odium and contempt by his subjects that, as Plutarch tells us, he
used often afterwards to speak of the ease with which Alexander might
have possessed himself of the whole country. He accordingly had no
sooner settled the affairs of the Panjâb than he prepared to invade
the dominions of his former master. The success which he anticipated
followed his arms. He overthrew with ease the unpopular despot, and
having received the submission of Magadha, extended his conquests far
beyond its eastern limits. He was thus able to combine into one great
empire the regions both of the Indus and the Ganges. He established the
seat of government at Palibothra, the capital of Magadha, a great city
advantageously situated at the confluence of the Erannoboas or Sôn with
the Ganges, and on the site now occupied by Pâtnâ, beneath which, at a
depth of from 12 to 15 feet, its ruins lie entombed.
While Sandrokottos was thus, with a genius like that of Akbar, welding
the states of India into unity, the successors of Alexander were too
much engrossed with their internecine wars to concern themselves with
his doings; but when they had for a time composed their differences,
Seleukos Nikator, the king of Syria, advanced eastward to recover the
Indian conquests of Alexander. The date of this expedition cannot be
fixed with precision, but it was probably made in the year 305 B.C.,
or about ten years after Sandrokottos had ascended the throne of
Palibothra. The records of it are unfortunately lost. It seems that he
was allowed to cross the Indus without opposition, but it is not known
how far he advanced into the country. We do not even know whether the
hostile armies came into actual conflict, but we may conjecture that
the sight of the vast and formidable host brought into the field by his
antagonist, who was an experienced commander of the stamp of Pôros,
led him to think discretion would be the better part of valour, and to
prefer entering into negotiations rather than to risk the chance of
defeat. At all events he concluded a treaty by which he not only resigned
his claims to the Greek conquests beyond the Indus, but ceded to the
Indian king considerable districts extending westward from that river
to the southern slopes of the Hindu-Kush. The compact was cemented by a
matrimonial alliance, the Syrian king giving his daughter in marriage to
Sandrokottos. Friendly relations seem to have subsisted ever afterwards
between the two sovereigns.
Seleukos sent as his ambassador to the Indian court his friend and
companion Megasthenes. This was a fortunate choice, for while there
Megasthenes, who was an acute observer and of an inquisitive turn of
mind, composed a work on India, in which he gave a faithful account
of what fell under his own observation, as well as of what facts he
could gather from trustworthy reports. That work, now lost, was the
source whence Strabo and other classical authors derived most of their
information regarding India. In such of the fragments thus preserved as
relate to Sandrokottos, we find an admirable picture of his system of
government, of his personal habits, and of the regulations of his court.
He did not live to old age, but died in 291 B.C., before he had reached
his fifty-fifth year.
When we turn to the Buddhist accounts of Chandragupta we find them tally
so closely in all main points with the Greek accounts of Sandrokottos
that no doubt can be left that the two names which are so nearly similar
denote but one and the same person. As he was the founder of the dynasty
to which the pious Aśôka, the Constantine of the Buddhist faith,
belonged, the Buddhist writers assign to him an honourable pedigree which
connected him even with the royal house whence Buddha himself sprang.
His father, they tell us, reigned over a small kingdom situated in a
valley among the Himalayas, and called Maurya, from the great number of
its peacocks (_Mayûra_). He was killed in resisting an invasion of his
enemies, but his queen escaped to Pataliputra, where she gave birth to a
son whom she exposed in the neighbourhood of a cattle shed. The child,
like Oedipûs, was found by a shepherd, who called him _Chandragupta_
(_Moon protected_), and charged himself with his maintenance. There
resided at that time in Pataliputra a Brahman who had come from the
great city of Taxila in the Panjâb, and whose name was Chânakya. To him
King Dhanananda had given an insult which could be expiated by nothing
short of his destruction. While the Brahman was casting about for means
whereby he could clear his score with the offender, Chandragupta, now a
boy, fell under his cognisance. Having discovered that he was of royal
descent, and foreseen from his conduct among his companions that in after
life he would be capable of great achievements, he bought him from the
shepherd and gave him a training adapted to make him a fit instrument for
the execution of his designs. When Chandragupta had grown up, his master
put under his command a body of troops kept secretly in his pay, and
attempted a rebellion, which proved abortive. Chandragupta fled to the
desert, but having ere long collected a fresh force he invaded Magadha
from the border, that is, from the side of the Panjâb. He captured city
after city till the capital itself fell into his hands. The king was
slain, and Chandragupta ascended the vacant throne.
