No More Learning

' Indian history
knows no ruler of corresponding name, and it has therefore been con-
jectured that Sophagasenus was some local rāja who had taken advantage
of the decay of the Maurya empire to establish a kingdom of his own in
the country west of the Indus! Whoever he was, he plainly realised that
he was quite unfit to offer an effective resistance to the seasoned troops of
his adversary. At the same time Antiochus was in no mood to emulate
the Indian adventure of his invincible forerunner. He had already been
three years in the east. The West was calling loudly, and he had enhanced
his reputation so substantially by his prowess that he could afford to
be satisfied with a bloodless victory. Accordingly he accepted the sub-
mission of Sophagasenus who, like Euthydemus, revictualled his army for
him and handed over a number of war-elephants. A heavy indemnity was
also imposed. This last, however, Antiochus did not wait to receive. He
left Androsthenes of Cyzicus behind to take delivery of the promised
For Sophagasenus see Chapter XX.
a


## p. 398 (#436) ############################################

398
(CA.
SYRIA, BACTRIA, AND PARTHIA
treasure, and himself hurried back with all speed towards Mesopotamia,
choosing the route that ran through Arachosia and Drangiāna (Seistān) to
Carmania. Who was the lord of Arachosia when it was traversed by the
Seleucid troops, it is impossible to say. It had once been Açoka. Now
it may have been Sophagasenus. The numismatic evidence suggests that ere
long it was Euthydemus. General Cunningham remarks that the silver of
the last-named king ‘is very common in Balkh and Bokhara, to the north
of the Caucasus, and less common in Kabul, Kandahar and Sistan,' while
his bronze coins, 'which are perhaps less numerous than the silver, are
found in about equal numbers in Sistan and Kandahar and throughout the
Kabul valley. ' Other observers describe his bronze as 'very common in
Sistan and Kandahar. ' A bronze was much less likely to travel outside the
area of its actual currency than gold or silver, the significance of these
facts is unmistakable. Where the number of specimens is so large, the
possible effect of confusion with the rare coinage of Euthydemus II may
safely be disregarded.
In addition to what the 'find-spots' teach, there is something to be
learned from a review of the coins themselves, or at all events of the gold
and silver. It has already been indicated that Euthydemus on his accession
discarded the characteristic type of Diodotus, and substituted for it one
which may have been familiar to him in the city where he was born and
bred. Zeus the thunderer was replaced by Heracles seated to left on a
rock, leaning with his right hand on his club. The device was apparently
borrowed from a set of silver tetradrachms struck at the cities of Cyme,
Myrina, and Phocaea, in Western Asia Minor, during the reigns of An-
tiochus I and IJ (J. H. S. , 1907, pp. 145 ff. ). It is universal on the gold and
silver of Euthydemus, but two varieties of it are readily distinguishable. On
the gold and on much of the silver the rock upon which Heracles sits is
bare, while the lower end of his club is supported by a short and somewhat
unnatural-looking column of stone (Pl. III, 1). On the remainder of the
silver the rock is covered with a lion-skin, and the lower end of the club is
apparently resting on the god's thigh (Pl. III, 2). The whole of the coins
belonging to the second class bear the monogram R, and have their dies
adjusted † 1. The first class, on the other hand, comprises three or four
different groups, each having a characteristic letter or monogram other than
R. The rule here is for the dies to be adjusted 1 t, but there are a
considerable number of exceptions (. ^ ^ ) which may fairly be presumed to
be later, seeing that ^ ^ is invariable in subsequent reigns. The appearance
of these particular monograms is a new phenomenon on the Bactrian
coinage. As they usually persist through a long series of years, they cannot
be interpreted as magistrates' names. They should rather be regarded as
the names of mints, a view which is confirmed by occasional minor
variations of type and by certain subtle peculiarities of style, such as the
1 Vum. Chron. , 1869, p. 138.


## p. 399 (#437) ############################################

XVII)
EUTHYDEMUS
399
thin 'spread' fabric which is characteristic of many of the R coins of the
earlier kings.
The mere increase in the number of royal mints may not unreason-
ably be held to prove that the dominions of Euthydemus were more
extensive than those of his predecessor. It would seem that, soon after the
Maurya empire began to crumble away, he possessed himself-it may be at
the expense of Sophagasenus-of the Paropanisadae and Arachosia, possibly
also- although as to this the coins are less definite-of some of the
other districts which Seleucus I had ceded to Chandragupta. His silver
tetradrachms are very common, and so too are more
more or less clumsy
barbarous imitations, many of which appear to date from a relatively late
period. Without doubt his money must have circulated widely, and must
have enjoyed a high reputation for quality. Bactria under his sway clearly-
reached a pitch of prosperity such as she had never before attained. And
his reign must have been a long one. The abundance of his coinage
suggests this. The great variety of the portraits proves it. Even after
every allowance has been made for the mannerisms of different artists and
of different mints, a comparison of the head on Pl. III, 1, with the head on
Pl. III, 2, will be felt to be conclusive. The latter, which is an admirably
realistic piece of work, is obviously intended to represent a very much
older person than the former. It is on the strength of this evidence that
the death of Euthydemus is generally supposed to have taken place about
190 B. C.
We have seen that under Euthydemus the frontiers of the Bactrian
kingdom were pushed southwards until they included at least the whole of
the lower portion of Afghānistān. But this was not the only direction
in which expansion had become possible. The Indian expedition of
Antiochus the Great, if it had no other result of importance had revealed
the feebleness of the resistance that a properly equipped army was now
likely to encounter in an invasion of the Punjab. We may be sure that,
after the Seleucid forces had withdrawn, the eyes of Euthydemus were
turned longingly towards the Land of the Five Rivers. He may actually
have annexed it. If he did, it was probably only towards the close of his
reign, for he would hardly have ventured to put so ambitious a design into
execution until he felt secure from interference at the hands of Antiochus
III, and that he can scarcely have done before about 197, when the
latter became hopelessly involved in the meshes of the anti-Roman
policy which was to prove his ruin. In any event the real instrument
of conquest was his son and successor, Demetrius, of whose romantic
career one would like to believe, with Cunningham, that a far-off echo has
survived in Chaucer's picturesque description of the grete Emetreus,
the king of Inde. ' Demetrius had been a youth of perhaps seventeen


