[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/his/ - History & Humanities


Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 65 posters in this thread.

05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
06/20/16New 4chan Banner Contest with a chance to win a 4chan Pass! See the contest page for details.
[Hide] [Show All]



how did everything go so wrong?
>>
>>4490231
(((Goyman)))
>>
Q: Would you rather have a Byzantine empire that was broken and conquered by the Sassanids or the Muslim conquests of our timelines?
>>
>>4490250
Sassanids every time, their empire was besto plus we'd get cool non-pagan fire worship
>>
File: Khosrau II coin.jpg (30 KB, 220x214)
30 KB
30 KB JPG
>>4490231
The last great pre-Islamic Persian ruler, Khosrau II aka Parviz (translates to Victor) overextends his military in his confidence. This itself is forgivable because the Persians had largely been overrunning and defeating the Eastern Romans/Byzantine Empire's armies consecutively and constantly. Particularly the top Persian generals, Shahin and Shahrabaraz, had defeated Heraclius and several of his top commanders even when outnumbered in Antioch and across the Levant and even into Anatolia.

Khosaru II becomes even more confident and takes several more risky attacks and strategies that still work due to the skill of his generals. The Persians continue to push the Eastern Romans back and back, taking Egypt, most of Syria, Jordan, and cutting the Eastern Roman Empire in half.

Heraclius by this point is prepared to give up everything the Persians have taken as long as the Persians end their war. Khosaru II rejects this, because at this point, the Persians were virtually undefeated after only a few setbacks in the first two years of the war. The added insult of taking Jerusalem, capturing the Cross, and allowing repressed Jews to take their frustrations out on the Christians further compounded the issue. But the biggest problem is Khosaru II's ego. He was a good military leader and a far better administrator and politican than general and believed men like Shahrabaraz were expendable. Due to one of Shahrabaraz's few losses in his military career against Heraclius (which he would later reverse anyway), Khosaru II is rumored to have tried to have him removed from command and killed. Supposedly Heraclius takes advantage of this and with Shahin dying supposedly of depression, the last great Persian general after having this information "leaked" to him by the Eastern Romans withdraws entirely from the war.

And then things go south and very badly for him.
>>
>>4490231
they failed to invade Kush, everything went down from there
>>
>>4490231
Mother.

Fucking.

Heraclius.
>>
>>4492199
More to do with Khosrow II being retarded and him taking advantage of internal Persian politics than Heraclius >implying steamrolling everyone the Persians put at him.
>>
>>4490231
Byzantine autism wars. If only they didn't destroy each other they would have easily repelled the Arabs.
>>
>>4493554
And then what? Have most of Western and Central asia be divided into Zoroastrian and Christian states?
>>
File: 1510046013356.gif (801 KB, 250x170)
801 KB
801 KB GIF
>>4493617
what could have been
>>
>>4493623
>>4493617
>>4493554
To be fair Shia Islam is likely ridiculously influenced by Zoroastrianism and Iranian culture anyways that its not far off.
>>
File: 1516845861438.jpg (14 KB, 210x255)
14 KB
14 KB JPG
>>4490231
>that bit of territory in southern Arabia
Why*
>>
>>4493670
As a Shia I don't know what your'e talking about.
Everyone always says this without ever giving evidence.
>>
>>4493772
More control over Red Sea trade (less Arabian pirates)
>>
>>4490231
Declared war after war after war against the Byzantines leading both weak enough to get conquered by sand niggers.

Seriously, fuck the sASSanians. They ruined this timeline.
>>
>>4493788
I am a Shia and I perfectly understood what he was saying.
>>4493772
Arabian coastal cities and towns, the few they had, were important to main Persian authority and also due to the links with the Arabia and India seas and through the Persian gulf.
>>
>>4490231
They wanted to do so many things at once

Parthians just wanted the silk road but they wanted to take back clay from Romans, defeat all barbarians, secure ethnic supremacy of Persians, and secure Zoroastrianism

>>4490250
Sassanids, I like Zoroastrianism more than Islam
>>
>>4493801
to get conquered by sand niggers *lead by a military genius*
>FTFY
>>
>>4493801
this
>>
>>4493617
Zoroastrianism flanked by Nestorians and Buddhists. Much better timeline.
>>
>>4490250
Sassanids, I like Byzantium but it already doesnt exist in this timeline so getting rid of Islam outside of Arabia is a win win.
>>
The Sassanids were on their way to become Nestorian until the M*slims ruined everything
>>
>>4493670
>Shia Islam is likely ridiculously influenced by Zoroastrianism
Eh, not really.
>>
>>4490231
Khosrow II being autistic about restoring Achaemenid Empire borders
>>
>>4495393
Not nearly as autistic as Justinian's goal.
>>
>>4491229
This pretty much. Khosrau II basically fucked over not only his empire, but the entire next dozen centuries and more.
Also, the Siege of Constantinople was a joke. He should have just taken the Middle and Near Eastern gains.
>>
>>4490250
As much as I am a Byzantaboo, a timeline without literal submission and cuckoldery to the insane ramblings of a schizophrenic warlord will always be preferable.

