CHAPTER II

BACTRIANS AND PARTHIANS

AT the epoch of Alexander's death the satrapy of Bactria and Soghdiana was held by his general, Amyntas. The death of the young conqueror was the signal for a mutiny among the Macedonian soldiers who had remained in that country, which was, however, immediately put down. Amyntas was removed from his satrapy and superseded by Philippus of Elymeus, who, within the space of a year, was appointed to Parthia and succeeded by Stasanor.1

The latter held his post until B.C. 301, when these provinces passed into the hands of another of Alexander's generals, Seleucus 1. (Nicator), who since B.C. 312 had been in virtual possession of the greater part of his late master's conquered possessions.2 Hitherto the allegiance of Bactria had been of a doubtful character —but it was now finally established.

In 305 he entered on a campaign against Chandra Gupta, a powerful Indian king who was endeavouring to regain the realms conquered by Alexander.

1 Cf. Gutschmid, Geschichte Irans, p. 22.

2 In B.C. 327 Seleucus 1. had been placed in charge of Syria and the East, and of Babylon—to which, with the aid of Antigonus, he added Susiana. In 316, owing to a quarrel with Antigonus, he fled to Egypt, but in 312 he re-entered Babylon. The era of the Seleucidæ dates from this event. Seleucus extended his dominions as far as the Oxus and the Indus. Not till 306 did he officially adopt the title of king. Gutschmid, op. cit. p. 24.

At his hands Seleucus suffered a crushing defeat, in consequence of which he was obliged to abandon all the territory between the Indus and the Paropamisus except Alexandria of the Caucasus.1 This was the first dismemberment of the gigantic empire. The terrible civil war which began immediately after the death of Alexander lasted, almost without interruption, for forty-two years, when the Macedonians were at last compelled to renounce all hopes of ruling the world.

In B.C. 280 Seleucus was assassinated by one of his officers, and was succeeded by Antiochus I. In B.C. 256, under the rule of Antiochus II., Diodotus, known as "Governor of the thousand cities of Bactria," threw off his allegiance and assumed sovereignty, thus founding the Græco-Bactrian kingdom. Polybius tells us that Diodotus was superseded by Euthydemus, who was in the enjoyment of power at the time of Antiochus the Great's expedition to the East-about B.C. 208.

Euthydemus was defeated by Antiochus, but appealed to his victor's generosity, and pointed out the grave danger that would arise if he were obliged to call in the aid of the Scythians, who were already hovering on the Chinese frontier of his dominions.* Antiochus finally agreed to acknowledge his independence.

In B.C. 250 a certain Arsaces, who seems by his coins to have been the chief of a band of Dahæ Scythians dwelling near the Oxus, overthrew Andragoras, nominally satrap of Parthia, and set himself up as king of Parthia.5

1 Cf. E. Drouin, loc. cit.

* Diodotus seems to have prepared his subjects for this change of masters by issuing coins of the type struck by Antiochus II., but bearing his own portrait. Cf. Gardner, Greek and Scythian Coins, p. 20.

3 Hist. x. ad fin. xi. 34.

Gardner, Greek and Scythian Coins, p. 21.

5 Cf. Justin, xii. 4: "Parthis deinde domitis prefectus his statuitur ex nobilis Persarum Andragoras: inde postea originem Parthorum reges habuere."

He was the founder of the famous dynasty of the Arsacidæ. As Mr. Gardner1 observes, the "so-called history of Parthia is really the history of Central Asia under the Arsacidæ."

After a reign of two years he was killed in battle, leaving his kingdom to his brother Tiridates, who was the real founder of the Parthian power. The fifth king of this dynasty was Mithridates (B.C. 190), who extended his conquests to such a degree that, according to Justin, his sway included the Himalayas and the Euphrates.2 He also compelled Eucratides, the powerful king of Bactria, who had come to the throne about B.C. 170, to cede certain districts of his kingdom.

