The Greeks in Bactria and India c10.s3.98

c10.s3.98

Now why were the Euthydemid princes so desperately anxious to prove to the world that they were no less Seleucids than Eucratides? Every historian has noticed one thing about the Seleucid empire, the abiding loyalty of the Graeco-Macedonian settlers, when they got the chance, to the person of the reigning Seleucid. When the general Molon revolted against Antiochus III part of his army went over the moment it saw Antiochus himself;¹ when Achaeus marched against Antiochus III, the settlers in his army refused to go on as soon as they guessed against whom they were marching,² though Achaeus was collaterally a Seleucid; there are other instances later.³ That is the explanation of the speed of Eucratides’ conquest: the Greek settlers in the East revolted and joined him wherever he appeared—in one case, that of the two mint-masters in Bactra, this can apparently be traced (App. 1)—and the propaganda of the Euthydemids was a desperate attempt to hold them by showing that they themselves were just as good Seleucids as Eucratides. Eucratides was not a rebel, but he raised and led a rebellion. The most important thing, however, is not that he raised a rebellion, but that the comparatively small force he brought with him proves that he knew beforehand that he *could* raise and lead such a rebellion—that he would find troops to his hand when he arrived. But he was only a Seleucid collaterally, just as his opponents were and just as Achaeus had been; whence came his knowledge? It could only have come in one way: he held Antiochus’ commission, and could proclaim ‘Who fights against me fights against the Lord’s Anointed.’ Once the pedigree coin-series of Agathocles and Antimachus be understood they seem quite conclusive for two things: that Eucratides was a Seleucid and that he came as the representative of Antiochus.