The story of the native dynasties in the interior must now be interrupted to admit a brief review of the fortunes of the various foreign rulers who established themselves in the Indian territories once conquered by Alexander, after the sun of the Maurya empire had set, and the north-western frontier was left exposed to foreign attack. The daring and destructive .raid of the great Macedonian, as we have seen, had effected none of the permanent results intended. The Indian provinces which he had subjugated, and which Seleukos had failed to recover, passed into the iron grip of Chandragupta, who transmitted them to the keeping of his son and grandson. I see no reason to doubt that the territories west of the Indus ceded by Seleukos to his Indian opponent continued in possession of the successors of the latter, and that consequently the Hindu Kush range was the frontier of the Maurya empire up to the close of Asoka’s reign.
But it is certain that the unity of the empire did
not survive Asoka, and that when the influence of his dominating personality ceased to act, the outlying provinces shook off their allegiance and set up as independent states. The history of some of these has been told in the preceding chapter. The regions of the north-western frontier, when no longer protected by the arm of a strong paramount native power in the interior, offered a tempting field to the ambition of the Hellenistic princes of Bactria and Parthia, as well as to the cupidity of the warlike races on the border. This chapter will be devoted, so far as the very imperfect materials available permit, to a sketch of the leading events in the annals of the Panjab and trans-Indus provinces from the close of Asoka’s reign to the establishment of the Indo-Scythian, or Kushan, power.
The spacious Asiatic dominion consolidated by the genius of Seleukos Nikator passed in the year 262 or 261 B.C. into the hands of his grandson Antiochos, a drunken sensualist, miscalled even in his lifetime Theos, or “the god,” and, strange to say, worshipped as such. This worthless prince occupied the throne for fifteen or sixteen years, but toward the close of his reign his empire suffered two grievous losses by the revolt of the Bactrians, under the leadership of Diodotos, and of the Parthians, under that of Arsakes.
The loss of Bactria was especially grievous. This province, the rich plain watered by the Oxus (Amu Darya) after its issue from the mountains, had been occupied by civilized men from time immemorial, and its capital, Zariaspa, or Balkh, had been from ancient
days one of the most famous cities of the East. The country, which was said to contain a thousand towns, had been always regarded, during the time of the Achmmenian kings, as the premier satrapy, and reserved as an appanage for a prince of the blood. When Alexander shattered the Persian power and seated himself upon the throne of the Great King, he continued to bestow his royal favour upon the Bactrians, who in return readily assimilated the elements of Hellenic civilization. Two years after his death, at the final partition of the empire in 321 B.C., Bactria fell to the share of Seleukos Nikator, and continued to be one of the most valuable possessions of his son and grandson.
The Parthians, a race of rude and hardy horsemen, with habits similar to those of the modern Turkomans, dwelt beyond the Persian deserts in the comparatively infertile regions to the southeast of the Caspian Sea. Their country, along with the territories of the Chorasmioi, Sogdioi, and Arioi (Khwarizm, Samarkand, and Herat), had been included in the sixteenth satrapy of Darius, and all the tribes named, armed like the Bactrians, with cane bows and short spears, supplied contingents to the host of Xerxes. In the time of Alexander and the early Seleukids, Parthia proper and Hyrkania, adjoining the Caspian, were combined to form a satrapy. The Parthians, unlike the Bactrians, never adopted Greek culture, and, although submissive to their Persian and Macedonian masters, retained unchanged the habits of a horde of mounted shepherds,
equally skilled in the management of their steeds and the use of the bow.
These two nations, so widely different in history and manners, – the Bactrians, with a thousand cities, and the Parthians, with myriads of moss-troopers, – were moved at almost the same moment, about the middle of the third century B.C., to throw off their allegiance to their Seleukidan lord, and assert their independence. The exact dates of these rebellions cannot be determined, but the Bactrian revolt seems to have been the earlier, and there is reason to believe that the Parthian struggle continued for several years, and was not ended until after the death of Antiochos Theos in 246 B.C., although the declaration of Parthian autonomy seems to have been made in 248 B.C.
The Bactrian revolt was a rebellion of the ordinary Oriental type, headed by Diodotos, the governor of the province, who seized an opportunity to shake off the authority of his sovereign and assume the royal state. The Parthian movement was rather a national rising, led by a chief named Arsakes, who is described as being a man of uncertain origin but undoubted bravery, and inured to a life of rapine. Arsakes slew Andragoras, the Seleukidan viceroy, declared his independence, and so founded the famous Arsakidan dynasty of Persia, which endured for nearly five centuries (248 B.C. to 226 A.D.). The success of both the Bactrian and Par-titian rebels was facilitated by the war of succession which disturbed the Seleukidan monarchy after the death of Antiochos Theos.