## p. 400 (#438) ############################################

400
CH
SYRIA, BACTRIA, AND PARTHIA
or eighteen, when he acted as intermediary between his father and
Antiochus. He would thus be between thirty and thirty-five when his reign
as king began, an age that agrees well with the most characteristic portrait
on his coins (Pl. III, 3). Years before, he had probably been married to a
Seleucid princess, in accordance with the promise made during the peace
negotiations. If so, nothing whatever is known about her ; the view
that she was called Laodice is based upon evidence that admits of an
altogether different interpretation. It should be noted that in the coin-por-
trait he is represented as wearing a head-dress made of the skin of an
elephant, an animal closely associated in those days with India. It is not
impossible, therefore, that some of his Indian laurels may have been
won, while he was still merely crown-prince. The reverse type which
he chose for his silver might easily be interpreted as pointing in the same
direction. Heracles remains the patron-divinity, but he is no longer taking
his ease on a rock; he is standing upright, placing a wreath upon his
head (Pl. III 3). The inference here suggested is identical with that drawn
from somewhat different premises by Cunningham, who argued that the
subjugation of part of India by Demetrius during his father's life-time
would account for certain facts regarding the provenance of the bronze
money of Euthydemus. Single specimens of this are occasionally met with
in the Western Punjab, and several were found in the bed of the Indus at
Attock in 1840, while raising a sunken boat. It is, however, a serious
flaw in Cunningham's reasoning that he did not distinguish between the
coins of Euthydemus I and those of the grandson who bore the same
name.
In whatever circumstances the Indian campaigns of Demetrius may
have been inaugurated, there can be no question as to their brilliant
outcome. Unfortunately the true extent of his territorial acquisitions
can no longer be exactly determined. Strabo, in the passage (x1, 516) which
is our chief authority on the point, is quoting from Apollodorus of
Artemita, and the original reference of Apollodorus is merely a casual one.
He is drawing attention in passing to the remarkable way in which the
kingdom of Bactria expanded beyond its original limits, and he mentions
incidentally that the kings chiefly responsible were Demetrius and Menander.
The advance towards Chinese Tartary which he records may well have been
the work of Demetrius or of his father Euthydemus. But, as Menander
left a far deeper mark on the traditions of India than did Demetrius,
it would be unreasonable to give the latter credit for subduing the whole of
the Indian districts that Apollodorus enumerates. Yet there is nothing to
show where the line should be drawn. It is probably safe to say that
Demetrius made himself master of the Indus valley. When we try to
take him further, we enter a doubtful region. It is, indeed, sometimes stated