Byzantium could have survived in the balkans and greece for a while even if Sassanians did take anatolia, like it did irl against the turkics. And nestorianism and manichaeism were growing in persia anyway.
>>
>>4493788

Nowruz motherfucker. I'm not even persian and I know this shit.
>>
>>4495145
Yes really but a more correct statement is that its heavily influenced more so by Persian and Iranian culture then outright Zoroastrianism.
>>
>>4496395
Not him, but it's possible indeed that the Shia conception of islam having to dimensions (one exoteric associated with prophets and Muhammad and one esoteric associated with Ali and the imams) may come from Persian culture.
>>
The Shia conception of the Mahdi, which is quite different from the Sunni one, may for example be inspired by the zoroastrian eschatological figure of the Saoshyant.
>>
>>4496426
Its pretty much an Indo-European thing to tie religious figures with racial or ethnic identities. Something the Persians and other Iranians did with Ali. For example, even when "nominally" Sunni, Muslim Iranians still had huge sympathies and allegiances to Ali and his descendants.
>>
>>4496920
>>4496482
There's also the Ta'zieh as well as Piruz Navahandi whose celebrated to this day both Christian, Muslim, and Zororastrians for killing Umar who was seen as complacent in the death of Ali, etc...
>>
>>4490231
When an empire named "Sassanian Empire" started having leaders that weren't Sassanians.
>>
>>4493797
>>4493772
Because of the Red Sea Trade southern Arabia was pretty rich.
>>
>>4493670
lmao it's an entirely different religion. catholicism for exame has tons of greco-roman influence but it's still a semitic religion
>>
>>4490231

Another question, >>4491229

Why is there no Sassanid tradition of narrative historiography?
>>
>sassanid empire
that's no empire in history
the closest to that is the Achaemenid, whom were far more impressive.
Sassanids never ruled Anatolia.
>>
>>4496954
Sassanian is a family, not a race.
>>4496999
There is, but several of the records are fragmentary, extant, or only survive in later writings like Georgians or the Shah Namah.
>>
>>4497363
It is showed as occupied on OP's map, not owned.
>>
>>4497363
That's a map right after the conquest of anatolia by khosrau II
>>
>>4497363
Sassanians literally had almost all of Anatolia for nearly two decades. They were so effective Herculius was actually going to give up everything the Persians had taken as long as they halted any further expansion.
>>4496999
There is but like >>4497576 said we only have fragmentary records and most of what survived is no longer extant or accessible.
>>
File: Anoushiravan.jpg (499 KB, 1280x1916)
499 KB
499 KB JPG
>>4490231
Why did he always bully Justinian?
>>
File: angry.jpg (108 KB, 500x375)
108 KB
108 KB JPG
Imagine if the Romans and Persians hadn't spent centuries wasting manpower, coin and resources in fruitless stalemate wars of attrition and actually managed to create a lasting peace, allowing both empires to focus on other fronts. Didn't they realise around 400 AD onwards that neither side would ever have the power to deliver a knockout blow to the other? So fucking stupid.
>>
>>4497987
Hindsight is only ever beneficial after everything comes crashing down, anon.
>>
>>4497993
Really? Even with knowledge of the Slavs, Avars, Turks always banging on their door?
>>
>>4497993
They had hindsight though. Six hundred years of it by the time of Heraclius
>>
A tragic fate befell both empires in the 7th century, but I still love the fact that the final showdown between Rome and Persia was pretty much the largest, longest, bloodiest war they ever fought, and the near-collapse of the ERE followed by Heraclius' amazing comeback just makes for a great story. Surprised it hasn't been adapted into a tv show or something.
>>
>>4498006
Turks were defeated three times in three wars by the Persians that happened concurrent to the Roman-Persian final war. Avars and Slavs were a ERE problem. No one could've predicated the rise of the Arabs to the South of both empires however.
>>
>>4498027
Is it really THAT much of a "amazing comeback" when 90% of that is due to Khosaru II being a prick to his best general who decided to sit out the rest of the war after trying to have him killed?

IIRC Shahrabaraz was still holding most of the Roman Levant and Egypt more than a year after a peace treaty was ratified by the successors of Khosaru II and Heraclius and he had to come down to Egypt and pay off Shahrabaraz to leave.
>>
>>4495739
When did they take anatolia from the turks?
>>
>>4498174
T. Shapur
>>
>>4498174
well consider this: byzies would have fell if weren't for his reforms
>>
>>4498256
Yeah but I mean a big part of it has to do with the Persian Emperor shitting on his best general who was the only guy who had beaten Heraclius several times before in battles.
>>
>>4498286
And a big part of the Persian's early success had to do with Phocas being a fucking retard, Narses turning inviting the Persians in, and the levant being extremely discontent towards Constantinople. Either way, both sides had great successes and losses, whatever the cause
>>
>>4490250
>Rome losing to the Persians
At least the Arabs were a third party.
>>
>>4497987
>Romans propose peace
>Persia agrees
>Rome moves the bulk of their eastern troops up to the Germanian border
>Persia strikes while their border's weak
>>
>>4490231
khosrau forcing the hand of his best general to withdraw and then later defect to the byzantines, allowing heraclius to turn the war around. the sassanids also had a souther frontier that was not well guarded as they had alienated the arab allies to the south that acted as their buffer, allowing khalid to just waltz in and reap havoc across mesopotamia.
>>
>>4490254
>besto

