CHAPTER 2
THE SELEUKID EMPIRE
Rolf Strootman
INTRODUCTION
In the third century BCE, the Seleukid dynasty claimed imperial hegemony over
Alexander the Great’s Asian conquests, including Central Asia. The dynasty came to
power when the Macedonian general Seleukos Nikator (‘the Conqueror’), a former
companion of Alexander, occupied Babylonia and Susiana in 311 BCE. With the
resources of Babylonia at his disposal, Seleukos expanded his military domination
frst into the Upper Satrapies and then into Syria and Anatolia. The Seleukid Empire’s
existence as a world power lasted until the conquest of Iran and Mesopotamia by the
Parthians in the 140s and 130s BCE. The dynasty lingered on as a regional power in
the Levant until its rather pathetic demise in 64/3 BCE. The former Seleukid sphere
of infuence was divided among the Parthian, Roman, and Graeco-Bactrian empires.
In the third century BCE, the Seleukid Empire was the largest empire in the world,
with internal lines of communication stretching over a distance of about 5,000 km
from west to east. But the Seleukid Empire should be understood in the context of
an even larger ‘Hellenistic’ world of connectivity, cultural exchange and inter-impe-
rial competition. This context of early ‘globalization’ is important for understand-
ing Central Asia in this and subsequent periods. As previously in the Achaemenid
Empire, Seleukid imperial institutions and roads connected Central Asia directly to
both the Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf. Connectivity was augmented by the
mobility of imperial administrators and commanders (mainly Macedonians, Greeks,
and Iranians), soldiers, traders, colonists, and captives. That of course had already
been the case in Achaemenid times, but connectivity increased enormously in both
size and intensity during the Hellenistic period, incorporating also naval networks
and systems of exchange in the western Mediterranean and Indian Ocean.
Of crucial importance for the creation of Seleukid imperial domination were the
many (re)foundations of cities, as well as the dynasty’s active encouragement of polis
institutions and Greek-style citizenship in cities old and new. In the Hellenistic period,
the polis stopped being a specifc Greek phenomenon and became a ‘globalized’
type of urban organization. The language of intercultural communication for urban
elites was a form of Greek known as Koinē, comparable to the globalized English of
the modern world (Mairs 2016b, 893–894). For local elites, the (partial) socializa-
tion to ‘Greek’ culture generated cultural capital that enabled them to participate
11
— R o l f S t r o o t m a n —
in transregional networks, and to distance themselves from domestic inferiors and
rivals (Strootman 2013).1 For the imperial court, ‘Hellenism’ was a powerful tool to
bind local elites to the centre and encourage imperial cohesion (Strootman 2014a,
7–13). Of importance too was the empire-wide use of standardized bronze and silver
coinages based on the Attic standard, already in use, though on a much smaller scale,
in Achaemenid times. In the Hellenistic period, the entire area west of the Pamirs
between approximately 35–40° latitudes—Afro-Eurasia’s ‘lucky latitudes’—became
a monetary union of sorts, and from Sicily to India, Greek could be used as a lan-
guage of intercultural communication.2 Aramaic, too, was a lingua franca in the
Near East, Iran, and Central Asia. All this created a vast, cross-cultural urban koine
that became the foundation for the central stretch of what is known today as the Silk
Road. The Seleukid Empire was at the heart of this early form of globalization, the
link between the Mediterranean and Central Asia.
To appreciate Central Asia’s place in the Seleukid world of the third century BCE,
it is important to understand that this empire was not a unitary state.3 Like most pre-
modern Eurasian empires, it was essentially a network polity exercising diverse forms
of direct and indirect control over an heterogenous conglomerate of polities, including
satrapies, city states, tribes, and client kingdoms.4 Power relations were continuously
(re)negotiated by various imperial and local actors (Ma 2000; Strootman 2014a).
Seleukid space was not continuous.5 Though the ‘Fertile Crescent’ (Mesopotamia and
Syria) constituted some sort of imperial centre, the empire consisted in fact of a num-
ber of densely populated, urbanized cores, connected by military roads. The court
was mobile and kingship itinerary (Strootman 2011a). Imperial core regions in the
third century included western Asia Minor, northwestern Syria, Babylonia, Susiana,
and Bactria. Local elites were persuaded to become co-entrepreneurs in the exercise
of empire, buttressed by an imperial rhetoric that stressed the heroic charisma of the
ruler and his ability to create universal peace, protect cities and populations, and
provide gifts for his followers (Strootman 2014a, 111–135, 152–159).6 On Seleukid
coinages, the deities depicted on the obverse (though ‘Greek’ in style to our eyes) typi-
cally were unnamed, and open for various cultural interpretations (Erickson 2011;
Wright 2012), in accordance with the Near Eastern practice of intercultural transla-
tion of deities, e.g. Apollo-Nabû (Erickson 2011) or Herakles-Bahrām (Gnoli and
Jamzadeh 1988; Canepa 2018, 185).7
Administration was geared towards accessing the resources needed for the upkeep
of the armed forces and the court. Central Asia was important as a provider of war
elephants, horses and horsemen, and a variety of natural resources. But the empire
was not a static entity. Seleukid imperialism developed from attempts to exert direct
infuence through military governors (satraps or stratēgoi) and local representatives
in cities (epistatai) to an increasing inclination to access resources indirectly through
allied local rulers. Like most premodern empires, the Seleukid Empire was able to
‘breathe’: it did not follow a straightforward trajectory of rise, decline and fall, but
instead expanded and contracted several times during its c. 240-year existence.
Despite strong continuities in practice, and notwithstanding the fact that the
Seleukid Empire was a far more Iranian empire than is usually assumed,8 the Seleukids
erased the Achaemenids from history just as they also erased Alexander. At least from
the reign of Antiochos I, the dynasty propagated an ideology according to which his-
tory had started anew with the advent of Seleukos I in 312/311 BCE, creating the
12
— T h e S e l e u k i d Em p i r e —
frst continuous year reckoning in world history, the Seleukid Era, which is still used
by some religious groups in the present-day Middle East (Strootman 2015; Kosmin
2018). Dynastic representation stressed the dynasty’s Macedonian identity, while the
culture and language of the court was Greek—despite the presence of many non-
Greeks at court and in the army, and despite the dynasty’s regular intermarriage,
and increasing cooperation, with local dynasties, who were often of Iranian descent.9
Hellenistic culture, together with universalistic imperial ideology, served to create
unity among culturally heterogeneous elites (Strootman 2014, 7–13), though the sec-
ond century also saw the development of Iranian-style dynastic identities among the
empire’s client rulers (Strootman 2017a; Canepa 2018).
Iran and Central Asia were the military backbone of the empire, and especially
the early Seleukids therefore attached great importance to the Upper Satrapies.