## p. 401 (#439) ############################################

XVII)
DEMETRIUS
401
that he fixed his capital at Sangala or Sagala, which he called Euthydemia
in honour of his father. But, if the statement be probed its value
is considerably diminished. It is not certain, though it may be very
likely, that the gārraha of Arrian (v. 22) is the same as the Savalan kai
Euluuedela (al. Euluundla) of Ptolemy (VII, 1, 46). Granted, however,
that the two may be identical and may both represent the Pāli Sāgala
(Sialkot), it is necessary, in order to establish a connexion with Demetrius,
to resort to conjecture and to substitute Euludqula for the EůQuuedela
of the manuscripts, a proceeding which is plausible enough in itself
but nevertheless open to challenge. More satisfactory, if much vaguer,
.
evidence of the firmness of the footing that he gained to the south of the
Hindu Kush is furnished by one or two very rare bronze pieces, which have
the equare shape characteristic of the early native coinage of India.
That they were intended for circulation there, is clear from their bearing a
bilingual inscription-Greek on the obverse, Kharoshthi on the reverse.
It is significant that on these the king employs the title of āuīkytos
or 'the Invincible'. As usual, he is wearing a head-dress made of the skin
of an elephant.
The very success of Demetrius appears to have proved his undoing.
As a direct consequence of his victories, the centre of gravity of his
dominions was shifted beyond the borders of Bactria proper. The home-
land, however, was not content to degenerate into a mere dependency. A
revolt ended in the establishment of a separate kingdom under Eucratides,
a leader of great vigour and ability, about whose rise written history
has little or nothing to say. Justin (XLI, 6) tells that his recognition
as king took place almost simultaneously with the accession of Mithradates
I to the throne of Partbia. As Mithradates succeeded his brother Phraates
I about 171 B. C. , we may accept von Gutschmid's date of 175 as approxi-
mately correct for Eucratides. The beginning of his reign was stormy. He
had to face attacks from several sides, and on at least one occasion he was
hard put to it to escape with his life. Demetrius, who was now king
of India - that is, of the country of the Indus,-not of Bactria, and
who was naturally one of his most determined foes, had reduced him to such
straits that he was driven to take refuge in a fort with only 300 followers.
Here, if we may believe Justin (loc. cit. ), he was blockaded by a force
of 60,000 men under the personal command of his rival. The odds
were tremendous. But this resourcefulness carried him safely through ; for
more than four months he harassed the enemy by perpetual sallies, demora-
lising them so thoroughly in the end that the siege had to be raised.
This is the last we hear of Demetrius, It is uncertain whether he died a
natural death as king of India, or whether he fell defending his territory
against Eucratides, into whose possession a considerable portion of it
ultimately passed. The close of his reign is sometimes given as circa 160,


## p. 402 (#440) ############################################

402
(ch.
SYRIA, BACTRIA AND PARTHIA
a
but the date is a purely arbitrary one. As we thall see presently (infra,
p. 410), there is good ground for believing that the conquest of the Punjab
by Eucratides was earlier than 162.
At this point it becomes necessary to notice a group of four or five
kings, whose existence is vouched for solely by the money which they
struck, but who must have been to some extent contemporary with the two
who have just been discussed. Appreciation of the evidence will be
facilitated by a further glance at the silver coinage of Demetrius who, by the
way, does not seem to have struck any gold. It will be observed (Pl. III, 3)
that he is the first of the Bactrian kings to be represented with his shoulders
draped ; and from his time onwards that feature is virtually universal. But
he is also the last to be shown with one end of the royal diadem flying out
behind, and the other hanging straight down his back, a method of
arrangement that had persisted steadily in Bactria since the reign of
Antiochus I (see Pl. II, 9-14, and PI. III, 1 and 2). Again, on the great
majority of the surviving specimens of his coinage, his bust on the obverse
is enclosed within the circle of plain dots which had hitherto been
customary. On the other hand, in a few cases, the circle of plain dots is
replaced by the so-called bead-and-reel border, which is familiar from its
use on the issues of Antiochus the Great and later Seleucid kings, and
which is invariably found on the tetradrachms of Eucratides and his son
and successor Heliocles (Pl. IV, 4-9). The differences, coupled with
other and less obvious nuances of style, will supply valuable guidance in
determining the period to which one ought to assign the pieces that have
now to be described. It has already been mentioned (supra, p. 398) that
after the reign of Euthydemus, the dies are always adjusted î f .
Of the four or five groups of coins to be discussed, we may take first
the tetradrachms and smaller denominations of silver which have on the
obverse a youthful bust with draped shoulders, and on the reverse a figure
of Heracles standing to front, much as on the coins of Demetrius, except
that, besides having one wreath on his head, he holds a second in his
extended right hand (Pl. III, 4). The legend on these pieces is BASJAENE
ΕΥΟΥΔΗ ΜΟΥ, and most of the older numismatists, including
Cunningham, were disposed to attribute them, like those with the seated
Heracles, to the father of Demetrius. Since von Sallet wrote, however, it
has been generally agreed that this view is not tenable. Stylistic considera-
tions compel the acceptance of an alternative theory, first advocated by
Burgon, to the effect that they were struck by a second and later prince, in
all probability the eldest son of Demetrius, on whom his grandfather's
name would in ordinary course be bestowed. Attention may be called more
especially to the draped shoulders and to the treatment of the diadem. Nor
is it possible to account for the differences on local rather than on
chronological grounds, inasmuch as the mint-marks on the two sets of coins
>


