This last, however,
Antiochus
did not wait to receive.
Cambridge History of India - v1
, 1898, p.
226 ; F.
Imhoof-Blumer, Num.
Zeit.
, 1913, p.
183, and Rev. suisse de Num. , 1917, pp. 48 ff.
## p. 391 (#429) ############################################
XVII]
REVOLTS OF BACTRIA AND PARTHIA
391
>
it is by the confused echo of an occurrence that was fraught with momen-
tous consequences to India's immediate future. The birth of the new
kingdom of Bactria was an event of first-rate political importance. Bactria
was the rich country between the Hindu Kush and the Oxus, corresponding
in large measure to Northern Afghānistān. Beyond it, between the Oxus
and the Jaxartes (Syr Daria), lay Sogdiāna (Bukhāra). The two provinces
had cost Alexander no small effort to subdue. Partly on this account,
and partly because of their natural wealth, and had planted them thickly
with Gåreek colonies. Probably Seleucus, who experienced at least equal
difficulty in getting his sovereignty acknowledged, had to encounter the
determined resistance of colonists as well as of natives.
In the end, as we
know, he triumphed. During the rest of his reign, as well as throughout
that of his successor, Bactria and Sogdiāna remained quiescent ; the policy
of stationing a viceroy at Seleucia was evidently justified by success. Under
Antiochus If they shook themselves entirely free. Our chief authority for
what happened is Justin. After speaking of the revolt of Parthia, he pro.
ceeds (XL1, 4) : At the same time Diodotus, governor of the thousand
cities of Bactria, rebelled and had himself proclaimed king. ' In most texts
the name of the leader of the movement is wrongly given as 'Theodotus. '
The mistake, which goes back to the manuscripts, can be readily accounted
for. The chronology is much more troublesome, since the several events
by which Justin seeks to date the Parthian outbreak are spread over
period of not less than ten years. In the face of so much inconsistency we
may be content with the broad conclusion that the formal accession of
Diodotus took place about 250 B. C. , at a time when Antiochus was not in
a position to put an effective veto on the proceeding. An examination of
the numismatic material may enable us to go a little further.
Among the coins béaring the name of Seleucus are very rare gold
staters and silver tetradrachms, having on the obverse a portrait of the
king with bull's horns, and on the reverse the head of a horned horse
(Pl. II, 3). The same types, with the legend BALIA EQE ANTIOXOY,
PI
are found on two unique silver pieces- a drachm and a tetradrachm
(Pl. II, 4)—which may belong to the joint reign. All of these are struck
from unadjusted dies, and all of them have on the reverse two monograms
which, to judge from their complexity and from the manner in which they
vary, must conceal the names of individual magistrates. Apparently in
direct line of succession to the preceding comes a gold and silver
series, beginning under Antiochus I and continued under Antiochus II, which
contains staters (Pl. II, 5 and 6), tetradrachms (Pl. II, 7 and 8), and smaller
deonminations. The reverse type is the same, but the coins
struck from carefully adjusted dies, usually î but in case î r. The
magistrates' names show litle variation. As a rule, there is only one, that
'
a
>
>
are
now
## p. 392 (#430) ############################################
392
[CH.
SYRIA, BACTRIA, AND PARTHIA
>
being A, A1, or @! The device of a horse's head would be peculiarly
appropriate to Bactria, with its famous cavalry, or to Sogdiāna ; and it is
undoubtedly from Afghnāistān and Bukhāra that the coins in question
usually come. As they cover at least part of the two reigns, they must be
to some extent contemporary with certain gold staters and silver drachms
which have a head of Antiochus I or of Antiochus II on the obverse, and
on the reverse the ordinary Seleucid type of the seated Apollo (Pl. II, 9 and
10). Here again the dies have been carefully adjusted (1) The
magistrate's name, too, is obviously the same, being invariably A4,00
It has sometimes been suggested that the monogram represents the name of
a mint rather than of a magistrate. As against that view it must be
remembered that the two parallel series differ not only in type but also in
style, the treatment of the ends of the king's diadem being specially
characteristic.
There can be no dispute as to the proper local attribution of the
second of these series. In style they have the closest possible affinity to
a fairly numerous set of gold staters and silver tetradrachms and drachms,
which also read BΑΣΙ ΛΕΩΣ ANTIOXY, but which present types that we
have not encountered hitherto. On the obverse is a youthful head,
markedly unlike either Antiochus I or Antiochus II, and on the reverse is
a full length figure of Zeus, thundering, with an eagle at his feet (Pl. II, 11
and 12); the dies are carefully adjusted (†) but although letters and
monograms occur freely, nothing to suggest is ever found. Next in order
comes a group of gold and silver coins, exactly resembling those just
described excepting only in the legend, which is now ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ
104OTOY (Pl. II, 13 and 14). We are thus brought into the presence
of what is undoubtedly the money of the fully developed kingdom of
Bactria, and at the same time we are put in possession of a clue which
may guide us to a clearer understanding of some of the ground we have
traversed. Gardner long ago pointed out that the bead on the BAEIAEQE
ANTIOXOY pieces was identical with that on the similar pieces with
ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΔΙΟΔΟΤΟΥ, and a glance at Plate II will demonstrate the
soundness of his view. He proposed to recognise it as the portrait of
Diodotus, and to regard its appearance on money bearing the name of the
suzerain as a stage in the vassal's progress towards complete independence.
