The Cambridge History of India, Vol. I: Ancient India v1.c26.291

v1.c26.291

Although there is no difference of opinion as to the commemorative character of these coins, an acute cleavage manifests itself the moment the problem of identification is approached. Perhaps the view most widely held is that Heliocles is the son and successor of Eucratides, and that the coins were struck to commemorate his marriage with Laodice, a daughter of Demetrius by the Seleucid princess to whom he was betrothed in 206 during the negotiations with Antiochus III. This theory—first propounded by von Sallet, although it had previously been hinted at by Droysen—has about it a certain plausibility that has commended it to historians: it would have been a politic step on the part of Eucratides to try and conciliate opposition, after his victory, by arranging a match between his son and a daughter of the fallen house. But, in the light of the considerations urged in the foregoing paragraph, there need be no hesitation in setting it aside as inadmissible. There is very much more to be said for the alternative suggestion, advocated by Cunningham and by Gardner, that Heliocles was the father of Eucratides, and that Laodice was his mother. We need not, however, follow some of those who have accepted this solution, and continue to assume that Laodice was the daughter of Demetrius, an assumption which leads to the impossible conclusion that Eucratides was his great rival's grandson. Laodice was, indeed, a common name in the royal house of Syria, but there is no evidence to prove that it was the name of the bride of Demetrius, or of any of her children. The field of conjecture is absolutely open. One point should not be overlooked before we enter it. While Heliocles is represented with his head bare, Laodice wears a diadem, showing that she was of the lineage of kings, a princess in her own right. It must, therefore, have been from her, and not from his father, that any title Eucratides could advance to the Bactrian crown had come. It may also be recalled that Antiochus Epiphanes, who now sat upon the throne of Syria (175–164) in succession to his brother Seleucus IV (187–175), is known to have cherished the dream of re-establishing the Seleucid influence in Central Asia, as if to redress in the east the balance that had been lost in the west to Rome. Possibly it was in his interest and with his encouragement that Eucratides first raised the standard of revolt. That, of course, is pure speculation, just as are all the other hypotheses that have so far been put forward. But it would explain his appeal to the memory of a Seleucid princess, as well as the otherwise puzzling introduction into the Bactrian coinage of that characteristically Seleucid ornament, the bead-and-reel border.