The Greeks in Bactria and India c10.s3.23

c10.s3.23

But if Antiochus made no move during his first five years that does not mean that he made no plans. Fortunately his coins² afford a means of dating certain indications, for to this period belong the coins on which the legend is only ‘Of King Antiochus’ and the type the common Seleucid type of Apollo seated on the omphalos.³ The first indication is his refounding of Babylon as a Greek city.⁴ It is not known what happened to Babylon under the earlier Seleucids,⁵ but though Strabo’s description of it as a desert⁶ belongs to his own day, the same passage shows that it was anything but flourishing; nothing is known of any Greek colony there, but there must have been a considerable native Babylonian population grouped round E-sagila, the rebuilt temple of Bel. Antiochus made of Babylon a regular Greek city, with a theatre⁷ and at least one gymnasium.⁸ But one thing about it was unique in Seleucid history: it kept its native name, as literary allusions show. Any large Oriental city refounded by a Seleucid invariably received a dynastic name, and Antiochus himself followed the rule elsewhere, as he showed at Ecbatana;¹ but at Babylon he did not. And this was no accident; for there are coins of his of this period, *i.e.* with the legend ‘Of King Antiochus’ only, which show his head with the radiate crown of Helios (*below*) and on the reverse the Fortune of Babylon—that is, the personification of Babylon itself—*enthroned* like Zeus, and like Zeus holding Victory on her hand.² No other city had ever been enthroned on any king’s coinage;³ there may be a reference to this in the Greek story of the nymph Babylon Thronia, Babylon ‘of the throne’ or ‘enthroned’ (p. 253). Taken together, these facts can only mean that Antiochus intended Babylon ultimately to be his capital; and he kept the old name because, under that name, it had been the destined capital of Alexander. Antiochus was then going to play Alexander; and if he were going to sit in Alexander’s seat it is a fair inference that he thought of restoring Alexander’s empire. What that means will be considered presently; two other indications must first be noticed. One is that on some of these early coins he wears the crown of rays which was the crown of Helios the Sun-god.⁴ No Seleucid had worn it before him, though it had been adopted by Ptolemy III of Egypt. Doubtless its primary meaning was that the king’s reign would bring prosperity;⁵ but it is difficult to dissociate the crown of Helios from some connection with world-rule, and that in turn, in men’s minds, from some connection with Alexander. The other is furnished by a seal from Babylonia published by Professor Rostovtzeff, on which some Seleucid king wears the elephant-scalp.¹ He himself did not identify the portrait, which is clearly idealised; but he mentions a suggestion made to him² that it is the Seleucid Demetrius II, as he does wear the elephant-scalp on one of his coins. But this suggestion seems impossible, for the features of the king on the seal do not bear the least resemblance to the strongly individualised features of the Seleucid Demetrius II;³ on the other hand, they do bear a resemblance to some portraits of Antiochus IV⁴ and would do very well for an idealised portrait of him. It has been noticed already (p. 131) that the elephant-scalp was the symbol of Alexander’s power, and (with all necessary reserves) that must be what Antiochus had in mind; his adoption later of Alexander’s coin-type ‘Zeus enthroned’ bears this out.