The line of Bactrian kings initiated by Diodotos was destined to a briefer and stormier existence than that enjoyed by the dynasty of the Arsakids. Diodotos himself wore his newly won crown for a brief space only, and after a few years was succeeded (cir. 245 B.C.) by his son of the same name, who entered into an affiance with the Parthian king.
Diodotos II was followed (cir. 230 B.C.) by Euthydemos, a native of Magnesia, who seems to have belonged to a different family, and to have gained the crown by successful rebellion. This monarch became involved in a long-contested war with Antiochos the Great of Syria (223–187 B.C.), which was terminated (cir. 208 B.C.) by a treaty recognizing the independence of the Bactrian kingdom. Shortly afterward Antiochos crossed the Hindu Kush, and compelled an Indian king named Subhagasena, who probably ruled in the Kabul valley, to surrender a considerable number of elephants and large treasure. Leaving Androsthenes of Cyzicus to collect this war indemnity, Antiochos in person led his main force homeward by the Kandahar route through Arachosia and Drangiana to Karmania.
Demetrios, son of Euthydemos and son-in-law of Antiochos, who had given him a daughter in marriage when the independence of Bactria was recognized, repeated his father-in-law’s exploits with still greater success, and conquered a considerable portion of Northern India, presumably including Kabul, the Panjab, and Sind (cir. 190 B.C.).
The distant Indian wars of Demetrios necessarily
weakened his hold upon Bactria, and afforded the opportunity for successful rebellion to one Elikratides, who made himself master of Bactria about 175 B.C., and became involved in many wars with the surrounding states and tribes, which he carried on with varying fortune and unvarying spirit. Demetrios, although he had lost Bactria, long retained his hold upon his eastern conquests, and was known as “King of the Indians,” but after a severe struggle the victory rested with Eukratides, who was an opponent not easily beaten. It is related that on one occasion, when shut up for five months in a fort with a garrison of only three hundred men, he succeeded in repelling the attack of a host of sixty thousand under the command of Demetrios.
But the hard-won triumph was short-lived. While Eukratides was on his homeward march from India, attended by his son Apollodotos, whom he had made his colleague in power, he was barbarously murdered by the unnatural youth, who is said to have gloried in his monstrous crime, driving his chariot wheels through the blood of his father, to whose corpse he refused even the poor honour of burial.
The murder of Eukratides shattered to fragments the kingdom for which he had fought so valiantly. Another son, named Heliokles, who assumed the title of “the Just,” perhaps as the avenger of his father’s cruel death, enjoyed for a brief space a precarious tenure of power in Bactria. Strato, who also seems to have belonged to the family of Eukratides, held a principality
in the Panjab for a few years, and was perhaps the immediate successor of Apollodotos. Agathokles and Pantaleon, whose coins are specially Indian in character, were earlier in date, and contemporary with Euthydemos and Demetrios.
It is evident from the great variety of the royal names in the coin-legends, which are nearly forty in number, that both before and after the death of Eukratides, the Indian borderland was parcelled out among a crowd of Greek princelings, for the most part related either to the family of Euthydemos and Demetrios or to that of their rival, Eukratides. Some of these princelings, among whom was Antialkidas, were subdued by Eukratides, who, if he had lived, might have consolidated a great border kingdom. But his death in the hour of victory increased the existing confusion, and it is quite impossible to make a satisfactory territorial and chronological arrangement of the Indo-Greek frontier kings contemporary with and posterior to Eukratides. Their names, with two exceptions, are known from coins only.
One name, that of Menander, stands out conspicuously amid the crowd of obscure princes. He seems to have belonged to the family of Eukratides, and to have had his capital at Kabul, whence he issued in 155 B.C. to make the bold invasion of India described in the last chapter. Two years later he was obliged to retire and devote his energies to the encounter with dangers which menaced him at home, due to the never-ending quarrels with his neighbours on the frontier.
Menander was celebrated as a just ruler, and when he died was honoured with magnificent obsequies. He is supposed to have been a convert to Buddhism, and has been immortalized under the name of Milinda in a celebrated dialogue entitled “The Questions of Milinda,” which is one of the most notable books in Buddhist literature.
Second Century B.C.
