The rarity of the appearance of Greco-Bactrian and Indo-Greek Kingdoms in ancient literature is one of the reasons why those states are so little-known today. Indo-Greek literature did exist, but none has been found that speaks about the Greco-Bactrian and Indo-Greek states. Classical authors tell us very little about Indo-Greek kingdoms, as they were far away from the Mediterranean world, cut-off from other Greeks by the mighty Parthian state. Indian classical literature almost never interested itself in events, except from a religious point of view, and thus does not help to solve the dilemma. Chinese accounts exist, but only supply us with limited information.
Almost all of what remains today of ancient litterature about those kingdoms can be summarized on one page, which is what this article is going to accomplish.
NB: These are only quotes about the Greco-Bactrian and Indo-Greek kingdoms, and not about Bactria,as an area.
Some Greek Sources
When the news came that Euthydemus with his army was before Tapuria, and that 10,000 cavalry were in his front guarding the ford of the river Arius, Antiochus decided to abandon the siege and deal with the situation. The river being at a distance of three days' march, he marched at a moderate pace for two days, but on the third day, he ordered the rest of his army to break up their camp at daylight while he himself with his cavalry, his light-armed infantry, and 10,000 peltasts advanced during the night, marching quickly. For he had heard that the enemy's horse kept guard during the day on the river bank, but retired at night to a town as much as 20 stades away. Having completed the remainder of the distance during the night, as the plain is easy to ride over, he succeeded in getting the greater part of his forces across the river by daylight. The Bactrian cavalry, when their scouts had reported this, came up to attack and engaged the enemy while still on the march. The King, seeing that it was necessary to stand the first charge of the enemy, called on 1,000 of his cavalry who were accustomed to fight round him and ordered the rest to form up on the spot in squadrons and troops and all place themselves in their usual order, while he himself with the force I spoke of, met and engaged the Bactrians who were the first to charge. In this affair it seems that Antiochus himself fought more brilliantly than any of those with him. There were severe losses on both sides, but the King's cavalry repulsed the first Bactrian regiment. When, however, the second and third came up, they were in difficulties and had the worst of it. It was now that Panaetolus ordered his men to advance, and joining the King and those who were fighting round him, compelled those Bactrians who were pursuing in disorder to turn rein and take to headlong flight. The Bactrians, now hard pressed by Panaetlus, never stopped until they joined Euthydemus, after losing most of their men. The royal cavalry, after killing many of the enemy and making many prisoners, withdrew, and at first encamped on the spot near the river. In this battle, Antiochus's horse was transfixed and killed, and he himself received a wound in the mouth and lost several of his teeth, having in general gained a greater reputation for courage on this occasion than on any other. After the battle Euthydemus was terror-stricken and retired with his army to a city in Bactria called Zariaspa.
(Polybius, Histories, X, 49, between 167-157 BCE. Translation: H. J. Edwards 1922)
For Euthydemus himself was a native of Magnesia, and he now, in defending himself to Teleas, said that Antiochus was not justified in attempting to deprive him of his Kingdom, as he himself had never revolted against the King, but after others had revolted he had possessed himself of the throne of Bactria by destroying their descendants. After speaking at some length in the same sense, he begged Teleas to mediate between them in a friendly manner and bring about a reconciliation, entreating Antiochus not to grudge him the name and state of King, as if he did not yield to this request, neither of them would be safe; for considerable hordes of Nomads were approaching, and this was not only a grave danger to both of them, but if they consented to admit them, the country would certainly relapse into barbarism. After speaking thus, he dispatched Teleas to Antiochus. The King, who had long been on the look-out for a solution of the question when he received Teleas' report, gladly consented to an accommodation owing to the reasons above stated. Teleas went backwards and forwards more than once to both Kings, and finally Euthydemus sent off his son Demetrius to ratify the agreement. Antiochus, on receiving the young man and judging him from his appearance, conversation, and dignity of bearing to be worthy of royal rank, in the first place promised to give him one of his daughters in marriage and next gave permission to his father to style himself King. After making a written treaty concerning other points and entering into a sworn alliance, Antiochus took his departure, serving out generous rations of corn to his troops and adding to his own the elephants belonging to Euthydemus.
(Polybius, Histories, XI, 34.1-10, between 167-157 BCE. Translation: H. J. Edwards 1922)
The Greeks who caused Bactria to revolt grew so powerful on account of the fertility of the country that they became masters, not only of Ariana, but also of India, as Apollodorus of Artemita says: and more tribes were subdued by them than by Alexander—by Menander in particular (at least if he actually crossed the Hypanis towards the east and advanced as far as the Imaüs), for some were subdued by him personally and others by Demetrius, the son of Euthydemus the King of the Bactrians; and they took possession, not only of Patalena, but also, on the rest of the coast, of what is called the kingdom of Saraostus and Sigerdis. In short, Apollodorus says that Bactriana is the ornament of Ariana as a whole; and, more than that, they extended their empire even as far as the Seres and the Phryni. Their cities were Bactra (also called Zariaspa, through which flows a river bearing the same name and emptying into the Oxus), and Darapsa, and several others. Among these was Eucratidia, which was named after its ruler. The Greeks took possession of it and divided it into satrapies, of which the satrapy Turiva and that of Aspionus were taken away from Eucratides by the Parthians. And they also held Sogdiana, situated above Bactriana towards the east between the Oxus River, which forms the boundary between the Bactrians and the Sogdians, and the Iaxartes River. And the Iaxartes forms also the boundary between the Sogdians and the nomads.
(Strabo, Geography, XI. 11.1-2, between15/10 BCE and 24 CE. Translation: Horace Leonard Jones 1917)
At any rate, Apollodorus, who wrote The Parthica, when he mentions the Greeks who caused Bactriana to revolt from the Syrian kings who succeeded Seleucus Nicator, says that when those kings had grown in power they also attacked India, but he reveals nothing further than what was already known, and even contradicts what was known, saying that those kings subdued more of India than the Macedonians; that Eucratidas, at any rate, held a thousand cities as his subjects.
(Strabo, Geography, XV.3,between15/10 BCE and 24 CE. Translation: Horace Leonard Jones 1917)
EDITED FROM: Ancient History Encyclopedia
No comments:
Post a Comment