It's ironic you say that because "besto" sounds like the word for better in (modern) Aramaic, which was a co-official language in the Sassanid Empire.
>>
>>4498314
>Big part had to do with Phocas
Most of the war happened AFTER Phocas was removed and killed.
>>
>>4493670
Is that why Sunni books of Hadith were all written by Persians, where Shia books of Hadith were all written by Arabs?
Not even mentioning the largest Sunni school of thoughts founder being a Persian, a Persian being first in line to be the 3rd caliph before he died, and the Shia imams who were all Arabs born in Arabia, and the first 3 fighting for the armies that destroyed Persia.
Not to mention Shiism being so Arab supremacist taking the worship of Mohammad and extending it to his tribe and descendants.
>inb4 Sunni
Islam is a complete cancer either way, but this narrative that delusional diasporafags and persiaboo push to make themselves feel better is beyond retarded
>>
>>4496426
Shiism following Ali and the Imams already existed in Arabia and the Levant for about 800 years before the Safavids ever came to power...
>>4496482
How is it different? As far as I know the only difference is that the Shia stance is he was born and then went into hiding only to come again near the day of judgement, where the Sunni stance is that he hasn’t been born yet but will come near the day of judgement
>>4496946
>Piruz Navahandi
Persians call him Abu Lulu, and the Iranian government destroyed his tomb after the Islamic revolution
>whose celebrated to this day both Christian, Muslim, and Zororastrians for killing Umar who was seen as complacent in the death of Ali, etc...
Source? I’ve never heard of this
>>
>>4490250
I'd prefer the Muslim timeline but without Turks
Samanids > Sassanids
>>
>>4499732
>Sunni books of Hadith were all written by Persians
I am aware of this.
>Shia books of Hadith were all written by Arabs
Not all of them. Bukhari is not an Arab for example.
>largest Sunni school of thoughts founder being Persian
Sure, but again my post you replied to said nothing about Persians never being Sunni. Only that Shia Islam exists largely the way it does today in its modern orthodoxy from how the Persian sect of Twelver Shiites set it up to be.
>Islam is a complete cancer either way
Edgy.
>diasporafags and persiaboo push
Nice bias but I am neither an Iranian nor a specific Persianboo. You can categorically find many records and attested statements about Persians even when they were fucking Sunni having sympathies and leaning toward Ali due to his treatment of them as equals which is part of the reason why Shia Islam is so appealing to them.

Stop being so jaded you think anyone that points out why Persians are Shiites or their preference for Shia Islam must be some kind of agent of a specific tailored narrative and trying to fool people into thinking one way or the other.

>>4499956
Samanids literally tried to larp as being the Sassanians. They also never controlled as much territory or lasted as long nor had the influence or impact the Sassanians did in what is the most important aspects of what makes Persian culture so unique from others in Western Asia. Though I like them quite a bit for cucking the Abbasids.
>>
>>4500242
>Not all of them. Bukhari is not an Arab for example.
Bukhari and Muslim were both Persian and wrote the 2 main books of Sunni Hadith. Shia reject their works and have 4 main books of Hadith that were all written by Arabs.
>Only that Shia Islam exists largely the way it does today in its modern orthodoxy from how the Persian sect of Twelver Shiites set it up to be.
Twelver Shia Islam’s structure and foundations was completely set up and defined by the 1200s at the latest. Safavids didn’t come to power until the 1500s. Shiism only saw some change after the Islamic revolution when Khomeini came to power and made his brand of Shiism that rejects many aspects of sectarian Shiism Iran’s state religion.
Since Khomeini created a new Islamic state and wanted to expand it to the entire Muslim world, he had to appeal to Sunni’s, and so made his brand of Islam compatable with Sunnism.
You can say Khomeinism is basically Sunnism that still follows the 12 imams.
>You can categorically find many records and attested statements about Persians even when they were fucking Sunni having sympathies and leaning toward Ali
You are aware Sunni’s consider Ali the 4th rightly guided Caliph right?
>due to his treatment of them as equals
Any sources of Ali treating them any differently than any of the caliphs before him?
Ali, Hassan, and Hussein were in the armies that conquered and destroyed the Sassanids, and they killed many Persians. Ali and Hassan also suppressed and put down uprisings in Persia when they were Caliphs.
When the Muslims conquered Persia, Omar as caliph gave Zoroastrians dhimmi status (same status as Jews and Christians) and had Salman Al-Farsi make the first translation of the Qur’an into Persian. Though today under the Islamic Republic Iranians have to learn the Qur’an in Arabic and Zoroastrians are considered najis (same category as dogs and pigs) along with Christians and Jews.
>>
>>4500685
I highly fucking doubt Ali acted or was seen as acting in the same way as Omar/Umar, given the Persians to this day still celebrate his fucking assassination by Piruz Navahandi. It categorically makes no sense that Ali would've taken as much part as Umar's relish in quashing rebellions and revolts in Persia.
>Zoroastrians are considered najis
Why do Zoroastrians have a representative in the Majlis then?
>>
>>4490231
The fact that Iranian subhumans used to control parts of the Arabian peninsula makes me ill as a Khaleeji Arab. Can't wait until MBS vaporizes the cunts from existence.
>>
>>4490231
Too many incest
>>
>>4502621
I bet it makes you feel even more ill, you desert-dwelling fucker, that Iranians and Turks controlled you for another thousand years after cucking the Abbasids too.
>>
>>4498027
It amazed me when I first saw a map of the ERE's borders at its greatest extent. They were making great progress on reclaiming lost territory before their autism fest with the Sassanids led to them being overrrun by Arabs
>>
File: mfw.png (109 KB, 491x430)
109 KB
109 KB PNG
Why aren't the ERE-Sassanid wars more widely known? Besides explaining how one of the world's major religions came to power, they're just plain interesting as fuck to read about.
>>
>>4503447
>how one of the world's major religions came to power,

