In the picture we see coins from all of the core Greco-Baktrian rulers.
The Greco-Bactrian Kingdom was a Greek state of the Hellenistic period located in Central Asia. Although a Greek population was already present in Bactria by the 5th century BCE, Alexander the Great conquered the region by 327 BCE.
The Theodotos inscription is the earliest known inscription from a synagogue. It was found by Raymond Weill in Wadi Hilweh (known as the City of David).
Greek script
ΘΕΟΔΟΤΟΣ ΟΥΕΤΤΗΝΟΥ ΙΕΡΕΥΣ ΚΑΙ
ΑΡΧΙΣΥΝΑΓΩΓΟΣ ΥΙΟΣ ΑΡΧΙΣΥΝ(ΑΓΩ)
Γ(Ο)Υ ΥΙΩΝΟΣ ΑΡΧΙΣΥΝ(Α)ΓΩΓΟΥ ΩΚΟ
ΔΟΜΗΣΕ ΤΗΝ ΣΥΝΑΓΩΓ(Η)Ν ΕΙΣ ΑΝ(ΑΓ)ΝΩ
Σ(ΙΝ) ΝΟΜΟΥ ΚΑΙ ΕΙΣ (Δ)ΙΔAΧ(Η)Ν ΕΝΤΟΛΩΝ ΚΑ(Ι)
ΤΟΝ ΞΕΝΩΝΑ ΚΑ(Ι TΑ) ΔΩΜΑΤΑ ΚΑΙ ΤΑ ΧΡΗ
Σ(Τ)ΗΡΙΑ ΤΩΝ ΥΔΑΤΩΝ ΕΙΣ ΚΑΤΑΛΥΜΑ ΤΟΙ
Σ(Χ)ΡΗΖΟΥΣΙΝ ΑΠΟ ΤΗΣ ΞΕ(Ν)ΗΣ ΗΝ ΕΘΕΜΕ
Λ(ΙΩ)ΣΑΝ ΟΙ ΠΑΤΕΡΕΣ (Α)ΥΤΟΥ ΚΑΙ ΟΙ ΠΡΕ
Σ(Β)ΥΤΕΡΟΙ ΚΑΙ ΣΙΜΩΝ(Ι)ΔΗΣ
Translation
Theodotos son of Vettenus, priest and head of the synagogue (archisynágōgos), son of a head of the synagogue, and grandson of a head of the synagogue, built the synagogue for the reading of the law and for the teaching of the commandments, as well as the guest room, the chambers, and the water fittings as an inn for those in need from abroad, the synagogue which his fathers founded with the elders and Simonides.
Edited from Wikipedia
Good health and well-being of humans has always depended on a large degree on the bright energy sent to us by the sun. Thus the first God of medicine, meaning the God who preserves life and defeats death, is Apollo, the God of light and rhythm. Even today, folk wisdom repeats the phrase “Where the sun enters a doctor doesn't”. Apollo is the child of Zeus and the Titanide Leto and the twin brother of Artemis, Goddess of the moon. God Apollo and the mortal Coronis gave life to a child called Asclepius who, as a half-God was brought to the earthly world and trained as a healer. His teacher was Centaur Chiron (half-human and half-horse) who had the knowledge to exploit the beneficial powers of the natural world. Asclepius soon acquired the reputation of the great healer and traveled around Greece healing people. The power of His work gave Him the prestige of a God in a world of mortals. His sons and daughters supported His healing power as his helpers but as independent beings as well. His sons took part in the Trojan War as military doctors, while His daughters were protectors and leaders of the doctors' healing acts and performed health rehabilitation techniques with spiritual and bodily interventions .
The treatment provision in ancient Greece was based on the structure of Asclepeion. The Asclepeion was the temple of healing intervention by the descendants of Asclepius, under the supervision of Him and his family. This place constitutes not only the core of a building infrastructure but the crown of a multi-shaped and multi-productive intervention both in mental, psychological, physical and social functions of the human entity. In its basic form it included theater (drama-therapy), baths (spa-therapy), stadium (exercising), gardens (relaxation), kitchen (restaurants), bed-chambers (hotels), temples (impressive structures) and the Avaton (a quiet chamber half buried into the earth with dim lighting intended for deep sleep – ICU). Fast, diet, purification, drinking water from a healing spring, relaxation in a clean environment, theater performance, listening to music, dancing, exercising, sleep induction, psychological shocks, pharmaceutical and surgical interventions combined with the most powerful weapon anyone can possess, which is faith to a higher power, deconstructs illness and provides the psychosomatic balance which leads to the cure. The final healing intervention is the sleep during which, while the patient is asleep in the Avaton, he/she comes in contact with Asclepius, his helpers and his sacred animals so that the cure can arise. The structure of the Asclepeion was directed by the priesthood. The priesthood, in the form of a health center, offered healing through God Asclepius.
The Asclepeion centers acquired glory and fame and were invited to create regional branches. Thus a system of regional health centers was created being under the supervision of the central one. Their structure and their expansion were supported by donations from the rich patients and kings. Many of the Asclepeion centers, such as the one in the island of Kos, were converted to a neutral war zone during difficult circumstances in history so that political and military deliberations could take place between opposite powers for the benefit of peace.
