Iran reverting to Zoroastrianism

Sassanid Official Zoroastrianism differed from what was in the provinces but by the time of the Sassanids and after, Zoroastrianism was the main religion by far(taking this form Nativist prophets of Iran book). Ahura Mazda was the Top God and Zarathustra his prophet. Mazdakism as a sect in itself was also dead but... Mazdakism was an expression of one of those regional varieties so, a religion with echos of it, like some of the various Khuramiya sects or maybe even a Neo-Mazdakism could emerge.
Disagree. Sassanid Zoroastrianism, from what I understand, was just a resurrected form of Iranian religion that was used by the royal family as an attempt to centralize but these attempts were resisted by the Sassanid Great Houses, who were functionally independent kingdoms from the Sassanid royalty, who favored their own localized paganisms and gods. Subsequently, it is Iranic polytheism which constitutes the vast majority of the religious population of the Sassanid empire. While the Sassanids would have liked their ideology to have become more popular, it wasn't and there was a significant amount of resistance by local populations, and in particular nobility, to these centralizing efforts. Sassanid efforts at centralization would also go onto destabilize the polity considerably.
 
Okay. But the Mongols were fairly tolerant of other religions as well, I find it unlikely that they would become so zealous as to alter the religious fabric of the areas they rule.
I don't think simply saying Tolerance gives a good summary to the Mongol and even Roman view on religion.

Lots of Muslim writers claimed that the Mongols were attempting to destroy Islam. Their laws against Halal type of animal slaughter were said to be enforced on the pain of death in Chagatai's realm. Clearly and exaggeration but I would say, if the Mongol Empire was structured in such a way where keeping to the Yassa/Law of Genghis Khan and the Shamans was tied to legitimacy, so that they remained pagan for longer they really could have done a number on Islam. Christianity with way less and more flexible rituals would do better but even then, don't expect a switch from this alone as Islam would just be forced to also become flexible on rituals as some "Sufis" already are.
Some very interesting points.

Yes Abbasids were primarily Persian backed, with the bureaucratic elements of the nascent Caliphate, mostly Zoroastrian converts grasping at power. But would they even abandon a prospective chance of greater power to back their closet co-religionists, just for a prospective restoration of Iranian statehood? Where they might even be branded traitors and result in loss of their own life?

Even if a Mazdayan noble might bind these brigands into a cohesive force, he can't do so for long without the support of these administrative classes which in want of more power have abandoned their erstwhile faith. This might just lead to eventual collapse of any such rebellion, even if it can be drawn out for long.

However, those people might back a restorationist rebellion if certain guarantees are made in regards to power sharing arrangements. Though a wholesale defection might not be possible as the opportunities in the enormous Caliphate were simply too good to pass up. And still, the Bavandids of Tabarestan are still no heavyweights to carve out a hefty chunk of Iran, let alone all of it, they simply lack the resources to do so in the span of one rebellion. Remember that their greatest advantage was the Alborz Mountains' defensive terrain. It will be the work of generations for them, but it might just be possible.
Okay, I think these are good points. I guess I just assumed the anarchy at Samara/Iranian intermezzo era were essentially the same as the Fitnahs. What was the difference between both in ur opinion.

My assumption for some Mazyanid would be their own administration gives organization to the whole thing. Given how far Mazyan went OTL and that he was stopped by battle, not logistics or something like that, I would think Tabaristan has the administrative ability.

But anyways, if we go, Umayyads collapse more like the anarchy of Samara and Iranian intermezzo than their actual OTL fall to the Abbasids then we get a majority Zoroastrian population succeeding the Caliphate and already Zoroastrian ruled Tabaristan having more of a chance.

But anyways, the alternative to Mazyanids of Abu Muslim's Zoroastrian supporters successfully revolting. Muslim conversion under the Umayyads and Rashiduns typically involved the convert become a client to some Arab and under the Abbasids this became loyalty to some Muslim figure that the converts heavily associated with. This was Abu Muslim for many and after he died a Zoroastrian general of did Sunbadh, given got an alliance with Tabaristan did revolt but the revolt was crushed in North East modern Iran(Abarshahr).