Heliokles, the son of Eukratides, who had obtained Bactria as his share of his father’s extensive dominion, was the last king of Greek race to rule the territories to the north of the Hindu Kush. While the Greek princes and princelings were struggling one with the other in obscure wars which history has not condescended to record, a deluge was preparing in the steppes of Mongolia, which was destined to sweep them all away into nothingness.
A horde of nomads, named the Yueh-chi, whose movements will be more particularly described in the next chapter, were driven out of north-western China in the year 165 B.C., and compelled to migrate westwards by the route to the north of the deserts. Some years later, about 160 B.C., they encountered another horde, the Sakas or Se, who seem to have occupied the territories lying to the north (or, possibly, to the south) of the Alexander Mountains, between the Chu and Jaxartes (Syr Darya) Rivers, as already mentioned.
The Sakas, accompanied by cognate tribes, were forced to move in a southerly direction, and in course
of time entered India, possibly by more roads than one. This flood of barbarian invasion burst upon Bactria in the period between 140 and 130 B.C., finally extinguishing the Hellenistic monarchy, which must have been weakened already by the growth of the Parthian or Persian power. The last Greco-Bactrian king was Heliokles, with whom Greek rule to the north of the Hindu Kush disappeared for ever.
The Saka flood, still pouring on, surged into the valley of the Helmund (Erymandrus) River, and so filled that region, the modern Sistan, that it became known as Sakastene, or the Saka country.
Other branches of the barbarian stream which penetrated the Indian passes deposited settlements at Taxila in the Panjab and at Mathura on the Jumna, where Saka princes, with the title of satrap, ruled for more than a century, seemingly in subordination to the Parthian power. Another section of the horde, at a later date, pushed on southwards and occupied the peninsula of Surashtra, or Kathiawar, founding a Saka dynasty which lasted for centuries.
Strato I, a Greek King of Kabul and the Panjab, who was to some extent contemporary with Heliokles, seems to have been succeeded by Strato II, probably his grandson, who, in turn, was apparently displaced at Taxila by the Saka satraps. The satraps of Mathura were closely connected with those of Taxila, and belong to the same period, a little before and after 100 B.C. The movements of the Sakas and allied nomad tribes were closely connected with the development of the
Parthian or Persian power under the Arsakidan kings. Mithradates I, a very able monarch (174 to 136 B.C.), who was for many years the contemporary of Eukratides, King of Bactria, succeeded in extending his dominion so widely that his power was felt as far as the Indus, and possibly even to the east of that river. The Saka chiefs of Taxila and Mathura would not have assumed the purely Persian title of satrap, if they had not regarded themselves as subordinates of the Persian or Parthian sovereign, and the close relations between the Parthian monarchy and the Indian borderland at this period are demonstrated by the appearance of a long line of princes of Parthian origin, who now enter on the scene.
The earliest of these Indo-Parthian kings apparently was Maues, or Mauas, who attained power in the Kabul valley and Panjab about 120 B.C., and adopted the title of “Great King of Kings” (Βασιλέως Βασιλέων μεγαλου), which had been used for the first time by Mithradates I. His coins are closely related to those of that monarch, as well as to those of the unmistakably Parthian border chief, who called himself Arsakes Theos. The King Moga, to whom the Taxila satrap was immediately subordinate, was almost certainly the personage whose name appears on the coins as Mauou in the genitive case.
Vonones, or Onones, whose name is unquestionably Parthian, was probably the immediate successor of Maues on the throne of Kabul. He was succeeded by his brother Spalyris, who was followed in order by
Azes (Azas) I, Azilises, Azes II, and Gondophares. The princes prior to the last named are known from their coins only. Gondophares, whose accession may be dated with practical certainty in 21 A.D., and whose coins are Parthian in style, enjoyed a long reign of some thirty years, and is a more interesting personage. He reigned, like his predecessors, in the Kabul valley and the Panjab.
The special interest attaching to Gondophares is due to the fact that his name is associated with that of St. Thomas, the apostle of the Parthians, in very ancient Christian tradition. The belief that the Parthians were allotted as the special sphere of the missionary labours of St. Thomas goes back to the time of Origen, who died in the middle of the third century, and is also mentioned in the Clementine Recognitions, a work of the same period, and possibly somewhat earlier in date.