Sixteen generations after Asclepius came his descendant, the eminent personality of Hippocrates (460-377 BCE) who became known worldwide. He worked at the Asclepeion centers in the island of Kos and traveled offering his services not only to prominent personalities of that time, but also to entire populations whenever he was called to battle deadly epidemics. He was concerned with the anatomic and functional structure of the human organism and evolved into a brilliant anatomist and physiologist. His logical methodology is the basis upon which medical thinking is developed until today. His moral views on medical practice are stated in the Oath of Hippocrates. The Oath, which has been translated into all the languages of the world, is the one that the graduates of Medical Schools give after the successful completion of their training.
The healing interventions of that time were surgical and pharmaceutical. The means used for these interventions were the surgical tools, forerunners of the contemporary ones, herbs, and metals, which have evolved to today's medicines, and hypnosis. Since the age of Hippocrates the theory of “humors”, which derives from the philosophical approaches of Empedocles (495-435 BCE) and Aristotle (384-322 BCE), is beginning to form. Four are the humors of the human body: blood, phlegm, yellow bile and black bile. They are related to the four elements of fire, water, air and earth and the four characters of bloody, phlegmatic, choleric and melancholic. In succession, any other sequence of four is structured around them and is related to rhythm, orientation, psyche, temperature, diet, etc.
The theory of humors was developed and described in accuracy by the leading medical doctor Galenus (129-199 CE), and is even until today the basis of Ionian (Greek) medicine.
It is known to everyone that the prevalence of the church brought the dismantling of ancient Greek religion and worship, including the Asclepeion centers. Asclepius' face was the only one that remained almost intact.
Christianity banned and abandoned a lot of the medical practices of ancient Greece. However, the theory of humors, deeply rooted in Greek Philosophy, continued to be used in disease treatment. In Western Europe of Christianity, ancient Greek philosophy, science, and art were facing their dark days. In the East, members of a Christian sect originating in Asia Minor and Syria by the name Nestorians, established new medical schools, which were parts of a wider educational system, such as in Edessa of Mesopotamia in the 5th century, where the works of Hippocrates , Galenus and other distinguished Greek philosophers were translated into Syrian. Along with that, came the foundation of the great university in Godasaipur in southwest Persia where Greek, Persian and Indian medicine are met with each other and with the philosophies of these three countries.
Later on, at the multinational city of Cordoba in Spain, Arab texts were beginning to get translated into Latin. In Europe, during the Middle Ages, these translations brought Greek philosophy and science, including medicine, once again in the spotlight. The Arabs, through their expansion towards south Asia, reached India. There, during the 12th century, the Arab-Greek medicine found suitable grounds to bloom because of the Hippocratic medicine infrastructure already brought to India by Alexander the Great. The Arab-Greek medicine was enriched by the already richly practiced traditional healing and thus the first center was established in Lahore in 1160 CE.
Consequently, Unani Medicine or Unani-Tibb was created. The names were given in honor of the Ionian medicine, which is less known than Ayurveda, due to the Islamic element being in minority in India. Unani-Tibb is the system which observes the influence that the surroundings and ecological conditions such as air, food, drinks, bodily and mental movement and rest, sleep, wakefulness, excretion, and retention have on the state of health. Unani believes that it is this dominance which gives a person his/her individual habit and complexion. Unani practitioners do not only cure bodily diseases but also act as an ethical instructor.
The treatment in Unani medicine involves courses of regimental therapy which include venesection, cupping, sweating, diuresis, bath therapy, massage, cauterization, purging, emesis, counter-irritation, exercise, and leeching.
Diet therapy deals with certain foods by administration of specific diets or by regulating the quantity and quality of food.
Ancient Greek alphabet inscriptions on a rock were recently discovered on a mountain in Tajikistan, a country in Central Asia,.
The engravings in Greek writing in the Bactrian region of that area reads, “ΕΙΔΙΗΛΟ Υ…ϸΑΟΝΑΝϸΑΕ ΟΟΗ-ΜΟ ΤΑΚ-ΤΟΕ,” which translates to “This is the…of the king of kings, Vima Tactu,” according to Nicholas Sims-Williams, a leading specialist in the study of the Bactrian language.
Archaeologists do not typically have the opportunity to discover new monuments in Tajikistan due to its natural landscapes.
The monuments in hard-to-reach mountainous areas are particularly difficult to identify. Local residents get the job done, however, and report their findings to archaeologists.
For example, in 1932, a local shepherd named Jura Ali discovered a basket filled with documents on Mount Mug. The finding turned out to be unique, as it was the first text in the Sogdian language found in the territory of historical Sogd. That study eventually led to the discovery of the settlement of ancient Penjikent.
Similarly, a resident of the village of Shol in the Hisor Sanginov district came across inscriptions in an unfamiliar letter in the mountains.
Bobomullo Bobomulloev, a researcher at the Institute of History, Archaeology and Ethnography of the National Academy of Sciences of Tajikistan, took over the examination of the discovery.
After closer analysis, the rock inscriptions indeed turned out to be in ancient writing. They were located on the northernmost part of the gorge near the right tributary of the Almosi River in a very picturesque place known among the local population as Khoja Mafraj.
The local shepherd Sanginov Khaitali, who made the find, said that the first time he had visited the area, he had found even more.
Due to avalanches, fragments with inscriptions fell to the foot of the cliff. The part that survived is carved on a flat rock surface in three lines, where there are twenty-three letters
EDITED FROM m.akipress.com
The Yavanas (Bactrian Greeks):
In the ancient Indian Hindu vocabulary the term Yavana stood for the Greeks. India experienced a second Greek invasion after the first one by the Macedonian Greek Alexander the Great when the Maurya Empire had fallen into pieces.