So, almost my senerio but still wasn't enough. Something that may be enough to flip the balance may be, an immediate revolt rather than Abu Muslim's supporters scattering then revolting at various times from their cores of power. If the Abbasids are too hasty in killing Abu Muslim, he comes to his summons with a larger army or Sunbadh is just better at organizing the smaller force and then the rest of the veterans of Abu Muslim he may be able to unseat the Caliphate and have every ideological and emotional reason to undo Islam.
 
Last edited:
Disagree. Sassanid Zoroastrianism, from what I understand, was just a resurrected form of Iranian religion that was used by the royal family as an attempt to centralize but these attempts were resisted by the Sassanid Great Houses, who were functionally independent kingdoms from the Sassanid royalty, who favored their own localized paganisms and gods. Subsequently, it is Iranic polytheism which constitutes the vast majority of the religious population of the Sassanid empire. While the Sassanids would have liked their ideology to have become more popular, it wasn't and there was a significant amount of resistance by local populations, and in particular nobility, to these centralizing efforts. Sassanid efforts at centralization would also go onto destabilize the polity considerably.

Well, I guess the question is still open and there are researchers on both sides of the debate and I myself am biases by the books on Iran I have read being supportive of Zoroastrian success (The Scythian Empire, Nativist Prophets of Iran).

However, I do still say they make the point clear. All or most forms of Persian Empire identifying Iranians the Muslims record are as monotheist or even more monotheist than Pars Zoroastrians, Khurramites worshipping God as light than making an image.

Sassanid era religious texts and Muslim texts that come down to us both claim a massive campaign of forced conversion from Rome to Persia as well as a restatement of their beliefs in clear form. However, one of those texts written by essentially the grand inquisitor of this event has him fully accepting Fire worshippers in Roman territory as coreligionists, to be protected. He certainly knew his religion, if those people were just heretical Iranian Pagans, I don't think he'ld have done that.(Tho, Zoroastrianism didn't work like Christianity so there may be more leeway than I write but he did also explicitly say they destroyed deva(false god) worshippers).

And While the Sassanids certainly reformed Zoroastrianism it wasn't a resurrected religion, as that would imply reconstructing a dead religion and it wasn't dead. Neither was it so changed from Achaemenid era religion that it would be unrecognizable as Darius I also talks in monotheistic terms, never mentioning another God but the great God and his inscription calling his enemies worshipers of falsehood and worshipers of the devas, this second statement especially appears in that Sassanid essentially, Grand inquisitor's statement against the other religions he persecuted.
 
However, I do still say they make the point clear. All or most forms of Persian Empire identifying Iranians the Muslims record are as monotheist or even more monotheist than Pars Zoroastrians, Khurramites worshipping God as light than making an image.
Where are the records of Muslims identifying Iranians as monotheist if that is what you're saying? The consensus of Muslim scholars were that the Iranians were polytheists and several temples dedicated to various different Iranic gods (such as Anahita) were demolished or converted into mosques (and Anahita herself was Islamized into al-Khidr, an Islamic saint with great powers). Similarly, coinage from the Sassanid period minted by the territories of the Great Houses depicts various different deities aside Ahura Mazda. Ahura Mazda barely shows up in coinage at all. This serves as another indication of the absence of the importance of Ahura Mazda. Similarly, the Great Houses of the Sassanids often opposed the Zoroastrianism of the royal family with Bahram Mihran writing to Khosrau that his god, Mithra, was greater than the god of Ahura Mazda. This further displays that the beliefs and propaganda of the Sassanid royal family was not represented among the rest of the population.

Khurramites worshipping God as light than making an image
I don't see that as indicative of Zoroastrianism. The consensus among historians and Muslim scholars contemporary to them was that the Khurramiyya were simply Islamized Mazdaks. Mazdakism was more popular than Zoroastrianism (which should tell you how completely unpopular Zoroastrianism was as a religion in the Sassanid era).

And While the Sassanids certainly reformed Zoroastrianism it wasn't a resurrected religion, as that would imply reconstructing a dead religion and it wasn't dead. Neither was it so changed from Achaemenid era religion that it would be unrecognizable as Darius I also talks in monotheistic terms, never mentioning another God but the great God and his inscription calling his enemies worshipers of falsehood and worshipers of the devas, this second statement especially appears in that Sassanid essentially, Grand inquisitor's statement against the other religions he persecuted.
It was dead until the Sassanids appropriated for their own purposes and used it as a centralizing device for the purposes of unifying the Great Houses under their sole authority, creating a similar system to European feudalism rather than the de facto UN that constituted the Sassanid territories.
 
