[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Studies](https://indike.org/pramana/ins) › [General history and culture](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general) › [The Greeks in Bactria and India](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.tarn-1938) › c19.19 # The Greeks in Bactria and India c19.19 The Greeks in Bactria and India c19.19 - **Language:** English ### [c19.19](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.tarn-1938.c19.19) The story then that Antiochus IV sacked or tried to sack the temple of Nanaia is very late and demonstrably untrue; but there is still one point to notice, and that is that Elymais, in the sense of the kingdom of Elymais, does not come into the story at all, though both the early sources use the name. Whether that kingdom sometimes included Susa or not,² it did not do so in the reign of Antiochus IV, as the inscriptions show that Susa was his city. It cannot be said for certain whether the first king of Elymais, Kamnaskires I, threw off Seleucid rule after Magnesia or after the death of Antiochus IV; Strabo would suit either view,¹ but the former is more probable, for Diodorus (? from Polybius) implies that when Antiochus III reached Elymais it was both independent and organised;² moreover, while Kamnaskires I on his drachms does not bear the title ‘Victorious’, on his tetradrachms he does,³ which could be interpreted to mean that it was only after the repulse of Antiochus III that he took that title and began to coin tetradrachms. But there is no certainty. It is however certain that if Elymais had a king, or whoever was its king, during the reign of Antiochus IV, that king was Antiochus’ vassal; for Eucratides, who was responsible, could never have gone eastward leaving behind him an independent rebel of considerable power⁴ at the very gates of Susa. And with the temple of Nanaia at Susa that king had no concern. I have mentioned Elymais because of one curious little fact bearing on Antiochus’ story: when Kamnaskires II, whose date (82–1 B.C.) is known from his dated coins, revolted from Parthia in the break-up which followed the death of Mithridates II in 87 and again made Elymais independent, he put on his coinage, not the Seleucid Apollo of Kamnaskires I, but the well-known type of Antiochus IV, Zeus enthroned holding Nike on his hand.⁵ There was no hostility to the memory of Antiochus IV in Elymais. - [Previous: c19.18](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.tarn-1938.c19.18) - [Next: c19.20](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.tarn-1938.c19.20) - [Up: c19](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.tarn-1938.c19) --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.tarn-1938.c19.19](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.tarn-1938.c19.19) · Pramāṇa