Thus an active Hellenic life soon arose in the East; and Greek settlers must have come in numbers and founded new cities, which afterwards formed the basis of the Graeco-Bactrian kingdom. Antiochus's general Demodamas crossed the Jaxartes and set up an altar to the Didymaean Apollo (Plin. vi. 49). Another general, Patrocles, took up the investigation of the Caspian, already begun by Alexander. In contrast with the better knowledge of an older period, he came to the conclusion that the Caspian was connected with the ocean, and that it was possible to reach India on ship-board by that route (Strabo ii. 74, xi. 518; Plin. vi. 38). A project of Seleucus to connect the Caspian with the Sea of Azov by means of a canal is mentioned by Pliny (vi. 31). To Patrocles is due the information that an active commerce in Indian wares was carried on with the shores of the Black Sea, via the Caspian (Strabo xi. 509).
While Hellenism was thus gaining a firm footing in all the East, the native population remained absolutely passive. Apart from the rude mountain tribes, no national resistance was dreamed of for centuries. The Iranians quietly accepted the foreign yoke, and the higher classes adopted the external forms of the alien The Persian Religion under Greek Rule. civilization (cf. the dedication of a Bactrian, Hyspasines, son of Mithroaxes, in the inventory of the temple of Apollo in Delos, Dittenberger, Sylloge, 588, l. 109) even though they were unable to renounce their innate characteristics. Eratosthenes, for instance, speaks (ap. Strabo i. 66) in high terms of the Iranians (Arians), ranking them (as well as the Indians, Romans and Carthaginians) on a level with the Greeks, as regards their capacity for adopting city civilization. The later Parsee tradition contends that Alexander burned the sacred books of Zoroaster, the Avesta, and that only a few fragments were saved and afterwards reconstructed by the Arsacids and Sassanids. This is absolutely unhistorical. The Persian religion was never attacked by the Macedonians and Greeks. Under their dominion, on the contrary, it expanded with great vigour, not only in the west (Armenia, north Syria and Asia Minor, where it was the official religion of the kings of Pontus and Cappadocia), but also in the east, in the countries of the Indian frontier. That the popular gods—Mithras, Anaitis, &c.—had come to the forefront has already been mentioned. This propagandism, however, was void of all national character, and ran on precisely the same lines as the propagandism of the Syrian, Jewish and Egyptian cults. Only in Persia itself, so far as we can judge from a few scanty traces, the national character of the religion seems to have survived among the people side by side with the memory of their old imperial position.
In 282 B.C. Seleucus took the field against Lysimachus, and annexed his dominions in Asia Minor and Thrace. In 281 he was assassinated in crossing to Europe, and his son Antiochus I. was left supreme over the whole empire. From that time onward the Seleucid Empire was never at rest. Its gigantic extent, from the Aegean Independent Kingdoms in Bactria and Parthia. to the Indus, everywhere offered points of attack to the enemy. The Lagidae, especially, with their much more compact and effective empire, employed every means to weaken their Asiatic rivals; and auxiliaries were found in the minor states on the frontier—Atropatene, Armenia, Cappadocia, Pontus and Bithynia, the Galatians, Pergamum, Rhodes and other Greek states. Moreover, the promotion of Greek civilization and city life had created numerous local centres, with separate interests and centrifugal tendencies, struggling to attain complete independence, and perpetually forcing new concessions from the empire. Thus the Seleucid kings, courageous as many of them were, were always battling for existence (see Seleucid Dynasty).
These disturbances severely aEected the borders of Iran. While the Seleucid Empire, under Antiochus II. Theos (264–247), was being harried by Ptolemy II. Philadelphus, and the king's attention was wholly engaged in the defence of the western provinces, the Greeks revolted in Bactria, under their governor Diodotus (q.v.). Obviously, it was principally the need of protection against the nomadic tribes which led to the foundation of an independent kingdom, and Diodotus soon attained considerable power over the provinces north of the Hindu-Kush. In other provinces, too, insurrection broke out (Strabo xi. 575, Justin xli. 4); and Arsaces, a chief of the Parni or Aparni—an Iranian nomad tribe (therefore often called Dahan Scythians), inhabiting the steppe east of the Caspian—made himself master of the district of Parthia (q.v.) in 248 B.C. He and his brother Tiridates (q.v.) were the founders of the Parthian kingdom, which, however, was confined within very modest limits during the following decades. Seleucus II. Callinicus (247–226) successfully encountered Arsaces (or Tiridates), and even expelled him (c. 238); but new risings recalled Seleucus to Syria, and Arsaces was enabled to return to Parthia.