Von Sallet, while refusing to accept Gardner's theory as to the portrait,
agreed with him in assigning the whole of the coins to Diodotus, whose
'canting badge' he discerned in the figure of Zeus. Both scholars seem to
be right in their positive contentions : the portrait is that of Diodotus,
and the figure of Zeus is the king's 'canting badge'. And it may be
One tetradrachm (Babelon, Rois de Syrie, Pl. III, 16), which, bears the head of
Antioehus I and which must, therefore, come early in the series, appears to have
and is thus connected with the small group mentioned above (p. 390).
1
## p. 393 (#431) ############################################
XVII]
DIODOTUS
393
that there is further help to be got from the coins with the head of the
horned horse and from those with the seated Apollo. We found that
these two sets were to some extent parallel, and that the latter led naturally
up to the Bactrian series proper. The monogram which was so prominent
on both can be resolved most readily into AIO[80Tou]. The definite
acceptance of that interpretation would enable us to reconstruct the story
of the rise of Bacteria somewhat on the following lines.
Early in the reign of Antiochus I a certain Diodotus was appointed
satrap of Bactria and of some neighbouring province, not improbably
Sogdiāna. The coins with horse's head were already being struck in
the second province in the name of the suzerain. Diodotus continued the
issue and also opened, this time in Bactria, a new mint from which he
issued, likewise in the name of Antiochus, the coins with the seated Apollo.
The country plainly prospered under his rule, for the money with his
monogram is far from uncommon, in spite of the remoteness of the region
in which it is habitually discovered, His own position, too, must have
grown stronger steadily, although for many years he made no attempt to
break the slender tie that bound him to the Sleucid empire ; he
been the satrap of Bactria who, according to Chaldeean documents, sent
twenty elephants to assist Antiochus I in his struggle with Ptolemy
Philadelphus about 274–273 B. C. Ultimately, however, the centrifugal
tendency prevailed and Bactria declared itself an independent state,
Margiāna (Merv) and Sogdiāna being included within its frontiers. The
change did not take place all at once. There was a period of transition,
and this period had not quite come to an end when Diodotus died, leaving
a son of the same name to carry his policy to its logical conclusion ; the
Diodotus whose portrait appears on the coins is a young man, much too
young to have been a satrap in the days of Antiochus I. The father may
or may not have assumed the title of king. The son was certainly the first
to exercise the royal prerogativeof issuing money in his own name, and
even he contented himself at the outset with altering the types, while leaving
the inscription untouched'. With the introduction of his 'canting badge,' he
abandoned the use of the monogram. Simultaneously he closed the older
mint, where the coins with the horse's head had been struok, a step which
points to a concentration of his administrative forces. Such a reconstruc-
tion is not merely consistent with the evidence of the coins. It also tallies,
in a simple and satisfactory fashion, with what Justin (XLI, 4) says as to the
original leader to the Bactrian revolt having been succeeded by a son of the
may have
1 A unique gold stater, acquired by the Rev. E. Rogers while these sheets were
passing through the press, shows that to begin with he retained the portrait, as well
as the name, of his suzerain. The thundering Zeus appears on the reverse, but the
obverse bears an unmistakable head of Antiochus II, closely resembling J. H. S. , 1903,
PI. I, 3.
## p. 394 (#432) ############################################
394
[CH.
SYRIA, BACTRIA, AND PARTHIA
-
9
same name as himself—'et ipso Diodoto. ' Some value attaches to this
confirmation of the main literary sources whence our knowledge of the
episode is derived, for the truth of the statement has occasionally been
doubted, despite its explicit nature and despite the implicit corroboration
which, as we shall see presently (p. 395), it receives from Polybius (XI, 31).
