Answering any questions related to Iranian history ITT

I'm really not sure about them. Anything before the Achaemenid period is not my forte.

The Iran-Iraq War by Pierre Razoux.

Ancient Iranian history is my favourite, particularly the Sassanid period.

Gilan, and not because I'm from there. Mazandaran a close second.

One more question, what are some good works on the Sassanids?
I've read Touraj Daryaee's "Rise and Fall of an Empire" and I want to learn more about them

The Decline and Fall of the Sasanian by Parvaneh Pourshariati is THE book to read on the Sassanid empire. It's a bit dense, especially in the beginning, but Pourshariati's research and analysis are both unique and highly convincing.

One more question, what are some resources for learning modern Persian?

Do you think there can be peace between shia and sunnis ?

Not OP, but linguist and Persian learner.

What you want is Basic Persian: A Grammar and Workbook by Saeed Yousef and Hayedeh Torabi. I firmly believe it's the only competent Farsi grammar book geared towards learners.

I'd listen to this user A general tip, try to immerse yourself in the language as much as possible.

Yes, and there's historical precedent for it. In Iran today Sunnis and Shias live peacefully together.

I got you senpai.
This is a Persian grammar, helpful for reference and learning how to read and write. At the beginning you should use it just for those two things, as the rest is pretty dense.
archive .org/stream/PersianGrammer

Then after you know how to read and write, you can move over to Abdi Rafiee's Colloquial Persian. Really well-written and easy to grasp. The listening exercises are great too, even if initially you'll be somewhat puzzled by different accents and the ways different people pronounce the same letters. My native speaker teacher says it's a really good introduction into spoken Persian.
twirpx.com/file/1541044/
twirpx.com/file/1541306/
You'll need to google translate to get through the Russian site.

After you've done a bit of the Colloquial Persian book, you'll want to revise and get back to actual grammar rules - use the first book.

If you need a dictionary at a more advanced level, use vajehyab.com/. Some of the words don't have definitions in English, but most should have pronounciation rules.

Also try to learn typing in Persian as soon as possible, it'll be a huge help if you study alone. You can start with a smartphone keyboard, then you can switch over to

موفق باشید

are iranians actually "persian" or just larping

Also, if you care about this sort of thing, knowing some basic Persian and commenting on Persian sites on facebook or instagram will get you an incessant flood of private messages and friends requests from REALLY hot Iranian girls.

I'm gay

I'm sure it works the same for gay dudes really. If not more. And if you switch over to the Afghani dialect you'll get invitations for steamy bacha bazi sessions with dancing boys.

No, Iranians have no ties to the people that inhabited Iran.

What do they say?

Very insightful man. Thanks a lot

Are Azeris Persian peoples?

In north Azerbaijan there are villages where people still speak the old Azeri language, which is an Iranian one. Modern Azerbaijani is a Turkic language, but like Turkish, it's probably a case where the Turkic language was imposed on a population that didn't change a whole lot. IIRC 'Azerbaijan' means something like 'land of fire' in old Persian as it housed one of the three major fire temples of Zoroastrianism

Persianized Caucasus peoples that then got Turkified.
The name Azerbaijan is itself Iranian in origin, from Media Atropatene, which was a satrapy that wasn't conquered by Alexander. Persian culture and religion remained protected there during the troubled times of Seleucids.

OTOH the actual historical Azerbaijan is in Iran now, around Tabriz. The republic of Azerbaijan used to be Arran and Shirvan historically.

What is the main theology of Zoroastrianism beyond the truth/lie duality? How close is it to Hinduism?

What do you think about the claim that the Islamic Revolution was partly a fault of Martin Heidegger?

That's complex, but it's interesting. Thanks

Iranians aren't Zoroastrian anymore, he wouldn't know that

He might know.

fuck i really want a qt irani gf

Also whats the common opinion on pic related?

What's it like for white people? My father was overseas in the military and he said in a lot of MENA nations people are really friendly towards whites. Is that just because they know they have money?

so if Iran can't become a power in the Middle East...what about Central Asia?

