The Greeks in Bactria and India c18.2

c18.2

The relation of these two towns to each other is a problem. The Alexander historians make it clear that Alexandria was meant to be the capital of the Paropamisadae, and the references to it in the Milindapañha (p. 421 and n. 4) show that it was existing in the second century B.C., in the flourishing period of Greek rule, and probably in the first century also; and there is a Chinese mention of it round about 50 B.C. (p. 340). The literary evidence is then perfectly clear. But the evidence of the coins is equally clear that Kapisa was the Greek capital, for the coins of Pantaleon and Agathocles which show the Zeus of Kapisa holding Hecate τριοδῖτις on his hand prove beyond any doubt that (among other things) Kapisa was successively the seat of these two sub-kings (see on this p. 158). I need not enlarge here on the importance of Kapisa; this book should have sufficiently shown it, and Kapisa continued to be a capital for centuries after the name of Alexandria was forgotten.¹ Now it is unthinkable that there should have been at the same time two Greek capitals of the Paropamisadae; and a solution of the difficulty must be attempted.