The
thundering
Zeus appears on the reverse, but the
obverse bears an unmistakable head of Antiochus II, closely resembling J.
obverse bears an unmistakable head of Antiochus II, closely resembling J.
Cambridge History of India - v1
348) were issued, it is quite possible that he has come within
two or three years of the truth. It was not till 311 that the Satrap of
Babylon- he had not yet assumed the title of king-was free to quit his
capital with an easy mind, and devote his energies to consolidating his
authority in the more distant provinces. The task must have required time,
for some hard fighting had to be done, notably in Bactria. But, beyond
the bare statement of Justin (xv, 4) to that effect, we have no details. We
may suppose that about 305 or 304, at the latest, he deemed himself ready
to demand a reckoning with Chandragupta. Advancing (we may be certain)
by the route along the Kābul river, he crossed the Indus (Appian, Syr. 55).
The minute topographical knowledge which Strabo (xv, 689) and Pliny
(N. H. vi, 63) display, and more particularly the vague assertion of the latter
that 'all the remaining distances were searched out for Seleucus Nicator'
have led Droysen and others to conclude that he not merely - entered the
territory he had come to regain, but actually penetrated as far as Palibo-
thra (Pātaliputra) on the Ganges, the chief seat of his enemy's power,
whence he made his way along the banks of the river to the sea. The
premises, however, are scarcely substantial enough to bear so far-reaching
a conclusion. Pliny may quite well have had in his mind, not reconnais-
sances made during a campaign, but information gathered subsequently by
the Greek envoys who, as we shall see presently, resided at the court of the
Indian king.
Chandraeupta could put into the field more than half a million of
men, with 9000 war-elephants and numerous chariots to boot. If Seleucus
had really forced his way to the shores of the Bay of Bengal in the teeth
of an opposition so formidable, his astonishing feat was hardly likely to
have been left to a Roman geographer to chronicle. Besides, in that event
the upshot of the campagin would surely have been a more decided triumph.
As it is, the terms of peace point to a frank recognition by Seleucus that
his own arm was neither long enough nor strong enough to govern India
from Babylon. Invader and invaded, we are told, concluded an alliance
and sealed it by a further compact, which Appian (Syr. 55) calls a kndos,
Strabo (xv, 724) an ErtiyaLLÀ. According to ordinary Greek usage these
two terms are scarcely consistent one with another. The former would
naturally signify an actual marriage between individuals, and hence it is
frequently argued that Seleucus must have become either the father-in-law
or the son-in-law of Chandragupta. There seems, however, to be no room
in his family circle, as we otherwise know it, for any relationship of the
kind. Probably, therefore, it is safer to fall back on the technical meaning
of Strabo's word, and to suppose that what is implied is a convention
establishing a jus connubii between the two royal families. In that land of
caste a jus connubii between the two peoples is unthinkable.
.
>
## p. 388 (#426) ############################################
388
[CH
SYRIA, BACTRIA, AND PARTHIA
As regards territory, the arrangement appears, upon the face of it,
to have been entirely favourable to Chandragupta. Not only did Seleucas
acquiesce in his sovereignty over all the country beyond the Indus. He also
transferred to him the satrapies of Arachosia (Kandahār) and the Paro-
panisadae (Kābul), with at least some portion of Gedrosia (Baluchistān)
and of Aria (Herāt). In other words, the frontiers of the Maurya empire
were extended so as to embrace the southern half of Afghānistan and
perhaps the whole of British Baluchistān. The expression presented'
(eowke), which is used by Strabo (loc. cit. ) to describe the transaction, does
not preclude the possibility of the transfer having been made upon condi-
tions. A return gift of 500 war-elephants is, in fact, mentioned. But under
no circumstances could that have been looked on as an equivalent. We
may take it that there were further stipulations as to freedom of trade and
the like, such as would naturally accompany an ealyaula. There may even
have been a nominal and unmeaning acknowledgment of suzerainty. It
must be borne in mind that the written record contains nothing to show
that Seleucus suffered defeat, nothing even to suggest that the rival armies
ever came to blows at all. The probability is that, while he was still en-
deavouring to gauge the magnitude of the task that confronted him, an
urgent call for help reached him from the confederate king3 across the
2500 miles that separated him from Asia Minor. The instinct of self-
preservation required that he should assist them. If he allowed Antigonus
to crush Cassander, Lysimachus, and Ptolemy, his own turn would not be
long in coming. It was only politic, therefore, to make the best terms he
could with Chandragupta, whose 500 elephants reached the theatre of wra
in time to play a conspicuous part in the final overthrow of Antigonus at
Ipsus in the year 301.