You have the legacy of Persian imperialism in the region and the influence of its culture (hence Iranian languages dominate Afghanistan and Tajikistan)
its main competitor is Russia, and while I'd say Russia is the prominent influencer, it also has to deal with Eastern Europe/Caucasus - and it seems like these take precedent
Central Asia has lots of natural resources and feeble politics, so it's not like Iran would be pursuing nothing

or does Central Asia not even register in Iranian foreign policy? is the lack of Shi'a there a problem?

maybe we can dodge the theology and ask what made Zoroastrianism decline in Iran/what made the people there accept Islam instead?

>Iranian language dominates afghanisgan and Tajikistan

Firstly, Farsi doesn't dominate afghanistan. Pashtun is the most spoken language in Afghanistan. Tajikistan and parts of Afghanistan are Persian descendants.

Oppression?

Tell me about the Alevi

how did i get from Kerbala to Shavaz in 1 hour?

Hi, I'm back.

Under the current government, Iran doesn't seem interested in tapping into its vast influence in Central Asia. It decided long ago to look west (i.e. Iraq, Levant, etc.) than east. Sectarianism in Central Asia is low, so Iran being Shia shouldn't really be an issue.

Lol that's impossible.

Alevis were declared a branch of Shiaism by Musa al-Sadr decades ago, but theologically there's quite a bit of difference between Alevis and Twelver Shias. Historically, the Safavid order were Alevi-Sufis, and Shah Ismail's poetry found its way into the Buyruks, but they eventually decided to adopt Twelverism as the national religion.

>Ancient Iranian history is my favourite, particularly the Sassanid period.

Patrician. Do you know any interesting book (english if possible) on Sasanians that is not a general history? If already read a couple of those.

But isn't dari the lingua franca?

I understand this is a very broad question, and it was probably asked already, but what is the "official" position of the current regime on the pre-Islamic Iran and the Arab conquest? Do they teach it in schools as an overall positive event because of the introduction of Islam to Iran, or a negative event since it started a long period of foreign rule?
Overall it must be a very hard event to conceptualize within a semi-theocratic/semi-nationalistic narrative.

First of all, not OP and not Iranian, so take that as you want.

When I was taking farsi classes our textbook (provided and approved by the islamic republic) had some mentions to iranian history. In general pre-islamic history was portrayed in a very positive way. The arab conquest itself was barely mentioned, even if the distinction between pre-islamic and islamic history was important. Common were sentences like "after islam came" or "later, in islamic times" that dodge mentioning how islam was introduced.

Don't know the exact government position, but it's pretty easy to reconcile the two given that Iran is Shi'a. The Alid family were generally more tolerant of non-Arabs than the mainline Ummah in that time. You have Salman the Persian being honourably included in the Ahl-ul-Bayt. You have the Persian Piruz Nahavandi assassinating 'Umar, and being cheered both by Persians and Shi'a. They even made up a story how he didn't die getting run down by 'Umar's bodyguards but was instead teleported to Iran where he became a Shi'a (really). There's even a (likely fake) legend that Hussein married the last Shah Yazdgerd's daughter and gave rise to the Safavid dynasty.

So it's pretty easy to conceptualize Shi'a and Persians both being oppressed but morally superior minorities within the Ummah that got on well and mixed together. Even though Iran was mainly Sunni until the Safavid conquest, and its conversion to Shi'ism was probably more bloody and brutal than the initial Arab conquest.

Azeris are just Turkmens that mixed with Persians or Caucasian people (depending on the place, south azerbaijan is more persian than north azerbaijan)

But wasn't shia relatively popular (not majority) in Iran even before the Safavids? The buyids were shia and Alamut is in Iran.