Alexander’s invasion of India, apart from its immediate consequences, left a long standing effect both in culture and the history of India. One of the most notable indirect consequences was the infiltrations and incursions of the Bactrian Greeks in the north-western India.
When the Mauryas had fallen on evil days and the Sungas were coming to power, the north-western and northern parts of India were conquered one after another by Greek rulers who were virtually the successors to the empire of Alexander in the easternmost part of his empire.
Bactria, modern Balkh, Old Persian Bakhdhi, Bakhal or Bakhli comprised the vast tract of land which was bounded on the south and the east by the Hindukush on the north by the river Oxus and on the west by modern regions of Merv and Herat. Thus it comprised greater part of modern Afghanistan.
Antiochus I:
On Alexander’s death, Seleucus secured for himself a large slice of Alexander’s Asiatic dominions with Syria as his Capital. Alexander had left a considerable number of Greek and Macedonian populations behind in Bactria. Antiochus I, son of Seleucus became a joint-ruler with his father and was placed in charge of Bactria (293 B.C.E.). Two years later on the death of his father (291 B.C.E.) he became sole king. Bactria was now under Governor Diodotus, and the adjoining province of Parthia was under Governor Arsaces.
Antiochus II:
Antiochus I Theos was succeeded by his son Antiochus II Soter. According to Justin, both Diodotus I and Arsaces revolted against Seleu-kidan rule and became independent.
Diodotus I: Diodotus II:
Diodotus died soon after and was succeeded by his son Diodotus II who reversed his father’s anti-Parthian policy and entered into an alliance with Arsaces. Antiochus’ successor Seleucus tried to reconquer Parthia but the alliance between Bactria and Parthia stood Arsaces in good stead and the independence of both Parthia and Bactria was saved.
When Diodotus died is not exactly known to us. But when Antiochus, king of Syria, proceeded with a large force to recover the Provinces of Bactria and Parthia, Euthydemus I was on the throne of Bactria. It is supposed that Diodotus II was dethroned and killed by Euthydemus who according to some writers, was related to Diodotus.
Euthydemus was involved in a long-drawn war with Antiochus III and finding his very existence in stake he proposed an honourable peace with Antiochus. It was impressed on Antiochus that Euthydemus was not a rebel; on the contrary, he put to death Diodotus and his children who belonged to the rebel family.
Further, if Syria and Bactria would be engaged in continued warfare the Scynthians would destroy both the countries. These arguments had good effects on Antiochus III who sent his son Demetrius to finalise the terms of the treaty. Antiochus was very much impressed; he recognised the independence of Bactria and cemented the friendship with Euthydemus who gave his daughter in marriage to Demetrius.
Antiochus III:
After making peace with Bactria, Antiochus III proceeded in an invasion of India and having crossed the Hindukush and entered into the Kabul Valley and encountered one ‘Sophagosenus, king of the Indians’. From the Indian sources we do not know who this Sophagosenus, i.e., Subhagasena was. According to the Tibetan historian, Taranath, he was connected with Virasena, king of Gandhara, who was the great-grandson of Asoka.
Antiochus was long absent from his capital in his not very decisive conflict with Parthia and Bactria and the threat of the expanding Roman Empire necessitated his return to Syria. He accepted a token submission of Subhagasena and quickly returned to his Capital leaving the formidable Bactrian power with a fresh lease of independence.
Subhagasena gave Antiochus ample supplies for his Forces and made over to him a number of war elephants but a large sum he promised to pay remained unrealised as Antiochus left in a hurry for his home which was in danger. His dream of reconquest of the lost provinces of the Seleukidan Empire thus remained unrealised.
We have no literary source to know whether Euthydemus carried his army towards the south beyond Hindukush, but numismatic evidence seems to prove that parts of Arachosia and the provinces to its north, Paropamisus and Aria, were conquered by him. It has been suggested by Gardner that the Bactrian Greek conquests in these regions were made under the auspices of Demetrius, the young and valiant son of Euthydemus, who probably ruled jointly with his father towards the end of his rule. However, nothing can be said with certainty.
Under Euthydemus Bactria attained great prosperity as has been proved by numerous coins with his name and devices, made of gold, silver, copper, etc. Many of the coins of Euthydemus are masterpieces of numistic art and technique. Some of these with his figure show him to be a well-built man of strong individuality and firmness of character.
Demetrius, son of Euthydemus, about whom Polybius speaks in glowing terms, who was sent by his father to finalise the terms of peace with Antiochus III and made a deep impression on the latter, played a prominent part in the contemporary history of India and Bactria. It was Demetrius who after Alexander the Great, succeeded in carrying Greek arms into the interior of India.
His invasion was the first in the series of the Greek invasions which resulted in their permanent settlement in a substantial portion of north and north-west of India. India’s really intimate and prolonged Greek contact began with Demetrius.
Greco-Roman chroniclers like Strabo, Polybius, Justin, etc., have devoted pages to the career of Demetrius. In the Indian tradition although there is no clear mention of him yet a probable reference is found in the grammar of Patanjali and the Mahabharata in both of which mentions one Dattamitra, king of the Yavanas.
Much of the information obtained from the literary sources has been corroborated by the numerous coins of his time some of which bore legends both in Greek and Indian Prakrit, written in Greek and Kharosti characters prove beyond doubt that these were meant for circulation in his Indian possession.
Demetrius appears to have succeeded as the sole ruler of Bactria in his full manhood when Bactria was already a prosperous country. He was then 35 years of age with sufficient practical knowledge and experience of diplomacy, administration, etc., as his father’s deputy.