For more than a generation after that battle there is an almost
complete blank in our knowledge of the history of Central Asia. Seleucus
himself took up his residence at Antioch on the Orontes. But he soon
realised that the new city lay too far west to be a convenient administrative
centre for the eastern portion of his empire. Accordingly he entrusted the
government of all the provinces beyond the Euphrates to his son Antiochus,
on whom after the lapse of a few years he conferred the title of king.
We are without definite information as to the exact date of this devolution
of authority. It is generally assigned to 293 B. C. , and cuneiform documents
undoubtedly bear the names of Siluku' and 'Antiuksu' as joint-kings from
289 onwards? . In 281 Seleucus was assassinated. According to Memnon
(F. H. G. III, 533, 12, 1) and Pausanias (1, 16, 2), Antiochus had already had
his powers as co-regent greatly amplified, the whole of Asia having been
committed to his care. In any case his father's death would render his
immediate presence in the west imperative, if his heritage was to be main-
1 Zeit. für Assyriologie, VII. 234, 226 VIII, 108; Keilinschrift. Bibl. III, 2, 136 f.
## p. 389 (#427) ############################################
XII
RELATIONS OF SYRIA WITH INDIA
389
>
tained unimpaired. To the west he accordingly went. But it seems highly
probable that the plan of stationing a viceroy of the east at Seleucia on the
Tigris was still continued. Though no inkling of this has survived in any
historian, cuneiform inscriptions record 'Antiuksu and 'Siluku' as joint-kings
from 275 (or possibly, 280) to 269, and a similar cooperation between
'Antiuksu' and 'Antiuksu' from 266 to 263. 'Siluku’ here is clearly Seleucus,
the elder son of Antiochus by Stratonice ; we gather from a chance frag-
ment of John of Antioch (F. H. G. iv, 558, 55) that he was put to death on
suspicion of conspiring against his father. The 'Antiuksu' who takes his
place, is no less clearly his younger brother, destined to become sole ruler
in 261 as Antiochus II (Theos).
Under all of these kings, including Antiochus II, the friendly relations
originally established with the Mauraya empire remained unbroken. The
indications of this, if few, are sufficient. Athenaeus (I, 32, 18 D) has
preserved a story of certain strange drugs sent as a present by Chandra-
gupta to Seleucus I. And it is to the same writer ( xiv, 67, 652F and 653a)
that we owe an anecdote of how Chandragupta's son, Bindusāra-or
Amitrochates, to give him his Greek name? ,- wrote to Antiochus I, asking
him to buy and have conveyed to him some sweet wine, some figs, and a
sophist to teach him to argue. Antiochus replied, forwarding the figs and
the wine, but explaining that sophists were not a marketable commodity
among the Greeks. Nor was the intercourse between the courts confined
to such occasional civilities. We know from Strabo and others that
Magasthenes repeatedly-mollakus is Arrian's word ( v, 6, 2 )- visited
Chandragupta's capital as an envoy of Seleucus, thereby acquiring a mass
of information which made his writings on India an invaluable storehouse
for later geographers, and that Daïmachus of Plataea also werit on
mission or missions from Antiochus I to Bindusāra, likewise embodying
his experiences in a book. Other Hellenic states must have been drawn
into the circle of amity, for Pliny (N. H. vi, 58) speaks in the same breath
of Megasthenes and of a certain Dionysius who (he explains) was des-
patched as an ambassador to India by Ptolemy Philadelphus. As Philadelphus
reigner from 285 to 246, the Maurya emperor to whom Dionysius
was accredited may have heen either Bindusāra or his more famous
son Acoka, whose attempt to convert the Hellenistic kings to
Buddhism is justly regarded as one of the most curious episodes in early
Indian history.
It is natural to suppose that such intimate diplomatic relations would
rest on a solid foundation of mutual commercial interest. And corrobora-
tive testimony is not altogether wanting. Strabo, speaking of the Oxus
(Amu Daria), states ( x1, 509) that it formed a link in an important chain
For the name, or rather title, see Chapter XX.
a
## p. 390 (#428) ############################################
390
[CH.
SYRIA, BACTRIA, AND PARTHIA
T
along which Indian goods were carried to Europe by way of the Caspian
and the Black Sea. He cites as one of his authorities Patrocles, who was
an admiral in the services of Antiochus I, and thus makes it clear that the
route was a popular one early in the third century B. C. Evidence of the
prosperity of Central Asia at this period is also furnished by the coins.