Oh and (F)ersians claiming that they're Pacctually ersian is just insufferable.
Are you guys actually retarded and fell for the Stalinist propaganda? They didn't even call themselves Azeris before Stalin lmao

Refer to my comment here: There is no "official" position, but nonetheless, I think to adequately answer this question we need to divide the Islamic Republic into different time points. In the early stages of the revolution towards the 90s, there was something of a backlash against the Shah's emphasis on ancient Iranian culture, which came to be viewed by many as anti-Islamic. Some in the new government advocated a more balanced approach in assessing Iran's history, such as Motahhari, whose work can be found here:

al-islam.org/al-tawhid/vol6-n2-1989/islam-and-iran-historical-study-mutual-services-ayatullah-murtadha-mutahhari

A fringe sought the destruction of Iran's ancient history. An influential clergyman by the name of Khalkhali wanted to bulldoze Persepolis and Cyrus the Great's tomb, only for the locals to stop him.

Today, among the youth (who constitute a large segment of Iran's society), there's been a backlash against the emphasis that the government has placed on Islam, and more Iranians are looking to their ancient past. This is reflected in history books as well; I never studied in Iran, but it's interesting when you question Iranians of different age groups who have. The older ones will tell you their history books skimmed over the Achaemenids, Parthians and Sassanids, while the younger ones say they placed a large emphasis on them.

For a more nuanced and detailed analysis on Iranian nationalism in the modern age, read Ansari's The Politics of Nationalism in Modern Iran.

This is also a good answer:

they're actually Persian*

why do butthurt ar*bs feel the need to shit on Persians in informative threads like this? is it because arabs' crowning achievements are wewuzing Persian and Greek discoveries?

I'm Turkish and i'm your master you retarded (F)ersian
i just find it insufferable when your kind calls our brothers in the east (F)ersian. That's literally same as calling them K*rds.

>i'm your master
>his culturally is literally ripped off of Persian

Even today Iranians are fucking you in your own country. Biji Kurd u Kurdistan.

A cockroach ruining another thread, why am I not surprised?

>(F)ersians got cucked by Turks so hard that they couldn't be relevant till Iranian revolution

If your sandnigger kind calls our brothers (F)ersian i will hunt you down just like how my Seljuk ancestors hunted down (F)ersian rats in Iran.

Azeris are Persian, and Anatolians are Greek/Kurdish/Armenian.

Could you name the first three populations?

>Guy from Izmir

>According to American Journal of Physical Anthropology (2008), today's Turkish people are more closely related with Balkan populations than to the Central Asian populations,[137][138] and a study looking into allele frequencies suggested that there was a lack of genetic relationship between the Mongols and the Turks, despite the historical relationship of their languages (The Turks and Germans were equally distant to all three Mongolian populations).[139] Multiple studies suggested an elite cultural dominance-driven linguistic replacement model to explain the adoption of Turkish language by Anatolian indigenous inhabitants.[131]k[›][135]
Keep wewuzzing.

>he's such a cuck he doesn't even know his ancestors got cucked out of existence

>Citing wikipedia
LMAO (F)ersian. What's the average iq in (F)ersia by the way? Your iranic brothers here dumb us down.
Was that study about haplogroups by the way? It seems it is.

Meanwhile actual genetic results from gedmatch say:

and this is the ancient anatolians

If you don't believe that it's an ancietn anatolian you can test it yourself on gedmatch. the kit number is written.

You're taking individual Turks and extrapolating that to the population. I know education in Turkey is utter dogshit, but this isn't how population genetics is conducted.

>A study regarding Turkish genetics in 2014 has utilized the whole genome sequencing of Turkish individuals.[4] Led by Can Alkan at the University of Washington in Seattle, the study has been published in the journal BMC Genomics. The authors of the study show that the genetic variation of the contemporary Turkish population clusters with South European populations, as expected, but also shows signatures of relatively recent contribution from ancestral East Asian populations. They estimate the weights for the migration events predicted to originate from the East Asian branch into current-day Turkey was at 21.7% (see Figure 2 by Alkan et al.).[4]