Another form of the native tradition assigns his paternity to Dhanananda
(the last of the eight Nanda kings, who ruled in succession over
Magadha), though not by his queen, but by a woman of low caste—a sudra
called Mura. The Brahmans made this base-born scion of the royal house
the instrument of their rebellious designs, and with the help of a
northern prince, to whom they offered an accession of territory, raised
him to the throne while he was yet a youth, and put Nanda and his eight
sons to death. They did not make good their promise to their ally, but
rid themselves of him by assassination. His son Malayaketu marched with
a large army, in which were Yavanas (Greeks), to revenge his death, but
returned without success to his country. It has been supposed that this
expedition may have been the same as that of Seleukos.
The Nanda dynasty which was supplanted by the Mauryan in 315 B.C. had
succeeded to that of Sisunâga in 370 B.C. Its last member, whom the
Greeks call _Xandrames_ and Curtius _Agrammes_, is variously named in
native writings _Dhanananda_, _Nanda Mahâpadma_, and _Hiranyagupta_.
Xandramas (of which Agrammes seems to be a distorted form) transliterates
the Sanskrit _Chandramas_, which means _Moon-god_. A Hindu play—the Mudrâ
Râkshasa—produced early in the Mahommedan period refers to the revolution
by which Chânakya raised Chandragupta to power, but is of no historical
value. Chandragupta was succeeded by his son Vindusâra, who is called by
Strabo _Allitrochades_, and by Athênaios (xiv. 67),[419] _Amitrochates_,
a form which transliterates the Sanskrit _Amitraghâta_, a title by which
he was frequently designated, and which means _enemy-slayer_. He was
succeeded by his son Aśôka in 270 B.C.
SELEUKOS NIKATOR, one of Alexander’s great generals who made himself
king of Syria, was the son of Antiochos, an officer of high rank in the
service of King Philip. Seleukos was distinguished for his great personal
strength and courage, and when he accompanied Alexander into Asia
held a command in the companion cavalry. He crossed the Hydaspês with
Alexander himself, and took an important part in the great battle which
followed. At Sousa he was rewarded for his eminent services with the
hand of Apama, an Asiatic princess, the daughter of Spitamenes. In the
dissensions which broke out after Alexander’s death among his generals,
Seleukos sided with Perdikkas and the cavalry against Meleager and the
infantry, and was in consequence made Chiliarch of the companions, one
of the highest offices, and one which Perdikkas himself had previously
held. He accompanied Perdikkas into Egypt, but he there put himself at
the head of the mutineers by whom his patron was assassinated. At the
second partition of the provinces made at Triparadeisos 321 B.C. he
obtained the Babylonian satrapy, and established himself in Babylon. He
assisted Antigonos in the war against Eumenes, but afterwards contended
against him in alliance with Ptolemy. During an interval when hostilities
were suspended between himself and his rivals, Seleukos undertook an
expedition into India to regain the conquests of Alexander over which
Sandrokottos had established his authority. We do not know how far he
advanced into India, but he probably again crossed the Hydaspês, which he
had crossed twenty years before along with the great conqueror himself.
The result of the expedition was a treaty by which Seleukos ceded to
Sandrokottos his Indian provinces and the regions west of the Indus as
far as the range of Paropanisos, in exchange for 500 elephants, and a
marriage alliance by which the daughter of Seleukos became the bride of
the Indian king. Immediately either before or after this expedition,
Seleukos in 306 B.C., following the examples of Antigonos and Ptolemy,
formally assumed the regal title and diadem. In the battle of Ipsos 301
B.C., where Seleukos, in league with Ptolemy, Lysimachos, and Kassander,
fought against Antigonos, the cavalry and elephants which the Syrian king
brought into the field were mainly instrumental in securing the victory.
The empire of Seleukos then became the most extensive of those which had
been formed out of Alexander’s conquests, extending from Phoenicia to
Baktria and Sogdiana. After being engaged in other wars, Seleukos crossed
the Hellespont with an army with a view to seize the crown of Macedonia,
but was assassinated at Lysimachia by Ptolemy Keraunos in the beginning
of the year 280 B.C. in the thirty-second year of his reign.
