Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Political History of Ancient India, from the Accession of Parikshit to the Extinction of the Gupta Dynasty c16.s1.t2: The Yavana Invasion

Political History of Ancient India, from the Accession of Parikshit to the Extinction of the Gupta Dynasty c16.s1.t2

Language
English

The Yavana Invasion

c16.s1.t2.1

The only undoubted historical events of Pushyamitra's time, besides the *coup d' etat* of *c.* 187 B.C., and the Vidarbha war, are the Greek invasion from the North-West referred to by Patañjali or a Predecessor and Kālidāsa, and the celebration of two horse-sacrifices.

c16.s1.t2.2

Patañjali is usually regarded as a contemporary of Pushyamitra. Sir R. G. Bhandarkar draws our attention to the passage in the *Mahābhāshya*—*iha Pushyamitram yājayāmaḥ*: "here we perform the sacrifices for Pushyamitra"—which is cited as an illustration of the *Vārttika* teaching the use of the present tense to denote an action which has been begun but not finished.² The instances given by Patañjali of the use of the imperfect to indicate an action well-known to people, but not witnessed by the speaker, and still possible to have been seen by him, are, "*arunad Yavanaḥ Sāketam: arunad Yavano Madhyamikām*." This, says Sir R. G. Bhandarkar, shows that a certain Yavana or Greek chief had besieged Sāketa or Ayodhyā and another place called Madhyamikā ¹ when Patañjali wrote this. It is, however, possible that the instances cited by the great grammarian are stock illustrations (*mūrdhābhishikta udāharaṇa*) which are simply quoted by him from earlier authorities. But a war with Greeks in the days of Pushyamitra is vouched for by Kālidāsa. In his *Mālavikāgnimitram* the poet refers to a conflict between prince Vasumitra, grandson and general of Pushyamitra, and a Yavana on the southern (or right) bank of the Sindhu.² Unfortunately the name of the leader of the invaders is not given either in the *Mahābhāshya* or in the *Mālavikāgnimitram*. There is considerable divergence of opinion with regard to his identity. But all agree that he was a Bactrian Greek.

c16.s1.t2.3

² *Ind. Ant.*, 1872, p. 300.

c16.s1.t2.4

¹ Nāgari near Chitor; *cf. Mbh.*, II. 32.8; *Ind. Ant.*, VII, 267.

c16.s1.t2.5

² The Indus or possibly a stream of the same name in Central India (*Cf. IHQ*, 1925, 215).

c16.s1.t2.6

The Bactrian Greeks were originally subjects of the Seleukidan Empire of Syria (and Western Asia). We learn from Strabo, Trogus and Justin that "about the middle of the third century B.C. when the Seleukid rulers were pre-occupied in the west" Diodotos, "Governor of the thousand cities of Bactria" (Balkh region to the south of the Oxus), revolted and assumed the title of king. He was succeeded, according to Justin, by his son Diodotos II who entered into an alliance with Arsakes who about this time (c. 247 B.C.) tore Parthia in Northern Irān from the Seleukidan Empire.

c16.s1.t2.7

The successor of Diodotos II was Euthydemos. We learn from Strabo ³ that Euthydemos and his party occasioned the revolt of all the country near the province of Bactriana. We are told by Polybius that Antiochos III (223-187 B.C.) of Syria made an attempt to recover the lost provinces but afterwards made peace with Euthydemos.

c16.s1.t2.8

³ H. & F.'s Tr., Vol. II, p. 251.

c16.s1.t2.9

The historian says, "Antiochos the Great received the young prince (Demetrios, son of Euthydemos) and judging from his appearance, conversation and the dignity of his manners that he was worthy of royal honour he first promised to give him one of his daughters,¹ and secondly conceded the royal title to his father. And having on the other points caused a written treaty to be drawn up and the terms of the treaty to be confirmed on oath, he marched away, after liberally provisioning his troops, and accepting the elephants belonging to Euthydemos. He crossed Caucasus (Hindukush) and descended into India; renewed his friendship with Sophagasenos, the king of the Indians; received more elephants, until he had 150 altogether, having once more provisioned his troops set out again personally with his army, leaving Androsthenes of Cyzicus, the duty of taking home the treasure which this king had agreed to hand over to him."