Would by any chance, after the 11th century, the people at large become disillusioned with Islam and seek alternatives? What can be such a trigger, if possible?

Also by the 11th century, Zoroastrian proportion had become precipitously low. How can there be a turns around in such a case?
The alternatives to Islam after the 11th century in Iran would either be something derived from Islam (a "fourth Abrahamic religion" so to speak) or Nestorian Christianity. And the latter is only happening if the Ilkhanate converts to Christianity AND somehow becomes much more stable than they were OTL.

I think by that point, the "proto-nationalist" sentiment in Persia isn't going to be Zoroastrianism but involve Islam in some way or shape, just like the Safaviyya order became the Safavid Empire.
I don't think simply saying Tolerance gives a good summary to the Mongol and even Roman view on religion.

Lots of Muslim writers claimed that the Mongols were attempting to destroy Islam. Their laws against Halal type of animal slaughter were said to be enforced on the pain of death in Chagatai's realm. Clearly and exaggeration but I would say, if the Mongol Empire was structured in such a way where keeping to the Yassa/Law of Genghis Khan and the Shamans was tied to legitimacy, so that they remained pagan for longer they really could have done a number on Islam. Christianity with way less and more flexible rituals would do better but even then, don't expect a switch from this alone as Islam would just be forced to also become flexible on rituals as some "Sufis" already are.
The law of Genghis Khan was an important factor in legitimacy in the Mongol Empire, but it simply lost out over time. In no case did Muslim rulers become khans without having to arrange violent coups or win civil wars, and even after there was often backlash. Like in the Chagatai Khanate, the one most sworn to Mongol traditions because Chagatai was named keeper of the Mongol law, the only two Muslim khans before the late 1330s ruled for a short time and were followed by khans who preferred traditional Mongol religious tolerance.

The thing is though that such Mongol religious tolerance precludes them from actively converting people to another faith, or permitting missionaries to do so. It's very good for minority communities in Persia and Central Asia like Nestorians, Buddhists, and Manichaeans, who thrived under these laws (or at the very least kept the latter two faiths alive given they vanished with the conversion of the Mongols to Islam). And the Mongol policy toward converting religions was also dependent on what the Mongols thought of the priests and clergy of the faith. While Zoroastrian magi were famous and likely appealing to Mongol sensibilities, they would be competing with Mongol shamans, Tibetan lamas, and Sufi dervishes. Ultimately Zoroastrianism by that era is too tied up with certain Persian minority groups like the Parsis, and even in an earlier era with a hypothetical alt-Mongol group has connotations of Persian culture as opposed to their own steppe culture.
 
How about commercial and trade with China? A Sassanid Iran that has greater trade with China could have Chinese inventions come into Iran earlier, which in turn makes it more likely that a rump Sassanid kingdom either in Afghanistan/Pakistan or Tajikistan resists the Arab invasions enough to take back Persia when the Abbasid’s come into power.
 
I would say a Zoroastrian religion with Islamic highlights could be possible if we take a syncretic route similar to how Islam and Christianity have developed. Though I’d think we would need a Great Man like figure in a position of power to get it going. Or indeed from an alternatively suggested invasion by an Iranian steppe force. It wouldn’t be a return to Pre Islamic Zoroastrianism in any of the pre-existing forms.
 
Last edited:
in the mountains, there were lots of strongholds the remaining enemies of the regime could have and had occupied. a scenario would be if nomads following scythian mazdaism, a religion close to zoroastrism practised mostly during scythia’s heyday, but still had a foothold among the steppe nomads, invaded, spread their religion and drove away the arabs. that or a series of polical assassinations
 
Could a successful Ziyarid dynasty under a surviving Mardavij be able to do anything?
Well, as a former CKII player my first thought had been the Karenids.
Though, as I presume in real life he had no event troops he might not have been so good a pick for reverting the Islamic conquest of Persia.
 
Top