SISIKOTTOS was an Indian who had deserted his countrymen and taken
service under Bessos. After the conquest of Baktria he took service under
Alexander, who, no doubt, obtained from him much valuable information
regarding India and its affairs. After the capture of the rock Aornos,
Sisikottos was left in command of the garrison which Alexander
established there. He afterwards sent messengers to inform Alexander that
the Assakênians had revolted from him.
SITALKES was a leader of Thracian light-armed troops in Alexander’s
service. He was left under Parmenion in Media, and on Alexander’s return
from India was put to death for misgovernment.
SOLINUS was the author of a compendium of geography extracted mostly from
the _Natural History_ of Pliny. He lived about the middle of the third
century A.D.
SÔPHEITES or SÔPEITHÊS was, according to Curtius and Diodôros, king of
a territory situated to the west of the Hyphasis. According to Arrian
his dominions (or those of a king of the same name) lay along the banks
of the Hydaspês, and, as we learn from Strabo, embraced the salt range
of mountains called _Oromenus_ by Pliny. With regard to the name,
Lassen took it to represent the Sanskrit _Aśvapati_, “lord of horses.”
M. Sylvain Lévi, however, thinks this a fanciful identification of the
two names, erring against Greek and against Sanskrit. He then says: “A
drachma of Indian silver coined towards the end of the fourth century
B.C. in imitation of Greek money bears the inscription ΣΩΦΥΤΟΥ. The
form Sophytes is, then, the only one to be considered. The laws of
transcription established by numerous examples give the equivalents: ω
= _ô_ or _aw_, φ = _bh_. Sophytes then leads back to Sobûtha or Saubh.
The Gana-pâtha knows precisely a country of the name of Saubhûta. Pânini
(IV. ii. 67 _sqq._) shows by examples how local names are formed.... The
name of Sâmkala, etc., is formed in this way. M. Bhandarkar has already
recognised in the city of Sâmkala the famous fortress of Sangala, ... but
the Indian _savant_ has not overcome the old prejudice which, regardless
of the laws of transcription, identifies Sangala with Śâkala, capital of
the Madras (Lassen, _Ind. Alt._ i. 801).... The identification firmly
fixed of Sophytes and Saubhûta dissipates henceforward all doubts. Among
the names classed in the Gana-pâtha under the rubric Sâmkala, etc., is
found _Subhûta_, which gives, in virtue of the rule stated, _Saubhûta_ as
the name of a locality. Everything concurs in proving the correctness of
our identification.”
SPHINÊS.—_See_ Kalânos.
SPITAKES is supposed to be the same as the Pittakos mentioned by
Polyainos. He was slain fighting on the side of Pôros in the battle of
the Hydaspês. His territories lay near that river.
SPITAMENES, the most formidable and persistent of all the chiefs who
opposed Alexander in the regions of the Oxus and Jaxartes.
STASANÔR, a distinguished officer in Alexander’s army, was a native of
Soloi in Cyprus. For services rendered during the Baktrian campaign he
was appointed satrap of Areia and afterwards of Drangiana. In the first
partition of the provinces after Alexander’s death he was confirmed in
his satrapy; but in the partition made at Triparadeisos he received the
more important government of Baktria and Sogdiana. He ruled his subjects
with justice and moderation. He is not heard of in history after 316 B.C.
STATEIRA or BARSINÊ, the daughter of Darius and wife of Alexander,
was murdered after his death by Roxana with the consent of the regent
Perdikkas.
STEPHANOS of Byzantium was the author of a geographical lexicon, in which
the names of some Indian towns occur. His date is uncertain, but may be
referred to the sixth or seventh century of our aera.
STRABO, the great geographer, was a native of Amasea in Pontos. He lived
in the reign of Augustus, and during the first five years at least of
Tiberius.
SIBYRTIOS was appointed by Alexander on returning from India satrap of
Karmania, and afterwards of Arachosia and Gedrosia in succession to
Thoas. He was confirmed in his government in accordance with the first
and the second partition of the provinces. He incurred the displeasure of
Eumenes, and thereby secured the patronage of Antigonos. Megasthenes was
his friend, and at one time resided with him.
TAURÔN was an officer in Alexander’s army, who distinguished himself in
the battle with Pôros.