Yeah. Christianity. As they kept control of the Levant.

Power vacuum leading to the Arabs' rise is a bullshit theory.
>>
>>4503142
despite continually praising an arab
>>
>>4499818
>Shiism following Ali and the Imams already existed in Arabia and the Levant for about 800 years before the Safavids ever came to power...
1) Shia islam was already popular in Persia for centuries before the Safavids even existed. Actually, it began to spread in Persia in the 8th century. The support to this branch of islam was seen by a certain amount of Persian mawali as the means to show their contempt of the Sunni Umayyads, who treated all non-Arab muslims as second-class citizens. On the other side of the caliphate, Berbers were prone to became Khawarij for similar reasons.

2) Shia islam was almost only about the question of the caliphate until the 9th and 10th century. The main difference with Sunni islam being that according to the Shia, the caliphate had to be ruled by Alids. The different branch of Shia islam did not begin to distinguish themselves before the 9-10th centuries.
>>
>>4497965
I want to say the reason Khosrau gave Justinian such a bad time was because in his eyes Justinian was a lousy ruler who focused more on conquest and military spending than the well being of the people that were in his land.I mean shit their have been accounts that when Khosrau took some byzantine land,he made sure to rebuild all of the buildings and houses of the citizens in the same style they were accustomed to.Just to show Justinian that he could maintain an empire like his while making sure everyone was happy.
>>
>>4503490
I'm not a Muslim, but Islam was never about being Arab or not. That's mostly Wahhabist bullshit. Islam is about a monotheistic God and submission to him. One doesn't even need to give a fuck about Muhammad, himself, for they can just say he had a revelation, that's it. Doesn't mean shit about modern Arabs or anything else.

It's like saying Buddhism is about worshiping an Indian.
>>
>>4503838
Islamic orthopraxy sanctifies the way of life of 7th century Bedouins.

>One doesn't even need to give a fuck about Muhammad
kek
>>
>>4503838
Not quite true. In the early caliphates Arabs had a higher status than others, which has a lot to do with tribal organization of early Islam. The ones who carried the early caliphates on their shoulders were tribal khaleejis, thus they got special treatment.
>>
>>4490250
Sassanids. I like Zoroastrianism even though i barely know anything about it. It just seems less dogmatic and also it was written? created? by a philosopher, right? Not some depressed guy who channeled anunnaki interplanetary relations officers from newly crowned king Nannar(allah) who is a son of Enlil(the fuckboi who larped as yhwh). Originally, maybe nannar and his team were trying to amend some christcuck problems but muhmmad start fabricating and distorting shits and fucked it up even more. I know anunnakis aren't all that evil but they really like to screw you a big time. They should be banned from entering earth. no matter their intention, they have done more harm than good. But Persia and Zoroastrianism are cool. I choose persians over caliphates seljuk ottoman and alike.
>>
>>4494480
First off they werent lead by a genius.
Their war style emphasized mobility.
Even weekened the persians still outnumbered the muzshits.
The persians lost so often for the sane dumbass reason they lost to alexander long before.
They refused to change theire tactics.

