why didn't Zoroastrianism spread like wildfire like Christianity

Zorastrians didn't think the end of the world was immanent so they didn't have the same time pressure

Pretty sure Zoroastrianism was similar to Hinduism in that it spans a large civilization space but doesn't really go beyond it. manichaeism (which was heavily influenced by Zoroastrianism) also had many followers for centuries.

Filthy sandniggers wiped it out.

>>2927194
The Persians were too tolerant of other cultures

>>2927204
This. They would just let subjugated peoples practice their own religion. Also, at least under Cyrus the Great, subjugated peoples became basically stockholders of the Persian empire. They had to pay taxes and provide troops for the emperor, sure, but they were permitted to fight only alongside their own people, and they were allowed to have a share of the spoils of war. Truly a benevolent emperor.

>>2927372
The Sassanids were less tolerant, I think.

>>2927372
More like truly an empire in the loosest sense possible.

>>2927372
Without that toleration, Persian empire wouldhave crumbled like the Assyrians.

>>2927194

Parsis, the largest Zoroastrian denomination(?) are extremely strict about not letting anybody else becoming a Zoroastrian.

But IIRC the Gathas and non-Parsi Zoroastrianism is open to everybody.

>>2927194
Zoroastrian was growing fast at the start, but it soon became to rely too much on the Persian State, and only spread as far as the Persian Conquest

It also lacked a decentralized structure unlike Early Christianity

>>2927204
lol no

>>2927194
Because it wasn't designed or created for mass conversion of converts unlike shitty Abrahamic religions like Christianity and Islam.

>>2927385
The Sassanids were tolerant, just nowhere as tolerant as the Achaemenids were. Jews for example always had almost always special privileges and status in the Arsacid and Sassanid Empires.