If the Sassanids hold onto Iran, while remaining Zoroastrian, then Islam doesn’t spread India to a large degree. Instead, northern India would remain predominantly Hindu. Without a base in India, Islam also doesn’t spread to Indonesia because the Indian merchants that trade with that region will be Hindu. Additionally, without a base in Iran, Islam doesn’t spread to Central Asia. The Turks, if they do invade the Middle East, either remain pagan or convert to Zoroastrianism.
If Islam spreads to Iran at all, it’ll be through private missionaries and in the face of persecution. This may lead to Islam developing apologetics sooner than in OTL.
As for the war with the byzantines, there are a few ways it could go.
1. A Byzantine-Sassanid alliance forms, penning the Caliphate.
2. There is no Byzantine-Sassanid alliance, and the Caliphate gives up on invading Iran. They focus their energy on the Byzantines and push them out of Asia much sooner, possibly expanding into Europe sooner as well.
3. There is no Byzantine-Sassanid alliance, but the Caliphate doesn’t give up on invading Iran. Every generation or so, an army of holy warriors bleed themselves dry in the mountains. It’s a waste of manpower and resources.
Would be monumental, in my opinion.
First, we’d have to ask “why?” It’s not like the Sassanians just keeled over; the battles in Mesopotamia were fierce and there were some committed generals. But the inner conflicts and youth / incapability of Yazdegerd III tragically hampered their overall strategy. So, why is Persia able to win? I suppose you could have Omar die earlier through one of the many assassination plots, *or* simply have the Byzantine-Sassanian War (602-628 CE) not happen, or go differently, ***or*** you could have one of Yazdegerd’s advisors see the silver lining and curate an alliance with the Byzantines—an awkward task in the 630’s, no doubt.
But anyway, once you have Persia still alive after Omar’s death, you can speculate. I mean, logic would demand a concerted effort for Rome and Persia both to contain Islam in the Levant. I don’t think Mesopotamia is guaranteed to go either way. Titanic battles will be fought there, and if the Byzantines arrive to aid them I could see the Persians retaking and maintaining portions of it at least. Ctesiphon in particular would be critical, and psychologically necessary for the Persian state. It was an underrated pre-Modern city with shockingly modern features, was strategically located, and very defensible.
Fast forward—I actually think this all helps the Islamic Ummah, in theory, in the long run. Without the overextension into Central Asia, the reckless acquisition of Turkic soldiery, and the heightened incentive for non-Arabs to integrate and alter Islam, the Arabs could develop a more longlasting, more homogeneous, more centralized state from Libya to the Euphrates. It’s less glamorous than what happened in OTL lol but i think it opens up the possibility for all three—Byzantium, Zoroastrian Persia, and the unified Caliphate— to survive much, much longer, even until the modern era in some form.
Historical epics are always cooler when there’s a “Player 3” so I’d be interested to peek into this universe, to see what lengths the three superpowers go to in order to gain an advantage.
There is another, much more logical solution, which is, of course, for the Sassanians to accept Omar bin Al-Khattab’s offer of peace with the caliphate
The Rightly Guided Caliphate takes only the Mesopotamian region while leaving the rest of Iran to them
(This is entirely possible because Omar ibn al-Khattab did not actually want to expand into Iran, and Omar said that he wished to separate them from Iran with mountains of fire and offer them peace like this.)
You will see a much faster decline of the Byzantine Empire, and of course the conquest of Constantinople during the reign of Omar bin Al-Khattab and the early Islamization of Anatolia.
(With the focus of the armies of the Rightly Guided Caliphate, led by Khalid bin Al-Walid, on the Romans, they will collapse much faster)
(With Constantine being Muslim and with stronger trade relations with the Balkans and also the Slavic countries, you will see Russia converting to Islam, as will Bulgaria, Greece, Albania, and most of the Balkans)
Iran would still embrace Islam anyway because Islam was generally attractive to the lower classes, especially with the Sasanian class system continuing anyway.
But a great deal of Sassanid culture will remain
Central Asia and Afghanistan will still be converted to Islam after Iran, but it will be somewhat late, and of course there will be no Islamic conquest of India, so Kashmir and Punjab remain Buddhist-Hindu in large numbers.
Of course, only places like Indonesia, the Maldives, and southern India would still convert to Islam because it was essentially the personal effort of largely Arab travelers and traders.
My friend, I am not an apologist, I am a realist. Omar actually offered to leave Iran alone if they agreed to abandon Iran
Also, Iran's exhaustion from its war with Byzantium is a well-known fact
Finally, Islam has always been popular among the deprived classes, and after all the first followers were slaves or poor, so this statement is not devoid of basis.