The nearly contemporary Acts of St. Thomas, as well as later tradition, generally associate the Indians, rather than the Parthians, with the name of the apostle, but the terms “India” and “Indians” had such vague signification in ancient times that the discrepancy is not great. The earliest form of the tradition clearly deserves the greater credit, and there is no apparent reason for discrediting the statement handed down by Origen that Thomas received Parthia as his allotted region. According to the Clementine Recognitions, the apostolic preaching brought about very desirable reforms in the morals and manners of the Medes and
Persians, who were induced to abandon scandalous practices, forbidden by religion, although sanctioned by immemorial usage.
The legend connecting St. Thomas with King Gondophares appears for the first time in the Syrian text of the Acts of St. Thomas, which was composed at about the same date as the writings of Origen. The substance of the long story may be set forth briefly as follows:–
“When the twelve apostles divided the countries of the world among themselves by lot, India fell to the share of Judas, surnamed Thomas, or the Twin, who showed unwillingness to start on his mission. At that time an Indian merchant named Habban arrived in the country of the south, charged by his master, Gundaphar, King of India, to bring back with him a cunning artificer able to build a palace meet for the king. In order to overcome the apostle’s reluctance to start for the East, our Lord appeared to the merchant in a vision, sold the apostle to him for twenty pieces of silver, and commanded St. Thomas to serve King Gundaphar and build the palace for him.
“In obedience to his Lord’s commands, the apostle sailed next day with Habban the merchant, and during the voyage assured his companion concerning his skill in architecture and all manner of work in wood and stone. Wafted by favouring winds, their ship quickly reached the harbour of Sandaruk. Landing there, the voyagers shared in the marriage-feast of the king’s daughter, and used their time so well that bride and bridegroom were converted to the true faith. Thence
the saint and the merchant proceeded on their voyage, and came to the court of Gundaphar, King of India. St. Thomas promised to build him the palace within the space of six months, but expended the moneys given to him for that purpose in alms-giving, and, when called to account, explained that he was building for the king a palace in heaven, not made with hands. He preached with such zeal and grace that the king, his brother Gad, and multitudes of the people embraced the faith. Many signs and wonders were wrought by the holy apostle.
“After a time, Sifur, the general of King Mazdai, arrived, and besought the apostle to come with him and heal his wife and daughter. St. Thomas hearkened to his prayer, and went with Sifur to the city of King Mazdai, riding in a chariot. He left his converts in the country of King Gundaphar, under the care of Deacon Xanthippos. King Mazdai waxed wroth when his queen Tertia and a noble lady named Mygdonia were converted by St. Thoma, who was accordingly sentenced to death and executed by four soldiers, who pierced him with spears on a mountain without the city. The apostle was buried in the sepulchre of the ancient kings; but the disciples secretly removed his bones, and carried them away to the West.”
Writers of later date, subsequent to the seventh century, profess to know the name of the city where the apostle suffered martyrdom, and call it variously Kalamina, Kalamita, Kalamena, or Karamena, and much ingenuity has been expended in futile attempts
to identify this city. But the scene o1 the martyrdom is anonymous in the earlier versions of the tale, and Kalamina should be regarded as a place in fairyland, which it is vain to try to locate on a map. The same observation applies to the attempts at the identification of the port variously called Sandaruk, Andrapolis, and so forth.
The whole story is pure mythology, and the geography is as mythical as the tale itself. its interest in the eyes of the historian of India is confined to the fact that it proves that the real Indian king, Gondophares, was remembered two centuries after his death, and was associated in popular belief with the apostolic mission to the Parthians. Inasmuch as Gondophares was certainly a Parthian prince, it is reasonable to believe that a Christian mission actually visited the Indo-Parthians of the north-western frontier during his reign, whether or not that mission was conducted by St. Thomas in person. The traditional association of the name of the apostle with that of King Gondophares is in no way at variance with the chronology of the reign of the latter.
The alleged connection of the apostle with Southern India and with the shrine near Madras dubbed San Thomé by the Portuguese stands on a different footing. The story of the southern mission of St. Thomas first makes its appearance in Marco Polo’s work in the thirteenth century, and has no support in either probability or ancient tradition. It may be dismissed without hesitation as a late invention of the local Nestorian Christians, concocted as a proof of their orthodox descent.
The coins of Abdagases, the son of Gondophares’ brother, are found in the Panjab only, while those of Orthagnes occur in Kandahar, Sistan, and Sindh. It would seem that the Indo-Parthian princes were gradually driven southward by the advancing Yueh-chi, who had expelled the last of them from the Panjab by the end of the first century A.D3.