Regarding the detailed history of the reigns of the two monarchs the
records leave us almost entirely in the dark. The little we do learn is from
Justin (loc. cit. ), and it has reference to the struggle that attended the rise
of the Parthian kingdom. The nucleus of what was in the fullness of time
to become one of the most formidable powers that Asia has ever seen, was
among the districts that had been included in the sixteenth satrapy of
Darius, a land of mountain and forest, comparing ill in point of fertility
with Bactria. Historians are not agreed as to the race to which its popula-
tion belonged, although their habits and customs would lead one to suspect
a strong infusion of an element closely akin to the wild nomads of the
steppes. Nor are the current traditions as to the beginnings of the royal
house sufficiently consistent to be worthy of much, if any, credence. Accord-
ing to these the first Arsaces, the founder of the dynasty, is sometimes a
Parthian, sometimes a Bactrian, sometimes even a descendant of the
Achaemenids. One point in which all accounts agree, is that he made his
way to the throne by violence. The name of the Seleucid satrap murdered
by him and his brother Tiridates, afterwards Arsaces II, is variously given.
Arrian (F. H. G. JII, 587) calls him Pherecles, and Syncellus (ibid. ) speaks of
him as Agathocles, while Justin-who, by the way, “knows nothing of the
cooperation of Tiridates - refers to him (XLI, 4) as Andragoras. In favour
o fJustin may perhaps be cited certain gold and silver coins (Pl. II, 15 and
16)', whose style is not unsuited to the middle of the third century B. C. and
which bear the legend ANAPATOPOY. They are very rare, almost all of
the known specimens being apparently from the Oxus find (see supra, p.
350). Their genuineness has sometimes been questioned, but on grounds
that seem hardly sufficient ; the circumstance that they are struck from
dies that have been adjusted with great precision ( 1 ), a peculiarity
that is characteristic of the region and the period to which they are attribu-
ted, is a strong incidental argument in favour of their authenticity.
Another point about which there is practical unanimity is that the revolt
of Parthia took place almost simultaneously with the revolt of Bactria, al-
though probably a year or two later. The explanation lies on the surface :
Antiochus II (261-216) like his two immediate successors, Seleucus II
(246 — 226) and Seleucus III (226 – 223), was too much preoccupied with wars
and rumours of wars in the west to maintain a proper hold over his eastern
dominions. Probably, too, there were other causes at work. The spectacle
1 They may, however,
have been struck by an earlier Andragoras (C. 311 B. C. ); see
Rapson, N. C. , 1893; p. 204, and Hill, Attie Mem, dell' Istit. Ital. di Num. , III, 2, p. 31.
>
## p. 395 (#433) ############################################
XVII)
ARSACES
395
of the greatness of the Maurya empire would not be lost upon a satrap of
such force of character as the elder Diodotus. And in his case to
the promptings of ambition there may have been added a spur of a different
kind. It is not unlikely that Bactria was already beginning to be conscious,
on her northern border, of the first onset of the pressure before which she
was in the end to succumb ; Eastern Asia was just entering upon one
of those mysterious convulsions of tribal unrest, which produced the great
migrations, and of which the Parthian revolt itself was not impossibly a
manifestation. If this were so, Diodotus may well have felt that an
independent kingdom, strong in its new-born sense of national unity,
was likely to be a more permanent bulwark against barbarian aggression
than the loosely attached extremity of an empire whose head was in no
position to afford efficient protection to his nominal subjects. Besides the
native Irānian basis on which he would have to build, the descen-
dants of Alexander's colonists would provide him with a substantial
Hellenic framework ready to hand : and, as a matter of fact, Bactria
was, throughout the whole of its brief career, essentially an Hellenic state.
In this connexion it is significant to note that, under the earlier Diodotus,
Parthia was a potential, if not an actual, enemy. Justin tells us, in
the chapter that has been so often quoted, that 'fear of Diodotus' was one
of the chief motives that led Arsaces, after his seizure of Hyrcania, to keep
a great army on a war-footing. He goes on to say that, when the old
satrap died, his son reversed his Parthian policy, and concluded an alliance
which set Arsaces free to concentrate his whole forces against Seleucus II,
then advancing eastwards on a futile campaign of reconquest. The threat of
a renewal of the Macedonian supremacy was enough to bring Greek
and barbarian together. The eastern expedition of Seleucus II was subse-
quent to the battle of Ancyra, in which he was heavily defeated by
the Gauls (240 B. c. ). It cannot, therefore, have taken place earlier
than 238, and it can hardly be put later than 235. This gives us
something approaching a definite date at which Diodotus II was on the
throne of Bactria.
Beyond the bare facts already chronicled, we have no information as
to the doings either of the son or of the father. It is, indeed, usually stated
that the latter assumed the title of 'Soter, perhaps because of his success
in keeping the Turānian hordes at bay. But the only evidence to that effect
is a coin purporting to be struck in the name of ΔΙΟΔΟΤΟΥ ΣΩΤΗΡΟΣ
(Pl. III, 9) and we shall find presently that this was not minted in the life-
time of himself or his son. It is probable, therefore, that the title was con-
ferred by a later generation. In any case his own dynasty was destined to
speedy extinction. We do not know how long Diodotus II reigned. But,
as the portraits on his coins are all fairly youthful, it is scarcely possible to
## p. 396 (#434) ############################################
396
[CH.
