The Cambridge History of India, Vol. I: Ancient India v1.c26.269

v1.c26.269

Beyond the bare facts already chronicled, we have no information as to the doings either of the son or of the father. It is, indeed, usually stated that the latter assumed the title of ‘Soter,’ perhaps because of his success in keeping the Turānian hordes at bay. But the only evidence to that effect is a coin purporting to be struck in the name of ΔΙΟΔΟΤΟΥ ΣΩΤΗΡΟΣ (Pl. III, 9); and we shall find presently that this was not minted in the lifetime of himself or his son. It is probable, therefore, that the title was conferred by a later generation. In any case his own dynasty was destined to speedy extinction. We do not know how long Diodotus II reigned. But, as the portraits on his coins are all fairly youthful, it is scarcely possible to allow him more than ten or twelve years after the peace with Parthia. And it is certain from Polybius (XI, 34) that when Antiochus III appeared in the east at the head of an army, about 212 B.C., determined to reassert the Seleucid supremacy over the revolted kingdoms, the Bactrian throne had for some time been occupied by Euthydēmus, a Greek from one or other of the cities called Magnesia, who, in reply to the challenge of Antiochus, explained that he did not think it fair that he should be interfered with: ‘He was not a rebel. Others, no doubt, had rebelled. He had put the children of the rebels to death, and that was how he happened to be king.’ We may draw from this, not only a confirmation of Justin’s statement as to Diodotus I having been succeeded by a son, but also the further inference that Diodotus II came to a violent end.