Seleukid imperialism led to competition between local rulers and interest groups,
while interimperial rivalries led to a ‘globalization’ of warfare: the Seleukids
brought manpower, horses, and elephants from the east to the west, while their
principal enemies, the Ptolemies, exploited African manpower and resources,
including Ethiopian elephants, for their wars with the Seleukids. From the mid-
third century BCE we see in the peripheries of the empire a growing signifcance
of warrior bands, fghting for the empire as allies or mercenaries, but also raid-
ing against it. Some of them succeeded in controlling territory and the distinction
between warlords, monarchs, and governors becomes diffcult to draw. Successful
military leaders were sometimes recognized by the imperial court as vassal rulers,
for instance Arsakes I in northern Iran and Euthydemos I in eastern Iran. The inter-
related development of warlordism and vassalization was of profound importance
for the historical development of Hellenistic Central Asia especially in the second
half of the third century BCE.
THE CONQUESTS OF SELEUKOS I NIKATOR (311–281 BCE)
Seleukos, the founder of the Seleukid Empire, accompanied Alexander on his cam-
paigns in Bactria, Sogdiana, and India from 329 to 235 BCE. During these years,
Seleukos became well-acquainted with Central Asian landscapes and their popula-
tions. A decade after Alexander’s death, Seleukos gained control of Mesopotamia in
the long and arduous Babylonian War of 311–308 BCE. Seleukos then went east to
take control of the Macedonian empire in Iran and Central Asia. In Appian’s words,
refecting Seleukid propaganda,
He conquered Mesopotamia, Armenia, Anatolia, the Persians, the Parthians, the
Bactrians, the Arabs, the Tapyri, the Sogdians, the Arachosians, the Hyrkanians,
and all the other peoples that had before been conquered by Alexander, as far as
the river Indus.10
This listing of subject peoples and countries follows the Achaemenid practice of spec-
ifying the constituent parts of an empire that in fact claims world dominion (‘and all
the other people’; see Strootman 2014b, 42–43.).11 Most noticeable about this inven-
tory, is the prominence of the Upper Satrapies: eight out of eleven items, including
the Central Asian satrapies Bactria, Sogdiana, and Arachosia.12
13
— R o l f S t r o o t m a n —
Very little is known about Seleukos’ eastern campaigns (Mehl 1986, 18–19; Holt
1988, 100–101). The sources are clear that Seleukos had to overcome resistance.13
But the relative speed by which he succeeded in doing so, as well as the subsequent
stability of Seleukid rule for more than half a century, implies that the majority of the
Greco-Macedonian and indigenous leaders accepted Seleukos, and could be co-opted
in the implementation of the Seleukid imperial project. Although Alexander’s Persian
satrap of Bactria, Artabazos (Ašavazdah), because of old age had been replaced by the
Macedonian Amyntas, local indigenous leaders (called ‘hyparchs’ in Greek sources)
remained in control of their domains in both Bactria and Sogdiana (Holt 1988, 46).
The Central Asian troops that fought for Alexander in India had operated in sepa-
rate ‘national’ units—Sogdians, Bactrians, Arachosians, and Paropamisadans—and
so probably were levied and commanded by local chieftains.14 Arrian moreover says
that Alexander included Iranian nobles in the circle of his hetairoi (Companions),
most of them from the far eastern satrapies.15
This was no different under Seleukos, as we know from one, perhaps two cases.
Somewhere in Bactria and/or Punjab, a local ruler named Sophytes—perhaps a Greek
rendering of the Indian (Prākrit) name Subhūti—mimicked Seleukos’ victory coinage
from Susa on drachms struck between c. 305 and 295 (Mendoza 2017, 62; Jansari
this volume).16 He may have been accepted as king by Seleukos. Another local ruler,
Vakhšuvar (an Iranian name), issued remarkable gold staters with the bust of a man
wearing a satrap’s kyrbasia and the name Vḥšvr in Aramaic lettering. It has been
speculated that this ruler was in fact Roxane’s father, Oxyartes, because that name
may be a Greek translation of the Iranian Vakhšuvar, Vakhš being an Iranian name
for the Oxus river (Mitchiner 1975, 23–24, following De la Fuye 1910). This coin-
age however is diffcult to date and it is therefore impossible to say whose satrap
Vakhšuvar was (Holt 1988, 97–98). Because of the use of Aramaic and Persian-style
satrapal regalia, the Vakhšuvar coinage usually is interpreted as referring back to the
Achaemenid Empire; but it could as well be said that it prefgures the vassal coinage
of the Arsakid and Fratarakā rulers of Seleukid Parthia and Persis (Martinez-Sève
2014). Aramaic after all did not disappear with the dissolution of the Achaemenid
Empire but persisted as a lingua franca of the Hellenistic world; in Bactria, so-called
‘imperial’ Aramaic may have persisted even as an offcial administrative language
(Mairs 2016a). Meanwhile, the fate of Stasanor of Soloi, satrap of Bactria and
Sogdiana since the settlement of Triparadeisos (321/320 BCE), is unknown;17 if he
was still alive and in charge of his satrapy, he may have been displaced or killed, but
he may also have sided with Seleukos and retained his position.
In India by contrast a major interimperial war broke out in 305 or 304 BCE as
Chandragupta, who had united the various kingdoms of northern India, challenged
Seleukid expansion beyond the Hindu Kush.18 The war ended in 304 or 303 BCE
with a peace treaty. Seleukos ceded eastern Arachosia, Paropamisadai, Gedrosia,
Gandhāra, and the Indus region in return for several hundred war elephants and
the formal acknowledgment of his suzerainty.19 The arrangement was buttressed by
a dynastic marriage, and it is most likely that a daughter or sister of Seleukos mar-
ried Chandragupta (Seibert 1967, 47). Seleukos thus accepted the de facto power
of Chandragupta by making an alliance that turned him into a de iure vassal (Mehl
1986, 180–181). How Chandragupta presented the arrangement to his followers is
of course a wholly different matter. An important side effect of the arrangement was
14
— T h e S e l e u k i d Em p i r e —
the arrival at the Mauryan court of a Seleukid embassy led by Megasthenes, whose
Indikē (of which a substantial number of fragments has survived) became an infuen-
tial source of information on India for Mediterranean historians and ethnographers.20
There was a high degree of connectedness between Mauryan and Seleukid Central
Asia. This is evident from regular diplomatic and economic exchanges between the
Seleukids and Mauryas for the next century (Wiesehöfer 1998), including the ongoing
obtainment by the satrap of Bactria of war elephants in the reign of Chandragupta’s
successor, Bindusāra. In its self-presentation, the Seleukid dynasty continued to treat
‘India’ as a region it controlled (Megasthenes’ Indikē played an important part in
the construction of these claims; see Kosmin 2013; cf. Rollinger 2016).21 To be sure,
after the breakdown of Mauryan power a century later, Antiochos III was able to
temporarily restore Seleukid hegemony in Gandhāra.22
Seleukos took the title of king (basileus) in 305 BCE, but antedated the beginning
of his reign to the Babylonian year 312/11 BCE (which later became the frst year of
the Seleukid Era). The military forces that Seleukos could now summon from Iran
and Central Asia enabled him to gain the upper hand over his enemies in the west.