Political condition of the extreme north of India at the time was such that it invited the attention of the powerful neighbour Bactria. Demetrius crossed the Hindukush with a large army. His passage through the lands between the Hindukush and the Indus was facilitated due to their dependence and friendship with Bactrian Kingdom.
Demetrius conquered portions of the Punjab and Sind and probably founded cities there for the purpose of effective administration of the newly conquered territories. One of such cities has been referred to by Arrian and Ptolemy. While Arrian calls it Saggala, Ptolemy refers to it as Sagala which has been identified with Sakala, i.e., modern Sialkot in the Punjab.
During his Indian advance, Demetrius, like Alexander, settled Greek garrisons to protect his rear and flanks. These were called Demetrius as Alexander’s were called Alexandrias. These garrisons of Demetrius became the nuclei of several later Bactrian Greek settlements when their rule was confined to their Indian conquests only.
The exact extent of Demetrius’s advance into India is very much controversial and the information supplied by the Greek and the Indian texts have been interpreted in different ways. Strabo, basing his statement on Apollodorus remarks that the expansion of the Bactrian Kingdom in India was the work of both Demetrius and Menander, and that they conquered more nations than Alexander succeeded in conquering.
According to Strabo the Bactrian Chiefs, Menander and Demetrius conquered Patalene, i.e., the Indus delta, Saurastra (Saraostos), Cutch or Sagardvipa (Sigerdis). They extended their empire as far as Seres, that is, the land of the Chinese and Tibet in Central Asia, and Phryni, a Central Asian tribe. In one passage Strabo states that “those who came after Alexander advanced beyond the Hypanis to the Ganges and Palimbothra (Pataliputra)”.
The Indian texts like Yuga Purana and Patanjali’s Mahabhasya mention places such as Saketa (Oudh), Madhyamika (Modern Nagari in Rajasthan), Panchala (Rohilkhand), Mathura as conquered by the Greeks. But neither the Greek nor Indian source gives us the places conquered by Menander and Demetrius separately.
As Dr. J. N. Banerjee points out the Bactrian conquests were attributed to Menander by some scholars but subsequent researches have proved that it was Demetrius who had carried the Greek arms into the interior of India. According to W. W. Taru, both Apollodotus and Menander advanced into India under Demetrius. Menander came in by the great road across the Punjab and the Delhi passage to the Ganges and the Mauryan Capital Pataliputra; and Apollodotus down the Indus to its mouth and whatever might be beyond.
These two conquering forces were to converge on the centre of India and complete the circuit round northern India. According to him (Taru) Demetrius was the chief guiding factor in the enterprise and was helped by the other two who first acted as the sub-kings under Demetrius and later on succeeded him in different parts of India as independent kings.
Taru’s arguments, plausible though, are not corroborated by any literary evidence what is apparent from available evidence remarks N. K. Sastri textual as well as archaeological, in the fact, that of these Demetrius held alone Bactria as well as India, whereas the other two held sway in India only; their respective coin types leave no doubt about this.
However, Demetrius’ hold over Bactria was soon jeopardised and it became difficult for him to have effective control over so vast an empire from Bactria. The very extension of his dominion in India proved suicidal to him. In his absence, in Bactria Eucratides, whose antecedents are very little known and who is described by Justin as a leader of great vigour and ability, organised the Bactrian rebellion against Demetrius, put himself at the head of the rebels and made himself thus king.
To accomplish all this, there is no doubt, that Eucratides had a prolonged struggle against Demetrius and the memory of which is still preserved in the fragments of classical texts as well as in coins and commemorative medallions. It is also supposed by some writers that after having lost Bactria to Eucratides, Demetrius lived in India for the rest of his life. But nothing is known about the last days of Demetrius.
Demetrius’ association with India is borne out by archaeological as well as literary evidences. His coins with Greek legends on the obverse and Kharosti on the reverse may be referred to in this regard. Scholars have identified Dattamitra referred to in the Mahabharata with Demetrius. In Malakagnimitra Kalidasa also refers to invasion of India by the Greek at the time of Pushyamitra Sunga and the defeat of the Greeks at the hands of Vasumitra, son of Agnimitra and a general of Pushyamitra, on right bank of the river Sindhu.
Eucratides:
From the scanty references to the career of Eucratides in Strabo’s and Justin’s writings we know of his having overthrown Demetrius. Strabo mentions him to be the lord of a thousand cities but does not say whether the cities were in India or Bactria. Justin says he reduced India to subjection. This subjection of India probably means the land on the Sindhu.
From Justin’s remark it will not be unreasonable to suppose that some of the thousand cities referred to by Strabo were in India. But as Dr. D. C. Sarker points out Eucratides’ success in India was only partial and only temporary in regard to some of the areas. There is evidence to show that he had a series of fight with the princes of the house of Euthydemus who held possession of some parts of India and Afghanistan.
From the re-striking of some copper coins of Apollodotus by Eucratides raised the presumption that the former was defeated by the latter. From these coins scholars think that Apollodotus Soter was actually ousted from the Kapisa country. It is also possible that Eucratides had to fight with a number of the champions of the house of Demetrius after the latter’s death.
Numismatic evidence suggests that Heliocles was the son and successor of Eucratides and there are commemorative coins issued by Eucratides to celebrate his son Heliocles’ marriage with Laodice who was the daughter of Demetrius by his wife who was daughter of Antiocus III.