>In 2011 Aram Yardumian and Theodore G. Schurr published their study "Who Are the Anatolian Turks? A Reappraisal of the Anthropological Genetic Evidence." They revealed the impossibility of long-term, and continuing genetic contacts between Anatolia and Siberia, and confirmed the presence of significant mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome divergence between these regions, with minimal admixture. The research confirms also the lack of mass migration and suggested that it was irregular punctuated migration events that engendered large-scale shifts in language and culture among Anatolia's diverse autochthonous inhabitants.[12]

>According to one autosomal analysis, the Turkish genetic pool falls within the following categories: 38% Caucasian, 11% European early farmers, 7% European hunter-gatherers, 14% South Central Asians, 10% Near Eastern, 3% Ancestral Altaic, 5% Tungus Altaic, 3% East Siberian, 2% South East Asian, 3% North African, 1% Arctic, 1% South Indian, 1% Austronesian.[35] The category Caucasus also consists the largest part of the genetics of several Turkic peoples, including the Turkmens.

How do you say WE WUZ in cockroach?

I see, thanks.

>You're taking individual Turks and extrapolating that to the population. I know education in Turkey is utter dogshit, but this isn't how population genetics is conducted.

Uhh
Are you actually retarded, (F)ersian? Did we rape you so hard that you became retarded?

>estimate the weights for the migration events predicted to originate from the East Asian branch into current-day Turkey was at 21.7%
average Turk mongoloid dna is 10% to 25% so i see nothing wrong with that study. But Turks before they came to Anatolia mixed with Iranians (not Fersians, you're Arabic. We're probably more Iranian than you) in C. Asia. So take their genetics into consideration too
also
>Still posting Y-Dna studies to prove a shit.
>Even though they don't prove a shit.
we should have genocided (F)ersians. You contributed to world nothing anyway.
Oh and Third greentext also proves my pics :DD

This has got to be b8.

Would you prefer that the Sasasinid had defeated the arabs and resisted jihad?
Is the loss pre-islamic Persia a tradegy?

>my ancestors were raped by Turks and I'm about 1/10-1/4 Turk

You're admitting you're a mongrel who's not majority Turk. You're admitting your Anatolian ancestors were raped. You're literally a product of cuckoldry. Are you this daft?

How literate was the classical empire, and did it suffer a similar decline in literacy to the Roman Empire preceding the fall of the West? Was Avestan a purely liturgical language, and how structured was Zoroastrian religion? My European bias has me conceptualize of it as similar to medieval Europe, where only the clergy spoke the old dead language, and the church was highly organized compared to the rest of the surrounding world.

Also, how stable was Imperial authority? Rome suffered from ridiculous instability politically, whereas it seems from my limited knowledge that Persian succession was a much more sure thing, and the Shah's power was closer to absolute than the Emperor's.

Lastly, what do we know of persian/Chinese relations?

How big a deal were the manichaeans? I can find very little on them, and they seem to be a meme.

make it 1/2 Turk to 1/4 Turk.
And it's pretty well documented in history that we're mixed. Even the Byzantines called half seljuk half greek people mixovarvaroi which means mixed barbarians.
Also if i were a rapebaby i'd not speak Turkish, but Greek. We're a product of intermarriage. While you have lots of Arab dna yet you speak an Iranic language which indicates that you're a rapebaby.

Tell me about Nader Shah

He was an absolute madman who later on became an actual madman

What's up with the Kurds on the Turkmeni border? Were they just relocated or is there more to it?

Also, what was Persia like in the 18th and 19th centuries? More specifically, I'm wondering if there were movements to modernise in a western fashion or if they hoped to isolate themselves like China. I'd appreciate book recommendations as well.

But he actually saved Iran from utter destruction, no?

Safavids put Kurds in Khorasan to recruit them as soldiers against Sunni Uzbeks/Turkmen raiders.

>Also, what was Persia like in the 18th and 19th centuries?

Safavids ended up getting conquered by Ghilzai Pashtuns in 1720s and ruled by them for a while. Pashtuns were backwater hillbillies and didn't even have a state up until that point, so it's even more humiliating than say, 18th century England being conquered by the Irish. The early Pashtun Mir Wais leader was a pretty clever dude, was initially brought to the Safavid court as a hostage but ended up manipulating everyone sort of like Sauron in Numenor.