In alliance with Lysimachos, Seleukos frst was victorious at Ipsos (301 BCE) against
his principal rival, Antigonos Monophthalmos, who was killed in battle. The ancient
sources stress the role of Seleukos’ Indian elephants in achieving this victory,23 but
it is clear that it was above all the huge number of horsemen brought from Iran and
Central Asia that carried the day (Olbrycht 2005, 232–233). According to Appian,
Seleukos had now become the master of the whole of Asia ‘from Phrygia to India’.24
After a twenty-year interlude without any big wars, Seleukos turned against his erst-
while ally, Lysimachos, and defeated him in the Battle of Koroupedion (281 BCE).
Like Antigonos, Lysimachos died during the fghting. This last victory gave Seleukos
control over western Asia Minor and a claim to Thrace and Macedonia, but he was
assassinated the same year. He was succeeded by his son Antiochos I, who had been
co-ruler since c. 294 BCE and would reign as sole king until 261 BCE.
APAMA, DEMODAMAS, AND ANTIOCHOS
At the Susa Wedding in 324 BCE, Seleukos had married the Iranian princess, Apama.25
She was the daughter of Spitamenes, the leading nobleman in Central Asia after the
death of Bessos, and Alexander the Great’s most formidable adversary. Apama fell
into the hands of the Macedonians when her father was betrayed and killed in the
Winter of 328/7 BCE.26
Seleukos’ marriage with Apama is crucial because she is the link between the
early Seleukid dynasty and the Iranian nobility, especially in Central Asia (Müller
2013, 206–209).27 W. W. Tarn even argued that she belonged to the Achaemenid
royal house, so that the Seleukids from Antiochos I could boast descent from the
Achaemenids (Tarn 1929). Modern scholars commonly reject this, but recently G.
Ramsey has put forward new arguments in support of this view (Ramsey 2016,
88–89). On the other hand, the Seleukids never referred to the Achaemenids in their
self-presentation.28 It is unknown if Spitamenes was a Bactrian or Sogdian, as is often
assumed. Like his predecessor, Bessos, he may originally have been a Persian from
western Iran.29 But the little that is known about Apama’s later career indicates that
she played a leading role in establishing Seleukid hegemony in Central Asia after the
15
— R o l f S t r o o t m a n —
conquest.30 She fulflled this role in cooperation with the stratēgos Demodamas of
Miletos, and perhaps her son, the later king Antiochos I Soter (281–261 BCE), who
was co-ruler from 294 BCE as well as viceroy of the Upper Satrapies.31 Apama was the
second Hellenistic queen to be given the innovative title of basilissa (‘queen’),32 and as
an indication of her authority she bore the honorifc title of ‘Sister’ of Seleukos.33 She
was a central fgure in the creation of a dynastic image (Engels and Erickson 2016),
especially in the west (Widmer 2015; Plischke 2016).34 At least four cities (re)founded
by Seleukos or Antiochos were named after her, three of them in the west and one in
the Upper Satrapies.35 The fact that ‘Apama’ reoccurs three times as a dynastic name
in Seleukid history also attests to the importance of the Seleukids’ Iranian affliation.36
Seleukos’ and Apama’s eldest son, Antiochos, is usually credited with consolidat-
ing Seleukid rule in the eastern ‘terra multiplex’ (Curt. 7.4.26), comprising the prov-
inces Parthia, Margiana, Aria, Bactria, and Sogdiana (Plischke 2014, 195–201). But
a process of consolidation must have already been in progress during the ten years
between the conquest of the region and Antiochos’ arrival there in c. 194/3 BCE.
Entrusted with this task was perhaps Demodamas of Miletos, a military entrepre-
neur from western Asia Minor and a philos of Seleukos.37 Demodamas participated
in Seleukos’ eastern campaigns, as is attested by a Milesian inscription from 299/8
BCE.38 Demodamas held an independent command, perhaps as satrap of Bactria and
Sogdiana, during the co-regency of Seleukos and Antiochos (294–281),39 and so may
have been in charge of Seleukid forces in the region during the intermediate period
as well.
Demodamas undertook a military expedition across the river Jaxartes (Syr
Darya) sometime after 294 BCE.40 He founded a sanctuary for Apollo there, sym-
bolically demarcating the edge of civilization and empire in old Near Eastern fashion
(Strootman 2014b, 49; cf. Rollinger 2016; Strootman 2019, 138). His ‘memoirs’,
which have not survived,41 were the principal source for Strabo’s and Pliny’s accounts
for Antiochos I’s city foundations in Central Asia (Wolski 1984, 13–14; Sherwin-
White and Kuhrt 1993, 83). P. Kosmin rightly argued that Demodamas in his writ-
ings created an image of an imperial boundary where the civilized world ended in a
sea of barbarism, thereby presenting the Seleukid king as a defender of civilization
(Kosmin 2014, 64–65). As F. Holt points out, the Seleukid steppe frontier to the east
of Sogdiana in fact was a cultural and economic meeting place rather than a barrier)
(Holt 1988, 23), as was, it may be added, the Seleukid-Mauryan border.
Antiochos was seconded also by Patrokles, another former general of Seleukos.42
This Patrokles had famously explored the Caspian Sea with a feet sometime during
the co-regency of Seleukos and Antiochos. He wrote a Periplous of that voyage, which
is now also lost (FGrH 712; cf. Kosmin 2014, 67–74). Like Megasthenes’ Indikē, this
work had an imperial undercurrent, since what later authors mostly remembered
from it, was the claim that the Caspian was an inlet of the Ocean;43 Patrokles thereby
asserted that also in the north Seleukid space stretched to the edges of the earth—as
it also did in the east, where the world ended in steppe and mountains, and in the
south, where Seleukid space was again delineated by the Ocean (Strootman 2014b,
49; 2019, 138).
Antiochos the son of Seleukos had received the title of basileus in 294 BCE, dur-
ing his father’s lifetime, when he also married Stratonike, the daughter of Demetrios
Poliorketes and formerly Seleukos’ wife.44 At the same time or shortly later he took
16
— T h e S e l e u k i d Em p i r e —
charge of the consolidation of the Upper Satrapies.45 The Upper Satrapies comprised
the provinces in the Iranian highlands, including Central Asia. The term frst turns
up in the context of the reorganization of the Macedonian empire at Triparadeisos
(Summer 320 BCE),46 and then in relation to Antiochos’ and Stratonike’s rule in
the east.47 The last attestation of a Seleukid ‘viceroy’ of the Upper Satrapies is in
an inscription from Bīsotūn dated to Panemos 163 SE, that is, May/June 148 BCE
(Robert 1949); by that time, the Upper Satrapies were controlled from Media instead
of Baktria (Capdetrey 2007, 366).48 The focus of Antiochos’ activities however was
Central Asia rather than western Iran.49
THE MAKING OF SELEUKID CENTRAL ASIA (294–261 BCE)
The long presence of Antiochos in Central Asia shows that the region held a place of
central importance in the early Seleukids’ imperial vision. It was a core region of the
empire (Sherwin-White and Kuhrt 1993, 72–113), not a peripheral frontier zone to
be defended against the barbarian hordes that allegedly threatened it (though impe-
rial ideology could of course claim as much, as we have seen).
