What if no Sassanid Persian revival, what emerges instead from Parthia?

[raharris1973]

What if there had been no Sassanid Persian revival, what emerges instead from Parthia? How is subsequent Roman, Byzantine, Arab history effected?

 

[raharris1973]

Follow-up: What if the Parthians had not emerged as successors to the Seleucids, who or what else might have? With what further consequences historically?

 

[Circle of Willis]

The Parthians were in a pretty bad state by the time Sasan's grandson Ardashir overthrew them - Ctesiphon had been captured like three times in the past 100 or so years before that, and they were mired in the civil war between Vologases VI & Artabanus IV on top of it all. So if the Sassanids don't exist, my guess is that some other Persian dynasty will probably bump off the Arsacids, I can think of at least seven choices in that regard. Maybe the House of Mihran, which actually did usurp the Persian throne from the Sassanids IRL (albeit much later), or that of Suren of Carrhae fame, or the Karens who seem more likely than most to genuinely have been an Arsacid cadet branch as they claimed.

The Sassanids did have a significant impact in shaping Zoroastrianism as we know it, so without them around that religion might look rather different. Less Fars-centric perhaps, maybe Pahlawanig (Parthian) might retain relevance longer since IIRC the early Sassanids eventually took a hammer to that language in favor of exclusively advancing Middle Persian. I don't know enough about the subject and what the other great Perso-Parthian houses' religious traditions were like to project anything more than that with any level of confidence, though.

Follow-up: What if the Parthians had not emerged as successors to the Seleucids, who or what else might have? With what further consequences historically?

The Greco-Bactrians seem like the most logical alternative here, assuming they can avoid too much instability & also getting eclipsed by the early Parthians (which seems to have helped set them up to get wrecked by the Yuezhi/future Kushans and Saka). Maybe a consolidated Hellenistic empire spanning Persia, Central Asia & NW India? I think that (and in general a longer-lasting and stronger Greco-Buddhist tradition) would be pretty cool.

 

[Buba]

As Arab/Islamic expansion is 400 years into the future, 99% it is butterlfied away.

 

[ATP]

As Arab/Islamic expansion is 400 years into the future, 99% it is butterlfied away.

If there was no strong state there,then there would be no muslim conqer - becouse for that you need long war between ERE and Persia.Machomet would attack here ERE and get beaten.

 

[raharris1973]

If there was no strong state there,then there would be no muslim conqer - becouse for that you need long war between ERE and Persia.Machomet would attack here ERE and get beaten.

Well, Muhammad and Islam exactly as we know it would probably get butterflied. But if there is no strong state in Persia/Mesopotamia, couldn't 6th or 7th century Arabs, maybe with a special prophet, just attack the weak Mesopotamian/Persian side, and stay clear of the too strong ERE side?

 

[raharris1973]

The Parthians were in a pretty bad state by the time Sasan's grandson Ardashir overthrew them - Ctesiphon had been captured like three times in the past 100 or so years before that, and they were mired in the civil war between Vologases VI & Artabanus IV on top of it all. So if the Sassanids don't exist, my guess is that some other Persian dynasty will probably bump off the Arsacids, I can think of at least seven choices in that regard. Maybe the House of Mihran, which actually did usurp the Persian throne from the Sassanids IRL (albeit much later), or that of Suren of Carrhae fame, or the Karens who seem more likely than most to genuinely have been an Arsacid cadet branch as they claimed.

The Sassanids did have a significant impact in shaping Zoroastrianism as we know it, so without them around that religion might look rather different. Less Fars-centric perhaps, maybe Pahlawanig (Parthian) might retain relevance longer since IIRC the early Sassanids eventually took a hammer to that language in favor of exclusively advancing Middle Persian. I don't know enough about the subject and what the other great Perso-Parthian houses' religious traditions were like to project anything more than that with any level of confidence, though.



The Greco-Bactrians seem like the most logical alternative here, assuming they can avoid too much instability & also getting eclipsed by the early Parthians (which seems to have helped set them up to get wrecked by the Yuezhi/future Kushans and Saka). Maybe a consolidated Hellenistic empire spanning Persia, Central Asia & NW India? I think that (and in general a longer-lasting and stronger Greco-Buddhist tradition) would be pretty cool.

So just too many darn Persian clans available by the end of the Parthian era to take over that if it is not the Sassanids, it is one of the others? Ahura is going to drive that Mazda!

 

[ATP]

Well, Muhammad and Islam exactly as we know it would probably get butterflied. But if there is no strong state in Persia/Mesopotamia, couldn't 6th or 7th century Arabs, maybe with a special prophet, just attack the weak Mesopotamian/Persian side, and stay clear of the too strong ERE side?

I doubt that,still strong ERE would beat them and take it all,or almost all.
Machomet win only thanks to 2 great powers exhausting each other in wars.