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 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
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
Some of Plato's coins have inscriptions which may possibly be interpreted as dates using the Indo-Greek era which started around 186 BCE. In that case Plato ruled around 140 BCE. This matches the dating given by numismatician Bopearachchi, who places Plato between 145–140 BCE, since his coins are not found in the ruins of Ai Khanoum, a Bactrian city which was destroyed during the reign of Eucratides.
BIOGRAPHY
Euthydemus was an Ionian-Greek from one of the Magnesias in Ionia, though it is uncertain from which one (Magnesia on the Maeander or Magnesia ad Sipylum), and was the father of Demetrius I, according to Strabo and Polybius.William Woodthorpe Tarn proposed that Euthydemus was the son of a Greek general called Antimachus or Apollodotus, born c. 295 BCE, whom he considered to be the son of Sophytes, and that he married a sister of the Greco-Bactrian king Diodotus II.
WAR WITH THE SELEUCID EMPIRE
— Polybius, 11.34, 2
Polybius also relates that Euthydemus negotiated peace with Antiochus III by suggesting that he deserved credit for overthrowing the descendants of the original rebel Diodotus, and that he was protecting Central Asia from nomadic invasions thanks to his defensive efforts.
The war lasted three years and after the Seleucid army left, the Kingdom seems to have recovered quickly from the assault. The death of Euthydemus has been roughly estimated to 200 BCE or perhaps 195 BCE. He was succeeded by Demetrius, who went on to invade northwestern regions of South Asia.
SOURCE : Activities on the Central Asian Steppe
Polybius claims that Euthydemus justified his kingship during his peace negotiations with Antiochus III in 206 BC by reference to the threat of attack by nomads on the Central Asian steppe:
"...[he said that] if [Antiochus] did not yield to this demand, neither of them would be safe: seeing that great hoards of Nomads were close at hand, who were a danger to both; and that if they admitted them into the country, it would certainly be utterly barbarised." (Polybius, 11.34).
Archaeological evidence from coin finds shows that Euthydemus' reign saw extensive activity at fortresses in northwestern Bactria (the modern Surkhan Darya region of Uzbekistan), especially in the Gissar and Köýtendag mountains. The Seleucid fortress at Uzundara was expanded and large numbers of Euthydemus' bronze coins have been found there, as was as hundreds of arrowheads and other remains indicating a violent assault.[8] Coin finds also seem to indicate that Euthydemus was responsible for the first construction of the Derbent Wall, otherwise known as the "Iron Gate", a 1.6-1.7 km long stone wall with towers and a central fortress guarding a key pass.[9] Landislav Stančo tentatively links the archaeological evidence with the nomad threat.[10] However, Stančo also notes that Derbent wall seems to have been designed not to defend against an attack from Sogdia to the northwest, but from Bactria to the southeast. Hundreds of arrowheads also seem to indicate an attack on the wall from the southeast. Stančo proposes that Euthydemus was originally based in Sogdia and built the fortifications to protect himself from Bactria, before seizing control of the latter.[11] Lucas Christopoulos goes further, proposing that he controlled a large area going from Sogdiana to Gansu and the Tarim basin walled cities together with enrolled Hellenized Saka horsemen even before he ascended the throne of Bactria in 250-230 BC.
In an inscription found in the Kuliab area of Tajikistan, northeastern Greco-Bactria, and dated to 200-195 BC,[13] a Greek by the name of Heliodotos, dedicating an altar to Hestia, mentions Euthydemus as the greatest of all kings, and his son Demetrius I.
This fragrant altar to you, Hestia, most honoured among the gods, Heliodotus established in the grove of Zeus with its fair trees, furnishing it with libations and burnt-offerings, so that you may graciously preserve free from care, together with divine good fortune, Euthydemus, greatest of all kings and his outstanding son Demetrius, renowned for fine victories