Seleukid interest in the region was military above all. Central Asia had been a
pivotal source of manpower for the Achaemenids.50 According to Arrian, the Central
Asian satrapies sent a staggering 20,000 horsemen to fght for the Persian king at
the Battle of Gaugamela in 331 BCE.51 Alexander must have understood the military
potential of Central Asia well. When he departed from Bactria in 327 BCE, he left
behind an army of 10,000 infantry and 3,500 cavalry—about a third of the mili-
tary force that had entered Central Asia two years earlier.52 Rather than a symptom
of the precarious state of pacifcation, this is indicative of the geopolitical impor-
tance that Central Asia had for Alexander. Alexander also recruited troops there. In
the Summer of 326 BCE he deployed about 3,500 Central Asian horsemen against
Poros at the Hydaspes (Jhelum).53 Their number may be small in comparison to those
who fought for the Achaemenids and later the Seleukids, but upon leaving Bactria,
Alexander had ordered that in the eastern satrapies 30,000 young men should be
trained as phalanx infantry (the much-debated ‘Oriental’ epigonoi).54 Central Asia
remained a source of manpower, especially cavalry, during the wars of the Diadochs.
At the Battle of Gabiene (Winter 317/6 BCE), the satraps of Central Asia supporting
Eumenes felded 2,500 horsemen—a relatively high proportion of their total force of
6,500—and more than a hundred Indian war elephants (Diod. 19.14.5–8, 28.1–4).
Their enemy, Peithon, who fought for Antigonos, had recruited almost 8,000 cavalry
in various regions in Iran, including mounted archers and heavy ‘lancers’—perhaps
the precursors of the more famous Seleukid kataphraktoi—and about 120 elephants
(Diod. 19.29.1–7).
For the Seleukid Empire, being a military organization, the region was crucial as
a source of manpower, just as it had previously been for Alexander and before him
the Achaemenids. Constant competition with rival empires in the west—frst those
of Antigonos and Lysimachos, and then for a century or so the Ptolemaic Empire—
compelled Seleukid rulers to regularly transfer military resources on a massive scale
from the east to Asia Minor and the Levant. Having marched directly from Bactria
to Phrygia, Seleukos was able to deploy a huge body of cavalry and hundreds of
war elephants against Antigonos at the Battle of Ipsos (301 BCE).55 Many of these
17
— R o l f S t r o o t m a n —
eastern horsemen were mounted archers, who harassed Antigonos’ infantry with the
typical Central Asian tactic known as the ‘Parthian shot’ (Olbrycht 2005, 232–233).
About a century later, Antiochos III would combine cataphracts and mounted arch-
ers against the Romans in the Battle of Magnesia (see below).56 Throughout the
third century and probably well into the second BCE, the Seleukids transferred war
elephants and their personnel from India, via Bactria, to the Levant.57 Central Asia
thus became fully integrated in the globalization of warfare that characterized the
Hellenistic period.
Seleukid imperialism had a profound infuence on the development of Central
Asia, and the creation of the Graeco-Bactrian and Indo-Greek world. As Holt formu-
lated it rather strongly, ‘everything achieved in Bactria by the Greeks owed its origin
frst to the wandering spirit of Alexander but foremost to the steadfast work of the
early Seleucids. … Seleucus I and his son Antiochus I, were far more interested in the
East than Tarn and others believed’ (Holt 1999, 26). A major effect of the activities of
Seleukos I and Antiochos I, was the monetization of Central Asia (Holt 1999, 29–36;
Bopearachchi 2005a). There is no proof that Alexander set up mints anywhere in
the region, and darics were still struck in Bactria under Alexander and his immedi-
ate successors (Bopearachchi 2015, 44–46). A Seleukid imperial mint was located in
the satrapal capital Bactra (Newell 1978, 228–230; Bopearachchi 1999), probably
in Marakanda (Naymark 2014), and perhaps in Ai Khanoum (Kritt 1996, elaborat-
ing a suggestion by Houghton and Moore 1984). The last Seleukid king in whose
name coins were struck in Bactra was Antiochos II (261–246 BCE) (Bopearachchi
1994). But the coins of local rulers continued to use the imperial (Attic) standard.
This furthered the region’s incorporation in the economy of the empire and the wider
Hellenistic World. Seleukid coins postdating Antiochos II—from the mints of Susa,
Ekbatana, and Seleukeia on the Tigris—continued to be used in Bactria (Bopearachchi
2015, 55). Under Antiochos III and IV the Seleukid court moreover promoted trade
connections through the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean; that too must have been
benefcial to the economy of Central Asia.
Antiochos I in Central Asia is best remembered for his city foundations, generally
on pre-existing settlements. These include Antioch in Margiana (Merv), Antioch on
the Jaxartes, and Ai Khanoum.58 His principal concern was the construction of forti-
fcations and military roads—not to ‘defend’ the region from external threats but to
establish control of it. It is unknown whether Antiochos’ building activities involved
a substantial infux of colonists from the Aegean, as is often assumed (Widemann
2009; Plischke 2014, 200–201). Though imperial offcials often had an Aegean back-
ground (Strootman 2014, 124–135), the little information we have on ‘Greek’ set-
tlers in Bactria belongs to the context of the Achaemenids and Alexander the Great,
not the Seleukid Empire.59 They may have been there, of course, but their presence is
diffcult to prove. The two principal markers of ethnic identity in the ancient world
are language and religion. But the frst known use of Greek on inscriptions and for
administrative purposes dates to the late third century BCE (Mairs 2016a; Wallace
2016), and is found only in Bactria (Mairs 2013, 280–283), not elsewhere in Central
Asia. Greek was eclipsed by Bactrian in the frst century BCE, but it persisted for
some time on Kushan coins and perhaps as a written language for administrative pur-
poses (Burstein 2010, 188). Also, the conspicuous absence of archaeological evidence
for the worship of Greek deities in Hellenistic Central Asia indicates that Antiochos’
18
— T h e S e l e u k i d Em p i r e —
foundations likely were populated primarily by settlers from the region itself. The lit-
tle evidence there is, suggests that in Central Asia the Seleukids patronized indigenous
sanctuaries and cults just as they also did elsewhere in the empire (Naymark 2014, 3).