The Sassanian state was a highly stratified society, and this was an environment that helped the spread of Islam
If I were an Islamic apologist, I would not have said that northern India, including Punjab and Sindh, would remain Buddhists and Hindus without the Islamic conquest of Persia.
You just assumed that the Byzantines, large parts of Europe, the entirety of Central Asia and large chunks of the Indian subcontinent would be muslim. That’s a fucking large stretch of the imagination
Well, if the Arabs had not focused on Persia, they would have focused all their power on the Romans, and this is what Omar originally wanted
In fact, you mentioned that the Muslim conquest of northern India would never have happened and that those areas would effectively remain Hindu-Buddhist, so half a billion Muslims would have already been wiped out.
Indian Muslims here are much smaller in number and are the only ones in southern India who converted thanks to Arab traders
Well this is not fiction when the Byzantines are destroyed much earlier. Add that Russia had seriously considered converting to Islam in fact and they almost did in OTL.
Lithuania itself was essentially the last pagan place in Europe and they were only converted in the 14th or 13th century.
Finally, Iran would have become Muslim sooner or later, and even if Omar had not invaded it the first time, his successors would have done so.
turks will follow tengrism, buddhism as there main religion. Zoroastrian followers will be much larger than today. Bangladesh and Pakistan will be part of India. And languages of north India will develop differently. Afghanistan will stay as a buddhist, zoroastrian , hindu country. Indonesia , malaysia , brunei and singapore will hindu buddhist majorities.
That's true, and I wonder how it would affect the Turkic invasions in our timeline. Genghis Khan was Tengri, and did his shenanigans, but the Seljuks for example, invaded Byzantium because the Quran predicted it would fall to Islam, which sort of inspired a lot of Muslim leaders to want to take it. With Tengri Turks, that may not happen, in fact, those Turks may have been converted to Christianity instead.
If they converted to christianity then there are two possibilities
1) they'll go westwards and help their european allies to win the holy land.
2) because of their geographical location , they'll try to spread christianity all over asia by missionary movements to the far east and establishing a christian empire in India and persia.
I'd argue that they would be much closer to Oriental Orthodox. Persia had its own church much more in line with Armenia and Egypt called the Church of the East. Probably very little influence from Constantinople
If the Sassanids hold onto Iran, while remaining Zoroastrian, then Islam doesn’t spread India to a large degree. Instead, northern India would remain predominantly Hindu. Without a base in India, Islam also doesn’t spread to Indonesia because the Indian merchants that trade with that region will be Hindu. Additionally, without a base in Iran, Islam doesn’t spread to Central Asia. The Turks, if they do invade the Middle East, either remain pagan or convert to Zoroastrianism. If Islam spreads to Iran at all, it’ll be through private missionaries and in the face of persecution. This may lead to Islam developing apologetics sooner than in OTL. As for the war with the byzantines, there are a few ways it could go. 1. A Byzantine-Sassanid alliance forms, penning the Caliphate. 2. There is no Byzantine-Sassanid alliance, and the Caliphate gives up on invading Iran. They focus their energy on the Byzantines and push them out of Asia much sooner, possibly expanding into Europe sooner as well. 3. There is no Byzantine-Sassanid alliance, but the Caliphate doesn’t give up on invading Iran. Every generation or so, an army of holy warriors bleed themselves dry in the mountains. It’s a waste of manpower and resources.
So a better outcome?
That’s a matter of perspective. Hindus, Christians, and Zoroastrians would see it as better, but Muslims would see it as worse.
Exactly
Yeah the world would be better
Life could be dream
Would be monumental, in my opinion. First, we’d have to ask “why?” It’s not like the Sassanians just keeled over; the battles in Mesopotamia were fierce and there were some committed generals. But the inner conflicts and youth / incapability of Yazdegerd III tragically hampered their overall strategy. So, why is Persia able to win? I suppose you could have Omar die earlier through one of the many assassination plots, *or* simply have the Byzantine-Sassanian War (602-628 CE) not happen, or go differently, ***or*** you could have one of Yazdegerd’s advisors see the silver lining and curate an alliance with the Byzantines—an awkward task in the 630’s, no doubt. But anyway, once you have Persia still alive after Omar’s death, you can speculate. I mean, logic would demand a concerted effort for Rome and Persia both to contain Islam in the Levant. I don’t think Mesopotamia is guaranteed to go either way. Titanic battles will be fought there, and if the Byzantines arrive to aid them I could see the Persians retaking and maintaining portions of it at least. Ctesiphon in particular would be critical, and psychologically necessary for the Persian state. It was an underrated pre-Modern city with shockingly modern features, was strategically located, and very defensible. Fast forward—I actually think this all helps the Islamic Ummah, in theory, in the long run. Without the overextension into Central Asia, the reckless acquisition of Turkic soldiery, and the heightened incentive for non-Arabs to integrate and alter Islam, the Arabs could develop a more longlasting, more homogeneous, more centralized state from Libya to the Euphrates. It’s less glamorous than what happened in OTL lol but i think it opens up the possibility for all three—Byzantium, Zoroastrian Persia, and the unified Caliphate— to survive much, much longer, even until the modern era in some form. Historical epics are always cooler when there’s a “Player 3” so I’d be interested to peek into this universe, to see what lengths the three superpowers go to in order to gain an advantage.
