The Cambridge History of India, Vol. I: Ancient India v1.c26.254

v1.c26.254

For more than a generation after that battle there is an almost complete blank in our knowledge of the history of Central Asia. Seleucus himself took up his residence at Antioch on the Orontes. But he soon realised that the new city lay too far west to be a convenient administrative centre for the eastern portion of his empire. Accordingly he entrusted the government of all the provinces beyond the Euphrates to his son Antiochus, on whom after the lapse of a few years he conferred the title of king. We are without definite information as to the exact date of this devolution of authority. It is generally assigned to 293 B.C., and cuneiform documents undoubtedly bear the names of ‘Siluku’ and ‘Antiuksu’ as joint-kings from 289 onwards¹. In 281 Seleucus was assassinated. According to Memnon (*F.H.G.* III, 533, 12, 1) and Pausanias (I, 16, 2), Antiochus had already had his powers as co-regent greatly amplified, the whole of Asia having been committed to his care. In any case his father’s death would render his immediate presence in the west imperative, if his heritage was to be maintained unimpaired. To the west he accordingly went. But it seems highly probable that the plan of stationing a viceroy of the east at Seleucia on the Tigris was still continued. Though no inkling of this has survived in any historian, cuneiform inscriptions record ‘Antiuksu’ and ‘Siluku’ as joint-kings from 275 (or possibly 280) to 269, and a similar cooperation between ‘Antiuksu’ and ‘Antiuksu’ from 266 to 263. ‘Siluku’ here is clearly Seleucus, the elder son of Antiochus by Stratonice; we gather from a chance fragment of John of Antioch (*F.H.G.* IV, 558, 55) that he was put to death on suspicion of conspiring against his father. The ‘Antiuksu’ who takes his place, is no less clearly his younger brother, destined to become sole ruler in 261 as Antiochus II (Theos).