According to Justin, Eucratides had to fight not only with Demetrius, the champion of his house but also with the people known as Sogdians, i.e., the people of Sogdiana or the Bokhara region. Prolongs warfare told upon the health of Eucratides and totally exhausted he could ill afford to resist the attack of the Parthian king, Mithridates I who annexed two of Bactrian districts to his territory.
Justin mentions that when Eucratides was on journey homeward he was murdered by his son Heliocles. There is, however, a difference of opinion among scholars about the name of Eucratides’ murderer. According to Cunningham Apollodotus was the murderer, but researches have proved that he could not have been the murderer and Heliocles is generally accepted as the regicide.
Heliocles:
Heliocles is almost unanimously regarded as the successor of Eucratides. Our knowledge about his reign is probably the haziest. We have, however, two distinct groups of coins of his time, one of Attic (Greek) standard with only Greek legend and the other of bilingual type with both Greek and Indian languages.
A careful scrutiny of his coins has convinced scholars that Heliocles had given up the Attic standard coins and adopted the one in imitation of his father’s coin in Greek and Indian languages, after he had lost control on Bactria and his possessions were confined to Indian territories.
The anti-Bactrian policy initiated by the Parthian King Mithridates I who had occupied two districts of Bactria, was pursued with all vigour and according to a Roman historian Orosius Mithridates conquered all peoples between the Hydaspes and the Indus. This Hydaspes was not the Jhelum but the Medus Hydaspes, a Persian Stream. Thus the Parthian power seems to have extended from East Iran to the Indus. Strabo also mentions that the nomadic tribes Asii-Asiani, Saraucae-Sacae drove the Greeks out of Bactria. These tribes have been identified with the Yueh-chi and the Sakas.
Even if the above identifications are held doubtful, the fact remains that the Bactrian Kingdom was lost to the Greeks due to the invasions of the Parthians and the northern nomads. Heliocles, the last of the Greek Kings at Bactria, had to fall back into Kabu’ Valley and India. The Greek rule in these regions of Afghanistan and north-western India was characterised by internecine wars among various princes belonging to the houses of Demetrius and Eucratides.
More than 30 names of the Indo-Bactrian Greek rulers have been found from coins. For the majority of these rulers, their coins provide us with evidence- however, in the case of Apollodotus, Menander and Antialcidas ,we have quite substantial information.
Indo-Greek Rulers:
Apollodotus:
We have already come across the names of Apollodotus and Menander while discussing the Indian conquests of Demetrius. They ruled in regions south of the Hindukush and were perhaps related to the house of Euthydemus. The classical writers have mentioned Apollodotus twice in association with Menander. Some scholars suggest that he was perhaps the younger brother of Demetrius and might have been appointed along with Menander in conquering India.
Menander:
Strabo calls Menander, the greatest of the Indo-Greek Kings. According to Milindapanha, a Pali work in the form of a dialogue with Milinda (i.e., Menander), he was a mighty Yavana King of Sakala, modern Sialkot in the Punjab. The dialogue was between Menander and an erudite Buddhist scholar and monk named Nagasena in which Buddhist Metaphysics and Philosophy are discussed.
Milinda was an intelligent and acute questioner and being satisfied by the answers of Nagasena was so impressed that he became a convert to Buddhism. There is no doubt about the identification of Milinda with Menander. The classical writers like Strabo, Plutarch, Justin and Trogus mention Menander as a great personality.
The contemporary Buddhists held a very high opinion about him. Nagasena writes:
'As a disputant he was hard to equal, harder still to overcome, the acknowledged superior of all the founders of the various schools of thought. As in wisdom so in strength of body, swiftness and valour there was found none equal to Milinda in India. He was rich too, mighty in wealth and prosperity, and the number of his armed hosts knew no end.'
W. W. Taru’s contention that Menander, belonging to a ruling house was not likely to adopt the creed of his subject people is not acceptable to scholars. There have been cases besides that of Menander, where the Greeks adopted Indian creeds. It was Menander alone who had left so deep an impress on the Indian mind that he was remembered with respect long after his time even during the 11th century B.C.E. when Kshemendra in his Avadanakalpalata makes a respectful mention of his name.
In the Milindapanha we have some interesting details about Menander. He is said to have been born in the village of Kalasi in the dvipa (island) of Alasanda, i.e., Alexandria, which was 200 yojanas away. The Pali work informs us that the King used to be attended by a large number of his Yonaka (Greek) courtiers when be met Nagasena.
Milindapanha also gives us a description of the capital of Menander. The country of the Yonaka, i.e., Greek King Menander, was a great centre of trade, a city that was called Sagala, i.e., Sakala (Sialkot) situated in a delightful country well watered and hilly, abounding in parks, gardens, groves, lakes and tanks, a paradise of rivers, mountains and woods.
Wise architects prepared the layout of the capital and its people did not know of any oppression since all enemies and adversaries had been put down. The defence of the City was strong, with many strong towers, ramparts and beautiful gates. The royal citadel is in the midst of the city which was walled and moated.
The streets were well-laid and there were crossroads, squares and market places. Costly merchandise of many varieties filled the shops. The city had hundreds and thousands of magnificent and very tall mansions. Streets were thronged by people, elephants, horses and carriages. Society had four classes of people—the Brahmanas, nobles, artificers and servants.
People showed respect to the master of all creeds. The shops dealt in Benares muslin, Kotumbara stuffs and clothes of other varieties. Sweet smell would issue from the markets where fragrant flowers and perfumes were on sale. Jewels were there in plenty, guilds of traders displayed their goods in the market.
We, however, cannot ascertain the exact nature of the relation of Menander with the house of Euthydemus. N. K. Sastri is of the opinion that in spite of what has been said about his royalty in the Milindapanha, Menander was a commoner perhaps related to the family of Euthydemus by marriage.
It is suggested that Menander’s dominions comprised Kabul Valley of Afghanistan, north-west India, Punjab, Sind, Kathiawar and Rajputana and perhaps parts of modern Uttarpradesh. It is also supposed that Menander had crossed the Hyphanis coast and reached the Isamus.
The Hyphanis has been identified with the Beas and the Isamus with Prakrit Ichchumai, a river of Panchala that runs through Kumayun Rohilkhand and the Kanauj region. The hold of Menander over Peshawar is borne out by Kharosti inscriptions discovered in the Bajaur tribal territory.
Under Menander Sakala became a shelter for the Buddhists who were persecuted under the rule of Pushyamitra Sunga.
According to Rapson the fame of Menander as a great and just ruler was not confined to India. Plutarch, writing two centuries after the death of Menander, described how, after his death in camp, the cities of his dominions contended for the honour of preserving his ashes. Rapson rightly points out that, It is thus as a Philosopher and not as a mighty conqueror that Menander, like Janmejaya, King of the Kurus and Janaka, King of Videha, in the Upanishads, has won for himself an abiding fame.
Strato-I: Strato-II:
At the time of his death in a camp, he was most probably engaged in warfare with some adversary, whose name is not known to us. He was succeeded by Strato-I who was a minor and the mother of the minor King worked as regent. Menander’s death adversely affected the fortunes of his dynasty and some parts of his dominions were lost almost immediately. Strato ruled for a long time and was succeeded by his grandson Strato-II and a large number of his silver coins have been discovered.
Antialcidas:
Antialcidas was another name that found prominence in the Indian epigraphic record at Besnagar. The inscription records the erection of Guruda-dhvaja, i.e., a column erected in honour of Lord Vasudeva, with a figure of Garuda as the capital by a Greek from Taxila named Heliodorus who had been sent by King Antialcidas as an ambassador to the court of the King Kaustiputra Bhagabhadra of the Sunga dynasty at Vidisa or Besnagar. This inscription testifies to the friendly relations that subsisted between the Yavana, i.e., Greek King of Taxila and the Sunga King of Vidisa, as well as to the adoption of Vaishnavism by the Greeks.
It is supposed that Antialcidas belonged to the Eucratides family and he succeeded Eucratides in the Kapisa region, as he issued coins with the image of the city divinity of Kapisa with which Eucratides himself restruck the coins of Apollodotus. In some of the coins found at Taxila, Antialcidas was associated with a senior ruler named Lysias who was probably his father. The rule of Lysias seems to have intervened between the reigns of Heliocles and Antialcidas.
It is sometimes suggested that Antialcidas, Lysias, Heliocles ruled simultaneously in different provinces like Taxila, Kapisa and Pushkaravati yet Dr. D. C. Sarkar points out that Antialcidas was the latest of all as he was a contemporary of King Bhagabhadra of Vidisa to whose Court he had sent an ambassador. According to Dr. D. C. Sarkar he sought friendship of Bhagabhadra against Menander.
Hermaeus:
Hermaeus was the last of the Kings of the Greek Dynasty of Eucratides. His kingdom was in the upper Kabul Valley which was surrounded by his enemy countries. The Sakas lay on the east, the Pahlavas, i.e., the Parthians on the west and the Yueh-chis on the north. Naturally, Hermaeus was hard put to the job of maintaining the security of his small kingdom.
His neighbouring Greek dominions of Puskaravati and Taxila had already been occupied by the Sakas and it was his turn to be dispossessed. To cope with the situation, he married Calliope who was related to Hippostratus of his rival house and sought to put up a united defence. But all this was of no avail and the barbarian blow to his Kingdom was soon to descend.
The contention of some earlier scholars that the final blow to Hermaeus’ Kingdom was administered by the Kushana (Yueh-Chi) king Kujala Kadphises is no longer accepted as correct. Some scholars also thought that Hemaeus sought the Kushana help in order to ward off the Parthian onslaught and the Kushanas who came as friends ultimately destroyed the King whom they came to help.
.png)
But according to N. K. Sastri and others, Hemaeus was overthrown by the Parthians or the Pahlavas and not the Kushanas. This is also borne out by the evidence of the coins. The Parthian King Gondophernes overthrew the Indo-Bactrian rule in India.
Dr. J. N. Banerjee considers that the second Greek conquest of India was more important than the first conducted by Alexander. Two centuries of cultural contact between the Greeks and the Indians was of immense consequences upon both sides. It was not merely a case of the Greek civilisation influencing the already highly developed Indian civilisation, but the reverse was equally true.
The Greeks also adopted the Indian way of life and living and gradually got identified with the sons of the soil. A second Theodorus, perhaps a descendant of Meridark Theodorus mentioned above caused a tank to be excavated at Udayana, in honour of all beings. In a stone relief depicting two wrestlers with a name Minandrasa below is Kharosti gives us a glimpse of Graeco-Indian secular life of the time.