For a period of some two centuries after the beginning of the Saka and Parthian invasions, the northern portions of the Indian borderland, comprising probably the valley of the Kabul River, the Suwat valley, and some neighbouring districts to the north and northwest of Peshawar, remained under the government of local Greek princes, who, whether independent or subject to the suzerainty of a Parthian overlord, certainly exercised the prerogative of coining silver and bronze money.
The last of these Indo-Greek rulers was Hermaios, who succumbed to the Yueh-chi chief, Kadphises I, about 50 A.D., when that enterprising monarch added Kabul to the growing Yueh-chi empire. The Yueh-chi chief at first struck coins jointly in the name of himself and the Greek prince, retaining on the obverse the portrait of Hermaios with his titles in Greek letters. After a time, while still preserving the familiar portrait, he substituted his own name and style in the legend. The next step taken was to replace the bust of Hermaios by the effigy of Augustus, as in his later years, and so to do homage to the expanding fame of that
emperor, who, without striking a blow, and by the mere terror of the Roman name, had compelled the Parthians to restore the standards of Crassus (20 B.C.), which had been captured thirty-three years earlier.
Still later probably are those coins of Kadphises I which dispense altogether with the royal effigy, and present on the obverse an Indian bull, and on the reverse a Bactrian camel, devices fitly symbolizing the conquest of India by a horde of nomads.
Thus the numismatic record offers a distinctly legible abstract of the political history of the times, and tells in outline the story of the gradual supersession of the last outposts of Greek authority by the irresistible advance of the hosts from the steppes of Central Asia.
When the European historian, with his mind steeped in the conviction of the immeasurable debt owed to Hellas by modern civilization, stands by the side of the grave of Greek rule in India, it is inevitable that he should ask what was the result of the contact between Greece and India. Was Alexander to Indian eyes nothing more than the irresistible cavalry leader before whose onset the greatest armies were scattered like chaff, or was he recognized, consciously or unconsciously, as the pioneer of Western civilization and the parent of model institutions? Did the long-continued government of Greek rulers in the Panjab vanish before the assault of rude barbarians without leaving a trace of its existence save coins, or did it impress a Hellenic stamp upon the ancient fabric of Indian polity?
Questions such as these have received widely divergent answers, but undoubtedly the general tendency of European scholars has been to exaggerate the Hellenizing effects of Alexander’s invasion and of the Indo-Greek rule on the north-western frontier. The most extreme “Hellenist” view is that expressed by Herr Niese, who is convinced that all the later development of India depends upon the institutions of Alexander, and that Chandragupta Maurya recognized the suzerainty of Seleukos Nikator. Such extravagant notions are so plainly opposed to the evidence that they might be supposed to need no refutation, but they have been accepted to a certain extent by English writers of repute, who are, as already observed, inclined naturally to believe that India, like Europe and a large part of Asia, must have yielded to the subtle action of Hellenic ideas.
It is therefore worthwhile to consider impartially and without prejudice the extent of the Hellenic influence upon India from the invasion of Alexander to the Kushan or Indo-Scythian conquest at the end of the first century of the Christian era, a period of four centuries in round numbers.
The author’s opinion that India was not Hellenized by the operations of Alexander has been expressed in the chapter of this work dealing with his retreat from India, but it is advisable to remind the reader of the leading facts in connection with the more general question of Hellenic influence upon Indian civilization during four hundred years. In order to form a correct
judgment in the matter, it is essential to bear dates in mind. Alexander stayed only nineteen months in India, and however far-reaching his plans may have been, it is manifestly impossible that during those few months of incessant conflict he should have founded Hellenic institutions on a permanent basis or materially affected the structure of Hindu polity and society. As a matter of fact he did nothing of the sort, and within two years of his death, with the exception of some small garrisons under Eudamos in the Indus valley, the whole apparatus of Macedonian rule had been swept away. After the year 316 B.C. not a trace of it remained. The only mark of Alexander’s direct influence on India is the existence of a few coins modelled in imitation of Greek types which were struck by Saubhuti (Sophytes), the chief of the Salt Range, whom he subdued at the beginning of the voyage down the rivers.
Twenty years after Alexander’s death, Seleukos Nikator attempted to recover the Macedonian conquests east of the Indus, but failed, and more than failed, being obliged not only to forego all claims on the provinces temporarily occupied by Alexander, but to surrender a large part of Ariana, west of the Indus, to Chandragupta Maurya. The Indian administration and society so well described by Megasthenes, the ambassador of Seleukos, were Hindu in character, with some features borrowed from Persia, but none from Greece. The assertion that the development of India depended on the institutions of Alexander is a grotesque travesty of the truth.