In the non-religious (if such a thing exists in antiquity), civic sphere, however,
Greek infuence is discernible. Various institutions and architectural forms of the polis
were introduced in the east to create a koine of interconnected cities that extended
from Sicily to Bactria. The frst evidence for an active involvement of the empire in
promoting Greek-style citizenship dates to the early second century BCE, but before
that time, cities adopted polis institutions from each other through a process of hori-
zontal peer polity interaction (Ma 2003). Ai Khanoum, a foundation of Antiochos I,
is a case in point. Greek architectural style is employed for civic structures—the thea-
tre and gymnasion, both typical for cities with a polis identity—but not for religious
architecture, which is most of all local in style (Hoo 2018).
SELEUKID SITES IN CENTRAL ASIA
The early third century BCE was a period of extensive building activity in the whole
of Central Asia. In Afghanistan alone, nearly forty archaeological sites show traces
of construction that can be dated to the time of Seleukid rule (Holt 1999, 26).
Fortifcations were (re)built at strategic locations, often at crossroads of important
routes or near mountain passes.
Bactria obviously was the heart of Seleukid Central Asia, and Bactra was its
regional ‘capital’ and principal mint (Mairs 2011, 29–30). Other Seleukid settlements
in Bactria include Termez and Kampyr Tepa, perhaps to be identifed with Antioch
Tharmata (Tarn 1940 89–94; Grenet and Rapin 2001, 83–84; cf. Mairs 2011, 30–31;
Cohen 2013, 301–305). Superseding a smaller settlement from Achaemenid times,
Ai Khanoum became a military stronghold with additional administrative functions
(Lyonnet 2012, 157–159; Martinez-Sève 2015, 25–26), guarding the northeastern
route to India as well as controlling access to the lapis lazuli mines in the Badakhshan
mountains (Bernard and Francfort 1978, 9; Rapin 1992, 50).
New archaeological evidence has shown that the Seleukids exerted strong control
also in Sogdiana (Stark 2016; cf. Sherwin-White and Kuhrt 1993, 105–107). The
provincial capital Marakanda (Samarkand) was fortifed (Chichkina 1986; Rapin
and Isamiddinov 1994),60 and perhaps had a royal mint (Naymark 2014). A large
granary from the early Hellenistic period confrms the presence of a Seleukid gar-
rison (Baratin and Martinez-Sève 2013; cf. Bernard 1996; Lerner 2010). Further
to the west, along the lower Zarafshan, fortifcations were constructed at Bukhara,
Paikand, Khodja-Buston, Burkut Tepa, and Kuzimon Tepa (Stark 2016, 136). These
fortresses controlled the Bukhara oasis, an important crossroads of routes leading
from Sogdiana to Margiana, Chorasmia and Bactria. The mountain passes between
Bactria and Sogdiana were also guarded, for instance by the well-excavated for-
tress of Kurganzol at Kampyr Tepe—a foundation associated with the Sogdian
War of Alexander or the upheavals after his death, and still in use in Seleukid times
(Sverchkov 2008; Lindström 2009, 260–265; Martínez Ferreras et al. 2016 and
Martínez Ferreras et al. 2018). The recently excavated fortress at Uzundara also
may have been part of a Seleukid project to protect the passes between Bactria and
Sogdiana (Dvurechenskaya 2015).
19
— R o l f S t r o o t m a n —
Following Demodamas of Miletos, Pliny and Strabo write that in the north
Alexandreia Eschate (‘the Furthest’) on the Jaxartes, present-day Khujand, was
refounded as Antioch-in-Scythia,61 which can be confrmed by Hellenistic pottery
found at the site (Bernard 1985, 167). Traditionally romanticized as an isolated fron-
tier town in a sea of hostile nomads, the Seleukid site more likely was an attempt to
gain access to the Ferghana Valley and its ‘Heavenly Horses’, in addition to it being
a centre of ‘Silk Road’ trade.
The best known, and perhaps most strategic, fortifed crossroads was the oasis of
Merv in the Murghab delta in present-day Turkmenistan where Antiochos refounded
Alexandreia in Margiana as Antioch in Margiana (Sherwin-White and Kuhrt 1993,
82–84; Cohen 2013, 145–250; Puschnigg this volume).62 The fertile oasis was a
hub of long-distance trade. It connected Iran with Sogdiana via a route through the
Karakum and Kyzylkum deserts (the ‘King’s Road’ to Samarkand of medieval times).
A southern route along the Murghab river led to another Antioch, known as Upper
Merv or Merv al-Rūd in early Islamic times, and from there to Bactria; another south-
ern route led to Alexandria in Areia (Herāt) (Barthold 1984, 35). More surprisingly,
perhaps, it has been shown that also the northern route to Chorasmia was controlled
by the Seleukids with strongholds, including a heavily fortifed outpost at Bash Tepa
(Stark 2016, 138).
Antioch in Margiana (Gyaur-Kala) in the Merv oasis, is the best known of
Antiochos’ settlements. An oasis settlement surrounded by desert but watered by
the Murghab river (ancient Margos), the Merv oasis in antiquity was famous for its
vineyards.63 Antioch in Margiana was large and well-fortifed (Zavyalov 2007). The
oasis was surrounded by long walls—perhaps the frst recorded instance of the typi-
cal Central Asian walled oasis that persisted until the tenth century CE (Frye 1996,
227).64
Located near the Aral Sea, the Chorasmia oasis was never brought under direct
Macedonian control, although a Chorasmian king, Phrataphernes, had formally sub-
mitted to Alexander to gain the status of autonomous vassal (Curt. 8.1.8; Arr., Anab.
4.15.4). But since premodern empires habitually claimed universal dominion, and
had no formal ‘state’ borders, the conventional view of Chorasmia as being outside
of the Hellenistic world is in need of reconsideration. Exciting new insights into
Chorasmia’s central place in a web of connections between Iran, Central Asia, and
the steppe societies of Inner Asia during the Hellenistic period have recently become
available for historians, thanks to the work of Michele Minardi, Fiona Kidd, Vadim
Yagodin, and others (see e.g. Kidd 2011; Betts et al. 2012; Minardi 2015; Minardi
and Ivantchik 2018). The Seleukids, as we saw above, actively protected these routes,
and Chorasmians must have been able to partake in Seleukid networks of exchange
and trade. Because of these connections (rather than because of being ‘liberated’ from
Persian rule), the Chorasmian economy and culture fourished from the late fourth
through third centuries BCE, causing an upsurge in building activity (Baimatova
2008, 178–204). The expanded connectivity is clear not only from the rich artistic
developments, especially in painting, but also from a growing number of imported
objects, an increase in cultural borrowings, and the introduction of new types of pot-
tery (Minardi 2015, 87–95). Indeed, Chorasmia may have played a substantial role in
the cultural and religious development of Central Asia as a whole, including the frst
creation of Zoroastrian art in the late Hellenistic period (Grenet 2018).