Preductability is the death of armies unless their only steategy is spamming peasants.
>>
>>4503483
How were the Arabs able to overrun the two major powers of the region then?
>>
Iranians and Greeks fought for more than 1000 years.
Holy fuck. I wonder if Greeks or Iranians ever think about this.
>>
>>4504385
Their wars were truly something else. Too bad neither of them won in the end. Do Iranians still hold any resentment against the Arabs for ending the Sassanids?
>>
>>4504427
Yes we do. Atleast most proud Iranians do.
>>
>>4501785
>given the Persians to this day still celebrate his fucking assassination by Piruz Navahandi
Again can you provide sources of this? I know the Safavids did this, but this isn’t the 1500s. Wouldn’t make sense then why the Iranian government destroyed Abu Lulu’s (Piruz Navahandi’s) tomb that the Safavids built after the Islamic revolution and why such an act would be illegal as insulting the first 3 caliphs or any of the prophets wives is considered blasphemy after Khamenei’s fatwa.
I’ve also seen videos of Khamenei praising Omar in his speeches.
>It categorically makes no sense that Ali would've taken as much part as Umar's relish in quashing rebellions and revolts in Persia.
And yet it’s historical record.
In what world does a leader of an empire not put down rebellions/uprisings in their territory?
Him along with Hassan and Hussein were leaders in Omar’s army during the conquest of Persia.
>Why do Zoroastrians have a representative in the Majlis
Being najis doesn’t mean they still don’t have dhimmi status and get 1 rep because of that. Its most likely for good PR. Christians and Jews get a representative too
>>4503519
>Shia islam was already popular in Persia for centuries before the Safavids even existed.
Amongst Arab immigrants like in Mashad due to one of the imams dying there. It was never a majority though.
The way it became a majority was that Safavids forced as many Sunni Persians to convert, and those that didn’t were either executed or fled to nearby regions. Safavids then brought in Shia from Arabia and the Levant to demographically replace those they massacred or that fled in order to solidify allegiance to their new state.
Do you have any sources for percentages of pre Safavid times?
>The main difference with Sunni islam being that according to the Shia, the caliphate had to be ruled by Alids
Sayeds. Only Ali’s descendants through Mohammad’s daughter could rule according to Shia belief. i.e descendants of Mohammad
>>
>>4504385
Greek here. It's a little crazy and it kept going a little if you consider the Persianized Turks etc. of the Islamic period.
That said, I wouldn't have wanted either to win. Persian culture and civilization was great, it didn't deserve it's fate.
>>
>>4504385
>>4504611
>>4504647
Fighting over Aramaic-speaking border countries, and now neither of you know we exist.
>>
>>4504257
Their warfare method gave them a major advantage.
The Byzantines and their Sassanian rivals both had grown accustomed to long drawn out sloggfests with heavily armored units. Even their cavalry was slow.
The arabs were a lot more used to hit and run tactics. Their horses were lightly armored and highly mobile.
The NEVER outright engaged a superior enemy in honerable combat.

What they would do was basically this.

1.Set a regroup point.
2.Capture as many poorly defended towns and villages within horse distance of your regroup point(s)
3. Utilize this massive space to harrass supply lines and generally harvest more bodies and supplies until you can spread out even further.
4. When the enemy inevitably responds with a retardedly large and slow army.
Coalesce troops (all cavalry) around starting point and ride towards enemy encampment.
5. Harrass them. Pick off straglers. Fein charges. Fein retreats. Make sure they cant resupply food or arrows. Do it for years if you have to. When they finally break fuckem up.
6. If they somehow dont break and make it to a large fortified city. Kill everything around that city then starve it into submission.

Pretty simple but generally effective strategy.
>>
File: confused knight.jpg (97 KB, 1300x866)
97 KB
97 KB JPG
>>4490254
>Zoroastrianism
>Non-Pagan
Say what?
>Inb4 Judaism/Christianity are Zoroastrianism ripoffs
>>
>>4504786
Ziroastrianism is pretty straight forward nonpagan belief.
2 gods.
One if good one of evil.
Both eyernally struggling for dominion over the world.
Makes more sense than christianity.

Two gods is less than three after all.
>>
>>4504385
I'm born and raised in America to parents from Iran and my only friend throughout elementary school was this greek kid.

We may have fought for over a thousand years but in that classroom full of lily-white kraft-mac-n-cheese-eating WASP kids, it was nice seeing one other swarthy hairy motherfucker whose mom packed him smelly spinachy lunches.

>>4504427
I hate modern gulf arabs because they keep pushing this shitty Petro-Islam everywhere but that's entirely a modern phenomenon. Also every arab I meet values being muslim like, a million times more than they value their nationality, whereas for Iranians it seems to be the opposite. I knew an arab kid in school who'd call me a kuffar and shit and I literally had no idea what he was even talking about, whereas for him it was this huge fucking thing. Although I've also never actually been to or lived in Iran, so
>>
>>4504786
>Inb4 Judaism/Christianity are Zoroastrianism ripoffs
Monotheism came from it
>>
Arabs and Mongols ruined everything.
>>
>>4503447
They weren’t relevant to Europe, and Europeans only care about history that effected them.
>>
>>4504807
>whereas for Iranians it seems to be the opposite
I've noticed this too, in terms of Iranian-Americans apparently being totally okay with alcohol at parties.
>>
File: tfw chad.png (7 KB, 270x286)
7 KB
7 KB PNG
>>4497987
The Persians very nearly destroyed Rome during the war with Heraclius. Jerusalem was sacked. Jews were lynching Christians in the streets of Levantine and Syrian cities. Even the fucking grain dole in the capital ended because the Persians took Egypt. Even the poorest of the poor were under the impression it was basically the end of the world.

