The Greeks in Bactria and India c9.s1.169

c9.s1.169

Susa, like Seleuceia, may have had more autonomy under the Arsacids than under the Seleucids,¹ and the relations of these cities to the Parthian kings may be noted. At Susa, when the magistrates and the people differed as to the legality of the election of Hestiaeus to a second term of office as city Treasurer, they referred the matter to the arbitration of the Parthian king;² and as the *epistates* did not interfere and the king acted as arbitrator and did not use his powers, it looks as though internal autonomy was subject to little restriction. Hestiaeus himself was both a city magistrate and a ‘Friend’ and ‘Bodyguard’ of the Parthian king;³ his Court titles gave him an established position should he go to Ctesiphon or the king come to the palace at Susa. Seleuceia coined the Parthian king’s money for him and, besides putting Greek legends upon it, she dated it by the Seleucid Era which *she* used and not by the Arsacid Era which the king used; and she sometimes played a part in politics, it being apparently her practice in Parthian dynastic quarrels for her mercantile aristocracy to support the established line while the people, who sometimes had the co-operation of the Syrian and Jewish communities in the city, sided with the pretender. It is quite impossible, military reasons apart, to suppose that when Mithridates I of Parthia conquered Babylonia he *took* Seleuceia; after conquering the rest of Babylonia he went northward and only appears as lord of Seleuceia a year later;⁴ there must have been a treaty, and Seleuceia must have accepted his lordship upon terms. It probably paid the Arsacid well, in the financial sense, to give good treatment to the great mercantile city; and the extraordinary fact has recently come to light that during the latter part of the great reign of Mithridates II Seleuceia was issuing a coinage of her own,⁵ which must have been a privilege granted by the king. Susa also may have made terms; the Greeks continued to hold the citadel. Neither city was ‘free’: absolute freedom meant armed revolt, as Seleuceia once revolted for seven years;¹ but both seem to have had about as much freedom as was possible under the rule of a king. It is likely, as will be seen, that their position afforded a sort of precedent for that of Greek cities in India when under Saca or Parthian rule.