## p. 403 (#441) ############################################

XVII]
AGATHOCLES : ANTIMACHUS
403
9
are often identical. Confirmation is furnished by a few nickel pieces, like-
wise reading ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΕΥΘΥΔ ΗΜΟΥ, although showing no portrait.
Nickel was not used by Demetrius, and therefore it was presumably
not used by his predecessor, Euthydemus I. On the other hand, we shall
presently find it employed by two of the remaining kings of the group now
under discussion. So peculiar an alloy – it does not appear again in any
part of the world until quite recent times – is clearly characteristic of one
particular epoch. The case for a second Euthydemus is thus irresistible.
And that for a second Demetrius, whom we may suppose to have been a
younger brother, is very nearly as strong. The coins of Demetrius II are
very rare, but two or three tetradrachms and drachms are known. The
obverse displays a youthful bust with draped shoulders and
a novel
arrangements of diadem ends, while the reverse has a figure of Athena,
standing to front with spear and shield (Pl. III, 5). The legend is
ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΔΗΜΗΤΡΙΟΥ. Here again the appearance of a new type is
significant, and the differences in the portrait cannot be set aside as due to
local idiosyncracy, for the mint mark which the coins with Athena bear
occurs also on coins having the usual types of Demetrius the elder. Lastly,
and this is highly important, of the two tetradrachms in the British
Museum here attributed to Demetrius II, one has a bead-and-reel border,
and cannot therefore be much, if, any, earlier than the beginnings of the
coinage of Eucratides, when a youthful portrait of Demetrius I would, of
course, be highly inappropriate.
No argument is necessary to prove the existence of the other three
kings belonging to the group. Their coins speak for themselves. To
judge by the memorials of this kind which he has left, Agathocles must have
been the most prominent. On his silver he appears with drapery round his
shoulders and with both ends of his diadem hanging loosely down, the
portrait being enclosed by a border of plain dots (Pl. III, 6). Like all
the Bactrian kings we have so far met with, he introduced a characteristic
type of his own. On the reverse of his tetradrachms is Zeus, standing to
front, holding a figure of Hecate on his extended right hand and leaning
with his left on a spear. That there must have been a very intimate
connexion - chronological, personal, and local – between him and a second-
king, Pantaleon, will be evident from Pl. III, 7, which shows a tetradrachm
struck by the later. In general style the busts are closely related, while the
reverse types are also the same, except that, on the silver of Pantaleon, Zeus
is seated on a throne. In the case of the inferior metals the correspondence
is even more complete. Nickel coins with Dionysiac types were struck by
both, and their bronze pieces, round and square alike, are generally distin-
guishable only by the difference in the proper name. Lastly, on their
1
>


## p. 404 (#442) ############################################

404
[CH.
SYRIA, BACTRIA AND PARTHIA
square bronze money, intended for circulation in India and therefore
bilingual, both use the Brāhmi script for the obverse legend, instead of the
otherwise universal Kharoshthi. The portrait of the third king, Antimachus
(Theos), is one of the most pronouncedly individual in the whole Bactrian
series, largely because of the oddly modern-looking kausia which he wears
(Pl. III, 8). The standing figure on the reverse of his silver coins is
Poseidon, wreathed, and carrying in his left hand a palm-branch with a
fillet attached, while his very rare bronze pieces have a figure of Victory.
The appearance of Poseidon is remarkable and has been interpreted as
referring to a successful naval engagement. It is difficult to account for it
on any other hypothesis. But it is dangerous to fix on the Indus as the
scene of the fighting, and to make this a ground for deductions as to the
region in which Antimachus held sway. No square bilingual money with
his name has come to light-unless, indeed, the coins usually attributed to
Antimachus II are really the Indian coins of Antimachus Theos? - although
it would be natural to expect an issue of the sort from a king who had
ruled in the Indus valley. In this respect he contracts markedly with
Agathocles and Pantaleon, whose specifically Indian coins are very abun.
dant. On the other hand he makes contact, so to say, with Agathocles
through the medium of a highly interesting group of silver tetradrachms,
which deserve somewhat careful notice.
The proper interpretation of these tetradrachms is due to von Sallet.
Since his time the group has received sundry additions and even yet it
may be far from complete. The existence of two parallel series is universal-
ly admitted, one struck by Agathocles, the other by Antimachus, and each
apparently consisting of a set of pieces reproducing in medallic fashion the
issues of the earlier kings of Bactria. The coins were doubtless meant to
pass current as money, but it seems certain that they were also designed to
serve as political manifestos. The set with the name of Agathocles contains
four distinct varieties. The first of these has the types of the familiar silver
tetradrachms of Alexander the Great, but the portrait on the obverse is
accompanied by the descriptive legend AAESANAPOY TOY PIANITOY,
‘Alexander, Philip's son,' while the inscription on the reverse reads BASI-
ΛΕΥΟΝΓΟΣ ΑΤΑΘΟΚΛΟΥΣ ΔΙΚΑΙΟΥ. This latter formula, which can
only signify “struck in the reign of Agathocles the Just,' is used as the
reverse inscription of all the remaining varieties, and thus supplies the
common element that binds the whole together. The second variety has
on the obverse a diademed head with the words ANTIOXOY NIKATOPOI,
'Antiochus the Conqueror,' and on the reverse Zeus, thundering, with an
eagle at his feet (Pl. IV, 1). The third shows the same reverse but has on
the obverse, beside the head, A10AOTOY ENTHPOE, 'Diodotus the
Saviour. ' The fourth has on the obverse a head which is described as
1 Num. Chron. , 1869, p. 39,
2 For this view see Chapter XXII.
>