20
— T h e S e l e u k i d Em p i r e —
FROM ANTIOCHOS I TO ANTIOCHOS III (261–222 BCE)
In the course of the third century BCE, Seleukid imperialism developed from attempts
to exert direct infuence through military governors to an increasing inclination to
access resources indirectly though client rulers (Strootman 2010, 153–155; 2011a,
83–85; Engels 2011; 2014). This process of decentralization was in part a response
to a series of crises. Beginning with the accession of Antiochos I as sole king in
281 BCE, every new reign began with attempts by local rulers and interest groups to
attain more power or autonomy, so that virtually each new ruler was faced with the
challenge of reasserting Seleukid hegemony. Most reigns also started with a fresh war
with the Ptolemies.
Antiochos I had been succeeded by his son, Antiochos II (261–246 BCE), about
whose reign little is known. Under the next king, Seleukos II (246–226/5 BCE), a
number of severe conficts nearly destroyed the empire. A contested succession led
to a Ptolemaic intervention, the so-called Laodikean War (246–241 BCE), in which
a Ptolemaic army ravaged Babylonia, and several cities on the Levantine and the
Anatolian coasts were lost (Erickson 2018). A dynastic war between Seleukos II and
his brother, Antiochos Hierax (‘the Hawk’), viceroy of Asia Minor, lasted with inter-
vals from c. 240 to 227 BCE. During these upheavals, satraps and local rulers in
Iran and Central Asia increased their autonomy. Narrative sources for these events
are few and notoriously confused. A consensus has not yet emerged and this is not
the place to discuss the various chronologies and interpretations that have been pro-
posed for Bactrian ‘independence’. The general trends however are clear.65 In Parthia
(northern Iran), the satrap Andragoras from c. 247 BCE struck coins with his own
name and his own likeness (though without the title of king). He was expelled by the
Parni, who entered Parthia from Hyrkania. The Parni, later called ‘Parthians’ after
the province that became their power base, became a migrating nomadic tribe in the
later European imagination; however, they more likely were an ethnically mixed war-
rior band under a charismatic leader, Arsakes (Aršak).66 They may have been called
in from Central Asia by the Seleukid court to fght Andragoras, or else raided the ter-
ritory as a result of the chaotic situation caused by Andragoras’ revolt, which likely
was disputed locally. When the Parni settled in Hyrkania and Parthia, Seleukos II
dealt with them by including Arsakes in the Seleukid imperial fabric, acknowledging
him as a local ruler in exchange for Arsakes’ formal acceptance of Seleukid suzerainty
(Strootman 2018).67
Sometime earlier, the Seleukid satrap of Bactria, Diodotos I, had begun issuing
silver coins in the name of the Seleukid emperor, Antiochos II, but with his own
image on the obverse and on the reverse an image of the so-called ‘Thundering Zeus’,
replacing the Seleukid ‘Seated Apollo’ type; in his later reign, Diodotos struck coins
with both his own name and image (Lerner 1999, 89–108).68 It is unlikely however
that Diodotos took the title of king (Holt 1999, 103). Central Asia at this time was
still nominally part of the Seleukid world empire, and it is now commonly assumed
that Diodotos I, like the early Arsakids, was a Seleukid vassal ruler (Dumke 2012;
Chrubasik 2016, 43–44; Wenghofer 2018). His successor, Diodotos II, did present
himself as king from an uncertain date. The Diodotid dynasty of Bactria came to
an abrupt end in 223 or 222 BCE when Diodotos II was overthrown by a certain
Euthydemos,69 who may have been a local powerholder in Sogdiana.70 The rebellion
21
— R o l f S t r o o t m a n —
of Euthydemos occurred in the context of the accession of Antiochos III—whose legit-
imacy was disputed—and coincided with a major uprising of Macedonian satraps in
western Iran and Mesopotamia, (Lerner 1999, 43; Coloru 2009, 176). It was in other
words not an isolated event in a remote province but linked to developments in the
wider Seleukid world.
THE REIGN OF ANTIOCHOS III THE GREAT (222/1–187 BCE)
Antiochos III may have been the frst Seleukid emperor to be present in Central Asia
since the departure of Antiochos I in 281 BCE, but this is uncertain because of the
lack of narrative sources for the intermediate period known as the Third Century
Gap.71 His reign generated the earliest consistent narrative of Central Asian history
that is still (partly) extant: the account of his eastern campaigns in Books 10 and 11 of
Polybios’ Histories. Because of his celebrated anabasis through the Upper Satrapies,
followed by a string of victories against the Ptolemies in the west, Antiochos III has
been called the restitutor orbis of the Seleukid Empire (Cary 1951, 69–73). He was
the frst Seleukid to assume the title of ‘Great King’ and the concomitant epithet
Megas (‘the Great’) to express his status as a king on top of a hierarchy of kings.
His reign however ended with a humiliating defeat in a war against Rome (191–188
BCE), followed by another severe crisis at his death a year afterward, one that his
successors were never able to fully recover from.
Antiochos’ reign began with a vicious faction struggle at his court, a massive rebel-
lion of the Macedonian satraps of western Iran (‘Molon’s revolt’, c. 222–220 BCE),
a lost war against the Ptolemies (the Fourth Syrian War, 219–217 BCE), and a rebel-
lion of his powerful uncle Achaios, the viceroy of Asia Minor (216–214 BCE). After
putting down these revolts, Antiochos in reaction to them reorganized the power
networks that had previously held the empire together but were now tearing it apart.
As far as possible, Macedonian grandees were replaced by his own personal clients
and by ‘indigenous’, often Iranian rulers (Strootman 2011a). A recurrent pattern was
to frst force a rebellious local leader into submission and then reaffrm him as ruler.
Successful warfare was essential for this operation. Only war would generate suf-
fcient prestige and booty to bind powerful men to the king’s person and subjugate
others. In 211 BCE, after a campaign and some new appointments in the Armenian
principalities, Antiochos embarked upon his anabasis through the Upper Satrapies,
which would last until 205/4 BCE. In addition to being a military campaign aimed
at acquiring resources and manpower, the anabasis was a symbolic tour to ritually
demarcate the empire.