The rest of 18th century is constant warfare and shifting dynasties. Nader Shah started as a wayside bandit, but ended up controlling Iran, sacking Delhi, capturing Samarqand, etc - he was a strategic genius. But he went clinically insane at the end and his empire crumbled.

The next significant dude was Karim Khan Zand, a Lak/Lur/Kurd who ruled from Shiraz and gave the land about 30 years of stability. Parts of Khorasan were still ruled by Nader Shah's descendants though. Karim Khan was a proto-republican, he didn't name himself shah, but "advocate of the people". He instituted many reforms and the people liked him. He's the only previous ruler whose name wasn't purged by the anti-monarchistic Islamic Republic, and he still has streets with his name on them.

In the end, Zand's and Nader Shah's descendants were upstaged by Aqa Mohammed Khan Qajar who unified and solidified the state once more and founded the Qajar dynasty. The Qajars were a nomadic Turkic tribe that served the Safavids and became a political player after their downfall. Aqa Mohammed Khan was a literal eunuch, he was taken as a hostage during his childhood and gelded so he wouldn't be politically dangerous. He looked like a child for his entire adult life, but made up for it with his callousness and cruelty. He actually crowned one of his rivals with molten gold, Game of Thrones style. He made Tehran his base - up until this point it was a pretty backwater place.

Obviously he didn't have kids, so he made his nephew his heir. Fath Ali Shah cared more about his beard and about women (he had like 100+ kids and a slide installed from his harem into his bedroom) than politics. His uncle reconquered Georgia, but the Georgians got too independent and called Russia for help. Russia ended up conquering the modern Caucasus region from Iran and weakening it greatly.

The 19th century is mainly Iran being vassalized by Russia in the north and trying to counteract it by inviting in the British in the south. Paul Julius Reuter of the later Reuters agency ended up buying all railroads, canals, most of the mines, all the government's forests, and all future industries of Iran at one point. It didn't come into fruition because of massive social protests. Under the shah who sold all this, Nasseroddin Shah, an attempt at modernization was actually made, by Amir Kabir who could have possibly made reforms comparable to the Meiji restoration. But he was assassinated by his court rivals before he could accomplish anything of lasting impact.

Are Tajiks considered Iranians that happened to come under Russian sphere of influence? What about Afghan Persians?

>Afghan Persians
Dari*

Dari is a language not a race. Afghan( Tajiks) are descendants of eastern Iran.

Afghans arent a race either

how do i learn farsi?

>What is the main theology of Zoroastrianism beyond the truth/lie duality? How close is to Hinduism?
Iranian here who has read lots of books on Zoroastrianism. It's important to note Zoroastrianism developed a lot throughout the years, even up to Sassanid empire, but in general, the main theology is basically a radical dualism and henotheism in which Ohrmazd and Ahriman are in continuous battle, manifesting as certain states of mind and natural phenomena (light/darkness). Sassanids, for example, kept eternal flames lit in order to ward Ahriman's encroaching darkness/lie, and there was a belief that with compassionate and just action one can help Ohrmazd's fight again Ahriman. The Amesha Spenta are six divine sparks or foundations of Ohrmazd that Zoroastrians believed were a conduit to his Will, and they also worship fire believing it could also provide that conduit.

Hinduism and Zoroastrianism are diametrically opposed in that the former tends to be more nondual whereas the latter is heavily dualistic. Note, in the Bundahishn, it is claimed Vāyu, which is void/wind, originally existed and produced Ohrmazd and Ahriman as co-equals in combat, but Ohrmazd has the edge in that is prophesied the Saoshyant will emerge and help the world reorient with His Order. Point being, Zoroastrianism privileges Ohrmazd within a dualistic scheme, whereas Hinduism is largely about unifying with Brahman or monist.