c16.s1.t2.10

¹ Tarn's scepticism (*Greeks in Bactria and India*, 82, 201) about the marriage is not warranted by cogent evidence. His arguments are in part of a negative character. He seems to prefer his own interpretation of certain coins of Agathokles to the clear testimony of Polybius.

c16.s1.t2.11

Not long after the expedition of Antiochos the Great, the Bactrian Greeks themselves formed the design of extending their kingdom by the conquest of the territories lying to the south of the Hindukush. Strabo says, "the Greeks who occasioned its (Bactria's) revolt became so powerful that they became masters of Ariana and India, according to Apollodoros of Artemita.² Their chiefs, particularly Menander (if he really crossed the Hypanis³ to the east and reached the Isamus⁴) conquered more nations than Alexander. These conquests were achieved partly by Menander, partly by Demetrios, son of Euthydemos, king of the Bactrians. They got possession not only of Patalene (the Indus Delta), but of the kingdoms of Saraostos (Surāshṭra or Kāṭhiāwār), and Sigerdis (probably Sāgaradvīpa)¹ which constitute the remainder of the coast. Apollodoros in short says that Bactriana is the ornament of all Ariana. They extended their empire even as far as the Seres and Phryni.''²

c16.s1.t2.12

² Artemita lay to the east of the Tigris. The books of Apollodoros are assigned to a date between C. 130 B.C. and 87 B.C. (Tarn, *Greeks*, 44ff.).

c16.s1.t2.13

³ *I.e.*, the Hyphasis or Vipāśā (the Beas).

c16.s1.t2.14

⁴ The Trisāmā? In the *Bhāgavata Purāṇa* (V. 19, 17) a river of this name is mentioned in conjunction with the Kauśikī, Mandākinī, Yamunā, etc. Sircar prefers the Ikshumatī.

c16.s1.t2.15

¹ *Mbh.*, II. 31. 66, Cutch? *Bom. Gaz.*, I, i. 16f; *cf.* Tarn, *GBI*, 2nd ed. 527.

c16.s1.t2.16

² *Strabo*, Hamilton and Falconer, Vol. II, pp. 252-53. The Chinese and peoples of the Tarim basin are apparently meant.

c16.s1.t2.17

Strabo gives the credit for spreading the Greek dominion furthest to the east into India partly to Menander and partly to Demetrios, son of Euthydemos and son-in-law of Antiochos the Great.

c16.s1.t2.18

**Menander** has been identified with the king Milinda who is mentioned in the *Milinda-pañho* as a contemporary of the Buddhist Thera (Elder) Nāgasena, and also in the *Avadāna-kalpalatā* of Kshemendra.³ This monarch was born at Kalsigrāma⁴ in the “Island” of Alasanda or Alexandria⁵ and had his capital at Sāgala or Sākala, modern Siālkoṭ, in the Pañjāb,⁶ and not at Kābul as Dr. Smith seemed to think.⁷ The extent of his conquests is indicated by the great variety and wide diffusion of his coins which have been found over a very wide extent of country as far west as Begram near Kābul and as far east as Mathurā.⁸ The author of the Periplus states that small silver coins, inscribed with Greek characters and bearing the name of Menander were still current in his time (*cir.* 60-80 A.D.) at the port of Barygaza (Broach). Plutarch tells us that Menander was noted for justice, and enjoyed such popularity with his subjects that upon his death, which took place in camp, diverse cities contended for the possession of his ashes. The statement of Plutarch is important as showing that Menander's dominions included many cities. The recently discovered Bājaur Relic Casket Inscription confirms the numismatic evidence regarding the westward extension of his empire.¹

c16.s1.t2.19

³ *Stūpa avadāna* (No. 57); Smith, *Catalogue of Coins, Indian Museum*, p. 3; *SBE*, 36, xvii.

