- Joined
- Nov 4, 2017
So I guess the question is: Do you actually want to have a focus on the middle east, or do you want to simply have a plausible chain of events that keeps it pocketed so its not a player on the world stage?
just have the Zoroastrians take over - it should be a long process taking several centuries. The Zoroastrian Persian/Bactrians, much like happened real life, were bouncing war focus between the sand niggers to the west and the chinky steppe niggers to the east. The warming climate has improved things in China, meaning the Steppe people - would have a small, cucked chinese agrarian state to exploit - would now be seeing increased gains (and increased availability) of farming land and probably would start settling down, and focus more on internal conflicts and less on the need to raid externally. By the same measure, the warming and drying climate would be fucking up Iraq.
The Muslims would still have Egypt (unless the Euros took it as they evacuated Europe), but you could have a Coptic Revolt (yet MORE christians that the wokies always forget about). The lighter skinned Coptics are the actual Egyptians, the swarthier people everyone posts when taking about Egypt are the descendants of Arab invaders. (funny no one mentions this when undoing colonialism). So you could have a coptic revolt that the Zoroastrians supprt via supply around the Arabian Peninsula weakening the Muslims while the Zoroastrian main thrust hits them from the east, all the while their crops are failing. Maybe toss in the barbary Neo-Crusaders helping the Copts for good measure.
Anywya, the main thrust is that Muslims have imploded, back to being a bunch of camel-fucking nomads. The Kabbalah is back to being a house for ALL the gods and not just Allah. And this all came to a head in say victorian times, and maybe toss in a Mongol invasion, so that the Zoroastrians are in control of the middle east, but just completely spent. In a hundred years, with all the resources they have and the ones they're gaining as the glaciers retreat, they'll be a potent threat. But right now they are trying to rebuild their forces while securing their new gains.
The Muslims would still have Egypt (unless the Euros took it as they evacuated Europe), but you could have a Coptic Revolt (yet MORE christians that the wokies always forget about). The lighter skinned Coptics are the actual Egyptians, the swarthier people everyone posts when taking about Egypt are the descendants of Arab invaders. (funny no one mentions this when undoing colonialism). So you could have a coptic revolt that the Zoroastrians supprt via supply around the Arabian Peninsula weakening the Muslims while the Zoroastrian main thrust hits them from the east, all the while their crops are failing. Maybe toss in the barbary Neo-Crusaders helping the Copts for good measure.
Anywya, the main thrust is that Muslims have imploded, back to being a bunch of camel-fucking nomads. The Kabbalah is back to being a house for ALL the gods and not just Allah. And this all came to a head in say victorian times, and maybe toss in a Mongol invasion, so that the Zoroastrians are in control of the middle east, but just completely spent. In a hundred years, with all the resources they have and the ones they're gaining as the glaciers retreat, they'll be a potent threat. But right now they are trying to rebuild their forces while securing their new gains.
There was a "persian revolt" in the 1500's as the Persians were tired of being ruled by filthy arabs, and then filthy turks (all the while acting like anyone could actually tell the difference between them). This the reason while Iran is Shia, because the Safavid leader could only gain the political capital to rebel against the proclaimed Caliph by saying "He's the wrong sort of muslim, so his religious authority is invalid" and getting the Shia minority to unite under his call.
So you could repeat the process, only in this case instead of a separate form of Islam its a true return to form and the revival of Zoroastrianism. So much like the Ottomans and the Safavids, the middle east is split down the middle by warring factions.
When actual Doomsday shit is happening, Doomsday prophets get quite the following
So you could repeat the process, only in this case instead of a separate form of Islam its a true return to form and the revival of Zoroastrianism. So much like the Ottomans and the Safavids, the middle east is split down the middle by warring factions.
When actual Doomsday shit is happening, Doomsday prophets get quite the following
If you want to have some more historical fun, you could reframe the neo-Safavid/Zoroastrian alliance as a repackage of Saud/Wahabism .
The guy who founded Wahabism was kicked out of every town he visited for being too much of a zealous nutter and everyone hated him, but he had a core of followers and practiced the extreme Islam he preached. While he was evicted, he left behind adherents and was part of a wider reform movement dealing with the decadence of the Muslim elite (Basically rich people going to rich, and Allah/Allah's will is less important when you can just send one of your full-emasculated Sudanese slave to the slave market to buy you two new Circassian Beauties for your harem every day.) and had taken on a racial dimension as most of the Muslim ruling class were now non-Arab. There was a big stink about the rulers of Mecca and Medina no longer being a memeber of the tribes that had traditionally lived and traded in the cities.
The Saud family at this time was a bunch of bandits who hadn't been doing so well lately. Saud wanted to conquer a town - more of a trading post - but didn't have the numbers. Al Wahab offered his followers, "the blessings of allah" (aka I'll tell everyone you're here to purge the apostates and get them to either join you or at least stay neutral) in exchange for a marriage alliance with Saud's daughter, and offered his life as collateral. The raid was a success, and money/weapons/followers gained there lead to a spiral of successes, bouyed by the Saudis playing up of their Arabness, and the House of Saud and Wahabism are inextricably linked.
Sperg asside: The real interesting bit is the really subtle ways that losing Russia and the steppes will change Arab History. If we want to, like the wokies, pretend that weather doesn't follow science and you bury the USSR under a quarter mile of ice while changing nothing, the Arabs would not have access to Scythian-inheritors like the Khazars for superior horses.