## p. 405 (#443) ############################################

XVII)
THE FAMILY OF DEMETRIUS
405
EYYO AHMOY OEOY, Euth ydemus the Divine,' and on the reverse a
figure of Heracles resting on a rock (Pl. IV, 2).
It will be observed that
.
the term BAXIAEQE never occurs, and that, on the other hand, each of
the kings has a special title affixed to his name. It will be observed, too,
that except in the case of Alexander, where the lion-skin could not be done
without, there is no attempt at an exact reproduction of the royal portrait.
In particular, though the shoulders are undraped, the diadem has both
ends hanging down, after the manner that was customary on the coins of
Agathocles himself, instead of having one end flying out behind, as had
previously been usual. There has been some discussion as to who is in-
tended by 'Antiochus the Conqueror. ' But the consideration on which von
Sallet laid stress is surely decisive : in all the other cases the reverse type is
characteristic of the individual whose head is represented on the obverse.
Analogy thus puts it beyond question that the medals of 'Antiochus the
Conqueror' are copies of the tetradrachms of Antiochus II with the
thundering Zeus.
Of the set of similar medals associated with the name of Antimachus,
only two varieties have as yet come io light. They relate to Diodotus and
to Euthydemus, and bear a strong general resemblance to the correspond-
ing pieces issued by Agathocles. There are, indeed, only two points of
difference : the mint-mark is new, and the reverse inscription reads
ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΟΝΤΟΣ ANTIMAXOY EOY 'struck in the reign of Anti-
machus Theos. ' Except for certain coins of Eucratides, to be discussed
presently, these are usually regarded as completing the commemorative
group, so far as surviving specimens go. There is, however, one well-known
tetradrachm which has hitherto passed as an ordinary coin, but which
ought probably to be reckoned as belonging to the same class. The
obverse displays a rather conventional head, unaccompanied by any legend,
while the reverse has the type of Zeus, thundering, along with the inscrip-
tion ΔΙΟΔΟΤΟΥ ΣΩΤΗΡΟΣ (PI. III, 9). This is the only evidence for
the general belief that Diodotus received the title of 'Saviour' during his
lifetime, and at the first glance it would appear to be sufficient. A closer
scrutiny will suggest grave doubts. The coincidence of the reverse inscrip-
tion with the obverse inscription used on the commemorative tetradrachms
of Agathocles and Antimachus is remarkable, the omission of BASIAE
being quite as noteworthy as the addition of EQTHPOE. The style and
fabric, too, are out of harmony with those of the regular coinage of
Diodotus. In particular, the dies are adjusted 1 1 , instead of it, as is
the invariable custom in Bactria before the reign of Euthydemus I. Lastly,
the mink-mark Q is not found on the money either of Diodotus or of
his immediate successor, whereas it is common on that of all the other kings
whom we have had occasion to mention, Demetrius II and Antimachus
alone excepted. Taking all these indications together, we can hardly
>
>
>


## p. 406 (#444) ############################################

406
[Ch.
SYRIA, BACTRIA AND PARTHIA
escape the conclusion that the tetradrachm in question does not really
belong to Diodotus, but is rather a commemorative piece issued, it may
be, by Denietrius I. The mint-mark which it bears makes its earliest
appearance on his ordinary coins, while the arrangement of the ends of
the diadem is a strong argument against its being later.
If the attribution just suggested be correct, it confirms the view,
already highly probable on other grounds, that there was an intimate
connexion between Demetrius I, on the one side, and, on the other, Aga-
thocles, Pantaleon, and Antimachus, whom, as we have seen, it is impossible
to separate. As Euthydemus II and Demetrius II were almost certainly
his sons, it follows that his history must have been closely linked with
that of all the five ephemeral kings, of whom no record save their coins
remains. His sons, however, can hardly have been contemporary with
the other three, for the mint-marks that appear on the coins of Agathocles
are to a large extent identical with those that were employed by Euthy-
demus II. It is conceivable that, when Demetrius I was pursuing his
Indian conquests, he may have Jeft Euthydemus II and Demetrius II to
represent him in the western part of his dominions, that they fell in the
earlier years of the struggle with Eucratides, and that at some subsequent
stage he recognised Agathocles, Pantaleon, and Antimachus as kings, in
order to secure their support. Alternatively, the three last-named may have
attempted to set themselves up against Eucratides after Demetrius died.
But all this is mere guess-work. What is certain is that in none of the three
cases can the seat of power have been very far distant from Kābul.
Agathocles and Pantaleon certainly, and Antimachus possibly (v. sup. p. 404
and note), struck money of a distinctively Indian character; and the
Kharoshthi legend on certain copper coins of Agathocles has been supposed
to give him the title 'Lord of the Indians,' though this interpretation is
unfortunately doubtful'. Cunningham reports of the money of Agathocles
that 'single copper specimens have been found as far to the south as
Kandahar and Sistan, while they are common about Kabul and Begram. '
Of Pantaleon's coins he states that they ‘are found chiefly about Ghazni
and Kabul, but a few have been obtained about Peshawar and in the
Western Punjab. . . . . . Masson procured seven copper specimens at Begram. '
As for Antimachus, he says 'the position of Margiana accords best with the
actual find-spots of his coins,' and again 'they have been found in about
equal numbers in the Kabul valley and to the north of the Caucasus, while
two specimens have been obtained in the Punjab. '
Whatever may be the truth as to the territorial limits within which
they held sway, the simultaneous appearance of so many 'kings' is a
portent whose meaning is not to be mistaken. It is the first clear indica-
tion of that tendency towards the creation of petty principalities, which
1 Bühler, Vienna Oriental Journal, 1894, p. 206. 2. Num. Chron. , 1869, pp. 38, 40 f.