Antiochos frst vanquished the rebellious Parni leader, Arsakes II, who was rein-
stalled as the ruler of Parthia and Hyrkania but denied the use of the royal title. In
209 BCE the Seleukid army reached Bactria.72 At that time Euthydemos I was in
control of Bactria, and Antiochos considered him a rebel. The Bactrian army was
defeated at a crossing of the river Arios (Harī Rūd).73 Euthydemos thereupon was
blockaded in Bactra for several years.74 Antiochos used these years to pacify the
region, negotiating deals with local communities and military leaders, and isolate
Euthydemos (Coloru 2017, 309–310). Numismatic and archaeological evidence
affrms that Antiochos was quite active throughout Bactria and Sogdiana (Kritt 2000;
Martinez-Sève 2017, 282–292). New fortifcations guarding the Iron Gates between
22




— T h e S e l e u k i d Em p i r e —
Bactria and Sogdiana may date to this time (Martinez-Sève 2017, 288–291). At Ai
Khanoum building activities were conducted on a scale that indicates the involve-
ment of a monarch (Martinez-Sève 2012). J. D. Lerner has made the case that the
new, massive fortifcations may be ascribed partly to Antiochos III (Lerner 2004;
cf. Lerner 2010), against the conventional view that the builder was Euthydemos.
L. Martinez-Sève suggested that Antiochos’ building activities were carried out in
cooperation with Euthydemos after the peace of 206 BCE (below), with the aim of
strengthening Euthydemos’ kingdom (Martinez-Sève 2017, 288–292; the interesting
suggestion that Antiochos left behind troops to support Euthydemos must remain
hypothetical)
Because Antiochos failed to take Bactra, an agreement was reached between
him and Euthydemos (in 206 BCE): Euthydemos was given the title of basileus in
exchange for tribute and his acceptance of Seleukid suzerainty.75 The agreement also
involved the marriage of Euthydemos’ son (and eventually successor), Demetrios, and
a daughter of Antiochos. The reconciliation was legitimated by casting Euthydemos
in the role of a loyal Seleukid governor, who had put down the rebellion of Diodotos
II. Euthydemos was restored to power also on the pretext that he was the best man to
ward off the barbarian hordes that allegedly threatened the northeastern frontier.76
This of course is a trope, one that likely was propagated, if not invented, by the
Seleukid court for the sake of western audiences (Kosmin 2014, 66–67).77
The arrangement was mutually benefcial. Euthydemos could legitimately claim
the title of king, and this must have given him a decisive advantage over his rivals.
Antiochos regained imperial suzerainty, while creating strong bonds of loyalty with
Euthydemos’ dynasty through kinship. Euthydemos acknowledged Antiochos’ over-
lordship by offering him tribute in the form of provisions for his army and war
elephants.78
Antiochos continued his march to the east. He descended into India, were he reas-
serted Seleukid suzerainty over some of the territories that Seleukos I had given to
Chandragupta, collecting provisions, tribute and additional war elephants.79 Like
Seleukos, he left behind an ambassador, Androsthenes of Kyzikos, to oversee the
transfer of the regular tribute that the Indian king, Sophagasenos (Subhagasena),
had agreed to pay.80 It seems that in India Antiochos most of all was interested in
creating naval links between Central Asia (via the Indus Valley) and Mesopotamia
(Lerner 2004; on Central Asia’s continued integration in the Indian Ocean trade
networks, see Mairs 2012). A remarkable passage in 1 Maccabees suggests that in
188 BCE ‘India’ (here perhaps a pars pro toto for the whole of Central Asia) was still
considered a part of Antiochos’ empire during his negotiations with the Romans at
Apameia.81
Antiochos proceeded to recover Arachosia and Drangiana,82 and fnally marched
back to Mesopotamia via Karmania and Persis. When he returned from his anaba-
sis, he had accumulated enough prestige to adopt the title of Megas (Μέγας, ‘the
Great’),83 and shortly thereafter also the title of βασιλεύς μέγας, ‘Great King’ (Ma
2000, 271–276). Both titles expressed his activities as a kingmaker (Strootman 2019,
140–148). Like his ancestor, Seleukos I, Antiochos brought a large number of horse-
men from the east. At the Battle of Magnesia (190 BCE), the king felded 6,000
cataphracts and 1,200 ‘Dahae’ mounted archers (Liv. 37.40.1–14; cf. Bar-Kochva
1989), in contrast to his feld army at Raphia (217 BCE), prior to the anabasis, where
23


— R o l f S t r o o t m a n —
no troops from the Upper Satrapies had been present (Polyb. 5.80.3–13). The newly
acquired prestige, capital, and manpower enabled Antiochos to destroy the Ptolemaic
Empire in the Mediterranean in a string of military and diplomatic successes between
202 and 198 BCE, effectively reducing the Ptolemies to the status of local kings of
Egypt and even invading Greece (which caused an unsuccessful war against Rome).
Antiochos III’s reorganization of the empire seems to have worked out well for
the Seleukids, at least for several decades. Central Asia became more tightly inte-
grated in imperial networks, now also by sea. The establishment of a friendly satel-
lite kingdom in Bactria and Sogdiana may have been more benefcial for the empire
than re-establishing direct control. Connections with that kingdom remained intact
under his successors. Antiochos IV (145–164 BCE) continued his father’s policy of
strengthening the Seleukid hold on the Persian Gulf and diverting the Indian Ocean
trade to Mesopotamia, and from there to the Mediterranean (rather than taking the
longer route through the Red Sea, which was controlled by the Ptolemies and the
Nabataeans).84 A Seleukid elephant corps is attested in Syria some ffty years after
Antiochos’ departure from Central Asia, which therefore likely had been replenished
via Bactria.85 After 162 BCE, internal conficts, rebellions, and a series of disastrous
wars with the Parthians destroyed Seleukid hegemony in the Middle East. But as late
as 140/39 BCE, the Seleukid king Demetrios II could still call upon a local ruler or
governor in ‘Bactria’ for military support against the Parthians.86
CONCLUSION: THE IMPACT OF EMPIRE
The impact of the Seleukid Empire on Central Asia was twofold. First, the Seleukid
organization of Margiana, Bactria, and Sogdiana became the foundation upon which
the monarchies of the Diodotids and Euthydemids were built. Second, the integra-
tion of Hellenistic Central Asia in the Seleukid Empire—in fuctuating degrees of (in)
dependence—meant that these principalities could tap into long-distance imperial
networks, that connected the region to the Near East and the Mediterranean.
In the early Hellenistic period Central Asia was a hub in the globalization of war-
fare caused by the wars of the Diadochs—a confict that was not resolved as long
as there remained rival Macedonian empires in the east Mediterranean theatre that
could draw upon the substantial resources of Alexander’s and their own conquests.
It has even been contended that due to the Seleukids’ repeated use of dynastic mar-
riages, Central Asia ‘remained effectively Seleukid even until the reign of Eukratides
I’ (c. 170–145 BCE), if indeed his mother Laodike was Antiochos III’s granddaughter
(Wenghofer and Houle 2016, 200 and 214–215).87
The modern idea that Greek colonists in Bactria soon lost contact with their ‘home-
land’ is contradicted by persisting interactions with the west even after the Seleukid
withdrawal from the region. The Kunduz Hoard, deposited on the south bank of the
Oxus around 100 BCE, contained in addition to Greco-Bactrian coins a small number
of Seleukid tetradrachms postdating Antiochos III (Bivar 1955; Curiel and Fussman
1965). Among the remarkable ‘heritage’ (or ‘pedigree’) coinage of Agathokles (c.