Greater success attended Antiochus III., the Great (222–187).
At the beginning of his reign (220) he subdued, with the help
of his minister Hermias, an insurrection of the
satrap Molon of Media, who had assumed the royal
title and was supported by his brother Alexander,
satrap of Persis (Polyb. v. 40 sqq.). He further seized the
Antiochus III.,
the Great.
opportunity of extorting an advantageous peace from King
Artabazanes of Atropatene, who had considerably extended his
power (Polyb. v. 55). After waging an unsuccessful war with
Ptolemy IV. for the conquest of Coele-Syria, but suppressing
the revolt of Achaeus in Asia Minor, and recovering the former
provinces of the empire in that quarter, Antiochus led a great
expedition into the East, designing to restore the imperial
authority in its full extent. He first removed (211) the Armenian
king Xerxes by treachery (Polyb. viii. 25, John of Antioch,
fr. 53), and appointed two governors, Artaxias and Zariadris,
in his place (Strabo xi. 531). During the next year he reduced
the affairs of Media to order (Polyb. x. 27); he then conducted
a successful campaign against Arsaces of Parthia (209), and
against Euthydemus (q.v.) of Bactria (208–206), who had overthrown
the dynasty of Diodotus (Polyb. x. 28 sqq., 48 sqq.,
xi. 34; Justin xli. 5). In spite of his successes he concluded
peace with both kingdoms, rightly considering that it would
be impossible to retain these remote frontier provinces permanently.
He next renewed his old friendship with the Indian
king Sophagasenus (Subhagasena), and received from him 150
elephants (206 B.C.). Through Arachosia and Drangiane, in the
valley of the Etymander (Helmand), he marched to Carmania
and Persis (Polyb. xi. 34). Both here and in Babylonia he
re-established the imperial authority, and in 205 undertook a
voyage from the mouth of the Tigris, through the Arabian gulf
to the flourishing mercantile town of Gerrha in Arabia (now
Bahrein) (Polyb. xiii. 9).
Shortly afterwards, however, his successful campaign against Ptolemy V. Epiphanes led to a war with Rome in which the power of the Seleucid Empire was shattered (190 B.C.), Asia Minor lost, and the king compelled to pay a heavy contribution to Rome for a long term of years. In order to raise money he plundered a wealthy temple of Bel in Decay of the Seleucid Empire. Elam, but was killed by the inhabitants, 187 B.C. (Diod. xxviii. 3, xxix. 15; Strabo xvi. 744; Justin xxxii. 2; S. Jerome (Hieronymus) on Dan. xi. 19; Euseb. Chron. i. 253). The consequence of this enfeeblement of the empire was that the governors of Armenia asserted their independence. Artaxias founded the kingdom of Great Armenia; Zariadris, that of Sophene on the Euphrates and the sources of the Tigris (Strabo xi. 531). In other districts, also, rebellions occurred; and in the east, Euthydemus and his successors (Demetrius, Eucratidas, &c.) began the conquest of the Indus region and the Iranian borderland (Arachosia, Aria). (See Bactria; Euthydemus; Eucratidas; Demetrius; Menander.)
But the energetic Seleucids fought desperately against their fate. Antiochus IV. Epiphanes (176–163) restored once more the Eastern dominion, defeated Artaxias of Armenia (Appian, Syr. 45; Diod. xxxi. 17a; S. Jerome on Dan. xi. 40), restored several towns in Babylonia and subdued the Elymaeans. His attempt, however, to plunder the sanctuary of Anaitis failed (Polyb. xxxi. II; cf. Maccab. i. 6, ii. 1, 13; App. Syr. 66). Persis, also, and