After a glorious reign he died about B.C. 140, and was succeeded by his brother Phraates.3 The Syrian Empire of the Seleucidæ was fast falling to pieces, and Parthia was never again invaded by the Greeks. But a more terrible foe was approaching from the East, for it came into collision with a Scythian band, called "Su" or "Se" in the Chinese annals, which in the second century B.C. had overrun the provinces bordering the Jaxartes. They are identical with the Sacæ of classical writers, and were afterwards known in Upper India as the Sakas. Phraates summoned a band of these savages to aid him against the Syrian Antiochus. Arriving at the scene of action too late to be of service in the campaign, they turned against him, defeated his army and slew him.

9. 2.

5

He was succeeded by his nephew Artabanus II., who

1 Parthian Coinage, Numismata Orientalia, vol. i.

P. 2. Strabo, xi.

2 Justin, xii. 6: "Imperiumque parthorum a monte Caucaso multis populis indicionem redactis usque flumen Euphratem protulit."

3 Ibid. xlii. I.

♦ Gardner, ibid. p. 6.

Gardner, ibid. p. 6.

after a brief reign fell in battle against the Thogari,1 mentioned by Strabo as one of the four great Saka tribes.2 His son Mithridates II., justly distinguished by the appellation "Great," revived the fading glories of the Parthian Empire. He commenced his reign by administering several crushing defeats to the Sakas, from whom he wrested the greater portion of Bactria. But he was destined to meet a foe more worthy of his steel, and finally to submit after a lifelong struggle. The Romans had entered on the career of foreign conquest which seems inevitable in the case of a powerful republic. Greece was theirs, and they had planted their eagles in Asia Minor.

Between B.C. 88 and 63 Mithridates waged three wars of extreme ferocity against the future conquerors of the world, and inspired them with a dread which they had not felt since the invasion of Hannibal. Not till the latter year did this great monarch acknowledge the supreme might of Rome, and then his indomitable spirit forbade him to sink to the condition of tributary. Defeated by Pompey on the Euphrates, he fled to the Caucasian Bosphorus, and was planning fuller resistance when the rebellion of his son rendered his schemes nugatory. He slew himself in despair, leaving a reputation which still echoes in the Crimea and Northern Caucasus.

4

From the period down to A.D. 226 the history of Parthia is one of continual struggle and crime, which finally exhausted the emperor's strength and rendered it an easy prey to a Roman invader.

1 See Note I at p. 6 of Chap. iii.

2 Strabo, xi. 8. 2.

This sentiment finds many echoes in Latin literature. Cf. Odes and Epistles of Horace, passim. It is curious to note the identity between the tactics of the Parthians and those of the hordes of Chingiz and Timur. The usual charge of bad faith is brought by the Romans against their terrible enemies.

4 The Straits of Yenekale.

CHAPTER III

THE HUNS AND THE YUÉ-CHI

IT is to Chinese sources that we must turn for an account of the tribes which overthrew Græco-Bactrian rule, and were a constant thorn in the side of the Parthian Empire. These sources, with faint sidelights thrown on an obscure period by allusions to be found in classic authors, enable us to bridge a gap of several centuries replete with events which exercised a lasting influence on the history of Central Asia.

The Chow dynasty ruled from B.C. 1122 to B.C. 250.1 After its fall China split up into a vast number of nearly independent principalities, and the reigning sovereign enjoyed but little power. The Tsin succeeded in gaining the foremost rank as feudatories, and finally restored the authority of the central power. Their aim was not achieved without a desperate struggle with their rivals. In the course of the resulting civil war Tsin Chi Hwang-ti began his reign. He was the Louis XI. of the Chinese monarchy, and brought force and stratagem by turns to bear on the task of restoring the imperial prestige.2

1 The three great reformers Lao-tse, Kung-fu-tse (Confucius), and Meng-tse (Mencius) flourished under the princes of this dynasty.

2 The greatest calamity which this ruthless despot inflicted on his country was the wholesale destruction of literature which he ordered, in view of keeping his people in ignorance. This atrocious measure was attended by the slaughter of many learned men. Cf. Legge, Analects of Confucius, p. 6.