c16.s1.t2.20

⁴ Trenckner. *Milindapañho*, p. 83.

c16.s1.t2.21

⁵ *Ibid*, p. 82 (*CHI*, 550). The identity of this "Alexandria" is uncertain. Tarn (p. 141) seems to prefer Alexandria in the Kābul Valley. The *Milinda*, VI. 21, seems to suggest location on the sea unless a different Alexandria is meant.

c16.s1.t2.22

⁶ *Milinda*, pp. 3, 14.

c16.s1.t2.23

⁷ *EHI.*, 1914, p. 225.

c16.s1.t2.24

⁸ *SBE.*, Vol. XXXV, p. xx. Tarn, 228.

c16.s1.t2.25

¹ Ep. Ind. XXIV. 7 ff, XXVI, 318f, XXVII, ii, 52f. The King's name is given as Mina-edra.

c16.s1.t2.26

**Demetrios** has been identified by some with king Dattāmitra mentioned in the *Mahābhārata*,² the "great Emetreus, the king of Inde" of Chaucer's *Knightes Tale* and Timitra of a Besnagar seal.³ The wide extent of his conquests is proved by the existence of several cities named after him or his father in Afghanistān as well as India. Thus in the work of Isidore of Charax⁴ we have a reference to a city named Demetriaspolis in Arachosia. The *Vyākaraṇa* (grammar) of Kramadîśvara mentions a city in Sauvîra called Dāttāmitrî.⁵ Ptolemy the Geographer mentions the city of Euthymedia (? Euthydemia¹) which was identical with Sākala,² and was, according to the *Milinda-pañho*, the capital of an Indo-Greek kingdom in the time of Menander.

c16.s1.t2.27

² I, 139, 23. Krimisa, the Yaksha (AIU, p. 107) with whom he is identified by Dr. Bagchi belongs to the domain of folklore.

c16.s1.t2.28

³ EHI⁴, p. 255n.

c16.s1.t2.29

⁴ JRAS, 1915, p. 830. *Parthian Stations*, 19.

c16.s1.t2.30

⁵ Ind. Ant., 1911. *Foreign Elements in the Hindu Population*; Bomb. Gaz., I. ii. 11, 176, Kramadîśvara, p. 796. The reference is probably to a Demetrias in the lower Indus Valley. Johnston differs from the view (JRAS, April, 1939; IHQ, 1939). We should, however, not ignore the evidence of *Mbh*. I. 139, verses 21-23, which clearly refer to a Yavanādhipa and Dattāmitra in connection with Sauvīra. If Dattāmitra is not Demetrios and Dāttāmitrī not a city founded by him, it will be interesting to know with whom Dattāmitra and the Yavanādhipa of the epic are proposed to be identified. A Nāsik (Deccan) Inscription (No. 1140 Lüders' List) makes mention of a Yoṇaka from the north (Otarāha), a native of Dattāmitri. Thus epic and epigraphic evidence together with that of Sanskrit grammarians clearly establishes the connection between the Yonas or Yavanas (Greeks), Dattāmitrī and Sauvīra.

c16.s1.t2.31

¹ We are hardly justified in rejecting the reading 'Euthyde' (Tarn, p. 486) simply on the grounds urged by Tarn (p. 247) which do not appear to be convincing, and accept a reading which is "meaningless and wrongly accentuated." See also Keith in *D. R. Bhandarkar Volume*, 221f.

c16.s1.t2.32

² *Ind. Ant.*, 1884, pp. 349-50.

