How come it took zoroastrianism so long to die?

Iranians didn't even become a nominally majority Muslim population till the late 10th/early 11th century.

It would be haram fampai
>it doesn't usually stop ottomans
Who knows man

While converting to any faith other than Islam is deeply "scorned" in Iran, you'll find that in actuality there are more Christian converts with Iranians then Zoroastrian converts. Also what the other user said is true, only Parsees/Parsis are not allowed to allow converts because of some deal they made with a local Indian ruler when they made their exodus following the collapse of the Sassanid dynasty.

Murdering local leaders and men of God isn't really a good or sustainable method of conquest. Also, murdering the few literate people there are is also a bad idea

Then why did Turks chimp out and start murdering a shit ton of Orthodox clergymen in Anatolia once the Greeks moved for independence?

I blame shah for this.

Since when are chimping people rational?

Zoroastrianism in Iran is a continuous living tradition and a direct continuation from Sassanid era, not cheap revivalism like Nordic or Turkic paganism are, so no its not larp

>gnostics disappeared pretty fast

We did?

That was quiet late in the empire.
After conquering the Balkans, the majority of the Ottoman population was Christian and would remain so until they took over the Mamluks. They were basically forced to be (relatively) tolerant or face constant revolts and defections.
By the time of WWI, most of the Christian areas had been lost, and many Christians (Greeks especially) immigrated to the now independent Greece, by this point the empire was overwhelmingly Sunni and could afford to be less accepting of its religious minorities, these policies were part of the reason so many Armenians and Anatolian Greeks defected to the Russians. The Turks responded to this by chimping out and ramping this brutality up to ten (genocide).

My entire point is it's not LARPing; you can't just declare yourself a Zoroastrian and jerk off about the past because the Parsis are fucking autistic and won't let anyone in and apostasy is a crime in its own homeland

>once the Greeks moved for independence
Hmmmmm I wonder why

Only Parsis

>you can't just declare yourself a Zoroastrian
You can after studying the faith. All Zoroastrian sects and communities welcome new adherents and converts sans the Parsees/Parsis. And if they give you shit just mock them for being Indianized Iranians. They don't have a monopoly on defining Zoroastrianism.

Well they ARE the biggest single group of practicing Zoroastrians

They are also hugely diluted with Indian practices and admixture. There are still Zoroastrian communities and families that directly came to the West who still practice their faith. Trust me, you don't need the Parsis.

Zoroastrianism was in decline even before Islam.
Christianity was gaining followers to the point where the Shah had to crack down on it.
The problem with Zoroastrianism is that, similarly to Hinduism(the other Aryan religion), it was a very classist religion that looked down on the masses of non-noble or priestly commoners. Why would you stay in a religion that tells you that your birth means you aint shit ?

Persians are the most shoved up their own ass people I have ever met

>Zoroastrianism was in decline even before Islam.
No it wasn't. There is a reason why Iranians remained majority Zoroastrian for fucking centuries after the fall of the Sassanid Empire and under Arab vassalage.

It's what happens when you conquer a vast region. Iran wasn't the center of the caliphate the city people and the persian nobles converted first while it took far longer for the rural people of azerbaijan(tats Persians) and khorasan to convert

>Zoroastrianism is an organised religion, so it could resist conversions better than unorganized pagan religions, which tend to crumble quickly in the face of evangalising from Abrahamic faiths.

That's an outdated idea that's based on bias, not history.

1. The distinction between "organized" religions vs. "unorganized" religions is artificial and has no bearing on reality. All religions in Europe and the Near East at the time were, by definition, organized.
2. The Zoroastrians only "resisted conversion" better because: a) Muslims were less concerned with converting and persecuting them for a while than Christians and Muslims were with converting and persecuting other indigenous religions under their control for various reasons, b) They had somewhere to escape to to preserve their traditions, i.e. India, and c) A large, urbanized empire is much more resistant to colonization and imperialism of any kind, including the Christo-Islamic religious type, than small tribal polities with little institutional strength; same reason the last Greek traditional religionists weren't converted until the end of the 9th century, and there is record of resurgences of traditional religion in Greece (and I'm pretty sure Italy, but I can't remember where I read that) several centuries after Constantine, as late as the siege of Constantinople by the Turks.

All the religious are Larpers tho

Could've sworn Baghdad was a city founded by Persians right outside the outskirts of Ctesiphon, largely populated by Persians and other Iranic people and that was one of the de facto capitals of the Abbassid caliphate.

>Zoroastrianism is an organised religion, so it could resist conversions better than unorganized pagan religions, which tend to crumble quickly in the face of evangalising from Abrahamic faiths

This is your brain on CKII

Minority groups with true or perceived threats to their way of life have a tendency to build very tightly knit communities.
See: Judaism.

Please tell us more about these resurgences of traditional religion you mentioned. I wasn't aware of any such 'movements' and find it really interesting.

There's Gemistus Pletho, just off the top of my head

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemistus_Pletho

The same reason ancient Islam, ancient Christianity and ancient Judaism survived: India.