## p. 407 (#445) ############################################

XVII)
HELIOCLES AND LAODICE
407
>
1
>
once
subsequently became so marked a feature of the final phase of Greek rule
in India. In the present instance the 'kings' would seem to have been
pawns in a game which was really being played by stronger and more
powerful personalities. They were obviously intent on upholding the
banner of Demetrius and his dynasty, whose claim to the Bactrian crown
the commemorative coins represent as derived directly from Alexander
the Great, heedless of the violent breaks that had marked the accession
first of Diodotus and then of Euthydemus. Nor is there any doubt as to
the rival against whom their manifestos were aimed. It must have been
Eucratides. It would be interesting if we could discover the foundation
on which the usurper based his claims. Perhaps the quest is not entirely
hopeless. Certain of his tetradrachms and drachms are by common
consent regarded as commemorative, The obsvere-generally, but not
accurately, described as the reverse - bears a male and female head, jugate,
to the right, the inscription being ΗΛΙΟΚΛΕΟΥΣ ΚΑΙ ΛΑΟΔΙΚΗΣ,
while the reverse has one of the ordinary helmeted busts of Eucratides,
accompanied by the legend ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΜΕΓΑΣ ΕΥΚΡΑΤΙΔΗΣ (PI.
IV, 3), The close analogy between this obverse and the obverses of the
commemorative tetradrachms of Agathocles and Antimachus at
suggests that the appeal to the memory of Heliocles and Laodice is the
counterpart of that to the memory of 'Alexander, Philip's son,' 'Antiochus
the Conqueror,' 'Diodotus the Saviour,' and 'Euthydemus the Divine'.
And when the obverse is given its proper position, the parallel is seen to
be much closer than has hitherto been supposed. It naturally does not
extend to the reverse, for Heliocles and Laodice had struck no money, and
had therefore left to characteristic coin-type for their kinsman to copy. In
the circumstances he utilised his own portrait, At the same time he was
careful to differentiate his commemorative pieces from his other issues by
putting his own name in the nominative instead of in the genitive,
very much in the spirit in which Agathocles and Antimachus employed
ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΟΝΤΟΣ in place of the normal ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ.
Although there is no difference of opinion as to the commemorative
character of these coins, an acute cleavage manifests itself the moment
the problem of identification is approached. Perhaps the view most widely
held is that Heliocles is the son and successor of Eucratides, and that the
coins were struck to commemorate his marriage with Laodice, a daughter
of Demetrius by the Seleucid princess to whom he was betrothed in 206
during the negotiations with Antiochus III. This theory-first propounded
by von Sallet, although it had previously been hinted at by Droysen - has
about it a certain plausibility that has commended it to historians : it would
have been a politic step on the part of Eucratides to try and conciliate
opposition, after his victory, by arranging a match between his son and a
daughter of the fallen house. But, in the light of the considerations urged


## p. 408 (#446) ############################################

408
[ch.
SYRIA, BACTRIA AND PARTHIA
in the foregoing paragraph, there need be no hesitation in setting it aside
as inadmissible. There is very much more to be said for the alternative
suggestion, advocated by Cunningham and by Gardner, that Heliocles was
the father of Eucratides, and that Laodice was his mother. We need not,
however, follow some of those who have accepted this solution, and
continue to assume that Laodice was the daughter of Demetrius an assump-
tion which leads to the impossible conclusion that Eucratides was his
great rival's grandson. Laodice was, indeed, a common name in the royal
house of Syria, but there is no evidence to prove that it was the name of
the bride of Demetrius, or of any of her children. The field of conjecture
is absolutely open. One point should not be overlooked before we enter
it. While Heliocles is represented with his head bare, Laodice wears a
diadem, showing that she was of the lineage of kings, a princess in her
own right. It must, therefore, have been from her, and not from his
father, that any title Eucratides could advance to the Bactrian erown had
come. It may also be recalled that Antiochus Epiphanes, who now sat
upon the throne of Syria (175-164) in succession to his brother Seleucus
IV (187-175), is known to have cherished the dream of re-establishing the
Seleucid influence in Central Asia, as if to redress in the east the balance
that had been lost in the west to Rome. Possibly it was in his interest
and with his encouragement that Eucratides first raised the standard of
revolt. That, of course, is pure speculation just, as are all the other hy.
potheses that have so far been put foward. But it would explain his appeal
to the memory of a Seleucid princess, as well as the otherwise puzzling in-
troduction into the Bactrian coinage of that characteristically Seleucid
ornament, the bead-and-reel border.
In speaking of Demetrius, something has already been said of the
troubles that beset Eucratides during the earlier portion of his reign.
According to Justin (XLI, 6), he had much ado to hold his own, not merely
against Demetrius, but also against 'the Sogdiani'. The meaning of the
latter reference is obscure. Possibly Sogdiāna strove hard to maintain its
loyalty to Demetrius rather than submit to the upstart who had presumed
to supplant him. More probably the northern tribes took advantage of the
absence of Demetrius in India and wrested from Hellenic rule the whole
of the country to the north of the Oxus. We find them in full possession of
Bactria itself, before many years have elapsed. The Parthians, too, were a
grievous thorn in the flesh of Eucratides. They fell upon his flank when his
energies were exhausted by the various other wars in which he had been
forced to engage, with the result that part of the Bactrian kingdom was
permanently absorbed in their empire. We shall have occasion presently to
try and measure the extent of this success. Meanwhile it will be convenient
to follow Eucratides in his pursuit of Demetrius into India. His victory
there was complete in the ancient Indian provinces of the Persian empire.