TAXILÊS, whose personal name was Omphis, ruled a fertile territory
between the Indus and Hydaspês, which had for its capital the great and
flourishing city of Taxila. He was at feud with his neighbour, King
Pôros, and this probably determined him to send an embassy to Alexander
while he was yet in Baktria, in the hopes of forming an alliance with
him which would enable him to crush his powerful rival. He waited on
Alexander before he had crossed the Indus, and when he reached Taxila
entertained him and his army with the most liberal hospitality. After
the defeat and submission of Pôros, Alexander effected a reconciliation
between the two princes. Taxilês gave all the assistance in his power
to help forward the construction and equipment of the fleet by which
Alexander intended to convey a portion of his troops down the Hydaspês
and the Indus to the ocean. For this service he was rewarded with an
accession of territory. After the death of Alexander he was allowed
to retain his power, which had been increased after the murder of the
satrap Philip. Subsequently to the year 321 B.C. Eudêmos seems to have
exercised supreme authority in his province. We know nothing regarding
Taxilês after that date. M. Sylvain Lévi shows that the personal name of
Taxilês is incorrectly given by Diodôros as _Mophis_ instead of _Omphis_,
which is the form in Curtius. He gives the reason thus: “The study of
the words transcribed from the Indian languages into Greek proves that
the ο corresponds to an _â_ or to an _o_ in Sanskrit, while the φ is the
regular transcription of _bh_. Mophis gives therefore a Sanskrit _Mobhi_
or _Mâbhi_; neither the one nor the other is met with in the texts; they
are both strangers to the language as well as to the history of India.
But _Âmbhi_ presents itself in the Gana-pâtha, a genuine appendix to the
_Grammar_ of Pânini.” He then shows that _Âmbhi_ has been obtained from
_Ambhas_ in accordance with an established rule, and thus proceeds: “A
double conclusion unfolds itself—1st, The dynasty which was reigning at
Takśaśilâ at the time of the Greek invasion was a family of Kshatriya
descended from Ambhas, and designated by the patronymic Âmbhi; 2nd, The
dynasty Âmbhi has disappeared with the Greek rule soon after the death of
Alexander. The revolt of India has swept away without doubt these allies
of the stranger. Before the end of the fourth century B.C., Chandragupta,
founder of the Mauryan dynasty and king of the Prasyas, joined to his
dominions the kingdoms of the basin of the Indus. Takśaśilâ became the
residence of a Mauryan governor. The part played by the Âmbhi does not
appear to have been considerable enough to preserve their memory long;
the mention of them in the _Gana-pâtha_ is the only known testimony to
their existence. The _Gana-pâtha_, and, at the same time, the _Grammar_
of Pânini, which is inseparable from it, are then _very probably
contemporary with the Macedonian invasion_.” He adds as a footnote, “The
mention of the Yavanas (Greeks) and of the Yavanâni (Greek writing)
excludes the hypothesis of priority” (See _Journal Asiatique_ for 1890,
pp. 234-236).
TERIOLTES, called also TYRIASPES, was appointed satrap of the
Paropamisadai, but was deposed, or, according to Curtius, put to death
for misgovernment. His satrapy Alexander then gave to his father-in-law
Oxyartes.
TLEPOLEMOS was appointed satrap of Karmania by Alexander on his return
from India.
TYRIASPES.—_See_ Terioltes.
VINDUSÂRA, the son of Sandrokottos.—_See_ Sandrokottos.
XANDRAMES, king of Magadha.—_See_ Sandrokottos.
FOOTNOTES
[1] With the exception of Alexander, all the great conquerors who have
crossed the Indus to invade India have sprung from provinces towards
Tartary and Northern Persia.
[2] According to Plutarch, seventy Asiatic cities at the least owed their
origin to Alexander. Of those, forty can still be traced. Grote thinks
the number is probably exaggerated, and disparages their importance.
[3] In saying this, I do not forget that the Graeco-Baktrian kings
at one time extended their sway in India even far beyond the parts
conquered by Alexander; but this cannot be regarded as having resulted
from his invasion. It might have equally happened had his invasion
been as mythical as the Indian expeditions of Dionysos and Heraklês.
Nor do I by any means overlook the effects produced by Greek ideas on
the Indian mind—effects which can be traced in a variety of spheres,
such as religion, poetry, philosophy, science, architecture, and the
plastic arts. On this subject Professor A. Weber read a very learned
paper, entitled “Die Griechen in Indien,” before the Prussian Academy of
Sciences in July 1890. It is a paper which well deserves to be translated
into our language. Scholars now rather incline to believe that, whatever
may be the exact degree of the indebtedness of India to Greece, the
ancient civilization of India was much less original and self-contained
than it was at one time supposed to be.
