The Greeks in Bactria and India c10.s6.230

c10.s6.230

Spalirises and his son Azes were then joint kings. Coin-finds, notably coins buried beneath the foundations of stupas, connect Azes with Taxila, and the humped bull of Pushkalāvatī is common among his types, and therefore Spalirises, whose coins come chiefly from Arachosia,⁵ must have ruled in the west of his realm with Azes as co-ruler in the east—the regular Seleucid system once more. Subsequently both father and son appear with the title Great King of Kings.⁶ Since Azes must have had that title by 30 B.C. at the very latest;⁷ since it was Spalirises who put an end to Hermaeus' kingdom (p. 350); and since Hermaeus was ruling well after 32 B.C. (p. 350); the only solution of the chronological problem seems to be that father and son were both Great King of Kings at the same time, as they had been Great King at the same time; when Spalirises took the title Great King of Kings he conferred the same title on his son and co-ruler, Azes, just as Azes subsequently did on his own son Azilises.¹ There is no lack of precedents for father and son being co-equals, whether in title and fact, like Antigonus I and his son Demetrius the Besieger, or in title and theory, as in the Seleucid practice; the only thing which makes it seem strange is the title Great King of Kings conferred upon a son, and even for that there is a famous parallel. At the Donations of Alexandria in 34 B.C. Antony had conferred the title Queen of Kings upon Cleopatra and the title King of Kings on her son and (in theory) co-ruler in Egypt, Ptolemy Caesar;² news travels fast in the East, and Antony’s action may have prompted that of Spalirises. Doubtless the Parsii were by this time thoroughly mixed with Saca blood, but they were Persians at bottom, and father and son may have felt themselves superior to the Saca tribes about them.