SYRIA, BACTRIA, AND PARTHIA
allow him more than ten or twelve years after the peace with Parthia. And
it is certain from Polybius (xi, 34) that when Antiochus III appeared in
the east at the head of an army, about 212 B. C. , determined to reassert
the Seleucid supremacy over the revolted kingdoms, the Bactrian throne
had for some time been occupied by Euthydemus, a Greek from one or
other of the cities called Magnesia, who, in reply to the challenge of Antio-
chus, explained that he did not think it fair that he should be interfered
with : 'He was not a rebel. Others, no doubt, had rebelled. He had
put the children of the rebels to death, and that was how he happened to
be king. ' We may draw from this, not only a confirmation of Justin's
statement as to Diodotus I having been succeeded by a son, but also the
further inference that Diodotus II came to a violent end.
Our authorities give us no hint as to who Euthydemus was, or
as to how he reached a position of such influence as to be able to make a
successful bid for the crown. The claim of the Lydian city to be the
.
Magnesia of his birth is perhaps slightly stronger than that of the Ionian
one ; for, when he came to strike money, he chose a remarkable type
whose selection can be most simply explained by supposing that it had
been familiar to him in his youth, as it would be if he were brought up
in the Hermus valley. The first real glimpse we get of him is when
he comes into conflict with Antiochus the Great. The Parthian campaign
of the latter had been arduous, to judge from the picture which Polybius
(x, 28 ff. ) has preserved of some of its incidents. But Arsaces III seems at
length to have been driven to yield upon terms, and by the year 208
Antiochus was at liberty to turn his arms against Bactria. To enter it, he
had to ford the river Arius (Hari Rūd), the passage of which Euthydemus
was prepared to dispute. When the critical moment came, the Bactrians
allowed themselves to be outmanoeuvred. Antiochus made a night-march
with a picked body of cavalry, the majority of whom he succeeded in get.
ting over the stream before the dawn was bright enough for the enemy's
vedettes to discover them. The footing thus gained was stubbornly held,
in the teeth of a singularly fierce attack. From the narrative of Polybius
(x, 49) we learn that Antiochus displayed great personal courage, and
that Euthydemus was so perturbed by the lesson his troops had received
that he retreated at once to his capital of Zariaspa or Bactra, the modern
Balkh. A siege presumably followed, and it is generally taken for granted
that this was the famous siege of Bactra, casually mentioned by Polybius
in quite another context (xxix, 6a). However that may be, the struggle
was a prolonged one. By 206 two years had elapsed without either side
having gained a decisive advantage. Meanwhile barbarian swarms were
hovering ominously along the northern frontier of the kingdom. If the
internecine strife continued, they might at any moment descend upon the
country and ruthlessly destroy every vestige of Hellenic civilisation.
a
## p. 397 (#435) ############################################
XVII]
INVASION OF INDIA BY ANTIOCHUS III
397
The reality of this peril was pressed home upon Antiochus by Teleas,
a fellow-countryman of Euthydemus, whom the latter had empowered to
use his good offices in working for a settlement. Antiochus, upon his part,
was only too glad to welcome the prospect of an honourable escape from a
siuation that threatened to grow more and more embarrassing. Informal
negotiations, conducted through Teleas, ultimately resulted in the despatch
of Demetrius, the son of Euthydemus, as a fully accredited envoy to
the camp of Antiochus. Polybius is still our authority for details. He
speaks (x1, 34) in glowing terms of the favourable impression which the
handsome youth produced upon the Seleucid king, who offered him one of
his own daughters in marriage and indicated his willingness to waive
all objection to the use of the royal title by Euthydemus. A written agree-
ment covering the disputed points was drawn up and signed, and a formal
alliance concluded. Euthydemus had been the first to move towards peace,
and therefore it may be regarded as certain that he too made concessions.
Unfortunately we have to guess what they were. Not improbably they
extended to an acknowledgment of the suzerainty of Antiochus, although
all we
are told is that the expeditionary army, which was now about
to direct its march towards India, had its commissariat richly replenished
by the Bactrians, receiving at the same time an important reinforcement
in the shape of the whole of the war-elephants that had been at the
command of Euthydemus.
The second Greek invasion of India amounted to little more than a
reconnaissance in force. Açoka, the grandson of Chandragupta, had died
about 236 B. C. , and after his death the power of the Maurya dynasty
speedily declined. When Antiochus crossed the Hindu Kush and marched
down the Kābul valley, he found himself in the territory of a prince whom
Polybius (x1, 34) calls 'Sophagasēnos, King of the Indians. ' 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.