[4] Patroklês, who held an important command in the East under Seleukos
Nikatôr and his son Antiochos I., stated, in a work (now lost) which
included a description of India, that while the army of Alexander took
but a very hasty view of everything (in India), Alexander himself took
a more exact one, causing the whole country to be described by men well
acquainted with it. This description, Patroklês says, was put into his
hands by Xenoklês the Treasurer. On this subject Humboldt thus writes:
“The Macedonian campaign, which opened so large and beautiful a portion
of the earth to the influence of one sole highly-gifted race, may
therefore certainly be regarded in the strictest sense of the word as a
_scientific_ expedition, and, moreover, as the first in which a conqueror
had surrounded himself with men learned in all departments of science, as
naturalists, geometricians, historians, philosophers, and artists.”
[5] The editors of _Alexander in India_, however, say that this
rhetorician must have flourished early under Claudius, who reigned from
A.D. 41 to 54. They add that the Latin of Curtius agrees well with this
view, which would place him between Velleius and Petronius.
[6] The author of the _Periplous_ of the Erythraian Sea also conducts
Alexander to the Ganges. So too does Lucan—_Pharsalia_, x. 33.
[7] Sainte-Croix and Professor Freeman both express strong doubts of the
authenticity of Alexander’s letters quoted by several writers.
[8] In Persian, _Kshatrapa_.
[9] The Macedonian line in this part of the field being broken, some
of the Indians and of the Persian cavalry burst through the gap and
fought their way to the enemy’s baggage, where a desperate conflict
ensued.—_Arrian_, iii. 14.
[10] General Chesney, commenting lately on these numbers, remarks that
“numbers without discipline are, after a certain point, worse than
useless, the men only get in each others’ way. This was especially
the case in the battles of old times fought at close quarters.” “The
biographers of Sir Charles Napier,” he continues, “have made a great
point of the circumstance that at the battle of Meani the British force
of less than 3000 men was opposed by 40,000 of the enemy who fought
desperately for several hours. Now, the whole British loss in killed
and wounded was under 300, so that, assuming every wound to have been
inflicted by a separate sword or bullet, it follows that out of the
40,000 desperate fighters, 39,700 contributed nothing to the fighting.”
In another passage he points out that an ancient battle was in some
respects a much more formidable thing than a modern one. In the battle
of old days the absence of noise, except the words of command, the
tramp of men, and the clashing of armour, above all the closeness of
one’s adversary, must have been of a kind to try the nerves much more
than the rattle of musketry, the crashing of shells, and the thunder of
the artillery in a modern battle. What we shall never get back to is
hand-to-hand fighting at close quarters. It was this that made a battle
so decisive in olden days, and caused the tremendous slaughter that used
to be the fate of the beaten side. An ancient battle was really a very
short affair. After the marshalling of the troops and the preliminary
skirmishing of the cavalry and the archery practice of the light troops,
in which a good deal of time would be taken up, the business must have
been decided in a very few minutes when once the infantry actually
engaged. The fact is that when two bodies of men meet with sword or
spear, a prolonged contest is from the nature of the case impossible. In
modern warfare when a battle is lost, a large part of the defeated army
is already at a distance and gets off unharmed. But there was no escape
for the man in armour, and when he turned his back his shield was no
defence.
[11] “Against Phoenicians, Egyptians, Babylonians, Alexander had no
mission of vengeance; he might rather call on them to help him against
the common foe.... If the gods of Attica had been wronged and insulted
(by the Persians) so had the gods of Memphis and Babylon”.—Prof. Freeman,
_Historical Essays_, ii. pp. 202, 203.
[12] “From this unhappy time all the worst failings of Alexander become
more strongly developed.... Impetuosity and self-exaltation now grew upon
him till he could bear neither restraint nor opposition.”—Prof. Freeman,
_Historical Essays_, ii. p. 206.
[13] The Mêdos is now the _Polvar_ and the Araxês the Bund-Amir.
[14] Kinneir places the Ouxian passes to the north-west of _Bebehan_.
[15] The narrow defile near _Kaleh Safed_ (the white fort), some fifty
miles to the north-west of Shiraz.