See Title Page for Table of Contents, links to posted segments, and Introductions.

In Türkic, Kang is “father, ancestor, primogenitor”, and probably that is how the tribe received its appellation. The name has long roots, it first showed up in the archaic Sumerian records probably of 27th c. BC, denoting some Sumerians that called themselves Kang, and at that time they must already had daughter branches that could call them fathers and ancestors. Probably, the Sumerian Kangs were descendents of the of the Neolithic Kurgan migrants that around 4000 BC left N.Pontic steppes on a southern route across Caucasus, Near East, Africa, Iberia, and up to the Central and Northwestern Europe. Some of the migrants had R1b Y-DNA marker, which allowed to trace and date their route. On their way, they left behind offshoots that continued their Kurgan traditions and their peculiar agglutinative language. In the Mesopotamia they left, besides the Sumerian Kang(ars), numerous nomadic tribes known to us as Guties, Turuks, Komans, and Subartu (Subars), dated in the records by about 23rd c. BC. Then they disappear from the historical notes, and their existence is known from the archeological records attributed to Kangars, the Kaunchi Culture of 1000 BC - 500 BC, until they reappear as major players in the Greek and Chinese chronological records, and later in Latin records. S.P. Tolstov equates the Kangar, Massaget, and Horezmian nomadic people, and thus extends the history known from the Chinese annals to the history known from the Greek annals. In the Late Antique and Early Middle Age times, Kangars lived through all events that fell on the Türkic Kaganates, they kept moving the center of their state first to the Aral area (Kangar Union, 659-750), then to the N.Pontic steppes (Bechens, Bosnyaks 750-990), to Pannonia, and finally to Balkans, where they established Bosnia and Herzegovina. The earlier of that period is also known from the archeological records attributed to Kangars, the Jetyasar Culture of 200 BC - 700 AD. The Excursus I of S.P. Tolstov illuminates historical events in the Horezm and Khorasan area during the period of Greek colonization of the “Greek Far East”, with his own competent analysis of the otherwise thoroughly ignored or majestically misinterpreted major role of the nomadic players in the unfolding events.

Posting clarifications and comments are (in blue italics) or in blue boxes. Page numbers are shown at the end of the page in blue. Square brackets [] indicate actual location of page break. The posting added or duplicated Chinese transcriptions, modern names, geographical coordinates, terminological clarifications, and auxiliary illustrations to facilitate concise references.

"Euthydemus was speaking thus for a long time, and he finally asked Telea to rendered him help in peace intermediation, and convince Antiochus to leave him the royal title. If Antiochus would not accomplish his request, the position of both sides becomes unsafe. He said, that at the border stand huge hordes of the nomads, threatening both of them, would the barbarians cross the border, the country would certainly be conquered by them" Polybius XI. 34

The first phase of the Greek colonization of the Middle Asia, Eastern Iran, and the northern fringes of India is linked with the activities of Alexander and his generals. In the territory of the future Greco-Bactrian kingdom in the 320s BC was founded a series of the “Alexandrias” — military outposts of the Greco-Macedonian colonization. They were the Arian Alexandria (Herat), two Alexandrias in Arachosia (apparently, one was the Kandahar), Caucasian Alexandria at the foot of the Hindu Kush, Alexandria Eskhata at the Syrdarya (Leninabad) (now restored back to Hojdent/Khujand), Oxus Alexandria (Amudarya), Alexandria by Bactra, Margiana Alexandria (Merv or Merverrud). According to Justin (XII. 5) Alexander founded 12 cities in Sogdiana and Bactria. Strabo tells of eight. By the time of the Alexander's death, the Greco-Macedonian military colonists in the “upper satrapies” (Greeks used the Median administrative term) numbered at least 23,000. However, a crisis that followed the death of the conqueror nearly led to the loss of these satrapies. The 23,000 soldiers stationed in the eastern “Alexandrias” (20,000 infantry and 3,000 cavalry) made an attempt to return home, but on the way were met and exterminated by the regent Perdiccas.

We do not know how many soldiers remained behind and did not participate in the uprising. It is unlikely that there were many. Certainly one can not confidently accept the assertion of the sources on the complete rebels extermination. Very possibly, Perdiccas forcibly returned a significant number of them to the colonies from which they fled. But either way, supposedly in the era of the Diadochi (succession) wars, and in particular at the beginning of the Seleucid period, was needed a significant additional colonization of the eastern satrapies to secure for the Greek a dominant positions in this subjugated with great difficulty country.

According to the Pompeius Trogus and other sources, after the death of Alexander, the upper satrapies were assigned to the vice-regents appointed by him. The sources name the following satrapies in the east: Bactria (Aminta), Sogdiana (Stasanor of Soli in Cyprus), Parthia (Philip), Hyrcania (Phrataphernes), Aria and Drangiana (Stasanor of Cyprus) ¹. The Northwest India (Python, son of Agenor), Paropamisadae (Oxiart the Bactrian), Taxiles, Porus and other Indian kings kept their area. However, Porus was soon killed by a Greek Eudamus, who seized his kingdom.

Apparently, during the Diadochi (succession) between the eastern satraps went on a severe fight. This is evidenced by conflicting assignment of the specific areas to various commanders by different sources. So, the same Diodorus lists Bactria and Sogdiana first in the possession of Philip, and then of the Stasanor of Soli, who originally controlled the Aria and Drangiana. And Philip turned out as a ruler of the Parthia, which originally was ruled by Phrataphernes.

The eastern satraps as the Eumenes' allies participate in his fight against Antigonus of Syria. Diodorus mentions in the Eumenes' army 1200 infantry and 400 cavalry of Androbaz, the commander Oxiart, 1500 foot and 1000 cavalry soldiers of Stasanor, the ruler of the Aria, Bactria, and Drangiana, 3000 foot soldiers, 500 horsemen, and 120 elephants of Eudamus of India.
232

After the Diadochi (succession) fight ended with transfer of the most of the Alexander's Asian possessions into the hands of Seleucus I Nicator, the founder of the Seleucid dynasty, the last in the words of Trogus (XV.4), “conquered Bactria”, apparently putting an end to the growing [] power of Stasanor. However, the Alexander's Indian possessions were lost to the Seleucids. The struggle against Macedonian conquerors bacame an impetus for the political unification of the Indian states under a rule of Chandragupta Maurya. Around 305 - 303 BC, Seleucus was defeated in a fight with the first Magadha (present-day Bihar) emperor and was forced to abandon his claim not only on the Indian possessions of the Alexander's satraps, but to the Paropamisadae country, Arachosia, Gedrosia (Beludjistan), and even Ariana, ceding them to Chandragupta, the treaty with which was sealed by marriage (apparently, Chandragupta received a daughter of Seleucus).

The available data allows to suggest that the Seleucus wars with recalcitrant eastern satraps and Chandragupta were used by the Middle Asia peoples for new attempts to break free from the Greek dominance.

We have direct evidence that not only the Greek satraps and garrisons of the East revolted during the Macedonian Empire crisis times, but also that the Middle Asian “barbarians'” liberation struggle did not stop after the scary punitive expeditions of Alexander.

So, Pliny reports that “when the barbarians destroyed (Margiana) Alexandria , , the Seleucus son Antiochus on the same place built Seleucia, on the river Marga flowing into Zotala. But he preferred to call it Antiochia (present Merv)” (VI. 18). Apparently, this event falls on the reign of Seleucus (before 280 BC). End of his reign and the reign of Antiochus I Soter (280 - 261 BC) is the period of securing anew the Greek hold on the Middle Asia. Antiochus run vigorous colonization and military activity at the northeastern fringes of his possessions. Becides the renewal of the destroyed Alexandria of Margiana under a name of Antiochia, he fortified Margiana against the nomads by surrounding the Murghab oasis with a system of long walls that according to Strabo (XI. 10, 2) extended to 1500 stadia (about 240 km). This is a first mention of the “long walls” in the history of fortifications in the Middle Asia, clearly testifying of the tense situation at the northern borders of the Middle Asian Greek possessions.

The same is also indicated by the Demodamus campaigns, the commander of both great Seleucids, the Seleucus I and Antiochus I, in the far north-east, in the middle basin of the Syr Darya, where Demodamus established the “Antiochia beyond Yaxartes (Syrdarya)” on its right bank. Below, we will return to the analysis of both directions in the Antiochus I offensive and defensive strategy in the Middle Asia, apparently linked with the political consolidation of the independent north tribes under the leadership of the Kang — Horezm, which pose a serious threat to the eastern satrapies of the Seleucid Empire.

We have no direct evidence on the remaining sides of the Seleucid policy in Middle Asia and Eastern Iran (The name Iran/Eran as a political entity was used for the first time in a 3rd c. AD Sassanid inscription. Calling Seleucid policy in Eastern Iran is a gross anachronism that echoes the lingo of the contemporary political terminology. In the Seleucid time Iranian Plateau was a home of numerous political entities, none of which included a name Iran). Here we have to base on the dynasty's general policy, the leading element of which, as opposed to the Egyptian Ptolemies who quickly turned into the Pharaohs of Egypt, was a sharp emphasis of the division between the Greeks and Hellenized people of Asia Minor and Syrians on one hand, and other “barbaric” population the other hand.

The Seleucid military colonization, planting of a dense network of the Greek military colonies that replicated political structure of the Hellenic cities comprising a carcass of multi-tribal empire of the Seleucus heirs, undoubtedly also covered the Middle Asian Greek possessions, creating there sufficiently numerous Greek and Hellenized Asia Minor-Syrian population that included the descendants of the Alexander's colonists, and later served as the base for the rise of the Greco-Bactrian monarchy ².

2. EMERGENCE OF GRECO-BACTRIAN AND PARTHIAN KINGDOMS

The foreign policy failures of Antiochus I Soter and Antiochus II Theos (261 - 247 BC) in their long struggle with the Ptolemaic Egypt contributed to the weakening of the political cohesion of the huge, but poorly spliced Seleucid Empire.

The terrible defeat inflicted by Ptolemy II over Antiochus Theos, his loss of a number of possessions on the Phoenician and the Asia Minor coasts, difficult fight with the Indian prince of the Atropatena on the northern fringes of his kingdom created a favorable situation for the secession of the eastern satrapies.
233

The sources give fragmentary and largely contradictory information on that development. Apparently, the end of the Antiochus I reign and especially the reign of Antiochus II benefited the growth of the Bactrian rulers' role as hegemons over the whole complex of the eastern satrapies. According to the unanimous testimony of the sources, the impetus for secession were setbacks and difficulties in the Seleucids foreign and domestic policy in the west, the struggle with Media (Strabo, XI. 9.2), the strife between Seleucus II Kallinikos and Antiochus II Theos, the defeat of Seleucus II by the Gauls in the Asia Minor (Trogus, XII. 4). Apparently, initially independence was proclaimed by the satraps of individual provinces. So, Pompey Trogus states that in 250 BC from the Seleucid state seceded the Parthians, apparently the Greek vice-regent Andragoras (other sources call him Pherekles and Agathocles), and because of the quarrels between Seleucus and Antiochus, “it went unpunished”. The archaeological evidence of the event are small quantities of Andragoras coins in the numismatic collections.

Trogus continues, “At the same time also seceded Theodotus (Diodotus), vice-regent of the thousand of Bactrian cities, and took a title of king, following his example, from the Macedonians seceded all the peoples of the East”.

According to Strabo, “the vice-regents first rose up Bactriana, and Euthydemus' friends rose up the whole surrounding area”.

An analysis of the whole aggregate of the texts suggests that Diodotus Bactrian managed to unite under his hegemony the Greek vice-regents of the Eastern satrapies, whose rebellions seems to have occurred not quite at the same time, and were used by him to solidify his power. As a largest leader - along with Diodotus - of the eastern vice-regents' movement Strabo mentions the future king of Bactria Euthydemus of Magnesia, who was, according to Droysen (later joined by Vallee de Poussin and Grousset), a satrap of Sogdiana, and according to Lassen a satrap of Margiana and Aria.

One can hardly agree with W. Tarn, who hypothesised recently that at Diodotus I essentially took place not Bactria secession from the Seleucid Asia, but only weakening of the political ties while Diodotus maintained political loyalty to Seleucus Kallinikos ³. The sources directly contradict this hypothesis, and built by W. Tarn on the data from Pompey Trogus and the coins-medals of Agathocles and Antimachus (see below) witty, but not convincing construction on the Diodotus' alliance (at the end of his reign) with Seleucus against the Parthians can hardly outweigh the unanimous testimony of the same Trogus and all other sources. That part of the Diodotus coins that allows to admit a residual loyalty to the Seleucids bears the Diodotus image and Antiochus name (certainly, Antiochus II), and therefore should be dated to the time between 261 and 247 BC, most likely by the time before 250 BC, when probably begins the coinage of Diodotus himself. The numismatic material does not provide any hints on the continued sovereignty of Seleucus II over Bactria.

The rapprochement between Seleucus II and Diodotus I that followed Diodotus secession was caused by the emergence of a new great danger common for the Seleucids and Bactrian Greeks. I am referring to the seizure of power in Parthia by the leaders of the Scythian tribe Parny, Arshak and Tiridates. Strabo cites two versions of the Arsacids origin. According to one version, by the testimonies of Arrian and Pompey Trogus, their revolt was directed against vice-regent of Parthia who offended them personally. However Strabo adds, “The others call him (Arshak) a Bactrian who, wishing to escape the domination of Diodotus, raised Parthia to rebellion”.

I think that these are not two versions, but two aspects of the same event, and in the Trogus' text we also find substantiation to clarify the nature of this event: the revolt of Arshak and Tiridates was directed not against Seleucids, whose power in Parthia had already fallen, but against the Greek vice-regent of Parthia who accepted a Bactrian orientation and recognized the superiority of Diodotus, in other words, against the very Bactrian Diodotus. The movement of Arshak and Tiridates was the event historically far more serious than secession of already semi-independent parts of the Seleucid lands by the former vice-regents of these possessions who adopted royal titles. The rebellion of the “Scythian” tribes of the southern Turkmenia and Khorasan was not solely anti-Seleucid and anti-Bactrian, but also general anti-Macedonian nature, and could not fail to be a prerequisite for the new rapprochement between the rulers in the both halves of the fractured Seleucid monarchy to face the common political problem, a fight with the liberation movement of the Middle Asian and East-Iranian tribes.

234

The Scythians, who formed the core of the future Parthian state, were an ethnically mixed group. If the their core were the Dai (Dahae) and Parny tribes of the south [] Turkmenia ⁴, according to the testimony of Pompey Trogus (XII. 1) they included a variety of migrants from more distant Scythian tribes who coached away from the “Scythia” to the deserts between Hyrcania and Margiana because of the “internecine conflicts”. , this is indicated by One of the Strabo testimonies apparently indicates that among these migrants were the groups of the Bactrians, and possibly of the Sogdians, hostile to the Greek dominance (The nomadic Scythians could not have included sedentary “groups of Bactrians” and groups of sedentary Sogdians, other than episodic refugees. However, in the Uzboi and Aral wetlands, the Scythians did not need to to venture far into the steppes for sustained pasturing, and shared settlements with sedentary farming, artisan, and trading population of Bactrian/Pashto origin. The military capability of the sedentary population was negligible in comparison with that of the nomadic Scythians).

I tend to think that just cited excerpt from Trogus should be primarily interpreted as an indication that the pasturing routs of the nomadic Parny and Dai (Dagars/Tokhars) became concentrations of all local elements discontented with the Greco-Macedonian regime, and to see in the Arshak and Tiridates uprising not a local revolt, but a crucial link in the broad front of the Middle Asian peoples struggle for independence.

The rebels not only seized (the province of ) Parthia, but were able to quickly take over (the province of ) Hyrcania, in a short period creating a significant state from the Tejen (37.4°N 60.5°E) in the east to the Caspian Sea (36°N 50°E) in the west, and to concentrate large military forces.

In our view, W.W. Tarn ⁵ has clearly shown that about 246 BC Seleucus II married his sister to Diodotus I. However, this does in any way means, as that would like W.W. Tarn, that at that time “Diodotus was still a Seleucid satrap”. On the opposite, we should see there a manifestation of rapprochement between the two independent states, a military alliance against the Parthians, sealed with a marriage, as is usual in such cases. It is possible that this act (as was later with the marriage of Demetrius and Antiochus III daughter) combined a recognition by the Seleucids of the new state, and a recognition by Diodotus of the Seleucid supreme sovereignty over the Asia, although no direct evidence of that can be cited.

However, the alliance did not produce significant results. By the time Seleucus II concluded a peace treaty with Egypt that untied his hands for the activity in the East, and when in 228 BC ⁶ he was able to move against Parthia large military forces, the throne of the deceased Diodotus I already occupied his son Diodotus II. The young king abruptly changed the foreign policy orientation, Trogus (XII. 4) indicated that he concluded an alliance with Tiridates, a brother and successor of the founder of the Parthian state (The Lateral Order of Succession among the Middle Asia Scythians, known as shared by all Türkic states before the advent of the world religions, and contrasting with the IE succession traditions, corroborates the Türkic ethnology of the Middle Asia Scythians).

It is difficult to sort out the dim and complex history of these events, almost completely left unilluminated by the sources. In my opinion, a most likely explanation for the Diodotus II turn in the Bactrian policy is the hypothesis that it reflected an attempt by the young king to find a broader base for his power than the Greco-Macedonian military colonists, whose leaders and above all Euthydemus of Magnesia could themselves claim the Diodotus I throne, the pretension that Euthydemus subsequently carried out. Thus, the domestic political reasons pushed the young Diodotus toward Tiridates, a union with this leader of anti-Greek forces in the Middle Asia, was to win over to the Diodotus the native Bactrian ancestral aristocracy that previously in respect to the king of the Bactrian Greeks at best held a hostile neutrality. In his turn, now Tiridates, with looming serious threat of Seleucus invasion, was keenly interest in the alliance.

At first the campaign has been successful for Seleucus. Tiridates was forced to leave Parthia and Hyrcania and seek refuge with the Apasiak tribe (Pers. Apa = water + Sak = Saka, Tr. equivalent Su(v)/Hu(v) + Sak > Husak, Huchak, equivalent of Suas/Huas ~  Suasm/Huasm > Chorasm, with -m = agglutinative possessive marker), who were apparently located north of the Amudarya old course Uzboi, along the borders of Horezm (Polybius X, 48) and along the Aral seaboard, to the mouth of the Syr Darya.

Notably, in describing that fact, Strabo draws a parallel between Tiridates fleeing to Apasiaks to escape, and Spitamenes fleeing to Horasmians (That makes Apasiaks and Huases/Chorases synonymous terms).

This parallel is quite legitimate. Both leaders of anti-Greek movements rely on the northern (nomadic) peoples as their heartland. In both cases the Kangha-Horezm, remaining independent from the Alexander, Seleucids, and the Bactrian Greeks, stands behind these movements (S.P. Tolstov uses the Persian forms Kangha/Kanha for Kangar).
235

It is very likely that the association of the founders of the Parthian Empire with the ruling circles of Kanha-Horezm was even closer. The local tradition genealogically links the Parthian and Khorasmian-Kangju house. Per al-Biruni, the kings [] of Horezm traced their genealogy to Siyavush, a son of Kay Kavus (Kava-Usa of Avesta) and his son Kai Khosrow. Siyavush (Siyavahsh), an agrarian deity of the Amudarya basin, is a Middle Asian version of the dying and reviving god of vegetation, apparently onomastically and mythologically close to the Thracian-Phrygian Sabazios, is depicted on the coins of the Horezm-Kangju kings from the 1st to 8th cc. AD (S.P. Tolstov uses the Chinese forms Kangju/Kangzhu for Kangar).

Meanwhile, the same Biruni ⁷ ascends genealogy of the Arshakuni-Arsacids to Ashku ⁸, a son of Kai Khosrow, a son of Siyavush. The name Ashk (Ask) is an integral element in the names of four Horezmian kings in the al-Biruni list (two Askahamuks and two Askahvars or Askadjuvars). Recall that the Armenian tradition (Moses Khorensky, Agathangel Favst the Byzantian, and others) also emphasizes genealogical connection of Arsacids of Iran (S.P. Tolstov uses Iran for Parthia) and the Kushan dynasty, also called “Arshacids” ⁹. The dynastic link of the Kangju-Horezm and Kushan houses, confirmed by numismatic materials and Chinese chronicles, is beyond  doubts. It is very likely that the independent testimony of the Muslim and Armenian sources, left neglected until now (I.e. in Russian scholarship), reveals to us a much more complicated and organized “Scythian” movement of the Arshak and Tiridates, behind which stood the independent power of Middle Asian North.

It is possible that the leading brothers were bound by kinship ties with the Kangju-Horezm Siyavushid house and at first were its commanders.

In this connection is worthwhile to note the coin, first published in 1879 by Percy Gardner (Percy Gardner, H. H. Howorth, 1879, “Coins from Kashgar”, 8 pages ??; Percy Gardner1879 “New Coins from Bactria”, reprint, 12 pages ??), found in the Amudarya hoard along with the noted above Andragoras coin and extremely close to it by the type, weight, texture, etc. However, on its face it has not an image of a bearded Greek in a diadem (Zeus?) like on the Andragoras coin, but an image of a native in a Scythian dress, and on the reverse the quadriga chariot is not driven by Nike, but apparently the same “Scythian”. Instead of the Greek inscription we have Aramaic inscription. The inscription on the reverse does not raise doubts. Allotte de la Fyuy (Allotte de la Fiiye, 1910, “Monnaies incertaines de la Sogdiane et des contrees voisines”) correctly read it: “Vakhshu”. The same author reads the inscription on the front as WRYWR.

Not being able to argue here in detail our position and initiate a discussion with Gardner, Howorth, Kenningham ,and Allotte de la Fyuy about attribution of these coins, I would merely refer to the striking parallelism with Horezmian coins bearing an image of the king on one side, and an image of mounted Siyavush on the other, depicting the same king. I tend to see them as the Siyavush prototype coins (using coins of the Andragoras type), and in the  “Vakhshu” - a known from al-Biruni name of the Amudarya deity “Vakhsh” (OAXPO of the Kushan coins), mythologically identical with Siyavush (Siyavahsh).

Characteristically, a unique coin (chalkoi), published by Bartholomew (1848) ¹⁰, on the face a bearded head of King right, and on the reverse an inscription ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩ(Σ) ΑΡΣΑΚ(ΟN), at the center of the reverse has identical image of “Siyavush” in the chariot as of the coins with the inscription “Vakhshu”.

Then, we have the coins Arshak or Tiridates, minted after Andragoras' deposition in the name of the divine ancestor of the dynasty, using already depicted on the Andragoras coins chariot as an attribute of that God, later depicted as a rider.

But let us return to the interrupted review of the political events.

The Seleucus success was precarious. The support from Diodotus allowed Tiridates II an opportunity to turn to offense and defeat the Seleucus forces. According to Pompey Trogus, in the rear of Seleucus flared a new uprising, forcing the Syrian army to clear the occupied area and return to the west.

For three decades Parthia and Bactria were on their own. These years strengthened the Parthian kingdom, completing political consolidation of its core and formation of those specific features of the peculiar Scythian-Iranian monarch which permeate then the history of the Parthian Empire.
236

Tiridates, who adopted a dynastic name Arshak and usually known as Arshak I (248 - 214 BC), restored his power anew [] over Parthia and Hyrcania. Gekatompil becomes a capital of the state - a city located on the Iranian side of the current Soviet-Iranian border, south of Astrabad, probably in the vicinity of the current Damgan (36.2°N 54.3°E), but Dara remained a residence of the kings, on their own pasturing routs, near the present Kaahka (aka Kaka, 37.3°N 59.6°E). And afterwards, as Dara, so the Nesa west of Ashgabat and now a majestic fort in the vicinity of the Turkmen aul (village) Bagir, explored for a number of years by the Ashgabat archaeologists, remained the seat of the Arsacids, despite the center of the country's political life being moved to the western part of the Parthian possessions. As Marushchenko, the head of the excavations in the Nesa, has found, in accordance with the ancient authors, there are located the familial tombs of the Arsacids, by the old Scythian tradition returned after the death to the places where once coached their ancestors.

A new expansion of the limits of Parthia is connected with the name of Artabanus I (214 - 196). He has occupied Ecbatana, the ancient capital of Media, thus extending his rule to the north-western Iranian Plateau. The Parthian troops appear on the borders of the Upper Mesopotamia.

3. EUTHYDEMUS OF MAGNESIA AND ANTIOCHUS III

We know almost nothing about what is happening at that time in Bactria. One thing is certain: the pro-Arshakid policy of Diodotus II suffered a crash, and a coup brought Euthydemus of Magnesia to power, already mentioned above in connection with the history of the Bactria's secession.

That event probably took place soon after the Seleucus II campaign, probably being its immediate cause. The trouncing of the Diodotus' ally Tiridates II by the Seleucids could untie the hands of the opposition party in Bactria.

According to the Tarn's estimates ¹¹, about 227 BC, Euthydemus marries the daughter of Diodotus I and a Seleucid princess (a daughter of Antiochus II), that is the marriage from which was born the future conqueror of India Demetrius.

It is very likely that this marriage followed immediately after the Euthydemus' coup, the marital ties with the Seleucids and with the house of Diodotus, trying to legitimize the usurpation of power. Apparently, Tarn is right in that in the coup some role may have played the Bactrian dowager queen, the daughter of Antiochus II, who together with the pretender Euthydemus led the palace conspiracy against his stepson Diodotus II and stabbed the Bactrian-Parthian coalition in the back.

It is unlikely that the first decades of the Euthydemus rule were associated with a significant rise in the political power of Bactria. From his words during negotiations with Antiochus III in 206 BC (see below), can be concluded that that period was filled with fierce defensive struggle of the Bactrian Greeks against the peoples of northern part of Middle Asia, likely acting in alliance with the Parthians (see below).

By the 209 BC belongs the new and the last attempt of the Seleucid monarchy to regain the lost power over the eastern satrapies. In the same year Antiochus III the Great (223 - 187 BC) crushed Artabanus I who temporarily seized Ecbatana. The Artabanus troops are thrown beyond the Caspian pass (Derbent Pass), and the Parthian king is forced to recognize supremacy of the Seleucids. The following year, 208, Antiochus captures Aria and deals a decisive defeat on the forward patrols of Euthydemus at Gerirud, the ten thousand-strong Bactrian cavalry (Bactria, interpreted as a sedentary conglomerate of cities with agricultural economy, could have cavalry army only of the local or allied mercenary nomadic tribes, pointing to the presence of the the interspersed nomadic population in the Greek-controlled Bactria. The Bactrian Greeks fought by proxy. The retreat of the “Bactrian” cavalry to beyond the Derbent Pass indicates that in 209 BC the Masguts-Massagets controlled not only the territory south of the Pass, but also the territory of modern Dagestan north of the Pass). In 207 BC, the Seleucid army besieged Bactra.

The siege was difficult and prolonged. In 206, after long negotiations between Antiochus and Euthydemus, was concluded a peace and a union, and the reasons for that decision are very telling. Euthydemus, in a conversation with an Antiochus' representative Telea stated that Antiochus was acting unfairly, trying to deprive him of his kingdom.  Euthydemus continued, that he was not the first who rebelled against the king, quite the opposite, he reached the rule over Bactria by destroying offsprings of several other traitors. Euthydemus spoke at length, and finally asked Telea to help him in peace mediation and convince Antiochus to leave him the royal name; for if Antiochus would not yield to this demand, neither of them would be safe: great hordes of nomads were close at hand, they were a danger to them both; and that if they admitted them into the country, the country would be certainly conquered by them” (Polybius XI. 34).

Below we will try to show who were the barbarians threatening Euthydemus and Seleucus. In any case, the peace was concluded. Euthydemus, recognizing the superiority of the Seleucids, retained his title and possessions, sealing an alliance with Antiochus  by marriage of Euthydemus son Demetrius and Antiochus daughter. Antiochus, having received from Euthydemus supplies and war elephants, marched south through the the Hindu Kush passes to India. After concluding an alliance with the king of the Northern India [] Subhagasena (Safagasen of Polybius) Antiochus turned back, subjugated Arachosia and Drangiana that previously belonged to the Maurya Empire sphere of political influence.
237

The alliance with Antiochus and weakening of Parthia created exceptionally favorable chances for political rise of the Greco-Bactrian kingdom. We have every reason to believe (see below) that Euthydemus managed to find among the nomads Huns as allies, the Huns were eastern neighbors who by that time extended their hegemony to the Eastern Turkestan of the Massaget confederation. The 206 BC, the year Euthydemus allied with and Antiochus, is the year of the beginning of Huns' offensive against the Massagets (Yueji of the Chinese sources) ¹². Apparently, this alliance with the Huns was the reason for Strabo words (XI. II. I) that the “Bactrian kings extended their his possessions to the  “Seres” (Chinese) and Faunas (Huns) ¹³. Indeed, the years of Bactria culmination are the years when an Euthydemus-Demetrius ally the Hunnic Shanyu Mode (Maodun), having defeated Massagetae-Yueji (S.P. Tolstov consistently used the double name “Massagetae-Yueji”, which literally means the “Head Tribe of As-Tokhars”, but he used it as intentional tautology of synonymous ethnonyms), engaged into a successful offensive against China. However, this aspect of Euthydemus-Demetrius policy was purely defensive in nature, and the Bactrian Greeks mostly fought there by proxy, pitting various confederations of the steppe tribes against each other. The political aspirations of the Euthydemus Bactria were directed to another side, to beyond the Hindu Kush.

4. PUSYAMITRA, YAVANAS (GREEKS), AND MAURIA HEIRS

A little more than a century separates the beginning of the reign of the Maurya dynasty (322–185 BC) most brilliant member Ashoka (268-232 BC), the founder of the might of the India Buddhist Empire, from the days when the Chandragupta state, raised by Ashoka to the heights of power, fell under the blows of internal upheaval and outside intrusion.

A century of Buddhism domination, that reflected deeply progressive trends in Indian society, the trends of neutralization of the tribal and caste confinement that lea the people of India out from the narrow confines of the primitive tribal and city principalities onto the high road of imperial unification, could not fully destroy the powerful influence of the guardians of the old slave-holding traditions in the Indian ways, the high-caste Brahmins that were forced back in the Mauryan empire by an alliance of the progressive elements of the Kshatriya caste with the urban social strata. The base of the new system still remained very narrow.

The Indian village kept its traditional clan-based communal custom and  inextricably linked with it ancient religion that was as a powerful reserve force for anti-Buddhist elements. The old dynasties, especially in the southern semi-Dravidian and Dravidian principalities, encroached and pushed aside by the centralizing policy of the Mauryan emperors, were always ready to support the opposition movement of the adherents of Brahmanism. The Brahman reactionary forces and closely associated with them process of political decay and decline of the Mauryan empire started long before 184 BC (the end date of 137-year Maurya era according to the Puranas, the date of death of the last Maurya, Brihadrathi, from the hands of his military commander, a founder of the Shunga dynasty Pushyamitra).

Apparently, by the last decades of the 3rd c. (230-200 BC) the real power of the Mauryan emperors did not extend beyond their ancestral kingdom of Magadha, and the Brahmans are behind the local Rajas, whose rebellions against the regime established by Ashoka fill Indian history of the 3rd century.

The situation was complicated by the appearance in the north of a major political force, which in the future would play in the ancient India last centuries a brief but prominent role. We mean the Greco-Bactrian monarchy of  Euthydemus-Demetrius, that that time has attained a peak of its power. Of course, the Bactrian rulers could not take indifferently what was happening over the Hindu Kush. The difficult and risky fight for the expansion of the Bactrian Greeks monarchy in the north and east had to fade to the background in comparison with the wide perspectives that the decline of the Maurya Empire opened to the predatory state of the descendants of the Greco-Macedonian conquest of the Middle Asia.

The choice between a dangerous fight with the harsh nomadic barbarians of the north and the freedom-loving population surrounded mighty clay walls of ancestor villages, not yet conquered on the outskirts of the Middle Asia, and the possibility to easily capture the rich cultivated lands in the south, of course could not be a subject of vacillations for the descendants of the  Alexander's Bactrian epigones.
238

However, there are reasons to expect that the descendants of the Greco-Macedonian conquerors did not feel to be strong enough in their Bactrian homeland, and the prospect of possibility to move  south the center of their state interests was giving them an honorable and lucrative way out of the fight with the liberation movement of the Middle Asian tribes. The juxtaposition of the Euthydemus tragic threat to Antiochus III with the general direction of the Demetrius policy makes this assumption highly probable.

Immediately after conclusion of the Seleucid-Bactrian alliance, at about 206 BC, Euthydemus occupied the Kabul valley ¹⁴, settling in the Paropamisadae country (Hindu Kush, N.Afganistan, Gr. “Space located above the eagle's nest”).

Apparently, by the coming decades should be dated gradual transition under the rule of Euthydemus of the other Indo-Iranian (Sic!) areas of Drangiana and Arachosia, the regions that according to Polybius story on the Antiochus III campaign in the late 3rd century were not connected to the Mauryan Empire.

Still during the life of Euthydemus the Greeks occupied the upper Punjab, and Sagala (Sialkot), according to Ptolemy, received the name of that king.

Apparently, the ascending to the Bactria throne at about 190 BC Euthydemus' son and successor Demetrius sharply turned the front of his policy against India. Between 190 and 180 BC invaded the basin of the lower Indus, subduing Patalena (Patala, the Indus delta), Surashtrau (Kathiawar) and Sigertis.

By about 190 BC is dated construction of Demetrius in Arachosia, on the approaches to the Indus valley. Soon afterward Demetrius extends his possessions in the south-west to the mouth of r. Nerbudda (Narmada).

I'm not inclined to follow W.W. Tarn in his attempts to reconstruct the giant strategic plan of Demetrius, under which allegedly that king simultaneously attacks the crumbling kingdom of Magadha in the two directions in the south-west, on the lower Indus, where he allegedly runs the operations along with his brother Apollodotus, and in the south-east, against the central core of the kingdom, where Menander is the King Demetrius' commander. Apparently, the Menander's expansion in the south, to the area of ​​Magadha, belongs to much later time, the 150s BC. The first Shunga, as indicated by Kalidasa, are fighting “Yavanas” on the banks of the Indus.

Yet W.W. Tarn aptly noticed the features of Demetrius policies that distinguish him from its predecessors and start a new streak in the relationship of the rulers of the eastern Greco-Macedonian Empire with the subjugated peoples. Venturing upon the vast field of the southern conquests, Demetrius tried to revive the political traditions of Alexander, the great founder of the Macedonian power. In contrast with Seleucids and the first Greco-Bactrian kings, Demetrius (Tarn also attributes that to Euthydemus, whose policy he likens with the policy of Philip II, which is hardly true) tries to break with the typical Seleucid policy of contradistinction the refined Hellenist culture of the conquerors versus the culture of the native “barbarians”. Like the Alexander, he was seeking ways to converge with the local population, at least with its elite class, ways for synthesis of the Greek and Indian forms of political and cultural life. That is clearly reflected in the Demetrius' numismatics. In contrast with his predecessors, he is depicted on the coins not in traditional Greek diadem, but in a kind of headdress in the form of an elephant scalp - the headdress reproducing a form of native Indian royal headdress. Along with the silver Greek coins he was the first Greek ruler in the East to began to mint a square copper coin of Indian type with an inscription in the Indian language, where he calls himself with the title Maharaja. Noteworthy is the repeatedly expressed and developed in 1938 by Tarn ¹⁵ hypothesis that pereceives in the politics of the Greek conquerors of India an attempt to declare themselves to be legitimate successors of the Mauryan emperors, justified by dynastic ties.

I mean the hypothesis about the marital links of the Maurya house and the Seleucid house, a branch of which via the female line (see above) the Euthydemids held themselves.

In any case, apparently most likely that at the first stage of his advance, contributing to the final exhaustion and disintegration of the last Maurya's state, after a death of Brihadrathi at the hand of Pushyamitra, for which they were an indirect cause, the Euthydemids declared themselves to be the legal heirs of Maurya and successors their political and ideological tradition against Pushyamitra-led Brahmanic reaction. The pro-Buddhist policy of the Greco-Indian kings is beyond doubt.
239

5. EUCRATIDES AND HELIOCLES

The giant empire of Demetrius sprawled from the r. Nerbudda to the Syrdarya and from Arachosia to the Pamir mountains, having prepared with the very fact of its emergence its own demise. Too narrow was the social base of the Demetrius' power, too great in his work [] were the elements of political adventurism, for the state he created to be durable at all. The best, loyal to the conqueror forces of the Greek colonists were thrown to India, because undoubtedly to solely rely on the support of the local Buddhist and northern Indian tribes was impossible. As can be judged from some comments of Trogus (see below), the occupational armies of Apollodotus in the Sindh and Menander in the Punjab apparently detracte so significant forces of the Bactrian Greeks that the small garrisons in the Bactrian possessions were reduced to few thousand people scattered to various colonies. And since such large military enterprise as the Demetrius' Indian campaign naturally required huge funds, there is every reason to believe that the tax burden in the Bactrian possessions was raised to the limit, which in turn could not fail to cause new growth of discontent among the local population, with increased chances for a successful uprising because of the Greeks' military debilitation of the in the north. The Tarn's parallel is reminded again: Demetrius - Alexander. Like the Persian campaign of Alexander, so the Indian campaign of Demetrius were enterprises with a huge political risk. Both of them left behind a troubled base. Both risked a stab in the back. But in the Alexander's deep rear, behind the tumultuous Hellas lay Macedonia, strong in its semi-barbaric cohesion, and the Demetrius' hinterland beyond the Hindu Kush mountain range lay only the hostile Bactrian Greeks and the Sogdian population, restrained by a handful of Greeks, whose loyalty the son of usurper Euthydemus could not count on. Too recent was the political tradition of the dynasty, too memorable was the example of its founder not to attract new imitators of that example, the people who in order to achieve personal goals were ready to endanger the very existence of the Greek power in the “Far East” of the Hellenism. And such a man arose indeed.

The Demetrius'  adventure bore the adventure of Eucratides. The hypothesis of Tarn, who wanted to see in Eucratides a Seleucid “general” connected with the Seleucid dynasty by the bonds of kinship on the female line and sent in 169 BC by his cousin Antiochus IV Epiphanes against Demetrius, is clearly untenable.

The only arguments in its favor are:

1) Adoption of Antiochus IV of the title “Savior of Asia”, that according to Tarn must denote elimination of great danger allegedly threatening the Seleucid Syria from the East because of Demetrius' victories in India.

2) The presence of Bactrian coins bearing on one side a Eucratides portrait and on another side a portrait of Heliocles and Laodice, the latter topped with the royal diadem. According to Tarn, these are the parents of Eucratides, the Seleucid general Heliocles and the princess of the Seleucid house, with the traditional name within the dynasty.

3) The presence on some Eucratides coins of the same symbology as on the Seleucid coins.

However:

1) The Antiochus IV activity in the West has been so varied that there can be found many moments when the king, not noted for his modesty in the titles and coin symbolism, could adspt the pretentious title “Savior of Asia”. Recall the successful (before the intervention of Rome) Antiochus' campaign against the Egypt. The defeat of the Seleucid's traditional African enemy is much more plausible pretext for the origin of the title that draw the Tarn's risky hypotheses.

2) Already Sallet very long ago and very convincingly (corroborated by the portrait likeness of the images) showed that the Heliocles of the medal-coins, cited by Tarn, is not a father, but a son of Eucratides, the historical Heliocles discussed below. If Laodice, which of course is possible, is the Seleucid princess, the appearance of her portrait on the Bactrian coins may mean something quite different than what Tarn was thinking.

3) The typological affinity of the Eucratides and Seleucids' coins is no closer than the with affinity with the Euthydemids' coins.

Finally, and most important, no source telling about the Eucratides adventure does not mention a word about his connection with the Seleucids. And in terms of the military and political situation, a campaign in Bactria with so stretched communications, threatened in the north by the Parthian kingdom of Mithridates I at the stage of its rise and undoubtedlya very real threat to the Seleucid Syria. is just incredible, or moreover politically absurd campaign.
240

“At the same time (on the Mithradates I enthronement in Parthia, 174 BC),  in Bactria began his reign Eucratides, as great as Mithridates in Parthia, but more fortunate fate of the Parthians brought them with that leader to the highest might. And the Bactrians, after going through many wars, lost not only their state, but also their freedom. Weary by the wars against the Sogdians, Arachozians, Drangians, Arias, and Indians, as being exhausted in their blood, they finally were defeated [] by the Parthians. Yet Eucratides bravely conducted many wars, and though exhausted, withstood the siege of Demetrius by the king of the Indians, making constant sorties with 300 soldiers against the 60,000-strong enemies, defeated them, and captured the whole of India. He was killed by his son, with whom he shared his power, who did not hide the murder, but who killed not his father, but the enemy, who run over the corpse in a chariot, and left him unburied”.

So tells us Pompey Trogus (XII. 5) about the Eucratides reign.

This text and the numismatic data allow us to roughly reconstruct the course of events:

Around 174 BC, one of the military commanders in the northern provinces of the Greco-Bactrian empire, possibly leading those elements of the Greco-Bactrian troops that had to bear the heavy and dangerous garrison duty on the northern borders without participating in the division of the Indian loot, staged a military coup in Bactria and seized power with a handful of cohorts (recall the Trogus words about Eucratides' three hundred soldiers). The coup was a signal for immediate secession of Sogdiana, Drangiana, Arachosia, and Ariana. Apparently, in some of these areas the princes of the Euthydemid house tried to hold on to the power, maybe they were vice-regents there previously, or more likely they just fled from the Bactra. From the south, with the Indian army, with maximum possible speed marched Demetrius. Perhaps the figures given by Trogus for the balance of forces are understated for  Eucratides and extremely exaggerated for Demetrius. Taking to Bactria an army of sixty thousandth from India would mean the loss of the latter. Unlikely that Demetrius had such an army even in India. More likely to see the numbers not as a balance of forces in the battles at Bactra, but the balance of forces of the Bactrian usurper with all the forces of Demetrius, including the occupational armies of Apollodotus and Menander, most of whom remained in India.

Apparently, in reality Demetrius could rely only on the garrisons of the Paropamisadae country, hardly exceeding by much the Eucratides forces. The encounter ended with a victory for the usurper, and apparently the death of Demetrius. This event led to the final breakdown of the political relations in the empire. Somewhere in the north-western provinces the Euthydemids Antimachus and Agathocles declare themselves kings, probably they were younger brothers of Demetrius, they started minting genealogical coins with their images and inscriptions, and at the same time with the names of Alexander, Antiochus, Diodotus, and Euthydemus, clearly emphasizing the legitimacy of their power versus the illegal rule of the military usurper. In the northeastern India the power seized Menander, who retained in his hands the main military forces of Demetrius and secured his connection with Euthydemids by a marriage to a Princess Agathoclea, who probably was a sister of Demetrius and Agathocles.

In the south-west of the Indian possessions began coin minting Apollodotus, who proclaimed himself a king.

The chronology of that era draws a vivid picture of the political struggle between the many competing rulers.

Agathocles and Antimachus, the legitimate Euthydemids of the northwest, apparently holding in their hands the power in the provinces from Drangiana in the southwest to the Sogdiana in the north-east (the finds of the coins show so the sphere of their activities), ¹⁶ mint the medal-coins of the aforementioned type, and to emphasize their role as carriers of ancient Macedonian traditions, Antimachus portrays himself in ancient Macedonian hat, so called causia, a broad rim felt hat. In the same headdress portrays himself the son of the Great Bactria perished king Demetrius II, who apparently retained for a short time control of the Paropamisadae country. Eucratides portrays himself in a military helmet, emphasizing his relationship with the army, his primary social support. He issued giant gold medal-coins, to demonstrate his greatness and power.

However, the construction of Tarn still contains elements of truth - apparently Eucratides seeks to secure his rights to the throne by some form of alliance with Antiochus IV, sealed by marriage of the usurper son Heliocles and Seleucid princess Laodice.

Menander appeared once in Euthydemid diadem, the other in a helmet like Eucratides. Also in the helmet portrays herself his wife Agathoclea and their son Straton. The warlike images of a woman and baby emphasize the importance of that symbol in the eyes of the Greek [] army, enunciating a birth of a new political concept, contrasting the right of the sword by the army elevating emperors to the birth right of legitimate Euthydemids.
241

And Trogus and numismatic geography allow to conclude that the main front of the long and hard struggle, was in near the Hindu Kush countries, on the borders of Bactria and India, and at the first stage the victory went again to Eucratides. Together with the eager to participate in the division of the Indian loot army, about 162 he invades the territory of the Northern India, apparently occupying Apollodotus possessions and displacing Menander to the east

The Euthydemids' attempt to hold on to the west was collapsing after Parthian intervention. Mithridates I occupied Margiana, one of the most flourishing areas of the Greco-Bactrian kingdom, on the way also subjugating Aria, and simultaneously initiating offensive in the direction of the Lower Indus (see below). The western provinces were irretrievably lost for the Bactrian Greeks. Apparently the fall of Antimach power in the Merv was a prerequisite for the final liberattion of Sogdiana from Bactrian Greeks, whose power became illusory after 174 BC. This political separatrion of Sogdiana, on submission of which to Eucratides and his son Heliocles we have no information, is brightly reflected in the appearance of numerous barbaric imitations of the Euthydemus coins with Greek-Aramaic inscriptions, and the coins with images of local kings in distinct hats and inscriptions in Aramaic alphabet, but after the type (seated Heracles) of the Euthydemus coins, and sometimes with very illiterate imitation of his name in Greek letters ¹⁷. The main area of ​​the coin finds is the Zeravshan valley. Apparently, these also are a kind of medal-coins, and the king that minted them had a real or fictitious Euthydemid genealogy (probably through a marriage to a member of the  fallen house, concluded shortly after 174 BC to seal an alliance with one of the members of the Euthydemid pretenders, most likely Antimach, his sphere of coin distribution included Sogdiana, and his residence - here I am inclined to accept the Tarn's hypothesis - was in Merv (See A.Mukhamadiev on first Turanian coins, their Türkic language, and Türkic Turanian script).

Apparently, soon after that Sogd becomes a part of the Kangar-Horezmian state. In favor of this early date is the fact that in the 120s BC, during the Zhang Qian journey, Sogdiana was still a part of the Kangju (Kangar), which however already was in decline, and its southern possessions, just the Sogdiana, Kangar shared its power with the power of the Bactrian Yueji (As-Tokhars). But it is likely that imitation of the Euthydemus coins are the first examples of the Massagetan-Yueji (i.e. Masgut-As-Tokhar) coinage.

Possibly, the accepted reading of the native legends on these coins MaH'TaSa YaVUGa, MaH'TaSa MaLK'N MaLK' need to be corrected to MaZaH'TaSa YaVUGa, MaZaH'TaSa MaLK'N MalK': the first letter probably is not not M — the Aramaic , but a ligature MZ.

Then the translation of the title can be read, “the King of Kings of Massagets” or “Yabgu of Massagets”. If it is so, these coins would be seen as additional epigraphic evidence of the equivalence of the Massagets and Yueji. So far is still difficult to determine the relation of these coins and the coins of Giray (HIAOY) and their putative Horezm-Kangar prototypes. Possibly, there are reflected different stages of the struggle between two centers of the Massaget-Yueji (i.e. Masgut-As-Tokhar) confederation of the old, the Kangar-Horezm center and the new in the south-east, first emerging in Sogd, where originated a considerable part of the “Massagetan Yabgu” coins, and then in Bactria.

6. MITHRADATES I, MASSAGETS-YUEJI AND THE FALL OF THE GRECO-BACTRIAN KINGDOM

The political situation emerged by the 160s BC the in the Middle Asia was most favorable to the Parthia.

Mithridates I started his political career using internal strife in Bactria, having occupied the Margiana kingdom of Antimach and thus finishing off with the ephemeral northern state of the last Middle Asian Euthydemids. Apparently, during 160s BC Mithridates subjugated all Bactrian western satrapies - Margiana, Drangiana, Arachosia, and Aria, making the South Karakum and western spurs of the Hindu Kush a border between Parthia and Eucratid state. That border became the eastern boundary of Parthia until the fall of the Arsacids dynasty. Taking the rich Margiana, one of the most flourishing provinces of the Greco-Bactrian kingdom, was a precondition for the rapid growth of economic and military might of the Parthian kingdom. The death of Antiochus IV (163 BC) halted the brief and unstable expansion of the Seleucid kingdom against recalcitrant eastern satrapies of Media and Elimaida; it allowed Mithridates to occupy these both provinces, making Tigris nearly almost at its whole length a bridgehead of his offensive against the West.
242

The Persis also was in the ruling sphere of the rising empire, linking the Mithridates' chain of the eastern and western gains. Babylonian documents show us that about 142 BC Mithridates annexed Babylon (one Babylonian contract is dated by 108th year of the Arsacid era, 141 - 140 BC; a last date of the Seleucid Demetrius II rule in the Babylonian documents is February142 BC).

The last Demetrius II attempt to return Babylonia is linked with an aliance of Mithridates enemies previously isolated from each other: Bactria, where ruled the last of the Greco-Bactrian kings Heliocles, at the end of 141 BC acts on the eastern border of Parthia, diverting Mithridates forces to the north- east, Elimaida and Persis rebelled and the Demetrius II troops reoccupied Babylon.

However, Mithridates quickly handled the coalition. Crushing and casting Heliocles to the east, he inflicted a decisive defeat to Demetrius, who was captured and taken to Hyrcania. The Elimaida and Persis rejoined Parthia.

To understand the Mithridates I swift and decisive victory over Seleucid-Bactrian coalition, we should note that in that fight Parthia also had very serious allies, the kindred with main ethnic core of the Parthian state the northern Middle Asia tribes that fell on the extended right flank of the Bactrian Greeks and destroyed the Heliocles state. The 2nd century was a century of great events in the internal history of the peoples of Middle and Central Asia, the events that the sources brought us only faint echoes of. And, because the most important information about that time came from the Chinese sources that have come down to us incompatibly better than surviving in minute fragments ancient Classical sources, we are better aware of what was happening in the far eastern areas of the Central Asia, on the eastern fringes of Mongolia and Chinese Turkestan, than about the events in the basins of the Oxus (Amudarya) and Yaxartes (Syrdarya).

This situation was created by a dominating literature fossilized concept that the events at the end of the 3rd and first half of the 2nd century BC at the western fringes of China totally determined events of the second half of the 2nd century BC in the Middle Asia, particularly such fundamental historical fact as the fall of Greco-Bactrian kingdom.

The course of historical events in the traditional scheme, based on the Sima Qian (司马迁, 91 BC) chronicle, looks as follows:

In the 3rd c. the nomadic tribes of Mongolia were dominated by a tribal alliance of Great Yueji (As-Tohars), whose nomadic pasturing routs were located between Dunhuang and Tsilyanshan  (蔥嶺 Pin. Congling, “Onion Ridge”) ridge in the Gansu province.

The rise of another state in Mongolia, the Hun State, with the center further to the east, north and west of the Yellow River (Huanghe), is associated with the name of the founder of that state Mode (Maodun, 206 - 174), led to the fall of the of Yueji (As-Tohars) power. In 165 BC the Shanyu (supreme leader) of the Huns Lyaoshan (actually, Usuns on behalve of Laoshan) finally crushed Yueji (As-Tohars). Their king was killed in a battle, his skull Lyaoshan turned into a drinking bowl. The Yueji (As-Tohars) were thrown off westward beyond Tianshan.

“So, the Yueji (As-Tohars) withdrew to the west, passing through Da-Yuan (Fergana, Da-Yuan, Great Ionians ~ Greeks), attacked Daxia (Bactria, Da-Xia 大 夏, Big Xia ~ Nomads) and conquered that state; they founded their capital on the northern side of Guishui (Oxus ​​- Amudarya)”, so tells of that event Qian-Hanshu (Chronicle of senior Han dynasty 前 汉书). The name of Great Yueji during the 19th century was an object of numerous and diverse hypothetes ¹⁸. Interestingly, the earliest authors - Abel Remusat, Klaproth, and then Grigoriev, still inexperienced in the intricacies of the ethnological and philological constructions on ethnogenesis in the Middle Asia, based on the immutable facts of the Chinese historical phonetics, hypothesized that the “Great Yueji” were Massagets ¹⁹.

In fact, the name Yueji 月氏 in the Han era was read gvetti or goatti (cf. reading of the first character in modern Japanese “getsu”, in South Chinese “iet” ²⁰, and “mas” ²¹ is transparently etymologized in light of comparative study of the Indo-Iranian (I.e. Türkic) languages as “large”, “great” ²².

243

Characteristically, the ancient writers, talking about the fall of the Greco-Bactrian kingdom, never mention the name Yueji, and link that event with the movement from the north of a whole catalog of tribes. According to Pompey Trogus, they are “Saraucae and Asiani (Asii/Asioi)”, according Strabo they are “Asii, Pasiani, Tochari, and Sakarauli” (The reading “Asii, Pasiani” was corrected to “Asii or Asiani”, eliminating “Pasiani” from the discourse). The “Sarauci” and “Sakarauli” are certainly identical, and in common opinion of the researchers mean Sakaraucas, where undoubtedly should be seen “Saka Haumavarga” of the Achaemenid inscriptions and “Amurgian” Scythians of Herodotus.

In their turn, the Achaemenid inscriptions are completely unaware of  Massagetae, which so many ancient authors pay attention to (No wonder, Mas Gut is not an ethnonym, it is a position of a head tribe, the ethnical Ases). And as Ctesias, who used the literal Persian information, transplants the Herodotus stories of the events related to Massagets on the Amurgian Scythians (“Scythians of the king Omarg”), there is every reason to presuppose that the Achaemenid Persians (If Achaemenids were Persians, they would not need a trilingual inscription, would they?) knew the Massagetae under different names, without using the apparently known to the Greeks from the European Scythians their collective name, with the Saka-Haumavarga probably a most significant of the Massagetan tribes, appearing in the inscriptions on the forefront ²³. The Bactrian Greeks, who were more than close with the Massagetan tribes, like the authors of the Achaemenid inscriptions could write of each of them individually, while the Chinese of the 2nd c. BC, like the Greeks at the time of Herodotus, knew them under a collective name of “Great Getes” (Rather, “Head Getes” ~ “Head Guzes” = Head Tribe).
244

According to Tarn ²⁴, who mainly follows Hermann ²⁵, the Massaget confederation was composed of five tribes -
Derbiks (Δέρβιχβς, Δερβίχχχι, Δερισσοι Steph. the Byz., Δερκέβιοι Ptolemy VI. 10. 2, Derbices Mela III. 39, Dribyces Pliny VI. 48), ²⁶
Augasii or Augals (Αογάσσιοί Steph. the Byz., Αυγχλοι Ptolemy VI 12. 4),
Attasii (Αττχαιοι Strabo XI. 513; Hermann holds Augasii, Augals, and Attasii to be one tribe),
Apasiaks (Άπασιάκχι Strabo, XI. 513, and Polybius X. 48, Paesicae or Pestici Mela III. 39.42, Παοινχι Ptolemy VI; Steph. Byzantine 254, locates Apasiaks next to Aorses (Alans) (Aorses have little to do with Alans, Aorses were Uars/Wars ~ Avars, and could be called Apasiaks) and directly attributes them to the Massaget tribes: 'Απασίαχαΐ Μασσαγετών εθνος and Horasmies (Which makes Chorasmii horse nomadic tribe, corroborating etymology Chorasmii = Suas/Huas ~  Suasm/Huasm > Chorasm, with -m = agglutinative possessive marker).

With some clarifications we can basically accept these provisions. First, as was already said above, the first place in this list should take Sakaraucas and Tocharians (see below). Secondly, the Horasmis can hardly be taken as a tribe, rather they are a result of a merger of different Massagetan tribes, apparently first of all the Sakaraucas, who were drawn into the system of the Horezm statehood. Third, Hermann is probably right in equatiing Attasii and Augasii. Fourth, a version of the name Apasiak is the name of Pasians of Strabo (The reading “Asii, Pasiani” was corrected to “Asii or Asiani”, eliminating “Pasiani” from the discourse). Fifth, to the list of the versions for the name Derbik of Hermann must be added a mentioned by Ptolemy IV. 12 Dribakts (“beyond the Sogd Mountains”) and Drepsians east from the Horasmis and the city names of apparently ethnical oriin Drespa and Tribaktra, located in the delta area of Zeravshan and Kashka-Darya. Finally, apparently among the five major tribes that formed the base of the confederation, in its composition were numerous smaller tribal units, possibly the fragments of the ancient large tribes and sometimes divisions of the five main tribes. I mean the Oxidranks (“beyond the Sogd Mountains”), Oxians - the neighbors of Horasmis, Aristeii (perhaps identical to the Ariaks of Ptolemy VI. 12) on the Lower Yaxartes (Syrdarya) and Kirrodeii by the Oxus (Amudarya) (Ptolemy IV, 12), the Napastii ( Ptolemy VI. 14, may be the Napaii of Pliny VI. 17), the neighbors of the Sakaraucas, and finally Ribii  by the Oxus (Ptolemy VI. 14), and the Mardii by the mouths of the Oxus, next to the Apasiaks (Mela).

The initial localization of the Tochars still presents a substantial interest, with a large part of modern writers trying to put them in the Yueji place ²⁷, although in reality we can define them only as one of the tribes of the Massagetan-Yueji confederation.

Ptolemy (IV, 12) places them “near the Oxus (Amudarya) mountains” on the northern segment of the Yaxartes (Syr Darya). Under the Oxus mountains undoubtedly should be understood the whole mountain system of the Amu- and Syr Darya watershed, from the Sultan-uizdag (42°N 60.6°E) in the north-west, across the hills of the central Kyzyl Kum (42.5°N 63.5°E) to the Turkestan Ridge (39.5°N 69.7°E). However, it is likely that that term included the Chink, the south-eastern cliff of Usturt Plateau.

Topographic map of Middle Asia
245

Next to Tocharians Ptolemy mentions Yatii, and in front of them Pasiks, apparently in the area between the Chinks of Usturt and Syr Darya. Most likely that is the original location of the first three of the four tribes of Strabo, for the equivalency of both the Pasiks and Pasians ²⁸  and the Apasiaks is beyond doubt, and the identity of the Yatii and Asiii-Asians is very plausible ²⁹.

It is hard to suspect that Ptolemy gives there a secondary location of the tribes of our interest. The Chinese sources tell us about the Yueji (As-Tohars) movement to Sogdiana and Bactria, i.e. to the south of the “Oxus mountains”, and if the case was about the passing from the Eastern Turkistan of the tribe pursued by the Huns, it would be difficult to expect its wide dispersal, especially in the areas that according to the Chinese chronicles were the Kangju (Kangar) state's territories, and even in its part that was under the influence of Yueji's (As-Tohars) enemies, the Huns.

More plausible is to see there the remaining in place, in the lands of their ancient settlements. the Massagetae-Yueji (As-Tohars) tribes, other parts of which invaded Bactria, where was transfered the center of the Massagetan-Yueji (As-Tohars) confederacy, probably initially dependent on the Kangju-Horezm.

Thus, in general, the conquest of Bactria by the “barbarians” is transpiring as a movement of primarily Aral Sea tribes to the south, against their traditional enemies.

Of great interest is the testimony of the same Ptolemy (VI. 13), apparently based on the recent news from his informant (Marin) about Massagets location in the headwaters of Yaxartes (Syrdarya), in an Askatanka area (Ascantancas mountains, Tianshan-Pamir-Fergana ridge) that is in the Tianshan mountains. This testimony is completely coincides with the testimony of the history of the Senior Han Dynasty (前 汉书) that “between Usuns is located the generation of the Se tribes (Sakas) (Sai/So/Se 塞, ancestors of Tujue 突厥 = tribe of Türks) and Yueji (Massagets)” ³⁰.

This testimony is an important additional argument in favor of identifying Massagets and Yueji (As-Tohars), and at the same time it sheds light on the relationship of the ancient Massagets (As-Tohars) of the 5th c. BC, strongly localized by the ancient authors in the W.Caspian basin , and the Yueji (As-Tohars) of the 3rd  c. BC, equally firmly localized by the Chinese sources in the Eastern Turkestan, up to the Gansu province.

Most likely in our view is the assertion already made in his time by Franke ³¹ that the Gansu Yueji (As-Tohars) are an eastern branch of the Massagets.

If we can't ignore the importance, for the history of the Middle Asia nomads, of the events of the 2nd c. BC that played out by the Chinese Great Wall, equally erroneous for the history of the Middle Asian peoples would be to ignore the events that took place within the Middle Asia from the end of the 4th c. BC to the beginning of the 2nd c. BC.

The political consolidation of the tribes on the northern fringes of the Bactrian kingdom, driven by the impetus for the fight against the Greco-Macedonian conquerors, could have a consequence of broad expansion of the Kangar-Massaget confederacy deep into the eastern steppe ³², especially since there were coaching closely related to the Massagets Issedon tribes, probably in some connection with their western kins ³³.

Then the Euthydemus-Demetrius campaigns in the east “up to the Seres and Fauns (Huns)” take their historically natural place as an integral part of the Greco-Bactrian kingdom's defensive policy against the northern nomads, first of all against Massagets, who not only cut off Greco-Bactria from the sources of the Scythian gold, but most importantly threatened to envelope it with a semicircle of the united “barbaric” front from the west, north and east.
246

Seres (Seres, like the later Sarts, were exclusively sedentary population, seasonally surrounded by mobile nomadic pastoralists, and symbiotically dependent on them for their safety) and Fauns (Huns), the Chinese and the Huns (here we also follow the old hypothesis of Tomasek-Markwart , not the very latest [] and quite artificial constructs) had to be considered by the Bactrian Greeks as natural allies against common enemies, the Massagets-Yueji (As-Tohars).

The chronological coincidence of the Euthydemus and Demetrius movement to the east and of the Huns to the west is salient. Some of the dates are emphatic:

207 BC. Over the northern border of Bactria emerged a threat of barbarian invasion, stated by Euthydemus to Antiochus III, the invasion is so serious that it could threaten the whole Hellenistic East. At the borders of Mongolia emerged a period of the highest might of the rising power of the “Great Yueji”, who imposed a tribute on the Huns and came to dominate the oases of Eastern Turkestan.

206 BC. Because of the threat of the barbarian invasion, between Antiochus III and his former enemy Euthydemus is concluded an alliance. Apparently, it is followed by the beginning of the Euthydemus offensive in the north and east. The same 206 BC. As a result of a military coup and patricide, in Mongolia came to power the Hun's Shanyu Mode (Maodun), who was held hostage by Yueji (As-Tohars). Mode (Maodun) reorganized and rearmed the Hun's army, following, as was shown above, the Massagetan (by Laufer - Iranian) examples. Between 206 and 204 BC, Mode inflicts on Yueji (As-Tohars) a first blow from the east.

176 BC. Highest attainment of the Demetrius' Greco-Bactrian kingdom. Second campaign (executed by Usuns) of Shanyu Mode (Maodun) in the west against Yueji (As-Tohars), in the Tarim Basin and Jeti-su against the Yueji (As-Tohars) subjects' the Usuns (The historical sequence was different, but that does not affect the suggested logics of events).

The comparison is quite revealing. In our view, Mode (Maodun) and his successors (i.e. Laoshan) undoubtedly act from the outset as the allies of Euthydemus and Demetrius, coordinating their actions with the actions of the Bactrian kings. It is very likely that his escape home at about 206 BC from the Yueji (As-Tohars), the subsequent plot against his father, and capture of power are guided by the prospective openning for the Hun prince at the start of the Greek offensive against the hated Yueji (As -Tohars). Considering that the Chinese Emperor Wu Di sent Zhang Qian to Bactria to conclude an alliance with the victorious (actually, the opposite of victorious, badly beaten) Yueji (As-Tohars) against the Huns, is nothing improbable in the stipulation that the Euthydemus agents contacted the young Hun leader, who was serving as a hostage at the  Massagets-Yueji Bactrian neighbors and enemies, in order to gain a valuable ally able to hit Massagets in the rear when Greeks would begin their offensive against them.

The subsequent history of the Massagets' eastern expansion we know from the Chinese sources...

165 BC. Pweriod corresponding to the Eucratides victory in the Greco-Bactria. The Huns led by the Laoshan again attack Yueji (As-Tohars) (Huns lead by Laoshan did not attack As-Tokhars, that were Usuns). The Yueji king dies in battle. The remnants of the eastern Massagets were dislodged west beyond Tianshan. Again the coincodence is as indicative as the previous cases, the last major victory of the Hunno-Bactrian coalition against the Massaget confederation.

The totality of the historical absurdity in the scenario of the armchair investigators, who accepted at face value the Chinese reports on how the defeated by the Huns and fleeing beyond Tianshan Yueji (As-Tohars) the following 25 years conquer Fergana, Sogd, and finally the very Bactria, and establish dominance over the southern part of the Kangar, is clear to anyone familiar with the real conditions of the nomadic establishment and nomadic warfare. Defeated in battle, stripped of their cattle, escaped thousands kilometers from the homeland nomadic people from a political point of view is a corpse. Other than a final annihilation by the natives, or assimilation by them, can not be expected for their fate. Without exception, all historically real facts of such events have not produced anything else.

With our hypothesis, the picture would be completely different. However difficult would be the defeats of the Massaget confederacy in the east and probably in the south, they would only affect the periphery of the primitive nomadic empire, while its Hinterland - the Aral steppes and the blooming oases of the Kangha-Horezm and lower Syr Darya would remain unassailable for the enemies. Under such conditions, 25 years would have been an ample time to recover from the defeat of the 165 BC, and healing the wounds, in alliance with the Parthia led by a sister Kang House of the Siyavush dynasty, to deliver a crushing blow to the weakened by long civil wars Greco-Bactrian state. I do not see any reasons to follow Tarn in reducing the date of the Yueji (As-Tohars) conquest of Bactria. The date 140 BC, accepted by most researchers for the Yueji conquest of Bactria, coincides with the date of the last alliance between the Seleucids and the Bactrian Greeks against the Parthians. The simultaneity of the Seleucid defeat by the Parthians and of the Heliocles defeat by the Yueji (As-Tohars), resulting from the generally accepted dating of both events, in the light of the foregoing analysis, is more than understandable. These were not two events, but a single episode: the victory of the Parthian-Massaget coalition over the Seleucid-Bactrian alliance.

Mithridates I died about 138 BC. The reign of his son Phraates II already underwent major trials for the newly founded empire, the trials preordained by the very rise of Parthia.
247

Antiochus VII Sidetes (139/138 - 129 BC) took advantage of the Mithradates I, the founder of the Parthian power, death to again try to regain Babylonia. About 136 BC he crossed Tigris, in three battles crushed Phraates II generals, and occupied Babylon. He also succeeded in capturing Media. The Parthians' military defeat at the western border was so significant that Antiochus pretended for Phraates II to acknowledge his vassalage of the Seleucids as once did Artabanus at the Antiochus III time, and returned to Antiochus VII all possessions except Parthia and Hyrcania (That is another corroborating evidence that in 130 BC Hyrcania was a nomadic state). However, the winter of 130 - 129 BC resolved the question differently. Forced to disperse his troops into winter quarters in various cities of Media, Antiochus aforded favorable chances to the Parthians, who succeed in using the weakening of the Syrians, and with a quick strike on Ecbatana inflicted a decisive defeat on Antiochus. Antiochus was killed, his son Seleucus was captured by the Parthians, like shortly before was Demetrius II.

However, immediately after this victory, events took a very bad turn for Phraates II. The summoned early in the campaign as hired troops “Scythians”, in whom I tend to see not just migrating from north to south disorderly hordes of nomads but the units of the allied Massaget confederation, probably of Sakaraucas and possibly Apasiaks, because of alleged late arrival have not received their pay due (Trogus XIII. II. I). “Unhappy that they made that route for nothing, they demanded either payment for  the vacillating ride, or a new enemy. Offended by a haughty answer, they began plundering the Parthian land”.

An attempt by Phraates II to move against them not only the Parthian, but also the just captured Greek soldiers of Antiochus, had cost him his life. As stated Trogus, the Greeks at a decisive moment defected to the Scythians, the Parthians were defeated, and Phraates was killed.

The eastern boundary of Parthia was broken. The Phraates II successor, his uncle Artabanus II, was forced to endure a difficult struggle with Togars (Tocharians), who seems have established by that time their presence in Bactria and were advancing on Margiana, in the result he, like his predecessor, was defeated and fell in battle (about 124 BC). In these Tochars should certainly be seen the nucleus of the Massagets-Yueji (As-Tohars) who occupied Bactria. However, apparently the bulk of the Yueji troops that occupied the eastern satrapies of the Parthia consisted of Kangar's Sakaraucas, whose name is probably related to the subsequent formation of the Saka state in the Sakastan (Seistane).

Isidorus Characenus (1st c. BC/1st c. AD ) states that Sakas also occupied Traksiana (modern Khorasan, 36.3°N 59.6°E) and Tapuriya (aka Tabaristan = Gelonia + Hyrkania, 36.6°N 53.1°E), the Kopetdag (38°N 57.3°E) area bordering on Karakum deserts (40.5°N 60°E). Separate groups of Sakas broke westward through Hyrcania (Yirkania in Oguz, G/Hirkania in Ogur) to the upper Tigris and Armenia (In 140 BC Armenia was incompatibly larger than what is left now). ³⁴

The Massagetan offensive in the north and east of Parthia was combined with military setbacks and strife in the west. Judging from the Diodorus testimony and numismatic materials, power in Media and Babylonia has seized vice-regent Hymerus (Hymerus aka Evemerus), appointed still by Phraates II, who sacked Babylon and has led numerous captives to the Media. Onto 127 - 126 BC falls a short seizure of power in Babylon by ruler of  - a small kingdom Characene in the lower course of the Tigris and Euphrates. Apparently, this was the reason for the terrible massacre  by Hymerus.

Parthia was on the brink of destruction when to power came Artabanus II, a son of Mithradates II (124/123-87 BC).

This king, rightly regarded as a second founder of the Parthian Empire might, succeeded to restore with decisive measures the crumbling state and secure Parthia rule in the eastern and western satrapies, subjugating the remaining in the eastern Parthia Saka tribes.

But the history of those events is already beyond our scope. The Euthydemus threat was realized. The Hellenistic Empire of the “Far East” collapsed under a strike of “barbarians”, who laid the foundations for the two empires of the Late Antique East - the Parthian and future Kushan state, the empires where the Middle Asian Hellenic culture reached its blossom. That event was not a result of stochastic relocation movements of the nomadic tribes. It culminated an organized, centuries-old struggle of the freedom-loving peoples of the Middle Asia against the Greco-Macedonian conquerors, - a struggle where for two centuries has played an organizing role the only Middle Asian state that succeeded  in keeping its independence - the Kangar-Horezm.
248