There was a sect, or popular strand of thought, of Zoroastrianism during Sassanian empire called "Zurvanism" that relegated both Ohrmazd and Ahriman under Zurvan, a God metaphorical of "Infinite Time". However, it is dubious whether this reconstruction of this sect was false or accurate. Regardless, this is somewhat close to Hinduism in its description.

Hinduism and Zoroastrianism both have common root in "Indo-Iranian religion", which descended from nomadic migratory people called "Proto-Indo-Iranians of Sintashta culture". Continued.

I agree with Richard Foltz that originally polytheistic Mithraism was popular in Iran, which involved sacrificing bulls, but then Zarathustra created his own sect criticizing this, thus the creation of Zoroastrianism. Zoroastrianism relegated Mithra as a "yazata", angelic figure that supports Ohrmazd in his fight against Ahriman. "Daevas" serve Ahriman, like aēšma which influenced Asmodeus.

I believe Vedic thought was originally polytheistic much like Indo-Iranian religion and Mithraism, but it became more nondual and monist as time went on, basically a different direction of the dualism of Zoroastrianism.

I do believe a kind of rivalry existed among Zoroastrians and Hindus in that the latter considered daevas good and the former bad. They changed the roles of those respective figures, etc. Kind of tired now, lol.

I recommend Zarathustra and Zoroastrianism
by Michael Stausberg (#1 recommendation), Religions of Iran: From Prehistory to the Present by Richard Foltz, Prods Oktor Skjærvo's Introduction to Zoroastrianism (available online), various article on Encyclopædia Iranica, Avesta.org for the Gathas, and Stephen E. Flowers The Good Religion for a modern take on Zoroastrianism. The Shahnameh is also nice to read imo.

Zoroastrianism had tremendous formative influence on Abrahamic faiths, this is true. On an interesting note, the word "paradise" etymologically descends from the Avestan word "pairi daeza", meaning walled garden.

How well did Persona cope with being the Turkish tribal punching bag?
More specific question:
What was the economy like in Persia, major centers of trade, agriculture, luxury products etc from the 1000s on generally.

Let me clarify that the world is largely a creation of the Ohrmazd and Ahriman's conflict. Initially the world was aligned with Ohrmazd's pure Order (asha), but then Ahriman, out of greed and avarice, infringed and attacked, with his lie (druj), creating this perpetual conflict between states of mind and natural phenomena (e.g., Zoroastrians believed frogs to be from Ahriman). Interesting, Manichaeism and Mazdakism tried to reform this by arguing for a more nuanced picture of good and evil, light and darkness, intermixing, and they were both vegetarian. Zoroastriansim has always been heavily dualistic, but Zurvanism was a bit more unique, however it is debated on whether Robert Charles Zaehner's historical analysis of this sect or strand of thought was accurate.

Pashtuns didn't have a government because they were part of either one of the two empires.

Why did the Iranians abandon their great heritage (Achaemenid empire, Parthian empire, Sassanid) in favour of Islamic barbarism?

>Why did the Iranians abandon their great heritage (Achaemenid empire, Parthian empire, Sassanid) in favour of Islamic barbarism?
Why did Germanic peoples (paganism) abandon their great heritage in favour of Christian barbarism? ;)

They didnt do it willingly

Well at least Iranians retained a genuine link and continuity of Zoroastrianism from Sassanid times. Zoroastrians of Yazd, Iran are still practicing traditions from Sassanid time period, but you don't see NW European druids practicing pagan traditions from before Christianization, hence they had to revivalism. Humorously, if Iran were to become Christian, Zoroastrian minority probably wouldn't persist, and Christians tend to conveniently ignore how Heraclius burned Zoroastrian fire temples. Rashiduns were very bad of course, but at least Zoroastrians were considered "people of the books", while being heavily taxed, and they still survive to this day unlike European pagans.

The Germans were the barbaric ones before embarcing Christianity. Christianity is what made Europe dominate the whole world. Not comparable.

They converted pretty fast. In the span of 100-200 years most of the Iranian core territories were Muslim.