Additional Sperg asside: The House Saud is having a huge inbreeding crisis. They cannot marry outside the family because once you marry a single arab you aren't related to, now all their shitbrick relatives want a cut. They cannot marry non-arabs because a serious leg of their legitimacy is their "Arabness". Allah doesn't like artificial conception. So they hire geneticists and basically the people who help horse breeders figure the least incestuous stud for their their mares to try to stave off complete collapse into The Dunes Have Eyes.
The Euros had the Hapsberg Jaw, the Arabs will have the "Saudi Eyes".
If you're going full Cthulhu, you could maybe work in an Innsmouth connection.
The Saud family at this time was a bunch of bandits who hadn't been doing so well lately. Saud wanted to conquer a town - more of a trading post - but didn't have the numbers. Al Wahab offered his followers, "the blessings of allah" (aka I'll tell everyone you're here to purge the apostates and get them to either join you or at least stay neutral) in exchange for a marriage alliance with Saud's daughter, and offered his life as collateral. The raid was a success, and money/weapons/followers gained there lead to a spiral of successes, bouyed by the Saudis playing up of their Arabness, and the House of Saud and Wahabism are inextricably linked.
Sperg asside: The real interesting bit is the really subtle ways that losing Russia and the steppes will change Arab History. If we want to, like the wokies, pretend that weather doesn't follow science and you bury the USSR under a quarter mile of ice while changing nothing, the Arabs would not have access to Scythian-inheritors like the Khazars for superior horses.
Additional Sperg asside: The House Saud is having a huge inbreeding crisis. They cannot marry outside the family because once you marry a single arab you aren't related to, now all their shitbrick relatives want a cut. They cannot marry non-arabs because a serious leg of their legitimacy is their "Arabness". Allah doesn't like artificial conception. So they hire geneticists and basically the people who help horse breeders figure the least incestuous stud for their their mares to try to stave off complete collapse into The Dunes Have Eyes.
The Euros had the Hapsberg Jaw, the Arabs will have the "Saudi Eyes".
If you're going full Cthulhu, you could maybe work in an Innsmouth connection.
Hopefully my colliquial use of hard-r nigger has sufficiently shown my perspective on modern race relations.
That said, in this case, I guess the main thing is that in the grand scope of things, the Conquest of the New World doesn't shake out that much different if you put the Muslims in charge. Or I guess I should say, so much would hinge and turn on individual personalities. And given that Spain ended up in the New World because (for some reason) the Muslims were all pissed at them and it was now more expensive to get trade from china via the traditional routes through the middle east. The Muslims, being they controlled the routes, didn't have a lot of interest in blue-water naval exploration. Muslims were nearly all litoral.
That said, Admiral Zheng, who did China's age of exploration and traveled nearly every where in the indian ocean, was a Chinese muslim (and eunuch), so it was definitely a lack of will not a lack of skill or means.
The only difference is there won't be any missions, they would be straight up plantations/work farms.
And I guess more the point: while the Spanish empire collapsed and went into remission, Catholicism and Spanish influence are dominant to this day. Why would you want to make Mexicans Muslims? You think they'd actually bathe 5 times a day?
I'm not an expert either, but from my looking into it, the primary "unique" thing about Zoroastrians is they have the Sacred Flame, that IIRC is supposedly the divine fire given to their founder by their primary God, and all temples have a fire that was started by this Sacred Flame in them. They are super anal about not contaiminating it, to the point the priests have a face covering so they don't breath on it on when tending it and doing worship.
The religion has some primary figures and a creation myth, but its all in service of a core message, which is "The eternal struggle of light and dark, and everyone has both, so its more important for you to fight the darkness inside you than in others".
In the Persian days, strictly speaking only the Priests were Zoroastrians; everyone else just came to get blessings in exchange for donations. Sermons were less about religious dogma and more philosophical (or political), as you had to improve your own self/your own soul and chase your darkness. You don't get any earthly rewards for this, you should be happy being good for its own sake.
Its classed as monotheistic but that's a vast over simplification as the religion believes in other supernatural/superhuman forces that have all the hallmarks of Gods, but are just considered aspects or other creations of the main diety, Ahura. (edit: its a little different than 'the big 3' with angels & demons, but in the same vein. Sort of like Catholic saints, but they are never mortal gods in their own rights, just (if good) serving "Good" or manifestations of some evil inside man's own heart) That is, worshipping Jesus, following his teaching, or seeing Jesus as divine is not a problem - he's just another path to Light that Ahura created. As long as you continue to be Good (and you don't breathe on the sacred flame) that's what matters. Same with Moses, or Muhammed (minus the pederastry).
If you're familiar with Gnosticism, Gnostics borrowed heavily from Zoroastrian thought so you can try to view it through that lens. So like Gnosticism meets Buddahism, with a Christian type Cosmology & afterlife.
Again, you'd want to turn that on its head a bit for Eldritch Horror plot reasons. When God (or something promising to be God) tells you that a good deed is immolating the Herehtics, well I guess god is right! Stopping their life of sin now, before they compound their errors (and punishments) is the most Good thing you can do.
For Cherokee, nothing off hand.
I listened to an audiobook that had a section on it. I couldn't believe that I had been lied to at school, so did some research - mainly Wikipedia (which was there I found out Ross was knife-murdered about 3 days after getting to Oklahoma) but also looking up some of the sources he mentions - and discovered that the book was right. Unfortunately the Cherokee/Trail of Tears wasn't the main thrust of the book - I can't even remember if it was general history, american history, or Indian-specific history.
Any book before 2000 that covers the lead up should probably mention it.
Last edited:
