The Cambridge History of India, Vol. I: Ancient India v1.c26.290

v1.c26.290

Whatever may be the truth as to the territorial limits within which they held sway, the simultaneous appearance of so many ‘kings’ is a portent whose meaning is not to be mistaken. It is the first clear indication of that tendency towards the creation of petty principalities, which subsequently became so marked a feature of the final phase of Greek rule in India. In the present instance the ‘kings’ would seem to have been pawns in a game which was really being played by stronger and more powerful personalities. They were obviously intent on upholding the banner of Demetrius and his dynasty, whose claim to the Bactrian crown the commemorative coins represent as derived directly from Alexander the Great, heedless of the violent breaks that had marked the accession first of Diodotus and then of Euthydemus. Nor is there any doubt as to the rival against whom their manifestos were aimed. It must have been Eucratides. It would be interesting if we could discover the foundation on which the usurper based his claims. Perhaps the quest is not entirely hopeless. Certain of his tetradrachms and drachms are by common consent regarded as commemorative. The obverse—generally, but not accurately, described as the reverse—bears a male and female head, jugate, to the right, the inscription being ΗΛΙΟΚΛΕΟΥΣ ΚΑΙ ΛΑΟΔΙΚΗΣ, while the reverse has one of the ordinary helmeted busts of Eucratides, accompanied by the legend ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΜΕΓΑΣ ΕΥΚΡΑΤΙΔΗΣ (Pl. IV, 3). The close analogy between this obverse and the obverses of the commemorative tetradrachms of Agathocles and Antimachus at once suggests that the appeal to the memory of Heliocles and Laodice is the counterpart of that to the memory of ‘Alexander, Philip’s son,’ ‘Antiochus the Conqueror,’ ‘Diodotus the Saviour,’ and ‘Euthydemus the Divine.’ And when the obverse is given its proper position, the parallel is seen to be much closer than has hitherto been supposed. It naturally does not extend to the reverse, for Heliocles and Laodice had struck no money, and had therefore left no characteristic coin-type for their kinsman to copy. In the circumstances he utilised his own portrait. At the same time he was careful to differentiate his commemorative pieces from his other issues by putting his own name in the nominative instead of in the genitive, very much in the spirit in which Agathocles and Antimachus employed ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΟΝΤΟΣ in place of the normal ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ.