Talk:Indo-Greek Kingdom/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1
| Archive 2 →


Contents

Word Choice

How come the word barbarian is used within the quotes? That implies the native Indians saw the Greeks as the equivalents of nomads and other relatively turbulent cultures. Is the translation actually correct or should it be read up and corrected if necessary to something more appropriate such as foreigner, alien or invader?

Hi. The original word typically used in these texts is Mleccha, for Yavanas and others invaders from the Northwest, which usually designates people who are not of Sanskrit culture, and is usually translated as barbarians. Regards PHG 21:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is "Greco-Indians" more grammatically correct? -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 16:01, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi Kukkurovaca. Because, as in "Franco-canadian", "African-American" , "Indo-European" etc..., the area of origin usually comes first, and the area of arrival comes second. Maybe it should be expressed differently... not a grammatical rule, but rather a convention? User:PHG

Major Changes

Hi!

I - Sponsianus - contributed some stuff to the Indo-Greek pages a year ago and now I have come back. I hope nobody is offended, but I have made some major changes. There are lots of references to kings being related to each other on this page. No less than three kings are considered brothers of Demetrius, Demetrius II is a son of Demetrius I, Agathocleia is a daughter, and Eucratides defeats several kings, etc.

However, these are only speculations. Not one single line is preserved considering the Euthydemid kings after Demetrius I, and Eucratides is only known to have defeated one Indian king Demetrius and that is described as something happening late in his reign, probably as late as the 150s. That is all we know. IMHO, we cannot present speculations as fact.

Further, there are a lot of references to Buddhism which are similarly very loosely based. There are few coins where Menandros associates himself with Buddhism, and Demetrius I certainly wasn't a Buddhist. There were lots of religions in the area at that time, and only because Buddhism has survived to this day and the others have not does not mean we should interpret all uncertain symbols - like elephants, clearly an ubiqitous symbol in India - to the Buddhist faith. I look forward to discussion if anybody disagrees with me. I am not attempting to destroy the works of others.

Best Regards Sponsianus

Hi Sponsianus. Added Indo-Greek coins with eight-spoked wheels for reference. The relationships between the kings are indeed poorly documented, and are essentially deducted from numismatic clues. I suggest we adopt the most recent interpretations (those of Bopearachchi, 1991, CNRS) for the article, which will bring some adjustment to the last kings especially and bring the last dates for Indo-Greek king to around 10 CE. I will do this when I can find some time. Regards.PHG 21:19, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi PHG! Those coins are indeed clear Buddhist symbols and make a proper addition. I am however not certain of the end-date 10 CE. I have enquired about this on the Seleukid Yahoo Group and it seems the date is an old mistake: 10 CE does in fact refer to the embassy of an Indian king Porus to Augustus, as mentioned by Strabo. But we have no proof this Porus was a Greek king, only that his ambassador spoke Greek. And furthermore, the name Porus might be a mix-up as well: it's the same name as the king Alexander the Great defeated.

I have a question about king Strato I: He is generally said to be grand-father of Strato II, and http://www.snible.org/coins/hn/bactria.html credits this to a Kharoshti inscription. Such a genealogy would however give the reign of Strato I a span of several decades, especially since he started his rule in his minority. A reign of 130-110 BCE is simply way to short for his grandson to grow up and co-rule with him.

However, the dates for the reign of Strato II is out on a limb the other way around. Starting his co-rule in the 110s BCE, his own reign is said to start in 25 BCE, (which further shows the impossibility of such late dates)! Something is peculiar about these two kings, but what?

a) The Kharoshti inscription is misinterpreted. They were father and son (as the Greek inscription on their coin indeed indicates by calling Strato II "Philopator" ). Strato II starts his reign around 110 BCE. b) The coins with both kings is a pedigree issue, and Strato II never ruled with his grand-father. In this case, he ruled later, possibly about 60-50 BCE.

Finally: Who is Thrason, the one you just added? A recently found coin? Very interested to know. I shall try to add Platon to the page, the son and possible assassin of Eukratides.

Hi.
  • All dates have now been taken from the most recent and authoritative study on the subject, by Bopearachchi. The end date of 10 CE is supported by metallurgical analysis showing a general debasement of silver currency (with an almost complete replacement of silver by bronze) during the reigns of Azes II, Rajuvula and Strato II. Also, the mint marks of Straton II and identical with those if Rajuvula, which makes them almost contemporary in the mint mark sequences. True, previous studies estimated end dates around 50 BCE. There are also a few overstrikes which support the new date.
  • Bopearachchi disconnect the two kings Strato I and Strato II. They are very far in every respect (style, mints etc...). The "Philopapator" inscription is related to a third Strato, son of Strato II, who could be called Strato III, except for the fact that he apparently never reigned alone.
  • One coin of a king Thrason was discovered in 1982 by R.C. Senior. I haven't seen a coin of him, but his style is said to be similar to that of Menander I.His title is described as "Megas".
  • Plato is located in the Greco-Bactrian article.
  • Regards PHG 12:41, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you for this useful info! I knew the there was a missing link among the Strato kings. There is no contradiction as for Strato III being either son or grand-son of II. Do you know the best place to order Bopearachi's study?

And two final question: a)Do you know of the evidence for the reign (and existence) of Antimachus II? Is he the king mention on the tax-receipt, or on an inscription with Strato I? I have not been able to get proper info on this. b) What is your opinion on the dynasties - Eucratids and Euthydemids? Did they survive Heliocles / Demetrius II? Several coins resemble the early kings, but many late kings strike coins of both Eukratides/Antimachos/Menandros profiles. IMHO, the constant flux of royal names speak against the dynasties.

Hi. The Bopearachchi book is available at www.amazon.fr (ISBN 2717718257). Beware, it's in French, but very well informed, with a huge amount of coin pictures. a) For Antimachus II, I only know of numismatic clues, that put him right before Menander. b) For the house of Eucratides, the best markers are the Dioscuri symbol of Eucratides, either represented on their horses, standing, or just through their caps. Antialcidas, Diomedes, Archebios all used the Dioscuri symbolism on some of their coins, which are also consistent in style with the western Indo-Greek kings. For the house of Euthydemids, the Herakles symbolism is used very late, and relayed by the Athena symbolism of Menander. PHG 23:15, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi again! I believe the geographic denotions are somewhat unclear (even though this might only reflect our lack of knowledge. But the fact is that the kings of Eastern Punjab are lacking between Demetrios III (100 BCE) and Apollodotus II (80 BCE). Should the text be interpreted such that the kings located as reigning in Gandhara during this period, for instance Philoxenus and Peucolaus, are reigning even to the east? Or was there a long interregnum? Finally, Arachosia is used in IMHO conflicting contexts, and the borders between Paropamisadae, Gandhara and Punjab are overlapping. Taxila is a city in both Gandhara and Punjab according to Wikipedia definitions. The king Antialcidas is said in his article to have reigned there, yet he is listed in the main article as king in Parapomisadae and Arachosia! So in fact, Taxilan kings are in three different places.

Would it be a good idea to work out a map with non-conflicting definitions of the areas and relocate the kings accordingly? Best Regards User:Sponsianus

Odysseas

There is a serious mistake(?) in Genetic contribution section. Someone comfused modern macedonian slavs with the ancient ones. Consult articles Macedon, Macedonia for further informations.Odysseas

Soter

I have changed the reference to the title Soter as being used only twice before Menander I. It was used by Ptolemy I, Antiochus I, Seleucus III, Attalus I & Eumenes II of Pergamon, and also posthumously applied to Diodotus I and Pantaleon by Agathocles I. --Sponsianus 23:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Map

Sponsianus,

Do you have any information on who created the map you put up and what the basis for it is? From sources ranging from John Keay's India: A history to numerous online encyclopedias, the invasion of Demetrius is said to to have terminated in the Panjab. Accordingly, the Greek attack on Pataliputra, if it was indeed successful, would have been undertaken by Menander of Sakala (Sialkot) in conjunction with the Indian Kings of Mathura and Panchala. However, this too is the subject of controversy as the stone inscriptions of the neighboring King of Kalinga, Kharavela, proclaim that he allied with the Sunga ruler to defeated this assault. I am not seeking to establish any certainties, for as you note, this period of history suffers from a dearth of historical evidence. However, I was hoping that you could provide the basis for this map and consider taking it down on this and related articles.

Regards,

Devanampriya

Hi. The map illustration was made by me, based on "The Greeks in Bactria and India", W.W. Tarn, Cambridge University Press. Menander is said to have been a general of Demetrius, and is indeed the one that would have been as far as Pataliputra. Available evidence is cited in the body of the article. Indeed, it is not totally clear wether the Greek reached the walls of Patiliputra or invaded the city, although it does not change much from a territorial standpoint. Regards. PHG 04:53, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello PHG,

Thanks for your prompt reply and citation and kudos for your graphical efforts. With respect to the historicity of it,however, I still do have some questions. Again, with the respect to the expanse of the Indo-Greek kingdom, the march of greek armies into the gangetic is credited not to a wide scale invasion, but rather to a raid conducted in concert with other indian kings. Accordingly, the caption under the map states this was the maximum extent of the Indo-Greek Kingdom in 175 BC. Menander, who is cited as the King at this time, and not subordinate general of Demetrius of Bactria by John Keay, and ancillary sources, ruled from roughly 150 BC-130 BC. Lastly, the map itself includes Pataliputra in its ambit (indeed territory east of it as well), in spite of the fact that it was being ruled by Pushyamitra or Agnimitra at its time--both able rulers--and ignores the possibility of Kharavela providing military support to the Shungas. Lastly, Menander's attempts to expand his empire were read to have been checked by either the Shungas or other Indian kings, although he continued to maintain possession of the trans-indus.
Occupation of much of the Panjab by the Greeks at some point is definite. The main question is what was the extent,and indeed for how long? Conservative sources establish that Mathura was the furthest east that indo greek rule could have extended. However, even this is theorized on the basis of numismatic evidence--a dubious indicator at best on account of trade. Moreover, the Shungas themselves are credited with rule as far as Jalandhar in the modern Indian panjab, at least for a while. Given these uncertainties, and how widespread your map is on other online encyclopedias, I again request that you either edit it or take it down. You seem to be genuinely concerned about the historicity of this kingdom and have put a lot of time into its study. As such, I am not inclined to take liberties with your work. However, I do believe that we should focus on the core aspect of this project and seek to present certainties as certainties and uncertainties as such.
Lastly, I'm not sure if it was you or another contributor that posted it, but attempts to characterize Demetrius's invasion of India as being motivated by Buddhist sympathies are 1. difficult to prove and 2. unwarranted. The primary sources we have on theorized buddhist persecution by the Shungas are the buddhist monks themselves, and even they don't discuss Bactrian liberation. They clearly would no longer have found themselves being supplied by royal patronage, as under Ashoka, and presumably the later Mauryas. As such, to characterize Shunga rule as violent and greek expansion attempts as altruistic, do history no favors. As the author of the article says, Demetrius himself certainly wasn't a buddhist. Again, I do not no if you contributed that, but I wanted to bring it up with you if that was the case, as I am planning to take that down. In any event, I am enjoying this discussion.
Regards,
Devanampriya
Hi Devanampriya. A way to deal with your concern is indeed to better label uncertainties as such. On the exact occupation of Pataliputra (did Greeks just reach the walls or did they enter them?), neither side has definite proof. I also do not know of any primary sources defining the Greeks who went to Pataliputra as just "bands", on the contrary Indian sources describe that they were powerful enough create a new rule and to turn their world upside down. And Menander is indeed generally understood to be a general of Demetrius, before becoming king (please read the articles from the links). The map needs to be kept (or maybe slightly redrawn), but first the legend can be adjusted to "Possible extent....". On Demetrius, the Sungas and Buddhism, sources are few (and, as you say mainly come from Buddhists), but they are indeed historical sources, and the absence of non-Buddhist sources is no justification to erase Buddhist ones. What is known is that Buddhists claimed the Sungas persecuted them, and that indeed Buddhism flourished under the Indo-Greeks (also numerous sources), that the Greeks were allies of the Mauryans, that the Brahmanical Sungas overthrew the Buddhist dynasty of the Mauryans, and that there was apparently a Buddhist revival under the Sungas around 100 BCE as shown by architecture. I perfectly agree for a comment to be added that Buddhism may not have been really persecuted under the Sungas after all, but as far as I know this is total speculation, and data to back such a position would be welcome. Regards PHG 21:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
I also added more of the Gargi-Samhita, Yuga Purana quotes to document the point of the extent of the invasion. PHG 22:15, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello PHG,

I look forward to your edited map and caption. Regarding the nature of the greek presence on the subcontinent, the remark concerning "raids" referred to the assault on Pataliputra. I was not characterizing either this or the initial forays under demetrius as bands of disorganized greeks. Instead the remark that I was making was that the military expedition was meant primarily to accrue booty rather than land--referencing Inia: A History. Also, I was not denying that Menander was a general under Demetrius. What I was denying was that the expedition to Pataliputra was undertaken by Demetrius or under his name (by Menander) as the dates do not correspond. Also, I highly doubt that the greeks attacked out of treaty obligations. Antiochus III is said to have attacked and "subdued" a Mauryan governor--later king--Subhagasena, and the initial treaty was with the Seleucids and not the house of Euthydemus. Regardless,this matter clearly is a challenge to most historians. Onto other matters: were you the primary architect of the Demetrius I article? I wanted to verify before any changes were made to it, as I believe them to be necessary. Also, regarding the gargi samhita, are you referencing a copy of the entire Gargi Samhita? If so, I would greatly appreciate it if you could send me J.E. Michtiner's translation of the text. Please let me know if this is possible, and I will message you outside the discussion regarding it.

Regards,

Devanampriya

Hi Devanampriya, 1) I do not quite see your point on "the dates do not correspond" for the attacks on Pataliputra under Demetrius and Menander: when do you suggest the attacks on Pataliputra actually occured? As far as I know, they are generally considered to have happened under Demetrius. 2) Is there any primary evidence that "the military expedition was meant primarily to accrue booty rather than land", or is it just a writter's opinion? 3) I guess I also did most of the content on Demetrius, so let's discuss about it when you want. 4) The extracts of the Gargi Samhita are from"The Greeks in Bactria and India", W.W. Tarn, Cambridge University Press. Unfortunately, I do not have an entire translation. Regards PHG 13:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


Hi!

Good to see that more people than me and the PHG are concerned with this! I hope you excuse my blatant headlines - this discussion is becoming rather comprehensive.

The map that PHG drew looks quite a bit like map in Westermanns "Atlas der Welt Geschichte" of 1955. They used the same sources and came more or less to the same conclusions, so it is a well done map, but in some ways it is incorrect.

a) In 175 BCE, there probably was no such thing as an Indo-Greek kingdom, and by all means several areas on the map were most likely dominions of some of the Bactrian kings in 175 BCE.

The conquest of Pataliputra b) I am quite certain that Pataliputra was taken during the reign of Menander I, around 140 BCE. Bopearachchi claims that Demetrius I only conquered Gandhara, not even Punjab proper. I disagree with him to some extent: Demetrius I obviously never struck coins in Punjab, but neither did Alexander and he definitely conquered Punjab. So IMHO, Demetrius conquered parts of Punjab, but not territories further east.

Here is Strabo's quote:

XI. The Greeks who caused Bactria to revolt grew so powerful on account of the fertility of the country that they became masters, not only of Ariana, but also of India, as Apollodorus of Artemita says: and more tribes were subdued by them than by Alexander--by Menander in particular (at least if he actually crossed the Hypanis towards the east and advanced as far as the Imaüs), for some were subdued by him personally and others by Demetrius, the son of Euthydemus the king of the Bactrians;

Strabo says that Menander may have been the foremost conqueror (and Strato relied on hearsay; he had never seen the vast hoards of Menander's coins which speak for his importance). The kingdom of Menander was also located far east of Bactria where Demetrius reigned, and therefore it seems plausible that Menander did the easternmost conquests.

Periplus supports this view, mentioning only Apollodot(r)us and Menander as Indo-Greek kings, and the Milindapahna also claims that he was a great conqueror. And he had Himalaya named after him. He is the likely candidate - his Buddhist connections also make this credible.

Purpose and confirmation of the conquest As for the purpose of the expedition, the Yuga Purana talks of the woe and disorder after Pataliputra was conquered by the Greeks. So there is some reason to believe that the Greeks were there to plunder. Here is an extract from THE GRECO-BACTRIAN MIRAGE: RECONSTRUCTING HISTORY OF HELLENISTICBY by Kirk Rappe

From sloka 48, “Then, once Puspapura (Pâtaliputra) has been reached [and] its celebrated mud [-walls] cast down, all the realms will be in disorder - there is no doubt.”38 The Yuga Purâna goes on to describe the suffering and fear of the Indian peoples in the Ganges valley until the Greeks agree to abandon their new territory because, “a terrible and very dreadful war having broken out in their own realm.”

Menander's relationship to Demetrius I Menander was certainly not a general of Demetrius I, even if I know that this view has been repeated over and over. Menander reigned probably fourty years after Demetrius (see Bopearachchi), and evidence which connects him to the Euthydemid dynasty is AFAIK more or less non-existent. He shares Athena reverses with Apollodotus and Demetrius II, but his Athena is a totally new type, and he introduces lots of new coin types.

Menander's relationship to Eucratides I Equally loosely founded are the numerous hints of Menander fighting Eucratides and defeating him. As you know, Justin says that Eucratides conquered India before being murdered by his son (around 145 BCE). In that case, Menander was defeated by Eucratides, but we have no evidence for that either. More plausible is that Menander started his reign after or shortly before the death of Eucratides.

IMHO, two theories remain. a) Menander was a relative of Apollodotus and acknowledged as a vasall-king by Eucratides. b) Menander was an Indian general, placed as governor by Eucratides.

Then the two theories converge: After Eucratides was murdered, the Bactrian empire descended into civil war and Menander took over Arachosia and the Paropamisadae.

Best regards--Sponsianus 11:13, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


Sponsianius,

Good to hear from you. Sorry for being MIA all this time. Anyhow, regarding the article, I still believe that there are many issues that we all must still contend with, as per my discussion with PHG.

First of all, the map remains inaccurate. It is no more fitting to consider central and eastern India as territories of the indo-greek kingdom than it is attica under the achaemenids (which you’ll note, the wikipedia map conveniently leaves out). Imperial or regnal control is one thing, raids (many of which require more evidence) are another. Second of all, even historians who discuss the possibility of a successful siege of Pataliputra (i.e. John Keay) mention it as a combined force of Greek kings from the panjab and Indian kings of panchala and mathura—laying into question the matter of control. Furthermore, it is inaccurate to state that the shungas remained confined to the east when they more than periodically controlled significant portions of the panjab, and (even factoring menander’s raid—theorized or true) all of central india.. Moreover, prophecy is not history. If you do believe it so, we should then reference the Pandavas as conquering the entire world, as so mentioned, in the Mahabharata. As for Patanjali…

  • Hi Devananpriya.
  • MAP: As far as I know the Achaemenids did not invade Attica, they just failed a landing by loosing at the Battle of Marathon, hence the inexistence of such a map. On the other, maps of conquests are regularly made (as for Image:Second world war europe 1941-1942 map en.png.
  • "RAID": I do not know of a single primary source describing the Greek conquests as "raids". On the contrary, various sources describe armies (Hathigumpha inscription), towns besieged and taken (Patanjali), yes, the Garghi-Samhita, and Classical authors (Justin) numbering an Indo-Greek army at 60,000. I also do not know about primary sources explicitly describing a military alliance between Greeks, Mathuras and Panchalas. Do you?
  • GARGHI-SAMHITA: Although the Mahabharata is not perfect, it is widely believed to reflect historical events. The Garghi-Samhita is also believed to reflect historical facts, in the litterary form of a prophecy.
  • SUNGAS: The Sungas occupied the Punjab before the Greek invasion. When the Greek fell-back on Mathura, the Sungas took over the lost territory.
  • PATANJALI: He is widely considered as a interesting reference in that he used real-life example to demonstrate grammatical cases. PHG 12:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, “[Menander] had himalaya named after him”? Please clarify. If you are saying that a mountain in the range was named after him (which is news to me), that still would not confirm that he entered the gates of pataliputra in triumph. Accordingly, we should recognize that the Yuga Purana itself is based on prophecy and prognostication, rather than contemporaneous fact. Where is the hard-rooted evidence of such a successful siege? Even this document, according to michener’s translation, concedes only an attack on the “mud walls of the city”. We do not have any triumphal inscriptions or accounts of this.

  • MENANDER MONS: Ptolemy described the Menander Mons beyond the Ganges. Please look at the map, where "Menander Mons" is clearly mentionned.
  • PATALIPUTRA: We all agree that it is unclear whether Pataliputra itself was taken or not, but siege and occupation of the surrounding areas is quite certain (Strabo, campaigns of Kharavela against the army of Demetrius around Rajagriha, the Garghi-Samhita). Mathura itself was apparently held until 100 BCE.PHG 12:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Even the numismatic evidence (which may strain credulity on account of circulation) has been found only as far as mathura. While I do not rule out a siege of pataliputra under menander, or even its capture under him, I do believe that the article should communicate hard facts as such. Anything beyond that should be mentioned as theory, or preferably left out (we all know how AIT turned out). Strabo’s accounts are suitably vague. While it is clear that the bactrian greeks went further than Alexander, exactly how far remains the question. That leads me to the german map you reference. Much has indeed changed since 1955, and I am unsure if we should rely on such conclusions as the basis for this map. We know for sure that the trans-indus was retained by bactrian greeks for the better part of a century (as demonstrated by inscriptions and archaeological evidence ie Taxila). Beyond that, our theories are conjecture at best.

  • EXTENT OF CONQUESTS: Various primary sources, quoted above, from different background, all indicate conquests as far as Pataliputra (the only theory, in the absence of clearer sources is whether Pataliputra was taken or not). On the contrary, I do not know of any primary sources stating that Greeks never went beyond the trans-Indus. Do you? PHG 12:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Lastly, PHG, the point about demetrius (in his article) circulates primarily around much of the legend behind him. We know nothing of his motivations for attack beyond the fact that they were for glory, plunder, women, and territory. Unless stipulated as such, I highly doubt that he attacked gandhara and the panjab out of Buddhist sympathies, as he is never presented as one. Accordingly the greeks clearly did not have a long-standing “alliance” with the mauryas or Antiochus the Great would not have attacked a mauryan governor as the wikipedia article notes. I mean, we can’t have our cake here and eat it too. Either Antiochus did conquer a part of India as the article celebrates or he was merely entertained by the governor of mauryan gandhara. Also, “D lord of Ind” by Geoffrey Chaucer is not sufficient evidence of Demetrius in the folk-legends of India. Please point out any indigenous accounts that 1. are references to a folk legend of a Dharma mitra (as there have been many who have been honored as lovers of dharma) and 2. that demetrius himself was referenced as such rather than as “dimita”. Again, while I appreciate the time put into the article, fact must be the focus. Thank you for your understanding.

  • MOTIVES: Any sources for "the fact" that Demetrius' motivation was "glory, plunder, women, and territory"?
  • DHARMAMITRA: The reference to Demetrius as Dharmamitra comes from the Garghi-Samhita as well: :"The tamā-elders (Possibly "tax-collectors" according to Jayaswal, from the Greek Tamieion) of Dharmamita will fearlessly devour the people. The Yavanas (Greeks) will command, the Kings will disapear. (But ultimately) the Yavanas, intoxicated with fighting, will not stay in Madhadesa (the Middle Country); there will be undoubtedly a civil war among them, arising in their own country, there will be a very terrible and ferocious war" ("Gargi-Samhita," Chapter 7 of the Yuga Purana.)
  • ALLIANCE: everything is referenced in the article.PHG 12:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Regards,

Devanampriya


PHG,

If the Achaemenids did not invade Attica, how do you suppose Athens (which is in Attica) was burned (and whom was Alexander responding to when he burned Persepolis)? Also, the battle of marathon took place during the campaigns of Darius. The burning of athens took place under Xerxes, following the battle of thermopylae. And yes, the greeks ultimately prevailed at salamis and finally at platea, as the hathigumpha inscription and you yourself note, the greeks were soon removed from the madhyadesha as well. Also, as you yourself mention, raids can be conducted by armies. There is a difference between raid and an exercise of politcal/military control.

  • Hi Devanampriya. Thank you for the update on Xerxes, and I recount that Xerxes organized a military invasion which lated about one year. On the contrary, the Garghi-Samhita explains that "The Yavanas (Greeks) will command, the Kings will disappear." (Gargi-Samhita, Yuga Purana chapter, No7), implying the toppling of the existing order, and replacement by Greek rule. You also did not comment on Image:Second world war europe 1941-1942 map en.png, a typical presentation on temporary rule following invasion, which is broadly consistent with the methodology used in the map of the article. Tarn considers that the Greek ruled about 5 years on the area. A raid (military), is "a sudden attack behind an enemy's lines without the intention of holding ground" according to Wikidictionary: besieging and taking cities, toppling kings and rule in their place clearly goes beyond the definition of a raid. PHG 13:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Any legitimate source that Demetrius' motive was to protect buddhism? Are you honestly saying that he didn't invade for territory and the luxuries that go with it? Even in the modern era, those in alliances ultimately act out of self interest and an expansion of power/territory etc.

  • For an analysis of motives, you will always have various interpretations by various scholars. For the facts, Demetrius was apparently named "Friend of the Dharma", the Buddhist Mauryas did have alliances with the Greeks before being toppled by the Hindu Sungas, and the Indo-Greeks consistently sponsored the Buddhist faith (MenanderI). Alternatively some authors probably would suggest that on the contrary Demetrius' motives were only "for territory and the luxuries that go with it? Even in the modern era, those in alliances ultimately act out of self interest and an expansion of power/territory etc..." but that is a pretty POV and subjective interpretation, which, as far as I know, does not rely on any primary sources. PHG 13:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, your proof regarding an alliance is insufficient. Demetrius was not of the house of seleucus. Accordingly, if the peace treaty between seleucus and chandragupta was an alliance, why would Antiochus the great have invaded/attempted to invade as claimed by other articles? Moreover, why would Strabo not have mentioned this in his glowing accounts of alexanders greek successors?

  • Demetrius was included in the Pedigree coins of Agathocles and Pantaleon as a descendant of Alexander and the house of the Seleucid. Even if this pedigree is considered as fictional propaganda, Demetrius nonetheless claimed legitimacy by descent, and would have followed the heritage of the Seleucids. When Antiochos III, after having made peace with Euthydemus, went to India in 209 BCE, he is said to have renewed his friendship with the Indian king there: "He crossed the Caucasus (Hindu Kush) and descended into India; renewed his friendship with Sophagasenus the king of the Indians; received more elephants, until he had a hundred and fifty altogether; and having once more provisioned his troops, set out again personally with his army" Polybius 11.39 PHG 13:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, the naming of a mountain, if in fact valid, is not indicative of successful conquest in and of itself. If so, we should show large swathes of Arizona as territory under hindu rule because there's a Brahma's temple in the grand canyon.

  • Of course the naming of a mountain is not in itself a "proof" of conquest. It is just a supplementary suggestion of Greek expansion. PHG 13:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, your "evidence" on demetrius as dharmamitra does not pass muster, as it doesn't do precisely that. Along with that, how is he celebrated as a folk hero if his tax collectors (dharmamitra's, not necessarily demetrius') are devouring the people?

  • Please, I am not trying to prove anything, but only to make a synthesis of existing knowledge on the subject, especially regarding primary sources. The Demetrius-Dharmamitha association is supported by Tarn and Jayaswal in particular. The Garghi-Samhita was written by Hindus, who lament throughout the text the changes brought by the Greeks, and, in effect condemn their taxation practices ("his tax collectors are devouring the people"), but nonetheless mention Demetrius under the name chosen for him by Buddhists, a adaptation of the simple phonetic transliteration "Dimita" used for Demetrius. Another source (a Thibetan translation of a sankrit work quoted by Levi) names a Demetria-Dharmamitra city in Sogdiana, further reinforcing the association. PHG 13:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, as sponsianius points out, boppeareachi states that demetrius' didn't go beyond the indus and keay himself casts doubt on whether demetrius was on that side of the hindu kush. Also, nehru discusses how menander's campaigns were defeated and how he returned to his side of the indus. It's not a conquest if the army is defeated and sent back, which appears to be what happened to the greek force if it made its way down the ganga.

  • It is indeed often unclear whether the Demetrius refered by various authors (including Indian) is Demetrius I or Demetrius II, although it is usually considered that Menander was the general in charge of Demetrius' conquests in the east. But there was an "army of Demetrius" in Pataliputra when Kharavela fought against it. PHG 13:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Lastly, the gargi-samahita/yuga purana seem to be a fallback position whenever there is a lack of evidence. Again, as I mentioned, using such documents this way is like using nostradamus to construct 300 years of western history--it does not pass the test of rigorous historical analysis. The reason for this being that prophecy can prove to be wrong (frequently), can be misinterpreted, can be cherrypicked. If any body of history has been treated as such, it's indian history. Let us avoid continuing this unfortunate tradition. While it would be great if we had several clear accounts of exactly what happened, we don't. As such, for the sake of wikipedia's accuracy, let's try and stick to verifiable facts, such as greek possessions on the transindus, embassies from antialcidas, etc.

  • You cannot deny a multitude of various primary (Greek and Indian) and secondary sources (multiple contemporary authors). The Ghargi-Samhita taken alone could be challenged, but it is indeed usually considered as an historical account under the guise of a prophecy, and the facts it describes happen to be confirmed quite precisely by various other sources (Kharavela's inscriptions, Greek relations, Patanjali, the Mālavikāgnimitra, the account of the Greco-Bactrian civil war, the Mahabharata etc...). On the contrary, I do not know of any primary sources that deny Greek conquests to the east. Do you? We have to respect existing sources (litterary, epigraphic etc...), rather then bend to some cultural nationalism by denying them all and, without any ground, only attribute the worsts intentions to the Greeks (rape and plunder?) and limit them to the smallest conceivable area. Regards PHG 13:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Regards,

Devanampriya

PHG,

I am glad I could reintroduce to Xerxes. But hey, accordingly to your logic 1 year of political control resulting in the burning of greece’s chief city apparently isn’t evidence enough for political control but a few obscure prophecies in a religious text are. I am glad you wear your NPOV on your sleeve. By the way, the Satavahanas actually are recorded to have conquered magadha, entered pataliputra, and routed the kanva king, thereby ending the dynasty. Why didn’t you extend the same logic on your map for them?

As for raids, we can debate semantics all day, for example Merriam-Webster’s dictionary calls it any hostile or predatory incursion, which means it can be merely to collect booty, as mahmud of ghazni did 1000 years later. And if you want a reference to that, how bout Keay’s India: A History. He discusses a joint raid by greek kings from the Punjab and Indian kings from Mathura.

Accordingly, please refrain from casting aspersions on my motivations. As for NPOV, you departed from that a long time ago considering that all your contributions to Indian history pages are colored by philhellenism. Your interests are your own, but please do not subvert the history of the Indian people to advance notions of inherent western superiority—there’s enough of that floating around the net and in textbooks.

Accordingly, you so vehemently cling to Patanjali’s grammatical example, yet failed to even mention him, or his Mahabhasya, in your contributions to the Sunga dynasty page. You will recall that the Sungas involved more than playing just the villains to Soter Demetrius and Menander. It was a also period of indigenous accomplishment, and I think that’s the point that Pav is trying to make. Moreover, his example uses the word arunad, which means besiege. These cities, we believe, would have been besieged, not conquered, if we can consider this as a historical account.

Also, please do not cite the malavikagnimitra. I am familiar with Kalidasa’s dramas from Abhignanasakuntala through Vikramorvasiya, and the verse in contention refers to the fact that the sungas battled the greeks, and not that they were routed by them. Half truths and ignored facts do not a history make. No one is arguing that greeks and Indians did not battle each other, what is unclear, regardless of your viewpoint, is the net result.

As for my discussion of primary and secondary sources, I recognize the importance of treating them with caution. Just because one historian theorizes something—with out any shred of real evidence—does not make it the writ of the field (so please, enough about Tarn, whom you relied upon to create your map). If so, you might as well add Max Mueller and other proponents of racial theories. One has to consider the zeitgeist and the intentions of the author as well. Accordingly, this approach is far more productive than cherrypicking from an author so long as he suits your needs as displayed by your treatment of Boppearachi. When you have an Tarn purporting that the greeks invaded India to protect Indians and Buddhists, frankly you might as well start reciting some Rudyard Kipling and spewing encomiums of the white man’s burden. Here again you pull a bait and switch. Just because menander supported Buddhism doesn’t mean Demetrius did. Moreover, historians still can’t verify Demetrius’ realm and which side of the hindu kush it was even on, and as you yourself note, Boppeareachi didn’t believe Demetrius had any Indian holdings, let alone that he conquered Magadha to protect Buddhism. You contend that you don’t agree with that. Oh? Where are your sources? What do you base your disagreement on? Moreover, just because greeks patronized Buddhist art, doesn’t mean they invaded to protect it. So yes, we do have to assume that they invaded to increase their territorial and financial holdings, as well as to retreat from the sakas. Until you can prove otherwise with legitimate sources, that should be the modus operandi.

Rather than establishing ideas and looking for proof in ahistorical sources and vague geographical references, rather than coloring Indian history with the flag of Hellenism as you and many others before you seemingly seek to do, you might want to consider leaving uncertainties as uncertainties. I have seen many maps of the indo greeks, by published historians, and none have been so audacious in their treatment, particularly in the wake of a dearth of evidence, of the extent of their domains.

Moreover, please get your facts straight. Indian astronomy is far more ancient than Doric civilization. The first purely astronomical treatise in India was the Vedanga Jyotisa, dated to 1350 BC and written by Lagadha and was clearly not a byproduct of the Alexandrian schools, having preceded it by hundreds, if not thousands of years (Kak, Subhash. Astronomical Code of the Rig Veda). Moreover, advanced geometry, mathematics, and astronomy were used to build great fire altars and are clearly and specifically discussed in the Yajur Veda. But hey, I’m sure the Gargi Samhita probably predicted that I’d discuss that too.

The Mahabharata and the Gargi samhita are not sources for history. They are neither contemporaneous nor succeeding to the periods we are discussing. Again, if you want to rely on the Bible and Nostradamus to construct the histories that they predicted, that’s your business. But Indian history has enough of issues to deal with, from AIT to Marxist historians to saffronization.

Essentially, you and many of these pseudo-historians, are relying on a book of prophecy to further your claims and your visions of what the greeks accomplished in India. BTW, that coin from the gupta period has inscriptions in brahmi script, not greek.

The greeks did have achievements in India: the gandhara school of art, cultural and intellectual exchange, increased trade, verifiable holdings in the Punjab, and improvement of coinage on the subcontinent. But please, do not be like the countless macaulyites that preceded you by arguing that greeks brought astronomy, drama, mathematics, etc, etc without even a shred of evidence. More importantly, there is no rigorous process or method to your claims. You merely select quotes that suite you, manipulate them to sound like something that will help your case, and do not and cannot back it up beyond that. When questioned, you resort to the same tired quotes and phrases which no historian worth his salt would rely on to build a case. A prophecy is just that, prophecy.

Respect existing sources? Where are the sources for your statements on Sanskrit words coming from greek? Where is the substantiation there? Where is the scientific method there? Are you even qualified to make such an unsupported assertion? You’re hardly the one to talk PHG, with your continuous cherrypicking of material and reliance on unsubstantiated theories to suit your fantasies. Nevertheless, you attempt to assert yourself as the grand arbiter of historical fact. You decry the perceived circumscription of the greeks to the smallest possible corner, yet all your theories are contested at best and subversive at worst. And again, when all else fails, you rely on prophecy. Your own sources, boppeareachi included, deny that demetrius marched on the gangetic, yet you interpret, misinterpret, and otherwise manipulate facts to fit your preferences. When there is such widespread disagreement and controversy, a person truly concerned with historicity will seek to restrict himself to actual facts.

There is no primary source for your subversive theories on demetrius invading to protect Buddhism. There is no primary source connecting demetrius to a dharmamitra. There is no primary source that establishes him as a beloved figure in Indian folklore. So stop trying to pull a bait and switch. Only one greek is theorized to have left any impression on Indian history or philosophy, and that was Menander. Ask any historian worth his salt. So stop using this page as a pot for stewing your own theories.