183, and Rev. suisse de Num. , 1917, pp. 48 ff.
## p. 391 (#429) ############################################
XVII]
REVOLTS OF BACTRIA AND PARTHIA
391
>
it is by the confused echo of an occurrence that was fraught with momen-
tous consequences to India's immediate future. The birth of the new
kingdom of Bactria was an event of first-rate political importance. Bactria
was the rich country between the Hindu Kush and the Oxus, corresponding
in large measure to Northern Afghānistān. Beyond it, between the Oxus
and the Jaxartes (Syr Daria), lay Sogdiāna (Bukhāra). The two provinces
had cost Alexander no small effort to subdue. Partly on this account,
and partly because of their natural wealth, and had planted them thickly
with Gåreek colonies. Probably Seleucus, who experienced at least equal
difficulty in getting his sovereignty acknowledged, had to encounter the
determined resistance of colonists as well as of natives.
In the end, as we
know, he triumphed. During the rest of his reign, as well as throughout
that of his successor, Bactria and Sogdiāna remained quiescent ; the policy
of stationing a viceroy at Seleucia was evidently justified by success. Under
Antiochus If they shook themselves entirely free. Our chief authority for
what happened is Justin. After speaking of the revolt of Parthia, he pro.
ceeds (XL1, 4) : At the same time Diodotus, governor of the thousand
cities of Bactria, rebelled and had himself proclaimed king. ' In most texts
the name of the leader of the movement is wrongly given as 'Theodotus. '
The mistake, which goes back to the manuscripts, can be readily accounted
for. The chronology is much more troublesome, since the several events
by which Justin seeks to date the Parthian outbreak are spread over
period of not less than ten years. In the face of so much inconsistency we
may be content with the broad conclusion that the formal accession of
Diodotus took place about 250 B. C. , at a time when Antiochus was not in
a position to put an effective veto on the proceeding. An examination of
the numismatic material may enable us to go a little further.
Among the coins béaring the name of Seleucus are very rare gold
staters and silver tetradrachms, having on the obverse a portrait of the
king with bull's horns, and on the reverse the head of a horned horse
(Pl. II, 3). The same types, with the legend BALIA EQE ANTIOXOY,
PI
are found on two unique silver pieces- a drachm and a tetradrachm
(Pl. II, 4)—which may belong to the joint reign. All of these are struck
from unadjusted dies, and all of them have on the reverse two monograms
which, to judge from their complexity and from the manner in which they
vary, must conceal the names of individual magistrates. Apparently in
direct line of succession to the preceding comes a gold and silver
series, beginning under Antiochus I and continued under Antiochus II, which
contains staters (Pl. II, 5 and 6), tetradrachms (Pl. II, 7 and 8), and smaller
deonminations. The reverse type is the same, but the coins
struck from carefully adjusted dies, usually î but in case î r. The
magistrates' names show litle variation. As a rule, there is only one, that
'
a
>
>
are
now
## p. 392 (#430) ############################################
392
[CH.
SYRIA, BACTRIA, AND PARTHIA
>
being A, A1, or @! The device of a horse's head would be peculiarly
appropriate to Bactria, with its famous cavalry, or to Sogdiāna ; and it is
undoubtedly from Afghnāistān and Bukhāra that the coins in question
usually come. As they cover at least part of the two reigns, they must be
to some extent contemporary with certain gold staters and silver drachms
which have a head of Antiochus I or of Antiochus II on the obverse, and
on the reverse the ordinary Seleucid type of the seated Apollo (Pl. II, 9 and
10). Here again the dies have been carefully adjusted (1) The
magistrate's name, too, is obviously the same, being invariably A4,00
It has sometimes been suggested that the monogram represents the name of
a mint rather than of a magistrate. As against that view it must be
remembered that the two parallel series differ not only in type but also in
style, the treatment of the ends of the king's diadem being specially
characteristic.
There can be no dispute as to the proper local attribution of the
second of these series. In style they have the closest possible affinity to
a fairly numerous set of gold staters and silver tetradrachms and drachms,
which also read BΑΣΙ ΛΕΩΣ ANTIOXY, but which present types that we
have not encountered hitherto. On the obverse is a youthful head,
markedly unlike either Antiochus I or Antiochus II, and on the reverse is
a full length figure of Zeus, thundering, with an eagle at his feet (Pl. II, 11
and 12); the dies are carefully adjusted (†) but although letters and
monograms occur freely, nothing to suggest is ever found. Next in order
comes a group of gold and silver coins, exactly resembling those just
described excepting only in the legend, which is now ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ
104OTOY (Pl. II, 13 and 14). We are thus brought into the presence
of what is undoubtedly the money of the fully developed kingdom of
Bactria, and at the same time we are put in possession of a clue which
may guide us to a clearer understanding of some of the ground we have
traversed. Gardner long ago pointed out that the bead on the BAEIAEQE
ANTIOXOY pieces was identical with that on the similar pieces with
ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΔΙΟΔΟΤΟΥ, and a glance at Plate II will demonstrate the
soundness of his view. He proposed to recognise it as the portrait of
Diodotus, and to regard its appearance on money bearing the name of the
suzerain as a stage in the vassal's progress towards complete independence.