There need be no hesitation about associating with that region a well-known
series of silver pieces, of Attic weight, having on the obverse a laureate
head of Zeus, and on the reverse Athena fighting in a quadriga drawn by
elephants. The inscription BΑΣΙΑ ΕΩΣ ΣΕ ΛΕΥΚΟΥ shows that they must
be later than 306, when the royal title was first assumed. The denomination
of most common occurrence is the tetradrachm; but drachms, hemidra-
chms, and ohols are not infrequent. We are safe in assuming with Imhoof-
Blumer that the majority of them were minted at Babylon or at Seleucia
on the Tigris. A minority, which are of a quite distinctive and somewhat
coarser fabric, appear to hail from even farther east; the specimens in
the British Museum have nearly all been purchased at Rāwalpindi, or
obtained from collections formed in India. Generally, though not invari.
ably, these latter have been struck from regularly adjusted dies ( 9 )while
a few have monograms on the obverse (Pl. I, 15), features that at once
recall certain of the Athenian imitations spoken of in an earlier chapter as
coming from the same district (supra, p. 348). One small group of
p
tettradrachms and drachms, from regularly adjusted dies, bears the inscrip-
tion ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΣΕΛΕΥΚΟΥ ΑΝΤΙΟΧΟΥ (PI. II, 2), indicating
probably, as six and Imhoof have suggested', that the coins were minted
during the viceroyalty of Seleucus, son of Antiochus I. The omission of
the father's kingly title has thus a sinister significance. Unlike the rest,
they are not of Attic weight, but follow the lighter standard already met
with above in another connexion (supra, p. 347); the everage weight of
five tetradrachms is only 2123 grains (13. 82 grammes). The monogram
is placed on the reverse. Very rare drachms, reading BAXI AEIN
ΣΕ ΛΕΥΚΟΥ ΚΑΙ ΑΝΤΙΟΧΟΥ, which are also struck on the lighter
standard and show the same monogram (Pl. II, 1), are plainly of kindred
origin. At the same time their superior style, coupled with the fact that
they are struck from unadjusted dies, proves them to be somewhat earlier.
In all likelihood they date from the period when Antiochus I himself was
acting as his father's viceroy.
If the witness of the coins is an inarticulate one, its cumulative
effect is nevertheless impressive. It proves that there was a busy life
throbbing on both sides of the Indian frontier during the forty or fifty
years about which history is silent, that merchants were constantly coming
and going, buying and selling. When the silence is at length broken,
1 J. P. Six, Num. Chron. , 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.
two or three years of the truth. It was not till 311 that the Satrap of
Babylon- he had not yet assumed the title of king-was free to quit his
capital with an easy mind, and devote his energies to consolidating his
authority in the more distant provinces. The task must have required time,
for some hard fighting had to be done, notably in Bactria. But, beyond
the bare statement of Justin (xv, 4) to that effect, we have no details. We
may suppose that about 305 or 304, at the latest, he deemed himself ready
to demand a reckoning with Chandragupta. Advancing (we may be certain)
by the route along the Kābul river, he crossed the Indus (Appian, Syr. 55).
The minute topographical knowledge which Strabo (xv, 689) and Pliny
(N. H. vi, 63) display, and more particularly the vague assertion of the latter
that 'all the remaining distances were searched out for Seleucus Nicator'
have led Droysen and others to conclude that he not merely - entered the
territory he had come to regain, but actually penetrated as far as Palibo-
thra (Pātaliputra) on the Ganges, the chief seat of his enemy's power,
whence he made his way along the banks of the river to the sea. The
premises, however, are scarcely substantial enough to bear so far-reaching
a conclusion. Pliny may quite well have had in his mind, not reconnais-
sances made during a campaign, but information gathered subsequently by
the Greek envoys who, as we shall see presently, resided at the court of the
Indian king.
Chandraeupta could put into the field more than half a million of
men, with 9000 war-elephants and numerous chariots to boot. If Seleucus
had really forced his way to the shores of the Bay of Bengal in the teeth
of an opposition so formidable, his astonishing feat was hardly likely to
have been left to a Roman geographer to chronicle. Besides, in that event
the upshot of the campagin would surely have been a more decided triumph.
As it is, the terms of peace point to a frank recognition by Seleucus that
his own arm was neither long enough nor strong enough to govern India
from Babylon. Invader and invaded, we are told, concluded an alliance
and sealed it by a further compact, which Appian (Syr. 55) calls a kndos,
Strabo (xv, 724) an ErtiyaLLÀ. According to ordinary Greek usage these
two terms are scarcely consistent one with another. The former would
naturally signify an actual marriage between individuals, and hence it is
frequently argued that Seleucus must have become either the father-in-law
or the son-in-law of Chandragupta. There seems, however, to be no room
in his family circle, as we otherwise know it, for any relationship of the
kind. Probably, therefore, it is safer to fall back on the technical meaning
of Strabo's word, and to suppose that what is implied is a convention
establishing a jus connubii between the two royal families. In that land of
caste a jus connubii between the two peoples is unthinkable.