If anyone is bending towards a cultural nationalism, it is you. I made a simple request that we rely on well respected, substantiated, and broadly accepted accounts of this period in Indian history. Yet you continue this crusade to magnify the accomplishments of the greeks beyond the reach of historical fact to suit your own devices.

When the very extents of demetrius and menander remain in question, do not posit your fantasies as established fact. They are not. We have seen your “sources”, the Mahabharata, Gargi Samhita, and Tarn. These are not sources for history so stop misusing them. As for Menander Mons, PHG, your whole contribution is a supplementary suggestion for greek expansion. If anything, that appears to be the sole purpose for your contributions to this and any other page. Just because the greeks referred to them as such, doesn’t mean the ancient Indians did.

Look, all I ask is that you rely on more recent, peer-referenced, broadly accepted and published histories for both the article and the map. This of course demands a variety of authors as well, not just your buddy Tarn, who was more interested in writing fantasy than history. I am not here to impose my views or fantasies on the articles or on other people. I simply am raising legitimate questions on the way this article has been constructed and version of history that it is depicting. I couldn’t give two hoots whether Menander became master of Magadha or was mauled by it. I simply want an accurate and verifiable history that leaves areas of uncertainty as just that, uncertainties.

Devanampriya

Hi Devanampriya. Thanks for the message and your interest for this subject. Instead of spending so much time and effort criticizing the work that has been accumulated however (all referenced from recognized and published material), why don't you add alternative sources and references should they exist? Regards. PHG 06:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello PHG,

    That's all I was waiting for. I figured it would be more productive if I discussed these matters with you first rather than unilaterally making edits. I'll put up recognized sources and references shortly.

Regards,

Devanampriya

Perspective and Stylistic Issues

'

Can I just say something here? While I find this conversation intriguing, it is kind of bad netiquette to respond inside the contents of someone else's posts. It breaks the conversational flow and makes it exceedingly difficult to follow the structure of the first poster's (Devanampriya's) argument. If you wouldn't mind moving the bullet-points out and quoting appropriate phrases to remind us what you're referencing rather than garbling up Devanampriya's postings, it would be much appreciated. I do find that this article also exhibits the same "Greco-centric" perspective of Indian history as the one on the Sungas that I commented on earlier. It seems wholly innappropriate to write about history in India through a Greek lens. Building up a historical argument based on one-sided sources is just bad form no matter which way you slice it. Some of the assertions here (control over the area around Pataliputra, for one) are declared much more forcefully than the body of historical evidence would permit. Might I just suggest that we all be wary of publishing ideas or historical arguments within Wikipedia that are not representative of mainstream thought without some kind of disclaimer? There are some pseudo-historians out there who write with an agenda towards aggrandizement of certain historical figures and their legacies (e.g. Tarn with Alexander) and we ought to keep an eye-out for falling for their propaganda.

Cheers, Pav

Hi Pav. Thanks for the comments. As far as I know it is normal practice on Wikipedia to respond part-by-part to a long argument. It actually makes it easier to follow the points made and their direct response rather than having two huge blocks of text one after another. You typically get a cascading structure with questions and answers. Please reference if it is indeed not Wikipedia etiquette, I will be glad to comply.
Anyone is free to add any reference material they might have. I am certainly not blocking out (and sure cannot block out) alternative views (as long as they are referenced), and the suppositions in the article are presented as such and all referenced from published scholarly material. Especially, alternative primary references are VERY welcome. So far, the claims against the "Hellenistic" slant of the article (it is an article on the Indo-Greeks after all...) are not supported by any alternative primary references, only rethorics. And sorry, Tarn, Bopearachchi, Puri, Boardman etc... are not pseudo-historians, neither Western historians only. Regards PHG 03:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


PHG, I'm not sure what the wikipedia standard is, and perhaps it is my love of literature and the written word that makes me feel this way, but slicing up somebody's writing just seems disrespectful unless the writer initially broke his own post up into bullets. I know you're not blocking out additions, but when the entire article is written from this perspective-style, trying to alter bits and pieces makes it seem disjointed. I suspect this phenomenon of "too many cooks" is what leads to the high incidence of articles on Indian history that don't quite meet quality standards. The articles are written in a style that does not permit easy insertion or deletion which only exacerbates the fact that many insertions are often hastily written and added. As for the hellenistic slant, it's not so much the hellenistic focus as it is the hellenistic perspective: the unconcious tendency to look to hellenic sources, reach a conclusion, and then look to indigenous sources to validate that conclusion rather than the more objective methodology of evaluating all sources before arriving at a conclusion. Perhaps "perspective" is the wrong word but I can't seem to think of the right one. I am not familiar with Puri or Boardman, but W.W. Tarn is only marginally more credible regarding Alexander and the Hellenic era than Gavin Menzies is regarding Zheng He and the Ming fleets. As for Bopearachchi, I am suspicious of overreeliance on numistatics. It is highly useful for studying and analyzing economic history, trade routes, and trade hubs, but trying to use it to set up conclusive evidence of political control strikes me as excessively speculative. Moreover, one does not need to be a non-western author in order to present an objective report. One need only be cognizant of how one's own background may color one's perceptions. -Pav

Hi Pav. Well, I can hardly say more. Any (referenced) material, any (referenced) alternative view is welcome. I do believe the article is actually quite balanced and systematically referenced in view of the available sources, and after intense scrutiny by our "Wiki peers" has indeed been recognized as one of the best articles of Wikipedia. Regards. PHG 23:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)