## p. 409 (#447) ############################################

XVII]
EUCRATIDES
409
As it is put by Justin (loc. cit. ), 'he reduced India'– that is to
say,
the
country of the Indus-'to subjection,' Strabo (xv, 686) says he made
himself master of 'a thousand cities. The princes of the house of
Euthydemus had now to be content with the eastern districts of the Punjab.
But Eucratides did not enjoy his triumph long. While he was on the march
homewards towards Bactria, where he had founded a great city to which he
gave the name of Eucratidia, he was attacked and murdered by his son,
whom he had trusted so implicitly that he had made him a colleague in the
kingship. The details added by Justin (loc. cit. ) as to the callous conduct
of the murderer in driving his chariot through his father's blood have a
suspicious resemblance to the story Livy (1, 48) tells as to the death of
Servius Tullius. It would have been more to the purpose if he had men-
tioned the parricide's name. The date of the incident is quite uncertain,
but it is usually given as c. 155 B. C.
The coinage of Eucratides bears ample witness to the prosperity that
attended him during his life. His money is even more abundant than that
of Euthydemus. Although examples of his gold are exceedingly uncommon,
they include one specimen which weighs as much as 2593. 5 grains ( 168:05
grammes) and was thus worth twenty ordinary staters; no other king or city
of ancient times was ever responsible for so ostentatious a display of
opulence. His most characteristic types relate to the worship of the
Dioscuri. On the reverse of the larger pieces Castor and Pollux appear side
by side, usually mounted (PI, IV, 4-6); the smaller often show the pointed
caps of the Brethren, surmounted by stars and flanked by palms. The
Greek legend is interesting. At first it is simply ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ
ΕΥΚΡΑΤΙΔΟΥ, but presently it becomes ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΜΕΓΑΛΟΥ
,
EYKPATIAOY. As the more pretentious title is invariably used on the
.
gold and also on the bronze specially struck for Indian circulation, it is
perhaps permissible to connect its assumption with a successful invasion of
the territory of Demetrius. It may be noted that this is the first certain
instance of a king describing himself in the Greek legend on his coinage as
'the Great. ' On inscriptions the practice was older. In this case, it is
possibly a translation of the Indian title 'mahārāja' which is used
by Demetrius in his Kharoshthi coin-legends. There are several well-
marked varieties of portrait. On the earlier silver, and on one or two
bronze pieces, the king is represented bare-headed and with draped shoulders,
both ends of his diadem hanging stiffly down behind (Pl. IV, 4). Generally,
however, he wears a crested helmet, ornamented with the horn and ear of a
buli. On the great majority of examples the helmeted bust is draped and
looks towards the right (Pl. IV, 5). But on some very rare tetradrachms
the head is turned to the left, the shoulders are bare, and the right hand
is uplifted in the act of thrusting with a spear (Pl. IV, 6). The intimacy of
his association with India i3 proved, not only by the large number of square-
a


## p. 410 (#448) ############################################

410
(CH.
SYRIA, BACTRIA AND PARTHIA
more
shaped bilingual coins of bronze that have survived, but also by the fact
that, though he adhered as a rule to the Attic standard of weight, he also
issued silver of a class expressly designed to suit the convenience of Indian
traders. The standard used for the latter is closely allied to the Persic,
which had become established in N. W. India as a result of the Persian
dominion.
None of the coins of Eucratides bear dates. Notwithstanding this,
there are indirect means of utilising them so as to secure a partial confirma-
tion of what Justin says (XL1, 6) as to the usurper's rise to power being
or less contemporaneous with the accession of Mithradates I of
Parthia. Mithradates, it will be remembered, succeeded to the crown about
171 B. C. , and the emergence of Eucratides has been tentatively assigned to
175. He must certainly have been firmly seated on the throne a very few
years later. A unique silver tetradrachm, now in the British Museum,
has on the obverse a helmeted bust evidently copied from the best-known
coin-portrait of Eucratides, and on the reverse the Sun-god, driving in a
four-horse chariots. The legend is ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΕΠΙΦΑΝΟΥΣ ΙΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ,
while in the exergue are letters which, though not altogether clear, are
generally read as PMI and interpreted as referring to the year 147 of the
Seleucid Era (Pl. IV, 7). If the date has been correctly deciphered - the
first of the three numerals is very obscure—the tetradrachms with the
helmeted bust of Eucratides must, therefore, have been in circulation for
some time previous to 165 B. C. , and these were by no means the earliest
that he issued. Who Plato was, we have no means of knowing. The one
genuine specimen of his money that we possess - modern forgeries are far
from uncommon, is said? to have been originally procured from an
itinerant goldsmith of Shah-ke-Dheri, who had himself procured it some-
where in Central Asia, perhaps in the Hazara country or beyond the Hindu-
Kush. ' Its comparatively debased style betrays affinities with the coins of
kings whose domains were purely Indian. But whether Plato was a vassal
or a short-lived rival of Eucratides, we cannot say. His title ENIPANOYE,
which reads like an offset to META AOY, is borrowed from the coinage of
Antiochus IV (175-164) ; it does not appear in Parthia till nearly half a
century later.
Testimony of a similar character comes from farther west. Hardly
less rare than the solitary coin of Plato is the silver of Timarchus, satrap
of Babylon, who in 162 B. C. declined to acknowledge the authority of
Demetrius I of Syria, and issued money of his own in all three metals.
Both an obverse and on reverse his tetradrachm is an unblushing imitation
of the commonest tetradrachm of Eucratides, down even to the title
BALLAERS MECAAOY. If, as was suggested above, the assumption
ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΜΕΓΑΛΟΥ
of the epithet' 'Great' is to be assocated with the conquest of India,
1 Num. Chron. 1875, p. 2,