Von Sallet, while refusing to accept Gardner's theory as to the portrait,
agreed with him in assigning the whole of the coins to Diodotus, whose
'canting badge' he discerned in the figure of Zeus. Both scholars seem to
be right in their positive contentions : the portrait is that of Diodotus,
and the figure of Zeus is the king's 'canting badge'. And it may be
One tetradrachm (Babelon, Rois de Syrie, Pl. III, 16), which, bears the head of
Antioehus I and which must, therefore, come early in the series, appears to have
and is thus connected with the small group mentioned above (p. 390).
1
## p. 393 (#431) ############################################
XVII]
DIODOTUS
393
that there is further help to be got from the coins with the head of the
horned horse and from those with the seated Apollo. We found that
these two sets were to some extent parallel, and that the latter led naturally
up to the Bactrian series proper. The monogram which was so prominent
on both can be resolved most readily into AIO[80Tou]. The definite
acceptance of that interpretation would enable us to reconstruct the story
of the rise of Bacteria somewhat on the following lines.
Early in the reign of Antiochus I a certain Diodotus was appointed
satrap of Bactria and of some neighbouring province, not improbably
Sogdiāna. The coins with horse's head were already being struck in
the second province in the name of the suzerain. Diodotus continued the
issue and also opened, this time in Bactria, a new mint from which he
issued, likewise in the name of Antiochus, the coins with the seated Apollo.
The country plainly prospered under his rule, for the money with his
monogram is far from uncommon, in spite of the remoteness of the region
in which it is habitually discovered, His own position, too, must have
grown stronger steadily, although for many years he made no attempt to
break the slender tie that bound him to the Sleucid empire ; he
been the satrap of Bactria who, according to Chaldeean documents, sent
twenty elephants to assist Antiochus I in his struggle with Ptolemy
Philadelphus about 274–273 B. C. Ultimately, however, the centrifugal
tendency prevailed and Bactria declared itself an independent state,
Margiāna (Merv) and Sogdiāna being included within its frontiers. The
change did not take place all at once. There was a period of transition,
and this period had not quite come to an end when Diodotus died, leaving
a son of the same name to carry his policy to its logical conclusion ; the
Diodotus whose portrait appears on the coins is a young man, much too
young to have been a satrap in the days of Antiochus I. The father may
or may not have assumed the title of king. The son was certainly the first
to exercise the royal prerogativeof issuing money in his own name, and
even he contented himself at the outset with altering the types, while leaving
the inscription untouched'. With the introduction of his 'canting badge,' he
abandoned the use of the monogram. Simultaneously he closed the older
mint, where the coins with the horse's head had been struok, a step which
points to a concentration of his administrative forces. Such a reconstruc-
tion is not merely consistent with the evidence of the coins. It also tallies,
in a simple and satisfactory fashion, with what Justin (XLI, 4) says as to the
original leader to the Bactrian revolt having been succeeded by a son of the
may have
1 A unique gold stater, acquired by the Rev. E. Rogers while these sheets were
passing through the press, shows that to begin with he retained the portrait, as well
as the name, of his suzerain. The thundering Zeus appears on the reverse, but the
obverse bears an unmistakable head of Antiochus II, closely resembling J. H. S. , 1903,
PI. I, 3.
## p. 394 (#432) ############################################
394
[CH.
SYRIA, BACTRIA, AND PARTHIA
-
9
same name as himself—'et ipso Diodoto. ' Some value attaches to this
confirmation of the main literary sources whence our knowledge of the
episode is derived, for the truth of the statement has occasionally been
doubted, despite its explicit nature and despite the implicit corroboration
which, as we shall see presently (p. 395), it receives from Polybius (XI, 31).