c16.s1.t2.33

It is permissible to conjecture that one of the two conquering kings, viz., Menander and Demetrios, was identical with the Yavana leader who penetrated to Sāketa in Oudh, Madhyamikā near Chitor, and the river Sindhu possibly in Central India, in the time of Pushyamitra. Goldstücker, Smith and many other scholars identified the invader with Menander who crossed the Hypanis (Beas) and penetrated as far as the Isamus (Trisāmā³?). On the other hand, Dr. Bhandarkar suggested, in his *Foreign Elements in the Hindu Population*, the identification of the invader with Demetrios. We learn from Polybius that Demetrios was a young man at the time of Antiochos III's invasion (between 211 and 206 B.C.). Justin says that Demetrios was "king of the Indians" when Eukratides was king of the Bactrians and Mithradates was the king of the Parthians. "Almost at the same time that Mithradates ascended the throne among the Parthians, **Eukratides** began to reign among the Bactrians; both of them being great men...Eukratides carried on several wars with great spirit, and though much reduced by his losses in them, yet, when he was besieged by Demetrios, king of the Indians, with a garrison of only 300 soldiers, he repulsed, by continual sallies, a force of 60,000 enemies."

c16.s1.t2.34

³ As already stated, Trisāmā is a river mentioned in the *Bhāgāvata Purāṇa*. Note the absence of any reference to the Ganges in Strabo's account of Menander's conquests.

c16.s1.t2.35

Dr. Smith assigns Mithradates to the period from 171 to 136 B.C. (to 138/37 B.C. according to Debevoise). Eukratides and Demetrios must also be assigned to that period, that is the middle of the second century B.C.¹

c16.s1.t2.36

¹ The activity of Mithradates I began after the death of Antiochus IV in 163 B.C. See Tarn, pp. 197 ff. According to Debevoise, *A Political History of Parthia*, p. 20 ff. Antiochus IV, Epiphanes, crossed the Euphrates in 165 B.C. Mithradates I died in 138/37 B.C., the first Parthian date fixed by numismatic and cuneiform evidence. Eukratides assumed the title "Great" before 162 B.C. (date of Timarchus) (*The Cambridge Shorter History of India*, p. 64). His coins are copied by Plato (165 B.C.) as well as Timarchus.

c16.s1.t2.37

We have seen that Demetrios was a young man and a prince in or about 206 B.C. We now find that he ruled as king of the Indians about the middle of the second century B.C. He was, therefore, the Indo-Greek contemporary of Pushyamitra who ruled from *c.* 187 to 151 B.C. Menander, on the other hand, must have ruled over the Indo-Greek kingdom much later, as will be apparent from the facts noted below. Justin tells us that Demetrios was deprived of his Indian possessions by Eukratides.² Eukratides was killed by his son with whom he had shared his throne.³ The identity of the parricide is uncertain but no one says that he was Menander.⁴

c16.s1.t2.38

² Watson's tr., p. 277.

c16.s1.t2.39

³ *Ibid.*, p. 277.

c16.s1.t2.40

⁴ According to Cunningham and Smith the parricide was Apollodotos. But Rapson shows good reasons for believing that Appollodotos did not belong to the family of Eukratides, but was, on the other hand, a ruler of Kāpiśa who was ousted by Eukratides (JRAS, 1905, pp. 784-85). Rawlinson points out (*Intercourse between India and the Western World*, p. 73) that Appollodotos uses the epithet Philopator, and the title would be somewhat incongruous if he were a parricide. It may be argued that the parricide was Apollodotos Soter and not Apollodotos Philopator, but we should remember that the titles Soter and Philopator sometimes occur on the same coin (Whitehead, *Catalogue of Coins*, p. 48) and therefore it is impossible to justify the separation of Apollodotos Soter and Apollodotos Philopator as two entities.

c16.s1.t2.41

Justin furnishes the important information that the prince who murdered Eukratides was a colleague of his father. We know that Greek rulers who reigned conjointly sometimes issued joint coins. Thus we have joint coins of Lysias and Antialkidas, Agathokleia and Strato, of Strato I and Strato II, and of Hermaios and Kalliope. The only Greeks whose names and portraits appear on a coin or medallion together with those of Eukratides are **Heliokles** and his wife Laodike. Cunningham and Gardner suggested that Heliokles and Laodike were the father and mother of Eukratides. But Von Sallet¹ proposed an entirely different interpretation of the coins in question. He thought that they were issued by Eukratides, not in honour of his parents, but on the occasion of the marriage of his son Heliokles with a Laodike whom Von Sallet conjectured to have been daughter of Demetrios by the daughter of Antiochos III. If Von Sallet's conjecture be accepted then it is permissible to think that Heliokles was the colleague of Eukratides referred to by Justin, and the murderer of his father.