## p. 411 (#449) ############################################

XVII)
PARTHIAN INVASION OF BACTRIA
411
162 B. C. thus becomes the terminus ante quem for that achievement.
A less definite but still highly probable reminiscence of the “Great King' of
Bactria has been detected by numismatists on some scarce bronze pieces of
the early Parthian series. Unless the Parthians were simply continuing the
types of coins which they found current in districts which they had
annexed by force? , it is curious that they should have borrowed anything
of the sort from Eucratides. He and they were bitter foes. The account
of their antagonism given by Justin (XLI, 6) is borne out by two brief
references in Strabo. The first (x1, 515) tells us that, after defeating first
Eucratides and then the Scythians, the Parthians incorporated a portion
of Bactria in their empire. That perhaps does not carry us very far. But
Strabo's second reference (xi, 517) is more explicit, though its value is
largely destroyed by what seems to be a deep-seated textual corruption.
The purport of it is that the Parthians took away from Eucratides two
Bactrian satrapies, called (according to Kramer's reading) TU TE 'AGT WOU
kai thu Toplou'av. These names convey no meaning to modern readers
because neither of them occurs anywhere else. We can only conjecture
what districts they are most likely to represent. If we decide for Aria and
Arachosia, we cannot be very far wrong; towards the close of the chapter
already cited Justin says that Mithradates I enlarged the boundaries of
the Parthian empire until it stretched from the Hindu Kush to the river
Euphrates. ' Expansion towards Margiāna and Drangiāna would be a
natural concomitant.
The portentous growth of this semi-barbarian power could not but
have the most serious effect on the development of Hellenic civilisation in
Central Asia. Parthia now lay like a great wedge between the Bactrian
Greeks and their kinsmen beyond the Euphrates, Intercommunication
had become difficult, reunion impossible. More than one of the successors
of Antiochus Epiphanes-notably Demetrius II (146-140) and Antiochus
VII (138-129) -flung themselves against the rock, only to be broken. And
it is not without significance that, if we may trust Josephus (Ant. Jud. XIII,
5, 11 [185]), the enterprise of Demetrius was undertaken in response to
repeated requests from 'Greeks and Macedonians. ' This should, perhaps,
be read in the light of the hint given by Justin (xxxvi,l), when he includes
the Bactrians among the allies who lent Demetrius their assistance in his
attempt to break down the domination of the Arsacidae. It was all in vain.
The Seleucid kings were hopelessly cut off from what had been in early
days one of the fairest provinces of their empire. On the other side of the
impenetrable barrier, Eucratides and his fellow countrymen hemmed in by
Mithradates on the west and exposed on the north to ever increasing pres-
1 The probability of this being the true explanation is greatly strengthened by
the fact that coins of the period of Mithradates I (B. M. Cat. Parthia, pl. III, 7, 10, 12)
seem to be imitated from the coins of Demetrius I or Euthydemus II with the standing
Heracles (Pl. III, 3, 4).


## p. 412 (#450) ############################################

412
[Ch.
SYRIA, BACTRIA AND PARTHIA
sure from the wandering tribes whom they vaguely designated 'Scythians,
were being steadily driven south-eastwards into the plains of India. Even
there, they were not to be safe either from Scythians or from Parthians.
That, however, is for a future chapter to show. Meanwhile it remains to
summarise the little that is known as to the final relinquishment of Bactria
by the Greeks.
Except for the somewhat rhetorical sentence in which Justin (XLI, 6)
contrasts the fate of the Bactrians with the phenomenal prosperity of
Parthia —'harassed by various wars, they finally lost, not merely their king-
dom, but their independence'-western historians have preserved hardly
any echo of the events that led up to the catastrophe. Had the vigorous
and capable Eucratides lived longer, it might have been postponed.