If not for the spread of Islam Heraclius would be seen as one of the greatest Romans, maybe rulers, who ever lived. Rome came back from the motherfucking brink in that war. "Lasting peace" was not the only option the Persians felt they had.
>>
Why do people act like Persians are the redheaded stepchild of the Ummah and aren't real muslims just waiting to become Zoroastrian again?

Persians ARE Islam. There is not a single nation on this planet that had such an enormous impact on absolutely dozens of islamic nations including literal superpowers like the Ottoman Turks. Sure, Arabs too, but they're a very large widespread group.
>>
>>4505574
Zoroastrianism is dead, it will remain dead. They might become secular though.
>>
>>4505586
Iran is a literal theocracy and Persians care very much about their religion. The only Persians who pull off the "b-but we're not real muslims" shtick is pathetic cocksuckers who want to fit in on /pol/.
>>
>>4505574
>>4505597
Islam is not persian. we should go back to zoroastrianism
>>
>>4505597
I agree.

>>4505612
You can't.
>>
>>4505612
See
>The only Persians who pull off the "b-but we're not real muslims" shtick is pathetic cocksuckers who want to fit in on /pol/.
>>
>>4493670
Zoroastrians despised Islam and Arabs in general
>>
>>4490231
>>4491229
>>4495393
>>4498502
>Khosrow II
>autism
It runs in the family
>After the conquest of Antioch in 541, Khosrau I built a new city near Ctesiphon for the inhabitants he captured. He called this new city Weh Antiok Khusrau, or literally, "better than Antioch Khosrau built this."
>>
>>4500242
>Samanids literally tried to larp as being the Sassanians.
Every Iranian dynasty tried to larp as the Sassanids.
>>
>>4504634
>I know Safavids did this
The shrine to Piruz Navahavandi was built at least 400-600 years before the Safavids ever came to power, my friend. So it is literally impossible it started under them due to such a historical existence of his shrine being so old even before they arose. Also Pro-Ali Muslims were venerating him a century or so after Umar's assassination.
>destroyed his tomb
Never happened. It still exists, it was "converted" into a police headquarters just to annoy Sunni conservatives even more when they demanded its destruction.
>it's historical record
The historical record is written that Ali did not distinguish between Arab Muslims and non-Arab Muslims, that is one of his main appeals to why Iranians and other non-Arab peoples in significant numbers in Western and Central Asia are more inclined toward Shiites.
>Khaemeni praising Omar
I've also seen Khaemini and Khatami decades ago stating Nowrooz should be banned because its un-Islamic yet widespread revolts and civil uprisings forced them to stop that plan.
>Him along iwth Hassan and Hussein
Ali committed no crimes against Persians like Umar did.
>Being Najis
>Zoroastrians
>Christians
>Jews
Wrong. They aren't also:
>dhimmi status
Dhimmi system does not exist in Iran otherwise you are going to have to backpedal hard here to explain why many Christians and Zoroastrians are allowed and encouraged to enlist in the Iranian military. Otherwise that'd be impossible for them to do.

>>4505597
>>4505621
Iran was never as extreme with Islam until the Mullahs came to power and the IRG is literally made up of dynasties of families who pass the power of being the first followers which allows said zealotry to be radical when they benefit from the most of it.
>"only disaporafags want to not be Muslim"
Bullshit. The fastest growing religion in Iran is actually Christianity. And moderate Islam was what the Pahlavis were working with just fine with no issues.
>>
>>4504634
>Amongst Arab immigrants like in Mashad due to one of the imams dying there.
Not only, far from it. It was already popular among natives, for the reasons mentionned earlier. If you take the example of the Abbasid revolution, a certain number of Persians from Khurasan who fought on the Abbasid side were Shia, the most famous of them being Abu Muslim al-Khurasani.

