It's pretty obvious the religions which became successful are those which had written doctrine, philosophical elegance and a long history. These include the Bible, The Quran, The Vedas, The Pāli Canon ect.
The one exception to this rule is Zoroastrianism. Zoroastrianism had all the trappings of a religion which could have easily remained the main theology of Persia. Yet it was supplanted by Islam.
In large part, because written doctrine came to Zoroastrianism extremely late in their religious development; it was always more of an oral tradition than a written doctrine in the heyday of its practice.
The ARAB BULL came and cucked the (F)ersians
This, the (F)arsians are absolute cucks and it is disqusting.
How could they just throw away their heritage like that? Their women are absolute whores, no wonder the last of the Sassanids decided to settle down in China and Central Asia than trying to reclaim it after they saw how much (F)arsians enjoyed the Arab cock.
Sadly Zoroastrianism would later die because of the T*rks and Chinese who chimped out against foreigners because of T*rks
All major religions today started as oral transmission of knowledge before being recorded. That's not good enough an excuse.
Jyzia
Hinduism survived it. As did Coptic Christianity, various gnostic sects and Orthodox Christianity.
Not really, especially not for the Abrahamics. The longest gap for any of those between "widespread" practice and writing down of a canon with religious commands and doctrine is Judaism, which is about a 400 year gap if you go with the earlier dating for a henotheistic system arising in Canaan.
Zoroastrianism, if we work by the Gathas linguistics, probably started as a recognizable religion around 1,000 B.C. or so, and we don't have any actual evidence of religious texts (and these aren't full books, just inscriptions) until about the 5th century AD. That is a MUCH longer period, and one in which practice would have almost certainly fractured to an extreme extent, so that you don't have "Zoroastrianism" so much as "Zoroastrianisms", with the practices of this one community being vastly different from the one two mountains over.
That in turn makes it much harder to have a coherent religious resistance movement when someone else comes along and says you're a bunch of demon worshipers.
>so that you don't have "Zoroastrianism" so much as "Zoroastrianisms", with the practices of this one community being vastly different from the one two mountains over.
So it's much like Hinduism?
Well, I'm speculating, as there's a colossal knowledge gap as to what "Zoroastrianism" was like at all for most of its history, but that seems very likely.
>How could they just throw away their heritage like that?
The funniest thing about it is the fact, that today they are maybe one of the most fanatical islamists in the world with theocratic government and shit like that. Seems like they are actually proud of their own shameful history.
>The phrase Allāhu akbar is written on the Iranian flag, as called for by Article 18 of Iran's constitution.The phrase appears 22 times on the flag.
ayy lmao
The Sassanid Empire lost against the first Islamic caliphate, and from then on Iranian Zoroastrianism was steadily suppressed and marginalized by their Muslim overlords. It wasn't formally banned, but centuries of treating Zoroastrians like garbage In addition, Zoroastrian religions don't evangelize like Islam, Christianity, Manichaeism, etc - some of the more prominent strains of Zoroastrianism are literally impossible to convert to, you can only be a member if your parents were.
If the Sassanid Empire had remained independent, it would probably have ended up similar to the situation of the various Hindu religions - strong and common in Iran, almost nonexistent outside of it.
>you can only be a member if your parents were.
I think that's only true for indian parsi community. Probably to prevent assimilation
Imagine a secular Iran? Zoroastrian revival could happen.
>Why did Zoroastrianism fail in the Iranian sphere?
Did it really fail? Unlike Germanic paganism, Zoroastrianism of Iranians in Yazd, Iran and Parsi is in continuity with late Sassanian traditions. It is a living tradition dating to pre-Arab invasions. However, there are absolutely no European pagan practices dating to pre-Christianization.
Please, stop talking about us. We can't handle the bantz anymore. It's tiring.
Comparing Zoroastrianism to European paganism
They are nothing alike. It's apples and oranges. Zoroastrianism is more comparable to Christianity or Hinduism. For the record, some European paganism still exist in Russia to my knowledge.
Because Zoroastrian was made for the Roman World
Order and Good are Roman Values not Persian values
Zoroastrianism isn't really comparable to Germanic paganism though; it was a clear-cut, defined and centralized religion with a solid code and body of faith. For-lack-of-a-better-word "tribal" faiths that involve concepts like animism or shamanism coalesce and then fall apart all the time throughout history, but big-time religions just collapsing is rarer and always correlates with outright cultural dissolution (see: Egypt, Rome, etc.).
The obvious answer for the fall of Zoroastrianism is already outlined here:
I wish the middle east was still Zoroastrian
How could Eurocucks throw away their pagan religions, look at how they prostrate themeselves for Jaysus, it's like their almost proud of their shameful history.
Because Persians are simply faggots. If Iran was controlled by northern or eastern Iranians during the Arab conquests they wouldve prevailed. Arabs fear the Caucaso Iranian warrior.
Except none of those groups exist anymore, and the all the places where they lived are Muslim now.
>If the Sassanid Empire had remained independent, it would probably have ended up similar to the situation of the various Hindu religions - strong and common in Iran, almost nonexistent outside of it.
I wonder what that Iran would look like
What are you even saying. Northern and Eastern Iranian ethnic groups definitely do exist.
Like what, Ossetians, Balochis, Kurds. As if any of those groups could've stopped the Muslim conquest, they don't even have their own nation-states.
Most of these groups were still developing by the time the conquests occurred.