>The Germans were the barbaric ones before embarcing Christianity.
Germanic-speaking peoples*. It wasn't just the ancestors of Germans that abandoned paganism.

>Christianity is what made Europe dominate the whole world.
Go to /pol/ because that is genuinely one of the most retarded things I've read.

>Not comparable.
It is comparable, nitwit.

>They converted pretty fast.
Iran didn't become majority Muslim until 15th century. Mazandaran province still had local Zoroastrian dynasties until Safavid Empire. For example, Paduspanids.

>In the span of 100-200 years most of the Iranian core territories were Muslim.
Shia actually incorporated some elements of Zoroastrianism, kind of like how Catholicism did of European pagan elements. Look up Shahab al-Din Suhrawardi and Mulla Sadra.

In all honesty Heraclius believed he was avenging Jerusalem and the capture of the Holy Cross. Muslims attacked without such a grudge and often transformed fire temples into mosques. War is always shitty and it gets worst when religion and ideology get involved.

My point is if Iran were Christianized, there would be no living Zoroastrian tradition from Sassanid times. Muslims were, indeed, shitty, but Christians tend to be enlivened towards anything they perceive as heretical, wanting to eradicate it, hence why there is no living European pagan tradition from before Christianization.

Also, this hatred of everything Muslim is due to contemporary politics. European scholars like Goethe and Nietzsche loved Persian Sufi poets like Hafiz and Khayyam. Hell, even Rumi is popular in this day and age.

I wouldn't over simplify christanity like that. Pagan traditions were heavily involved for very long periods of time in areas far from the Pope's and bishops. The difference between Christanity and Islam is that there are orthodox truths to Christanity. Whatever sect you are, is the most correct one, and it reinforces itself through community. Pagan traditions were constantly on the way out due to science, orthodoxy, and such. Outside of putting parts of Germany, Lithuania, and Iberia to the sword Christanity has spread and reinforced itself against unorthodox practices by the church governing itself.

>orthodox truths
Elaborate.

Also, I am not oversimplifying Christianity. I am making it clear that Christianity displaced European paganism, this is a fact. There are no surviving pockets of European pagans whereas Zoroastrianism still has pockets of communities in Yazd practicing traditions dating to Sassanian era. Whenever Europeans try to shame Iranians for "losing their heritage", I make this fact clear to them.

Also, read this post: >and it reinforces itself through community.
All religions function by reinforcing itself through community. I do not see your point.

>Pagan traditions were constantly on the way out due to science, orthodoxy, and such.
Rather than evolve via Platonic interpretations, they were displaced by the oh-so benevolent Christianity?

>has spread and reinforced itself against unorthodox practices by the church governing itself.
Yes, and through genocide, like what happened with the Cathars. Trust me, if Europe had tons of oil reserves, sectarian conflict would come to the forefront again as pretext to accrue more power. Other sides would also fund and bribe certain radicalized factions for the oil to be traded in such and such currency or price in this or that way.

>Germanic-speaking peoples*. It wasn't just the ancestors of Germans that abandoned paganism.

All the same. The Germanics were barbarians before adopting Christianity.

>Go to /pol/ because that is genuinely one of the most retarded things I've read.

Not an argument.

>It is comparable, nitwit.
NOT. COMPARABLE. RETARD. The Germanics didn't have any "great" heritage before Christianity, unlike the Persians with Islam. If you think stone carving is "great heritage", then you need your brain checked.

>Iran didn't become majority Muslim until 15th century. Mazandaran province still had local Zoroastrian dynasties until Safavid Empire. For example, Paduspanids.

Iran was majority Muslim after the Umayyad Caliphate. Just because there were small pockets of Zorostrianism left doesn't make it "majority"

>Shia actually incorporated some elements of Zoroastrianism, kind of like how Catholicism did of European pagan elements. Look up Shahab al-Din Suhrawardi and Mulla Sadra.

Shia is Islam, doesn't matter what "some" elements of Zorostrianism it adopted.