> It was never a majority though
Probably not indeed, but as I said, Shia islam was already influenced by Persian culture long before the Safavids even existed. Regarding percentages, they're hard to invoke since we're talking about the Middle Ages. Historians as Jean-Paul Roux or Robert Mantran wrote about the popularity of Shia islam among Persians.
>>
>>4505657
Regarding this, Samanids and Buyids were the most prone to LARP as Sassanians.
>>
>>4505925
What we do know is regardless of the Sunni/Shia division due to the whole successor crisis with the Caliphs and Ali's position, is that Iranians (and I speak specifically of those who lived directly in mainland Iran and what is now Khorasan) did not become nominally majority Muslim until the early 11th century.
>>4505932
There is also the Ziyarids in the form of Mardavji, who was a Zoroastrian who very specifically wanted a revival of a Persian state that was anti-Muslim, Zoroastrian, and a return to Sassanian influence and power.
>literally won all of his battles both politically and militistically but was assassinated at the height of his power by a Turkic-slave
What a shame.
>>
>>4505674
>was built at least 400-600 years before the Safavids ever came to power
And it was in ruins by Safavid era. Shah Ismail rebuilt it after his palace sheikh from the Levant gave him the idea.
>Also Pro-Ali Muslims were venerating him a century or so after Umar's assassination.
Not really. But feel free to give sources
>Never happened. It still exists
Again sources?
>Ali did not distinguish between Arab Muslims and non-Arab Muslims
That was Mohammad in his last sermon, and what does have to do with Ali killing Persian Zoroastrians like he did to Arabian Pagans and putting down uprisings?
>why Iranians and other non-Arab peoples in significant numbers in Western and Central Asia are more inclined toward Shiites.
Is that why Arabs are a minority of Sunni but a majority of Shia? Where outside of the Middle East is there a sizable Shia presence? Why is Arab supremacy so ingrained into Shiism that being Arab gives you a higher status than someone who isn’t?
>I've also seen Khaemini and Khatami decades ago stating Nowrooz should be banned
Now you’re changing the subject. We’re talking about Iranian Shia and Shia theology not Iranian apostates. Iran 40 years ago just came out of Pahlavi rule and had much more apostates than it does today
>Ali committed no crimes against Persians like Umar did.
I already said he was a leader in Omar’s army and what he did as caliph. Now you’re just in denial
>Wrong. They aren't
>Dhimmi system does not exist in Iran
Pic related
>why many Christians and Zoroastrians are allowed and encouraged to enlist in the Iranian military.
Non Muslims combined are less than 0.5% of Iran’s population, and why wouldn’t they be allowed to enlist in the military? If anything non Muslims would be preferred in the military as it’s their lives being lost instead of Muslim lives

Overall you’ve made many claims with nothing to back them up. I suggest posting sources when shilling otherwise you just come off as a delusional diaspora
>>
>>4506276
Forgot pic
>>
>>4505597
That reminds me of that retarded diaspora faggot who keeps saying he'll make Iran great again and all that Ohrmazd's fire shit.
>>
>>4506085
>What we do know is regardless of the Sunni/Shia division due to the whole successor crisis with the Caliphs and Ali's position, is that Iranians (and I speak specifically of those who lived directly in mainland Iran and what is now Khorasan) did not become nominally majority Muslim until the early 11th century.
Indeed, Zoroastrians remained the majority for a while. Not to mention the existence, in the Persian world, of curious syncretic movements that mixed islam with zoroastrism. We could almost compare it to Berbers blending Khawarij islam with their ancient pagan traditions.

>>4506297
I remember reading (but where ?) that the idea of zoroastrians being especially unclean among the dhimmis came from the existence of the "Towers of silence", in which corpses were devoured by scavengers.
>>
>>4505925
>If you take the example of the Abbasid revolution, a certain number of Persians from Khurasan who fought on the Abbasid side were Shia
>Shia islam was already influenced by Persian culture long before the Safavids even existed
Being a Shia doesn’t mean they influenced or developed it.
Shiism as a “sect” came to be from its different books of Hadith and its Imams who Shia believe were the most knowledgeable of Mohammad’s teachings and traditions. These imams and Hadith authors were all Arab, versus where the authors of Sunni Hadith books were all Persian, as well as other major Sunni figures like Abu Hanifa, the various Persian companions of Mohammad and the caliphs, and so on.
Shiism developed in modern day Iraq and Saudi Arabia, mainly in Mecca, Medina, Baghdad, Karbala, Kufa, and Najaf.
Mashad wasn’t a developed city and was isolated from the Shia world until the Safavids, and the Safavids basically created Qom as their center of Shia learning.
It’s like saying because there are also Shia in Pakistan, Shiism is influenced by Pakistani culture.
>>
>>4506395
Chances are he’s in this thread
>>
>>4506414
"As for mysticism, Shia Islam makes possible for Iranians to express their rancour and their particularism. Even though it is still in minority in Persia, and still for a long time, Shia islam gets, in a way, persianized, yet it is hard to tell to which extent its theology, which brings innovations to islam, is dependent on Iranian though. It is clear that the belief that Hussein, the martyr of Karbala, married the last Sassanian king's daughter, stems from conservative Iran. It is less certain, although likely, that the ideas developped after 874 and the disappereance of the 12th imam also stem from it. That is, when Shias refuse his disappearance and develop the theory of his occultation, when they proclaim he is still present, being the invisible leader of the community, the custodian of faith and tradition, witness and interpreter of the Revelation, impeccable and infallible, whose death, especially if it is violent, has a redeeming value. The waiting for his return in the form of a saviour - the Zoroastrian Saoshyant- is part of the Mazdean eschatological reflexion."