.
>
## p. 388 (#426) ############################################
388
[CH
SYRIA, BACTRIA, AND PARTHIA
As regards territory, the arrangement appears, upon the face of it,
to have been entirely favourable to Chandragupta. Not only did Seleucas
acquiesce in his sovereignty over all the country beyond the Indus. He also
transferred to him the satrapies of Arachosia (Kandahār) and the Paro-
panisadae (Kābul), with at least some portion of Gedrosia (Baluchistān)
and of Aria (Herāt). In other words, the frontiers of the Maurya empire
were extended so as to embrace the southern half of Afghānistan and
perhaps the whole of British Baluchistān. The expression presented'
(eowke), which is used by Strabo (loc. cit. ) to describe the transaction, does
not preclude the possibility of the transfer having been made upon condi-
tions. A return gift of 500 war-elephants is, in fact, mentioned. But under
no circumstances could that have been looked on as an equivalent. We
may take it that there were further stipulations as to freedom of trade and
the like, such as would naturally accompany an ealyaula. There may even
have been a nominal and unmeaning acknowledgment of suzerainty. It
must be borne in mind that the written record contains nothing to show
that Seleucus suffered defeat, nothing even to suggest that the rival armies
ever came to blows at all. The probability is that, while he was still en-
deavouring to gauge the magnitude of the task that confronted him, an
urgent call for help reached him from the confederate king3 across the
2500 miles that separated him from Asia Minor. The instinct of self-
preservation required that he should assist them. If he allowed Antigonus
to crush Cassander, Lysimachus, and Ptolemy, his own turn would not be
long in coming. It was only politic, therefore, to make the best terms he
could with Chandragupta, whose 500 elephants reached the theatre of wra
in time to play a conspicuous part in the final overthrow of Antigonus at
Ipsus in the year 301.
For more than a generation after that battle there is an almost
complete blank in our knowledge of the history of Central Asia. Seleucus
himself took up his residence at Antioch on the Orontes. But he soon
realised that the new city lay too far west to be a convenient administrative
centre for the eastern portion of his empire. Accordingly he entrusted the
government of all the provinces beyond the Euphrates to his son Antiochus,
on whom after the lapse of a few years he conferred the title of king.
We are without definite information as to the exact date of this devolution
of authority. It is generally assigned to 293 B. C. , and cuneiform documents
undoubtedly bear the names of Siluku' and 'Antiuksu' as joint-kings from
289 onwards? . In 281 Seleucus was assassinated. According to Memnon
(F. H. G. III, 533, 12, 1) and Pausanias (1, 16, 2), Antiochus had already had
his powers as co-regent greatly amplified, the whole of Asia having been
committed to his care. In any case his father's death would render his
immediate presence in the west imperative, if his heritage was to be main-
1 Zeit. für Assyriologie, VII. 234, 226 VIII, 108; Keilinschrift. Bibl. III, 2, 136 f.
## p. 389 (#427) ############################################
XII
RELATIONS OF SYRIA WITH INDIA
389
>
tained unimpaired. To the west he accordingly went. But it seems highly
probable that the plan of stationing a viceroy of the east at Seleucia on the
Tigris was still continued. Though no inkling of this has survived in any
historian, cuneiform inscriptions record 'Antiuksu and 'Siluku' as joint-kings
from 275 (or possibly, 280) to 269, and a similar cooperation between
'Antiuksu' and 'Antiuksu' from 266 to 263. 'Siluku’ here is clearly Seleucus,
the elder son of Antiochus by Stratonice ; we gather from a chance frag-
ment of John of Antioch (F. H. G. iv, 558, 55) that he was put to death on
suspicion of conspiring against his father. The 'Antiuksu' who takes his
place, is no less clearly his younger brother, destined to become sole ruler
in 261 as Antiochus II (Theos).