>praying to fire
no thanks
Mazandaranis were literally the last ones to give up zoroastrianism m8
>praying to a bush on fire
no thanks
It relied too heavily on an aristocratic elite to give their rituals and dogmas lasting power over the masses. Once the elite were supplanted, it could only survive as local custom, which is highly susceptible to erosion and eventual conversion once a ruler decides to put their foot down and formalize the conversion.
It's just Judaism.
it never was. only the iranian area
There are written traditions of Zoroastrian tennets dating back to 1300 BC. The official mainstream orthodoxy of Zoroastrianism was finally compiled and codified in the Sassanian period. As for the reason it "failed", it didn't. It was simply suppressed, and after 300+ years, native Iranians simply found it easier to convert to Islam and not be taxed then follow an increasingly distant Zoroastrianism whose clerics were also harder to follow under due to earlier Muslim repression against Zoroastrian clergy.
Christianity was accepted by Europeans (Rome) and created in cultural European influenced territory, unlike Fersians which wete conquered by islam
>Fersians
Fuck off retard.
No there are not. There are idle speculations based on linguistic cues taken from copies of documents that were made thousands of years after the fact.
Zoroaster lived in the 6th century BC, coinciding with the Jewish captivity in Babylon that turned into the Jewish captivity in Medeo-Persia.
Manichaeism was the reform it needed, but didn't deserve...
Persians are cucks. That's why.
Someone's mad hihi
Really, recorded in which texts? Can you cite to anything pre-Sassanian?
ironically manichaeism ended up infesting Christianity instead
You mean via Augustine? I was just reading about that the other day.
muslims
>not Mazdakism
t. cockroach
There are a few goat-skinned scriptures that cover some of the more basic stuff of the overview of Zoroastrianism as well as Zoroaster's life but it was mainly oral tradition until the late Achaemenid period. And again, the real meat of Zoroastrianism text wasn't codified and centralized until the Sassanian period. That's the orthodoxy we know and survives today through the Parsees.
Again, I am aware not of a "few goat-skinned scriptures" but literally nothing until the 4th century AD. Can you cite to any actual texts before the Sassanids come along?
Our ruler embraced christianity for internal and diplomatic profits, not because we were conquered and bullied for centuries by some arab camel riders. Don't care about other europeans and their reasons. Stay mad, my fersian friend.
The Sassanian Orthodoxy of Zoroastrianism started the 2nd century AD, not the 4th.
Please cite to a text, or so much as an inscription.
white subhuman stop seeing your mother's bull everywhere
that german subhuman is cancerous
>Manichaeism
That's it's own religion, not a type of Zoroastrianism. Manichaeism is more like an evolution of Gnosticism.
I agree, it isn't exactly a direct reformation or even offshoot. But it can't be denied that Manichaeism, and the branches of Gnosticism that informed it, weren't created without the rigid dualistic worldview spread by Zoroastrianism.
Technically Buddhism isn't a type of Hinduism, but it's definitely contextualized by it and a response to it. I don't see much difference with the relationship of Manichaeism to Zoroastrianism in that way.
they feared the muslim warrior
can someone explain this (f)ersian meme to me?
>what is easter
>what is christmas
???
Sogdians
For example, arabs sturm and conquer one sogdian city few times, and all citizens say that they became a muslims, but every time few months later they start rebellion and deny that they became muslims
After few times arabs dont have any choice and just destroy this city
Cite what text? The earliest attested fully written scripture of Zoroastrian writings stem directly from the Sassanian period, which started in the late 2nd century. House Sasan itself weren't just local kavi (kinglets) even during the late Arsacid/Parthian period, they were also Zoroastarian priests and magi themselves, Ardashir's father was even a well known priest and the biggest growth in Zoroastrianism ties in with the rise of the House of Sasan. Hell the only none royal to get his own inscription and reliefs in Persia was a Zoroastrian priest named Katir. We know this contextually because under Katir and the very earliest of Sassanian Great Kings, modern Zoroastrianism came to be what it is, rigidly defined, organized, and centralized in that period which the Parsees continue on to this day.
>what is easter
the passover?
>what is Christmas
The day of the enduring sun? none of them are Germanic in origin if that's what you're implying.
>Cite what text?
Any text that proposes Zoroastrian religious doctrine.
>The earliest attested fully written scripture of Zoroastrian writings stem directly from the Sassanian period, which started in the late 2nd century
Yes, but I'm aware of no such texts that early in their reign.
Both of them are directly rooted in Germanic Pagan religion, are you retarded? The fucking name comes from a Germanic goddess and rabbits and eggs were directly related to her worship.
I guess Islam unification was so strong or Persian culture and principles were so weak. No way for syncretism.
Zoroastrianism is really cool though
>rooted in krautshit
lol no. Easter is only called easter in he anglsohere and krautosphere. Ever where else it's called the paschal. kindly fuck off. you give germanicucks way too much credit.
You act like Islam is a religion only meant for Arabs and the religion revolves around worshiping Arabs. the only thing the religion has connected to Arabs is that it was started by an Arab.
There are. The oldest "copies" survived from the 8th and 9th centuries based off older manuscripts that date to the start of the Sassanian period, almost all uniformally written in Middle Persian and Avestan when it was in full use during the Sassanian period, but are fragmentary due to destruction, time, and other factors.
Besides that you have the Yasna, Venidad, Gathas, and what not. Either way there is reasonable evidence showing the majority of Middle Persian written texts start early in the Sasanian period and only survive through copies and manuscripts that were made centuries later after that point.
Zoroastrianism didn’t have the bloodthirst Islam have to do forced conversion