EDITED FROM historydiscussion.net
Cleophis (Sanskrit: Kripa) was an Assacani queen and key figure in the war between the Assacani people and Alexander the Great. Cleophis was the mother of Assacanus, the Assacanis' war-leader at the time of Alexander's invasion in 326 BCE. After her son's death in battle, Cleophis assumed command and negotiated a settlement that allowed her to retain her status. Later accounts claim Cleophis had a son by Alexander, a notion dismissed by historians.
The Assacani (called Ashvakas in Sanskrit, from the word Ashva, meaning "horse") were an independent people who lived in parts of the Swat and Buner valleys in ancient Gandhara. These highlanders were rebellious, fiercely independent clans who resisted subjugation.
in the Major Rock Edicts of Ashoka, Asvakas are described as Gandhāras (Gandharians), who are recorded separately from Kambojas. Ancient Greek historians who documented the exploits of Alexander the Great referring to the Aspasioi and Assakenoi (Ἀσσακηνοί) tribes among his opponents. The historian RC Majumdar considers these words to be corruptions of Asvaka. It is possible that the corruption of the names occurred due to regional differences in pronunciation. Rama Shankar Tripathi thinks it possible that the Assakenoi were either allied to or a branch of the Aspasioi. The Greeks recorded the two groups as inhabiting different areas, with the Aspasioi in either the Alishang or Kunar Valley and the Assakenoi in the Swat Valley.
Alexander's war with the Assacani
In 326 BCE, Alexander's campaigns west of the Indus River brought him into conflict with the Assacani. In defense of their homeland, they assembled an army of 20,000 cavalry, 38,000 infantry, and 30 elephants, according to classical writer Quintus Curtius Rufus. Their army included a contingent of 7,000 Kamboj mercenaries recruited from Abhisara.
After being defeated in the field, the Assacani fell back to the fortified city of Massaga, where the fighting continued for five days (or nine days, according to Curtius.) It was during this battle that Assacanus was killed. After her son's death, Cleophis assumed command, mustered the Assacani women to fight, and led the continued defense of the city. Rule of the Assacani fell to Cleophis.
Eventually, however, Cleophis judged that defeat was inevitable. She came to terms with the invaders and abandoned Massaga with her followers. Diodorus Siculus says: "Cleophis sent precious gifts to Alexander with a message in which she expressed her appreciation of Alexander's greatness and assured him that she would comply with the terms of the treaty." According to Curtius and Arrian, Cleophis was captured along with her young granddaughter. Alexander allowed Queen Cleophis to maintain her throne as his vassal.
Alexander's retaliation against the defeated Assaceni was severe. He had Massaga burned. Victor Hansen writes: "After promising the surrounded Assaceni their lives upon capitulation, he executed all their soldiers who had surrendered. Their strongholds at Ora and Aornus, were also similarly stormed. Garrisons were probably all slaughtered."
Additionally, Alexander pursued the Kamboj mercenaries, surrounded them on a hill, and killed them all. Diodorus describes the event in detail: "...The women, taking up the arms of the fallen, fought side by side with their men. Accordingly, some who had supplied themselves with arms did their best to cover their husbands with their shields, while others, who were without arms, did much to impede the enemy by shooting themselves upon them and catching hold of their shields."
Later classical writers, including Curtius and Justin, claim that Alexander fathered a child with Cleophis. Historians dismiss this notion as a much later romantic invention. On Alexander's relatively generous terms, which allowed Cleophis to retain her status, Curtius says, "...some believed that this indulgent treatment was granted rather to the charms of her person than to pity for her misfortunes. At all events, afterwards she gave birth to a son who received the name Alexander whoever his father may have been..." Earlier writers do not mention this.
The Asvayanas have been attested to be good cattle breeders and agriculturists by classical writers. Arrian said that, during the time of Alexander, there were a large number of bullocks - 230,000 - of a size and shape superior to what the Macedonians had known, which Alexander captured from them and decided to send to Macedonia for agriculture.
Edited from Wikipedia
Diodotus II Theos (Greek: Διόδοτος Θεός, Diódotos Theós; died c. 225 BCE) was the son and successor of Diodotus I Soter, who rebelled against the Seleucid empire, establishing the Graeco-Bactrian Kingdom. Diodotus II probably ruled alongside his father as co-regent, before succeeding him as sole king around 235 BCE. He prevented Seleucid efforts to reincorporate Bactria back into the empire, by allying with the Parthians against them. He was murdered around 225 BCE by the usurper Euthydemus I, who succeeded him as king.
Diodotus’ career was recounted by Apollodorus of Artemita in the Parthian History, but this text is lost, and surviving literary sources only mention him in passing. Thus, most details of Diodotus' life and career have to be reconstructed from numismatics.
The Seleucid empire gained control of Bactria and the surrounding regions between 308 and 305 BCE and made it a satrapy (province) of their empire. Diodotus' father, Diodotus I ruled the region of Bactria as a satrap (governor) some time in the 260s BCE and gradually drifted into independence during the reign of the Seleucid king Antiochus II Theos (261-246 BCE). The process culminated in Diodotus I's proclamation of himself as king sometime between 255 and 245 BCE.
Coinage minted under Diodotus I derives from two separate mints. The coinage of one mint features a mature man on the obverse—generally identified as Diodotus I, while the obverse of coinage produced at the other mint depicts a similar, but younger, figure. Frank L. Holt proposes that the latter was Diodotus II. He suggests that Diodotus was entrusted with control of a portion of the realm that included the second mint. This arrangement would follow the model laid down by the Seleucids, who had made a practice of appointing the crown prince as co-regent and entrusting them with government of the eastern portion of the empire (including Bactria). The location of the region under Diodotus II's control is unknown; Holt tentatively suggests that he controlled the western region which was exposed to raids from Parthia and had his base at Bactra.