Under all of these kings, including Antiochus II, the friendly relations
originally established with the Mauraya empire remained unbroken. The
indications of this, if few, are sufficient. Athenaeus (I, 32, 18 D) has
preserved a story of certain strange drugs sent as a present by Chandra-
gupta to Seleucus I. And it is to the same writer ( xiv, 67, 652F and 653a)
that we owe an anecdote of how Chandragupta's son, Bindusāra-or
Amitrochates, to give him his Greek name? ,- wrote to Antiochus I, asking
him to buy and have conveyed to him some sweet wine, some figs, and a
sophist to teach him to argue. Antiochus replied, forwarding the figs and
the wine, but explaining that sophists were not a marketable commodity
among the Greeks. Nor was the intercourse between the courts confined
to such occasional civilities. We know from Strabo and others that
Magasthenes repeatedly-mollakus is Arrian's word ( v, 6, 2 )- visited
Chandragupta's capital as an envoy of Seleucus, thereby acquiring a mass
of information which made his writings on India an invaluable storehouse
for later geographers, and that Daïmachus of Plataea also werit on
mission or missions from Antiochus I to Bindusāra, likewise embodying
his experiences in a book. Other Hellenic states must have been drawn
into the circle of amity, for Pliny (N. H. vi, 58) speaks in the same breath
of Megasthenes and of a certain Dionysius who (he explains) was des-
patched as an ambassador to India by Ptolemy Philadelphus. As Philadelphus
reigner from 285 to 246, the Maurya emperor to whom Dionysius
was accredited may have heen either Bindusāra or his more famous
son Acoka, whose attempt to convert the Hellenistic kings to
Buddhism is justly regarded as one of the most curious episodes in early
Indian history.
It is natural to suppose that such intimate diplomatic relations would
rest on a solid foundation of mutual commercial interest. And corrobora-
tive testimony is not altogether wanting. Strabo, speaking of the Oxus
(Amu Daria), states ( x1, 509) that it formed a link in an important chain
For the name, or rather title, see Chapter XX.
a
## p. 390 (#428) ############################################
390
[CH.
SYRIA, BACTRIA, AND PARTHIA
T
along which Indian goods were carried to Europe by way of the Caspian
and the Black Sea. He cites as one of his authorities Patrocles, who was
an admiral in the services of Antiochus I, and thus makes it clear that the
route was a popular one early in the third century B. C. Evidence of the
prosperity of Central Asia at this period is also furnished by the coins.
There need be no hesitation about associating with that region a well-known
series of silver pieces, of Attic weight, having on the obverse a laureate
head of Zeus, and on the reverse Athena fighting in a quadriga drawn by
elephants. The inscription BΑΣΙΑ ΕΩΣ ΣΕ ΛΕΥΚΟΥ shows that they must
be later than 306, when the royal title was first assumed. The denomination
of most common occurrence is the tetradrachm; but drachms, hemidra-
chms, and ohols are not infrequent. We are safe in assuming with Imhoof-
Blumer that the majority of them were minted at Babylon or at Seleucia
on the Tigris. A minority, which are of a quite distinctive and somewhat
coarser fabric, appear to hail from even farther east; the specimens in
the British Museum have nearly all been purchased at Rāwalpindi, or
obtained from collections formed in India. Generally, though not invari.
ably, these latter have been struck from regularly adjusted dies ( 9 )while
a few have monograms on the obverse (Pl. I, 15), features that at once
recall certain of the Athenian imitations spoken of in an earlier chapter as
coming from the same district (supra, p. 348). One small group of
p
tettradrachms and drachms, from regularly adjusted dies, bears the inscrip-
tion ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΣΕΛΕΥΚΟΥ ΑΝΤΙΟΧΟΥ (PI. II, 2), indicating
probably, as six and Imhoof have suggested', that the coins were minted
during the viceroyalty of Seleucus, son of Antiochus I. The omission of
the father's kingly title has thus a sinister significance. Unlike the rest,
they are not of Attic weight, but follow the lighter standard already met
with above in another connexion (supra, p. 347); the everage weight of
five tetradrachms is only 2123 grains (13. 82 grammes). The monogram
is placed on the reverse. Very rare drachms, reading BAXI AEIN
ΣΕ ΛΕΥΚΟΥ ΚΑΙ ΑΝΤΙΟΧΟΥ, which are also struck on the lighter
standard and show the same monogram (Pl. II, 1), are plainly of kindred
origin. At the same time their superior style, coupled with the fact that
they are struck from unadjusted dies, proves them to be somewhat earlier.
In all likelihood they date from the period when Antiochus I himself was
acting as his father's viceroy.
If the witness of the coins is an inarticulate one, its cumulative
effect is nevertheless impressive. It proves that there was a busy life
throbbing on both sides of the Indian frontier during the forty or fifty
years about which history is silent, that merchants were constantly coming
and going, buying and selling. When the silence is at length broken,
1 J. P. Six, Num. Chron. , 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.