Regarding the detailed history of the reigns of the two monarchs the
records leave us almost entirely in the dark. The little we do learn is from
Justin (loc. cit. ), and it has reference to the struggle that attended the rise
of the Parthian kingdom. The nucleus of what was in the fullness of time
to become one of the most formidable powers that Asia has ever seen, was
among the districts that had been included in the sixteenth satrapy of
Darius, a land of mountain and forest, comparing ill in point of fertility
with Bactria. Historians are not agreed as to the race to which its popula-
tion belonged, although their habits and customs would lead one to suspect
a strong infusion of an element closely akin to the wild nomads of the
steppes. Nor are the current traditions as to the beginnings of the royal
house sufficiently consistent to be worthy of much, if any, credence. Accord-
ing to these the first Arsaces, the founder of the dynasty, is sometimes a
Parthian, sometimes a Bactrian, sometimes even a descendant of the
Achaemenids. One point in which all accounts agree, is that he made his
way to the throne by violence. The name of the Seleucid satrap murdered
by him and his brother Tiridates, afterwards Arsaces II, is variously given.
Arrian (F. H. G. JII, 587) calls him Pherecles, and Syncellus (ibid. ) speaks of
him as Agathocles, while Justin-who, by the way, “knows nothing of the
cooperation of Tiridates - refers to him (XLI, 4) as Andragoras. In favour
o fJustin may perhaps be cited certain gold and silver coins (Pl. II, 15 and
16)', whose style is not unsuited to the middle of the third century B. C. and
which bear the legend ANAPATOPOY. They are very rare, almost all of
the known specimens being apparently from the Oxus find (see supra, p.
350). Their genuineness has sometimes been questioned, but on grounds
that seem hardly sufficient ; the circumstance that they are struck from
dies that have been adjusted with great precision ( 1 ), a peculiarity
that is characteristic of the region and the period to which they are attribu-
ted, is a strong incidental argument in favour of their authenticity.
Another point about which there is practical unanimity is that the revolt
of Parthia took place almost simultaneously with the revolt of Bactria, al-
though probably a year or two later. The explanation lies on the surface :
Antiochus II (261-216) like his two immediate successors, Seleucus II
(246 — 226) and Seleucus III (226 – 223), was too much preoccupied with wars
and rumours of wars in the west to maintain a proper hold over his eastern
dominions. Probably, too, there were other causes at work. The spectacle
1 They may, however,
have been struck by an earlier Andragoras (C. 311 B. C. ); see
Rapson, N. C. , 1893; p. 204, and Hill, Attie Mem, dell' Istit. Ital. di Num. , III, 2, p. 31.
>
## p. 395 (#433) ############################################
XVII)
ARSACES
395
of the greatness of the Maurya empire would not be lost upon a satrap of
such force of character as the elder Diodotus. And in his case to
the promptings of ambition there may have been added a spur of a different
kind. It is not unlikely that Bactria was already beginning to be conscious,
on her northern border, of the first onset of the pressure before which she
was in the end to succumb ; Eastern Asia was just entering upon one
of those mysterious convulsions of tribal unrest, which produced the great
migrations, and of which the Parthian revolt itself was not impossibly a
manifestation. If this were so, Diodotus may well have felt that an
independent kingdom, strong in its new-born sense of national unity,
was likely to be a more permanent bulwark against barbarian aggression
than the loosely attached extremity of an empire whose head was in no
position to afford efficient protection to his nominal subjects. Besides the
native Irānian basis on which he would have to build, the descen-
dants of Alexander's colonists would provide him with a substantial
Hellenic framework ready to hand : and, as a matter of fact, Bactria
was, throughout the whole of its brief career, essentially an Hellenic state.
In this connexion it is significant to note that, under the earlier Diodotus,
Parthia was a potential, if not an actual, enemy. Justin tells us, in
the chapter that has been so often quoted, that 'fear of Diodotus' was one
of the chief motives that led Arsaces, after his seizure of Hyrcania, to keep
a great army on a war-footing. He goes on to say that, when the old
satrap died, his son reversed his Parthian policy, and concluded an alliance
which set Arsaces free to concentrate his whole forces against Seleucus II,
then advancing eastwards on a futile campaign of reconquest. The threat of
a renewal of the Macedonian supremacy was enough to bring Greek
and barbarian together. The eastern expedition of Seleucus II was subse-
quent to the battle of Ancyra, in which he was heavily defeated by
the Gauls (240 B. c. ). It cannot, therefore, have taken place earlier
than 238, and it can hardly be put later than 235. This gives us
something approaching a definite date at which Diodotus II was on the
throne of Bactria.
Beyond the bare facts already chronicled, we have no information as
to the doings either of the son or of the father. It is, indeed, usually stated
that the latter assumed the title of 'Soter, perhaps because of his success
in keeping the Turānian hordes at bay. But the only evidence to that effect
is a coin purporting to be struck in the name of ΔΙΟΔΟΤΟΥ ΣΩΤΗΡΟΣ
(Pl. III, 9) and we shall find presently that this was not minted in the life-
time of himself or his son. It is probable, therefore, that the title was con-
ferred by a later generation. In any case his own dynasty was destined to
speedy extinction. We do not know how long Diodotus II reigned. But,
as the portraits on his coins are all fairly youthful, it is scarcely possible to
## p. 396 (#434) ############################################
396
[CH.