During his reign, Diodotus I had expelled the Parni king Arsaces I from Bactria. Arsaces had gone on to seize the region of Parthia from the Seleucids and carved out his own kingdom in what is now northeastern Iran. Diodotus I remained opposed to the Parni and thus aligned with the Seleucids. On his accession, Diodotus II reversed his father's policy:
Soon after, relieved by the death of Diodotus [I], Arsaces made peace and concluded an alliance with his son, also by the name of Diodotus; some time later he fought against Seleucus [II] who came to punish the rebels, but he prevailed: the Parthians celebrated this day as the one that marked the beginning of their freedom.
— Justin, 41.4
This battle between Seleucus II and Arsaces took place around 228 BCE. It is unclear whether Diodotus was actively involved in the battle or simply agreed to remain neutral, thereby leaving Arsaces free to bring all his forces to bear on the invading Seleucid army.
Sometime after this, around 225 BCE, Diodotus was killed by Euthydemus I, who usurped the throne and founded the Euthydemid dynasty. W. W. Tarn proposed that Diodotus I had married a Seleucid princess as a second wife and had a daughter who was married to Euthydemus, making him Diodotus II's brother-in-law. There is, however, no evidence for the existence of either of these women and the theory no longer enjoys credence with contemporary scholars. Archaeological evidence reveals that the city of Ai-Khanoum was besieged around 225 BCE, an event which Holt connects with Euthydemus' seizure of power. It seems therefore that there was a period of civil war, culminating in Euthydemus' victory—a reconstruction that seems to be confirmed by numismatic evidence.
Most scholars have treated the alliance with Arsaces as a response to the threat from Seleucus II. Tarn suggested that Euthydemus I's usurpation was a reaction to the alliance. Frank Holt proposes the opposite: that the alliance with Arsaces was a response to the outbreak of civil war with Euthydemus.
Diodotus II largely continued the minting patterns laid down by his father. There were two mints, which issued gold, silver and bronze coinage. The precious metal coinage consisted of gold staters and silver tetradrachms, drachms, and hemidrachms on the Attic weight standard. These coins have the head of a male figure on the obverse shown wearing the diadem—a band of cloth wrapped around the head, with two strips hanging down the back, which had been the standard symbol of Hellenistic kingship since the time of Alexander the Great. The reverse of these coins depicted Zeus preparing to throw His thunderbolt. As mentioned above, during Diodotus I's reign, two different figures appeared on the obverses—an older figure ('series A') and a younger figure ('series C & E'), who are identified with Diodotus I and Diodotus II respectively. Series A and C probably minted at Ai-Khanoum or at Bactra, while Series E was minted at a second mint, which Frank Holt tentatively identifies with Bactra.This mint produced coinage in a smaller quantity and at a lower quality than that of the Ai-Khanoum/Bactra mint. He proposes that the small series C was minted at the main mint in order to establish Diodotus II's position as heir apparent of the whole Kingdom.
For the majority of his reign, Diodotus II issued coinage on a relatively modest scale. Towards the end of his reign, he began to mint on a much larger scale, with greater quantities of gold coinage than previously. This was accompanied by the production of an issue at the secondary mint, depicting the older figure of Diodotus I once more, but in a more idealised fashion ('series B'). Frank Holt proposes that these phenomena were a consequence of a civil war between Diodotus II and Euthydemus. He argues that the scale of minting indicates the need to provide coinage for a large number of soldiers—indicating some kind of military threat—while the series B coinage may have been intended to emphasise Diodotus II's legitimacy as son of the Kingdom's founder.
Diodotus II also issued a bronze coinage. Initially, this coinage bore the same obverse design as that of Diodotus I: head of Hermes wearing a petasus hat ('Series H'). However, the reverse design is new: a depiction of Athena resting on her spear and the introduction of a new legend, reading "Βασιλεωσ Διοδοτου" ("of King Diodotus"), as on the gold and silver coinage. The coinage consisted of four denominations: a 'double' (c. 8.4 g, 20-24 mm in diameter), a 'single' (4.2 g, 14–18 mm), a 'half' (2.1g, 10–12 mm), and a 'quarter' (1 g, 8–10 mm). Only the first two of these denominations seem to be attested under Diodotus I. The value of these denominations is uncertain; a single may have been worth 1/48 of a silver drachm. After this initial issue, Diodotus introduced a new set of designs ('Series I'). On the double and single denominations, these depict the head of Zeus on the obverse (except on one issue depicting a king—probably by accident), and the Goddess Artemis on the reverse. On the quarters, they have an eagle on the obverse and a quiver on the reverse (symbols of Zeus and Artemis respectively). These bronze coins were found in very large numbers in the excavations of Ai-Khanoum and in smaller quantities at Gyaur Gala (Merv, Turkmenistan) and Takht-i Sangin. The profusion of bronze coinage, whose value was token, especially in the very smallest denominations, indicates the progressive monetisation taking place in Bactria by the time of Diodotus II.
Diodotus also appears on coins struck in his memory by the later Graeco-Bactrian kings Agathocles and Antimachus I. These coins imitate the original design of the tetradrachms issued by Diodotus II, but with a legend on the obverse identifying the king as Ancient Greek: Διοδοτου Θεου ('Of Diodotus Theos').
Edited from Wikipedia
