or Persian were to be used interchangably as the same meaning. I like to say Persian because it sounds better, but i know for sure the Persians belong to the Iranian family.

In short - Iranian and Persian = the same these days (unless your a pedant historian like myself)

Furthermore, if you want some justification, im half Iranian and ive spent a hell of alot of time around Iranians including the country. I know for damn sure calling an Iranian a Persian is not an insult in the slightest.

Im curious as to what you think an Iranian is, the only explanation i can think of is if you realise in the historical sense that Persians are Iranians along with other tribes on the plateau. But even then it wouldnt be that insulting as they are from the same family.

Oh and yes of course Zoarastrianism has survived, my father knew some in his time and we cant forget the Parsee

[Legiondude]

"In my experience its when you call an Iranian an Arab or Persian!"

Well im half Iranian and an Iranian citizen. I'd sure get angry if you were to call me an Arab. But my compatriot, Persian and Iranian are practically the same thing in the modern world. The official word of Mohammed Reza Phalavi was that Iranian or Persian were to be used interchangably as the same meaning. I like to say Persian because it sounds better, but i know for sure the Persians belong to the Iranian family.

In short - Iranian and Persian = the same these days (unless your a pedant historian like myself)

Furthermore, if you want some justification, im half Iranian and ive spent a hell of alot of time around Iranians including the country. I know for damn sure calling an Iranian a Persian is not an insult in the slightest.

Im curious as to what you think an Iranian is, the only explanation i can think of is if you realise in the historical sense that Persians are Iranians along with other tribes on the plateau. But even then it wouldnt be that insulting as they are from the same family.

Oh and yes of course Zoarastrianism has survived, my father knew some in his time and we cant forget the Parsee

wow I didn't want to track this off topic, but some pople think that whole of middle east is same thing, in the sense Europe is "same thing" i know a few iranians, and iranians and arabs just don't look the same, hence i have yet to make the mistake of calling an arab persian, or persian arab...

I think that half of Iranians are persan or something, the rest is, well alot of things even assyrians

[Richard the Lionheart]

wow I didn't want to track this off topic, but some pople think that whole of middle east is same thing, in the sense Europe is "same thing" i know a few iranians, and iranians and arabs just don't look the same, hence i have yet to make the mistake of calling an arab persian, or persian arab...

I think that half of Iranians are persan or something, the rest is, well alot of things even assyrians

Aren't Persians/Iranians technically Aryans?

And yes Zoroastrianism is still around these days.

[Stalins Ghost]

Aren't Persians/Iranians technically Aryans?

And yes Zoroastrianism is still around these days.

Technically most of Western Europe has Ayran blood, and at various points in history many nations have declared themselves the "true heirs" to the Ayran culture...so it's a moot point really.

I believe Zoroastrianism is recieving a bit of a revival these days actually. It's certainly alot more well known than it used to be in my opinion. I may be wrong...but oh well.

I don't really know what kind of difference we'd see. I wonder if the east/west devide would have become more political rather than cultural/religious. Remember during Late Antiquity the East Romans and Sassanids held a kind of mutual respect for each other- they considered each other as the only "cultured" nations in the world at the time in the face of the migration period.

[Kaweh]

Well, the old Persians themselves called their empire Eranshar (Land of the Aryans), from which Iran is derived. And rez is right, zoroastrism has survived, I know quite a lot of zoroastrians.

K.K

[God]

Quite a lot? There are only a few left aren't there?

[Kaweh]

Quite a lot? There are only a few left aren't there?

Quite a lot of the remaining few And it's not like there are only ~100 of them or something, with "quite a lot" I simply wanted to point out that they still exist.

K.K

[I Have a Clever Name]

Well im half Iranian and an Iranian citizen. I'd sure get angry if you were to call me an Arab. But my compatriot, Persian and Iranian are practically the same thing in the modern world. The official word of Mohammed Reza Phalavi was that Iranian or Persian were to be used interchangably as the same meaning. I like to say Persian because it sounds better, but i know for sure the Persians belong to the Iranian family.

Personal experience has once again tainted my perspective it seems.

[Kaweh]

Well, I doubt that there ever was/is an "aryan" people. The word "aryan" is the english version of the old persian word "arya" and one of it's meanings is "noble".

wikipedia:
Aryan is an English word derived from the Indian Vedic Sanskrit and Iranian Avestan terms ari-, arya-, ārya-, and/or the extended form aryāna-. The Sanskrit and Old Persian languages both pronounced the word as arya-.

According to Paul Thieme (1938), the Vedic term arya- in its earliest attestations has a meaning of "stranger", but "stranger" in the sense of "potential guest" as opposed to "barbarian" (mleccha, dasa), taking this to indicate that arya was originally the ethnic self-designation of the Indo-Iranians. Arya directly contrasts with Dasa or Dasyu in the Rigveda (e.g. RV 1.51.8, ví jānīhy âryān yé ca dásyavaḥ "Discern thou well Aryas and Dasyus"). This situation is directly comparable to the term Hellene in Ancient Greece. The Middle Indic interjection arē!, rē! "you there!" is derived from the vocative arí! "stranger!".

The Sanskrit lexicon Amarakosha (c. AD 450) defines Arya as mahākula kulīnārya "being of a noble family", sabhya "having gentle or refined behavior and demeanor", sajjana "being well-born and respectable", and sādhava "being virtuous, honourable, or righteous". In Hinduism, the religiously initiated Brahmin, Kshatriya and Vaishyas were arya, a title of honor and respect given to certain people for noble behaviour. According to some sources, in the Vedas, the word Arya or Aryan, has never been used in an ethnic or racial sense. This word is still used by Hindus, Buddhists, Jains and Zoroastrians to mean noble or spiritual

Persian Kings called themselves aryans, and so did many of other cultures/peoples/nations. So I guess it was simply something like a title.

K.K