SYRIA, BACTRIA, AND PARTHIA
allow him more than ten or twelve years after the peace with Parthia. And
it is certain from Polybius (xi, 34) that when Antiochus III appeared in
the east at the head of an army, about 212 B. C. , determined to reassert
the Seleucid supremacy over the revolted kingdoms, the Bactrian throne
had for some time been occupied by Euthydemus, a Greek from one or
other of the cities called Magnesia, who, in reply to the challenge of Antio-
chus, explained that he did not think it fair that he should be interfered
with : 'He was not a rebel. Others, no doubt, had rebelled. He had
put the children of the rebels to death, and that was how he happened to
be king. ' We may draw from this, not only a confirmation of Justin's
statement as to Diodotus I having been succeeded by a son, but also the
further inference that Diodotus II came to a violent end.
Our authorities give us no hint as to who Euthydemus was, or
as to how he reached a position of such influence as to be able to make a
successful bid for the crown. The claim of the Lydian city to be the
.
Magnesia of his birth is perhaps slightly stronger than that of the Ionian
one ; for, when he came to strike money, he chose a remarkable type
whose selection can be most simply explained by supposing that it had
been familiar to him in his youth, as it would be if he were brought up
in the Hermus valley. The first real glimpse we get of him is when
he comes into conflict with Antiochus the Great. The Parthian campaign
of the latter had been arduous, to judge from the picture which Polybius
(x, 28 ff. ) has preserved of some of its incidents. But Arsaces III seems at
length to have been driven to yield upon terms, and by the year 208
Antiochus was at liberty to turn his arms against Bactria. To enter it, he
had to ford the river Arius (Hari Rūd), the passage of which Euthydemus
was prepared to dispute. When the critical moment came, the Bactrians
allowed themselves to be outmanoeuvred. Antiochus made a night-march
with a picked body of cavalry, the majority of whom he succeeded in get.
ting over the stream before the dawn was bright enough for the enemy's
vedettes to discover them. The footing thus gained was stubbornly held,
in the teeth of a singularly fierce attack. From the narrative of Polybius
(x, 49) we learn that Antiochus displayed great personal courage, and
that Euthydemus was so perturbed by the lesson his troops had received
that he retreated at once to his capital of Zariaspa or Bactra, the modern
Balkh. A siege presumably followed, and it is generally taken for granted
that this was the famous siege of Bactra, casually mentioned by Polybius
in quite another context (xxix, 6a). However that may be, the struggle
was a prolonged one. By 206 two years had elapsed without either side
having gained a decisive advantage. Meanwhile barbarian swarms were
hovering ominously along the northern frontier of the kingdom. If the
internecine strife continued, they might at any moment descend upon the
country and ruthlessly destroy every vestige of Hellenic civilisation.
a
## p. 397 (#435) ############################################
XVII]
INVASION OF INDIA BY ANTIOCHUS III
397
The reality of this peril was pressed home upon Antiochus by Teleas,
a fellow-countryman of Euthydemus, whom the latter had empowered to
use his good offices in working for a settlement. Antiochus, upon his part,
was only too glad to welcome the prospect of an honourable escape from a
siuation that threatened to grow more and more embarrassing. Informal
negotiations, conducted through Teleas, ultimately resulted in the despatch
of Demetrius, the son of Euthydemus, as a fully accredited envoy to
the camp of Antiochus. Polybius is still our authority for details. He
speaks (x1, 34) in glowing terms of the favourable impression which the
handsome youth produced upon the Seleucid king, who offered him one of
his own daughters in marriage and indicated his willingness to waive
all objection to the use of the royal title by Euthydemus. A written agree-
ment covering the disputed points was drawn up and signed, and a formal
alliance concluded. Euthydemus had been the first to move towards peace,
and therefore it may be regarded as certain that he too made concessions.
Unfortunately we have to guess what they were. Not improbably they
extended to an acknowledgment of the suzerainty of Antiochus, although
all we
are told is that the expeditionary army, which was now about
to direct its march towards India, had its commissariat richly replenished
by the Bactrians, receiving at the same time an important reinforcement
in the shape of the whole of the war-elephants that had been at the
command of Euthydemus.
The second Greek invasion of India amounted to little more than a
reconnaissance in force. Açoka, the grandson of Chandragupta, had died
about 236 B. C. , and after his death the power of the Maurya dynasty
speedily declined. When Antiochus crossed the Hindu Kush and marched
down the Kābul valley, he found himself in the territory of a prince whom
Polybius (x1, 34) calls 'Sophagasēnos, King of the Indians. ' 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.