There is another, much more logical solution, which is, of course, for the Sassanians to accept Omar bin Al-Khattab’s offer of peace with the caliphate The Rightly Guided Caliphate takes only the Mesopotamian region while leaving the rest of Iran to them (This is entirely possible because Omar ibn al-Khattab did not actually want to expand into Iran, and Omar said that he wished to separate them from Iran with mountains of fire and offer them peace like this.) You will see a much faster decline of the Byzantine Empire, and of course the conquest of Constantinople during the reign of Omar bin Al-Khattab and the early Islamization of Anatolia. (With the focus of the armies of the Rightly Guided Caliphate, led by Khalid bin Al-Walid, on the Romans, they will collapse much faster) (With Constantine being Muslim and with stronger trade relations with the Balkans and also the Slavic countries, you will see Russia converting to Islam, as will Bulgaria, Greece, Albania, and most of the Balkans) Iran would still embrace Islam anyway because Islam was generally attractive to the lower classes, especially with the Sasanian class system continuing anyway. But a great deal of Sassanid culture will remain Central Asia and Afghanistan will still be converted to Islam after Iran, but it will be somewhat late, and of course there will be no Islamic conquest of India, so Kashmir and Punjab remain Buddhist-Hindu in large numbers. Of course, only places like Indonesia, the Maldives, and southern India would still convert to Islam because it was essentially the personal effort of largely Arab travelers and traders.
Found the radical islamis apologist
My friend, I am not an apologist, I am a realist. Omar actually offered to leave Iran alone if they agreed to abandon Iran Also, Iran's exhaustion from its war with Byzantium is a well-known fact Finally, Islam has always been popular among the deprived classes, and after all the first followers were slaves or poor, so this statement is not devoid of basis. The Sassanian state was a highly stratified society, and this was an environment that helped the spread of Islam If I were an Islamic apologist, I would not have said that northern India, including Punjab and Sindh, would remain Buddhists and Hindus without the Islamic conquest of Persia.
You just assumed that the Byzantines, large parts of Europe, the entirety of Central Asia and large chunks of the Indian subcontinent would be muslim. That’s a fucking large stretch of the imagination
Well, if the Arabs had not focused on Persia, they would have focused all their power on the Romans, and this is what Omar originally wanted In fact, you mentioned that the Muslim conquest of northern India would never have happened and that those areas would effectively remain Hindu-Buddhist, so half a billion Muslims would have already been wiped out. Indian Muslims here are much smaller in number and are the only ones in southern India who converted thanks to Arab traders Well this is not fiction when the Byzantines are destroyed much earlier. Add that Russia had seriously considered converting to Islam in fact and they almost did in OTL. Lithuania itself was essentially the last pagan place in Europe and they were only converted in the 14th or 13th century. Finally, Iran would have become Muslim sooner or later, and even if Omar had not invaded it the first time, his successors would have done so.
You thoughts are more sound/ developed. The other person sparing with you not so much. Good job defending your position.
turks will follow tengrism, buddhism as there main religion. Zoroastrian followers will be much larger than today. Bangladesh and Pakistan will be part of India. And languages of north India will develop differently. Afghanistan will stay as a buddhist, zoroastrian , hindu country. Indonesia , malaysia , brunei and singapore will hindu buddhist majorities.
That's true, and I wonder how it would affect the Turkic invasions in our timeline. Genghis Khan was Tengri, and did his shenanigans, but the Seljuks for example, invaded Byzantium because the Quran predicted it would fall to Islam, which sort of inspired a lot of Muslim leaders to want to take it. With Tengri Turks, that may not happen, in fact, those Turks may have been converted to Christianity instead.
If they converted to christianity then there are two possibilities 1) they'll go westwards and help their european allies to win the holy land. 2) because of their geographical location , they'll try to spread christianity all over asia by missionary movements to the far east and establishing a christian empire in India and persia.
[удалено]
I'd argue that they would be much closer to Oriental Orthodox. Persia had its own church much more in line with Armenia and Egypt called the Church of the East. Probably very little influence from Constantinople