Roughly and quickly translated from Jean-Paul Roux's Histoire de l'Iran et des Iraniens, 2006.
>>
*Iranian thought, not though, sorry.

**The belief according to which Hussein
>>
>>4506297
Dhimmi system again can not fucking exist when Zoroastrians and Christians are allowed and are enlisted in the military.
>>
>>4506276
>And was in ruins
Who cares when the point was that you originally claimed the Safavids were the ones to build it and it predates them by orders of magntitudes.
>Not really.
Yes really.
>Feel free to give sources.
Feel free to give a counter-source.
>Again sources?
The shrine was "converted" into a police headquarters. Google it.
>That was Mohammad
No it was actually Ali as well.
>goal post shifting
>Arab supremacy in Shia
That's why the entire theological root of Shiaism is directly connecting the Sassanian royal family and its lineage with Mohammad's own? Entirely about "Arab" supremacy am I rite?
>Changing the subject
No more than you have shifted the goal posts earlier. Those statements were retracted by them the same way later on so what evidence is there that they matter tangibly?
>leader in Omar's army
Which is not the same as actively persecuting or committing crimes against civilian population vs fighting actual battles.
>Pic related
Outdated. Everything else is a load of bullocks and bullshit, dhimmi system only allows for non-Muslim minorities to be treated as second-class citizens, receive extra fines and taxes, and not allowed ANY positions in the government or military.

You are completely wrong on this.
>>
>>4490245
Sounds like a jew larping as a goy.
>>
>>4505657
Can you blame them? The Sassanian period was undoubtedly a golden age in Iranian history.
>>
>>4493788
im pretty sure as shia you don't know what you're talking about most of the time especially if you're ithna asheri
>>
>>4499732
>Islam is a complete cancer either way
t.ex-Muslim
what was cleaning your self five time's a day that hard
>>
>>4493670
>Shia Islam is likely ridiculously influenced by Zoroastrianism
ALL abrahamic religons are influanced by Zoroastrianism, anon.
>>
>>4503864
>>4503928
Historically-speaking, what you guys are saying is true, but if you read the Koran or look at Islamic mysticism, there is nothing about the superior status of Arabs. Maybe some hadiths do, but it's not like all Muslims are in agreement with them.

I'm not Muslim, but I'm just making the point that when we look at the metaphysics of the religion itself that there is no reason to even give a fuck about Arabs.
>>
>>4508148
Shia Islam more overtly tho
>>
>>4490245
Holy shit
>>
>>4493810
Do tell how you understood him
>>4495744
>Persian
>Shia
Amerimutt spotted
And not even everyone in Iran celebrates it
>>4507892
I am not a 12ver I'm an Ismaili
>>
>>4507371
How would dhimmi status prevent them from being in the military?
>>4507398
>Who cares when the point was that you originally claimed the Safavids were the ones to build it and it predates them by orders of magntitudes.
The only source I can find that backs anything you say is Wikipedia, and their source is al-arabiya a pro Saudi site.
I was going off what Wikipedia said that it was in ruins by Safavid era, where other sources say it didn’t even exist until Safavid era.
>Yes really.
Then provide sources, as you’re the one making the claim
>Feel free to give a counter-source.
Again you’re the one making the claim. Provide sources for your claims otherwise it’s clear you’re likely some delusional diaspora making stuff up to make yourself feel better
>The shrine was "converted" into a police headquarters
It seems like you’re just running in circles now. I’ll repeat again what I already said. Do you know what “converting” means? The shine was turned into a police station. Destroyed and a police station was built on top of it.
Again the only source I’ve found on this was on Wikipedia which used al-Arabiya as it’s source
>No it was actually Ali as well.
You’re making the claim, feel free to give a source. Not that I doubt it as Ali followed everything Mohammad said and did
>the entire theological root of Shiaism is directly connecting the Sassanian royal family and its lineage with Mohammad's own?
Nice job ignoring and avoiding answering anything I said.
Also care to explain how and provide reputable sources? I’m sure if this was actually a thing I would’ve heard about it.
>>
Cont.
>>4511016
>Those statements were retracted by them the same way later
When were they retracted? And what would that have to do with them saying it to begin with? Again give me sources. I can post the video of Khamenei praising Omar and/or his fatwa of attacking any of the prophets companions or wives being blasphemy if you want
>not the same as actively persecuting or committing crimes against civilian population vs fighting actual battles.
Seeing as they were the ones slaying on the battlefield, commanding the armies and giving the soldiers orders yeah
And how is putting down and suppressing uprisings not persecuting civilian populations?
>Outdated. Everything else is a load of bullocks and bullshit
Nice denial of facts there. 0/10 shill go back to /pol/

Seeing as you have yet not provided any sources at all to back anything you’ve said I think this conversation is done
>>
There's literally this annoying and retarded Khomeinist that occasionally trolls 4chan. Ignore him.




Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.