c16.s1.t2.42

¹ *Ind. Ant.*, 1880, p. 256.

c16.s1.t2.43

It is clear from what has been stated above that Demetrios was succeeded by Eukratides, who, in his turn, was probably followed by Heliokles. Menander could not in that case have reigned earlier than Heliokles. It may, however, be argued that after Demetrios the Indo-Greek kingdom split up into two parts: one part which included the Trans-Jhelum territories was ruled by Eukratides and his son, the other part which included "Euthymedia" (Euthydemia?) or Śākala was ruled by Menander who thus might have been a younger contemporary of Eukratides (*cir.* 171-165 B.C.) and consequently of Pushyamitra (*cir.* 187-151 B.C.).

c16.s1.t2.44

Now, the disruption of the Indo-Greek kingdom after Demetrios may be accepted as an historical fact. The existence of two rival Greek kingdoms in India and their mutual dissensions are proved by literary and numismatic evidence. The Purāṇas say:

c16.s1.t2.45

*Bhavishyantīha Yavanā dharmataḥ kāmato'rthataḥ*
*naiva Mūrdhābhishiktās te bhavishyanti narādihpāḥ*
*yuga-dosha-durāchārā bhavishyanti nṛpās tu te*
*strīṇām bāla-vadhenaiva hatvā chaiva parasparam.*

c16.s1.t2.46

"There will be Yavanas here by reason of religious feeling or ambition or plunder; they will not be kings solemnly anointed but will follow evil customs by reason of the corruptions of the age. Massacring women and children¹ and killing one another, kings will enjoy the earth at the end of the *Kali* age."²

c16.s1.t2.47

¹ *Cf.* Cunn. *AGI.* Revised Ed. 274; *Camb. Hist. Ind.*, I. 376. "The Macedonians... gave away to a fury of blood-lust, sparing neither woman nor child."

c16.s1.t2.48

² Pargiter, *Dynasties of the Kali Age*, pp. 56, 74.

c16.s1.t2.49

The *Gārgī Saṃhitā* informs us:

c16.s1.t2.50

*Madhyadeśe na sthāsyanti Yanvanā yuddha durmadāḥ*
*teshām anyonya saṃbhāvā (?) bhavishyanti na saṁśayaḥ*
*ātma-chakrotthitaṃ ghoraṃ yuddhaṁ parama-dāruṇam.*

c16.s1.t2.51

"The fiercely fighting Greeks will not stay in the *Madhyadeśa* (Mid-India); there will be a cruel, dreadful war in their own kingdom, caused between themselves."³

c16.s1.t2.52

³ Kern, *Bṛihat Saṃhitā*, p. 38.

c16.s1.t2.53

Coins bear testimony to struggles between kings of **the house of Eukratides** and rulers of the **family of Euthydemos.** But the evidence which we possess clearly indicates that the contemporaries and rivals of Eukratides and Heliokles were **Apollodotos, Agathokleia and Strato I,** and not Menander. A square copper⁴ coin of Eukratides has on the obverse a bust of the king and the legend "*Basileus Megalou Eukratidou.*" On the reverse there is the figure of Zeus and the legend "*Kavisiye nagara-* *devatā.*" They are often coins (?) of Apollodotos restruck.¹ From this it is probable that Apollodotos was a rival of Eukratides, and was superseded in the rule of Kāpiśa, which lay in the district identified with Kāfiristān and the valleys of Ghorband and Panjshir, by the latter. Rapson further points out² that Heliokles restruck the coins of Agathokleia and Strato I ruling conjointly and also of Strato I reigning alone. Further, the restriking is always by Heliokles, never by Agathokleia and Strato I. From this it is clear that Agathokleia and Strato I ruled over an Indo-Greek principality either before, or in the time of Heliokles, but probably not after him.

