To drag this back from its grave....
“Your majesty, when the wise converse, whether they become entangled by their opponents’ arguments or extricate themselves, whether they or their opponents are convicted of error, whether their own superiority or that of their opponents is established, nothing in all this can make them angry. Thus, your majesty, do the wise converse."
"And how, bhante, do kings converse?"
"Your majesty, when kings converse, they advance a proposition, and whoever opposes it, they order his punishment, saying, ‘Punish this fellow!’ Thus, your majesty, do kings converse."
"Bhante, I will converse as the wise converse, not as kings do. Let your worship converse in all confidence. Let your worship converse as unrestrainedly as if with a monk or a novice or a lay disciple or a keeper of the monastery grounds. Be not afraid!” –Questions of King Milinda
The saga of the Greeks in India must be one of the most fascinating, if relatively unknown, stories in history. A Greek society that established itself on the other side of the world, with its kings besieging the greatest cities of India before decaying; how could one not like it?
The purpose of this timeline is to explore the effects of larger, longer lives Hellenistic states in India and Bactria, as well as what transpires across the world as a result of this. The timeline, therefore, will cover a longer timespan than the Prince of Peace did. It will also be less of a character driven timeline, and focus more on ideas and societies.
Let’s begin by discussing just what, exactly, Bactria was. The easternmost fringe of the Persian Empire, it was conquered by Alexander the Great in 327 BC. It then passed the Seleucids, whose satraps ruled the province for several generations.
This situation lasted until about 260 BC, when the governor Diodotus declared himself an independent monarch. Just how Diodotus gained his independence is rather vague. The Greek writer Strabo, in the 1st century BC, indicated that the Bactrian revolt took place before the Parthian rising. Giving that the Parthian rebellion began around 250 BC, this means that Diodotus’s rebellion likely began around 255 BC.
Diodotus ruled an empire that stretched from the Hindu Kush to Samarkand, and Bactria lay upon the crossroads of Eurasia. The numerous coins from the era attest to the wealth of the kings, and it is largely through their coinage that we can determine when several monarchs reigned.
One would think that relations between the Parthians and Bactrians were cordial, as both Diodotus and Arasces, King of the Parthians, had rebelled against the Seleucids. But the 2nd Century AD Historian Justin claimed that Arasces “raised a large army through fear of Diodotus, King of the Bactrians”. Fortunately for Arasces, Diodotus I died and was succeeded by Diodotus II, who may have been his son. Diodotus II realized that the defeat of Parthia would expose Bactria to the Seleucids, and allied with the Parthians.
Diodotus II, however, was not to remain on the throne for long. He was overthrown in a revolt and succeeded by Euthydemus of Magnesia [1]. Euthdyemus was a good, is harsh king, and under him Bactria expanded to include Aria [2].
However, Bactria’s growing strength was matched by a revival in Seleucid fortunes. Antiochus III, the last great Seleucid king, subdued Parthia in 209 BC and appeared on the banks of Arius, the border between Bactria and Parthia.
Euthydemus was defeated by Antiochus III, and he was forced to retreat to Bactria, for one of the greatest sieges in antiquity. After a siege lasting for two years, Euthydemus sent Antiochus a simple message.
If Antiochus did not cease his attacks, Euthydemus would encourage the nomads to invade the Seleucid empire. Antiochus, probably tired of the struggle after years of warfare, and clearly worried about the nomad threat, agreed to a truce. Under the terms of the agreement, according to the historian Polybius, Antiochus recognized Euthydemus as a king and gave his daughter in marriage to Demetrius, son of Euthydemus.
Euthydemus emerged from the war with the Seleucids strengthened immeasureably. The Parthians were subdued, and he was tied by marriage to the Seleucid kings. It is at this point that the Bactrians sent troops into Ferghana [3]. It is around this period that the trade with China began, and by 200 BC the Bactrians were using a nickel and copper alloy that was found in China; evidence, I feel, of a fairly developed trade with China, even if it was probably through intermediaries at this point.
The way was clear for the Bactrians to turn on the collapsing Mauryan Empire. Unfortunately, there is some dispute about when this occurred. The general consensus (Such as there is) follows:
Euthydemus died shortly after the withdrawl of Antiochus III, sometime around 190 BC. His eldest son, Demetrius I, conquered Arachosia and India to the banks of the Indus, refounding the city of Patala in the Indus delta.
Demetrius is credited, at this point, with appointing family members to rule his various conquests in his name. Euthydemus II, who was probably the younger son of Euthydemus I, ruled in Bactria proper, while Demetrius ruled in India.
There was a tremendous opportunity for Demetrius and the Bactrians at this point. Ashoka’s empire had ruleld almost all of India, but by 200 BC it was but a remnant of the mighty empire it had once been. In 185 BC the last Mauryan monarch Brhadratha was overthrown by his general Pushymitra. Pushymitra, founder of the Sunga dynasty, A Brahmin who is believed to have harbored anti-Buddhist policies, [4] was part of a very shaky regime[5].
Now the confusing period begins. Demetrius I was overthrown by Eucratides, a military officer who made himself king of Bactria. But Eucratides was opposed by Demetrius, the “King of the Indians”. The identity of this King of the Indians is hard to deciper; some historians view him as the son of Demetrius I, others as the son of a monarch who ruled an area north of the Hindu Kush. After consulting half a dozen books, and getting about half a dozen different answers, I have come to the following conclusion: Tarn was right to portray him as the son of Demetrius I.
But this then raises the question of what happened to Demetrius II. Was he defeated, as some historians claim, by Eucratides? I have come to the conclusion that the exact opposite happened.
Justin claims that Eucratides was slain by his son, who denounced him as a tyrant and desecrated his corpse. But why would one of his sons treat their father in such a way? The only logical conclusion is that Justin interpreted the story wrong. Eucratides was slain by a son of Demetrius I, and that son was none other than our Demetrius II, King of India [6].
Now, suppose that Eucratides had not slain Demetrius I, and Demetrius II was free to focus on his conquest of India? Suppose that in 185 BC, Demetrius gains word of the plot of Eucratides, and has him murdered.
Word reaches Bactria of the murder of the last Mauryan monarch, and in 182 BC, ten thousand hoofbeats echo through the Hindu Kush, as the armies of Demetrius II pour into India.
The successors of Alexander would sweep into the heartland of India, and conquer more nations than Alexander.
But that, as they say, is a story for another time.
[1] Evidently he’d come a long way from his home in Lydia.
[2] What we would consider territory around the city of Heart.
[3] Xinjiang
[4] To be fair, the evidence isn’t absolute. The sources which accuse him of being anti-Buddhist are generally from centuries later, but as they are essentially the only sources we have that discuss his motivations, I think they’re worth taking into account.
[5] Which is also why I don’t believe Tarn’s date of the 180’s as the time of the Greek invasion of India. A Greek army marches to the walls of the capital of a general who had taken the throne a couple of years ago with no effects on the durability of his regime? Please.
[6] Of course, I’m not the first person to come to this conclusion. This was proposed in “The Greek kingdom of Bactria : from Alexander to Eucratides the Great”, published in 2000