For eighty or ninety years after the death of Alexander the strong arm of the Maurya emperors held India for the Indians against all comers, and those monarchs treated with their Hellenistic neighbours on equal terms. Asoka was much more anxious to communicate the blessings of Buddhist teaching to Antiochos and Ptolemy than to borrow Greek notions from them. Although it appears to be certainly true that Indian plastic and pictorial art, such as it was, drew its inspiration from Hellenistic Alexandrian models during the Maurya period, the Greek influence merely touched the fringe of Hindu civilization, and was powerless to modify the structure of Indian institutions in any essential respect.
For almost a hundred years after the failure of Seleukos Nikator no Greek sovereign presumed to attack India. Then Antiochos the Great (cir. 206 B.C.) marched through the hills of the country now called Afghanistan, and went home by Kandahar and Sistan, levying a war indemnity of treasure and elephants upon a local chief. This brief campaign can have had no appreciable effect on the institutions of India, and its occurrence was probably unknown to many of the courts east of the Indus.
The subsequent invasions of Demetrios, Eukratides, and Menander, which extended with intervals over a period of about half a century (190–153 B.C.), penetrated more deeply into the interior of the country; but they, too, were transient raids, and cannot possibly have affected seriously the ancient and deeply rooted
civilization of India. It is noticeable that the Hindu astronomer refers to Menander’s Greeks as the “viciously valiant Yavanas.” The Indians were impressed by both Alexander and Menander as mighty captains, not as missionaries of culture, and no doubt regarded both those sovereigns as impure barbarians, to be feared, but not imitated.
The East has seldom shown much readiness to learn from the West, and when Indians have condescended, as in the cases of relief sculpture and the drama, to borrow ideas from European teachers, the thing borrowed has been so cleverly disguised in native trappings that the originality of the Indian imitators is stoutly maintained even by acute and learned critics.
The Panjab, or a considerable part of it, with some of the adjoining regions, remained more or less under Greek rule for nearly two centuries and a half, from the time of Demetrios (190 B.C.) to the overthrow of Hermaios by the Kushans (cir. 50 A.D.), and we might reasonably expect to find clear signs of Hellenization in those countries. But the traces of Hellenic influence. even there are surprisingly slight and trivial. Except the coins, which retain Greek legends on the obverse, and are throughout mainly Greek in type, although they begin to be bilingual from the time of Demetrios and Eukratides, scarcely any indication of the prolonged foreign rule can be specified. The coinage undoubtedly goes far to prove that the Greek language was that used in the courts of the frontier princes, but the introduction of native legends on the reverses
demonstrates that it was not understood by the people at large. No inscriptions in that tongue have yet been discovered, and the single Greek name, Theodore, met with in a native record, comes from the Suwat valley, and is of late date, probably 56 A.D. There is no evidence that Greek architecture was ever introduced into India. A temple with Ionic pillars, dating from the time of Azes (either Azes I, 50 B.C., or Azes II, some fifty years later), has been discovered at Taxila; but the plan of the building is not Greek, and the pillars of foreign pattern are merely borrowed ornaments. The earliest known example of Indo-Greek sculpture belongs to the same period, the reign of Azes, and not a single specimen can be referred to the times of Demetrios, Eukratides, and Menander, not to speak of Alexander. The well-known sculptures of Gandhara, the region around Peshawar, are much later in date, and are the offspring of cosmopolitan Greco-Roman art.
The conclusion of the matter is that the invasions of Alexander, Antiochos the Great, Demetrios, Eukratides, and Menander were in fact, whatever their authors may have intended, merely military incursions, which left no appreciable mark upon the institutions of India. The prolonged occupation of the Panjab and neighbouring regions by Greek rulers had extremely little effect in Hellenizing the country. Greek political institutions and architecture were rejected, although to a small extent Hellenic example was accepted in the decorative arts, and the Greek language must have been familiar to the officials at the kings’ courts. The literature
of Greece was probably known more or less to some of the native officers, who were obliged to learn their masters’ language for business purposes, but that language was not widely diffused, and the impression made by Greek authors upon Indian literature and science is not traceable until after the close of the period under discussion.
3. The successors of Gondophares seem to have followed in this order: Abdagases, Orthagnes, Arsakes, Pakores, Sanabares.
This collection transcribed by Chris Gage