c16.s1.t2.54

⁴ *CHI*, 555, 690; Whitehead, *Indo-Greek Coins*, 26.

c16.s1.t2.55

¹ Rapson, JRAS, 1905, p. 785. According to some 'overstriking in itself is no evidence of conquest' but simply of commercial relationship (JAOS, 1950, p. 210).

c16.s1.t2.56

² JRAS, 1905, pp. 165 ff. CHI, p. 553.

c16.s1.t2.57

We have seen that according to the evidence of Justin and the Kāpiśa coins Eukratides probably fought against two rivals, namely, Demetrios and Apollodotos; his son Heliokes also fought against two rivals, namely, Agathokleia and Strato I. As Demetrios and Apollodotos were both antagonists of Eukratides and used similar coin-types, the inevitable inference is that they were very near in time as well as in relationship to one another, in fact that one immediately followed the other. Now Demetrios was beyond doubt the son and successor of Euthydemos, consequently Apollodotos must have been his successor.

c16.s1.t2.58

As Heliokles was in all probability a son of Eukratides, the rival of Apollodotos, he must have been a younger contemporary of Apollodotos. Consequently, Heliokles' antagonists, Agathokleia and Strato I, whose coins he restruck, were very near in time to Apollodotos. Strato I later on ruled conjointly with his grandson Strato II. There is no room for the long and prosperous reign of Menander in the period which elapsed from Demetrios to Strato II. According to the Buddhist tradition recorded in the *Milinda-pañho*, Milinda or Menander flourished "500 years," *i.e.*, not earlier than the fifth century¹ after the *Parinirvāṇa*, *parinibbānato pañchavassa sate atikkante ete upajjissanti*.² This tradition points to a date not earlier than the period 144-44 B.C. according to Ceylonese reckoning, *or* 86 B.C.-14 A.D. according to Cantonese tradition, for Menander. Thus both according to numismatic evidence and literary tradition Menander could not have been the Indo-Greek contemporary of Pushyamitra.³ It is Demetrios who should, therefore, be identified with the Yavana invader referred to by Patañjali and Kālidāsa, one of whose armies was defeated by Prince Vasumitra.⁴

c16.s1.t2.59

¹ *Cf.* the interpretation of somewhat similar chronological data by Franke and Fleet (JRAS, 1914, pp. 400-1); and Smith EHI, 3rd Edition, p. 328.

c16.s1.t2.60

² Trenckner, the *Milinda-pañho*, p. 3. Tarn is not quite right in saying (134 n) that Apollodoros makes Menander contemporary with Demetrios, Trogus with Apollodotos, and some coin indications (CHI, p. 551) with Eukratides. Strabo following Apollodorus and possibly other authorities simply says that extensive Bactrian conquests in the Indian interior were achieved *partly* by Menander and *partly* by Demetrios. It is nowhere *clearly* stated that the two conquerors were contemporaries. The book of Trogus on which another conclusion is based, is lost. Coin indications are not clear enough. *E.g.*, the imitation of certain coins of Demetrios by Maues does not prove chronological proximity.

c16.s1.t2.61

³ *Cf.* 445n *infra.*

c16.s1.t2.62

⁴ S. Konow (*Acta Orientalia*, 1. 35) points out that there is no *evidence* that Menander *transgressed the river Yamunā*, and that Demetrios was the ruler who besieged Sāketa and Madhyamikā. In IHQ, 1929, p. 403, Mr. R. P. Chanda regards Strabo's attribution of the Indian conquests to Demetrios as doubtful. But the cities in the Pañjāb and the Lower Indus Valley, named after Demetrios and possibly his father leave no room for doubt that Strabo is right.

Cites (14)