190–180), we fnd coins celebrating ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟΥ ΤΟΥ ΦΙΛΙΠΠΟΥ, ‘Alexander
son of Philippos’ (Holt 1984; cf. Bopearachchi 2017). This reference to Alexander
should not be taken for granted. In third-century Central Asia, as in the west, there
is no evidence for imitatio Alexandri (Von den Hoff 2013). So, when the image of
24














— T h e S e l e u k i d Em p i r e —
Alexander turns up there in the early second century BCE, this shows that Central
Asian kings in their policies followed developments in the west, where Alexander was
introduced as a model of kingship after a 100-year absence. Finally, it is remarkable
that it is only in the mid-second century BCE that the inhabitants of Ai Khanoum
frst felt the need to construct for themselves a Greek migrant identity (Mairs 2015).
The monarchies of the Hellenistic ‘Far East’ were not exotic kingdoms cut off from
the rest of the Near East and the Mediterranean. They were fully engaged in a wider
Hellenistic world until at least the mid-second century BCE. Of course, such con-
nectivity had previously existed in the Achaemenid Empire (Briant 1984, 60–61 and
89–99; Vogelsang 1987; Wu 2017; Henkelman 2018),88 so that continuous Persian
and Macedonian imperialism directly connected the Mediterranean and Central Asia
continuously for half a millennium (c. 550–150 BCE). This brought about a high
level of mobility and exchange in both directions. From the Hellenistic period, inter-
regional connections also increasingly extended to the east and the south, as is, for
example, clear from the Begram Hoard of the frst or second century CE (see Morris,
this volume), which combines commodities from the Mediterranean, China, and the
south of the Indian subcontinent. With the establishment of trade routes and the
creation of a koine of interconnected cities, Achaemenid and Seleukid imperialism
laid the foundations of what is now known as the Silk Road(s). Although the political
unity of western Asia disintegrated after the collapse of the Seleukids, trade connec-
tions between Central Asia and the west persisted.
The Seleukid association with Central Asia came to an end after the death of
Antiochos IV in 164 BCE, when rebellions and dynastic wars tore apart the core of the
empire. After c.150, the emergent Parthians conquered Iran and Mesopotamia, driving
a wedge between the Seleukid west and Central Asia (in political terms, that is—not in
terms of cultural and economic exchange). After that date the Arsakid dynasty became
the principal imperial power that communities in Central Asia had to relate to.
NOTES
1 For the concept of ‘cultural capital’ and its ability to create social distinction (and facilitate
social mobility), see Bourdieu 1979.
2 The term ‘lucky latitudes’ was coined by Morris 2010; for the Hellenistic World as a mon-
etary koine, see Thonemann 2015.
3 A note on geographic terminology: ‘Central Asia’ is used as an umbrella term for all lands
surrounding the great carrousel of roads that today is known as Afghanistan, including
eastern Iran and the Punjab; ‘Bactria’ in this chapter denotes specifcally the Upper Oxus
valley while ‘Sogdiana’ is the area along the Zarafshan river and around Samarkand. See
the other chapters in this volume for the evolving archaeological defnitions of the scope of
these regions.
4 For a complete overview of Seleukid client kingdoms and other satellite states, consult
Capdetrey 2007, 87–133.
5 On the various ways that Seleukid ‘space’ was constructed—dynastic toponyms, ruler por-
traits on coins, the empire-wide dispersal of emblems such as the elephant or the anchor,
etc.—see Kosmin 2014; cf. now also Engels 2017, 157–212.
6 On the charisma of Hellenistic kings, see Gehrke 1982/2013; Gropp 1984; Chaniotis 2003.
7 On the widespread phenomenon of Göttergleichungen in the pre-Hellenistic Near East, see
Assmann 2003, 28–37; Bachmann-Medick 2014.
25



































10
15
20
25
30
— R o l f S t r o o t m a n —
8 On the signifcance of Iranian lands and peoples in the Seleukid imperial project, see
Strootman 2011b.
9 The damnatio memoriae of the Achaemenids of Pārsa may have been prompted by the wish
to win over rival Iranian families. For the presence of Iranians at the Seleukid court, see
Strootman 2017b, 132–134.
App., Syr. 55. The Tapyri were a people living in the northern Zagros.
11 On the stock phrase ‘as far as India/Bactria’ and its universalistic connotations, see
Strootman 2010, 149–150.
12 Margiana and Aria however are absent from the listing; Arachosia soon came under the
rule of Chandragupta Maurya.
13 See esp. Or. 3.23.43 and Just. 15.4.11; cf. Diod. 19.29; App., Syr., 54–55. Capdetrey 2007,
39–43, hypothesizes that Central Asian leaders joined Seleukos because he offered protec-
tion against the expansionism of Chandragupta; also see Wolski 1960, 113–115, making a
similar argument regarding an alleged nomadic threat from the north.
14 Arr., Anab. 5.11.3.
Arr., Anab. 7.6.3.
16 For date and provenance of the Sophytes coinage (SNG ANS 21–33), see Bernard and
Guillaume 1980; Bopearachchi 1996. A higher chronology (c. 315–c. 305) has been pro-
posed by Bopearachchi 2005b, and accepted by Holt 1988, 96–97, Coloru 2009, 139–141.
A full discussion of all known Sophytes coinage is now offered by Jansari 2018. For the
Indian name, see Bernard, Pinault, Rougemont 2004, 261–263.
17 Diod. 18.39.6. On the career of Stasanor, see now Mendoza 2017.
18 Just. 15.4.12–19.
19 Strabo 15.2.9; Just. 15.4.20–21; App., Syr. 55; cf. Plut., Alex. 62.4. The round number
of 500 elephants given by these sources is certainly exaggerated; cf. already Tarn 1940,
84–89. On Seleukos’ war in India, see most extensively Mehl 1986, 156–193, and most
recently Wheatley 2014.
FGrH 715. On Megasthenes see Bichler, Brinkhaus, Wiesehöfer 2016; for the Indikē as a
Seleukid text, Kosmin 2014, 37–53. A much earlier date for Megasthenes’ embassy (319/8
BCE) has been proposed by Bosworth 1996, and endorsed by Wheatley 2014.
21 Interestingly, the Ptolemies claimed possession of India, too; see Strootman 2014a, 258–
261; cf. id. 2010.
22 Polyb. 11.39.11–12.
23 App., Syr. 55; Plut.,Demetr. 28–29.
24 App. Syr. 55; cf. Primo 2009b.
Arr., Anab. 7.4.6. Grainger 1992, 12, suggests Apama already was Seleukos’ consort while
still in Central Asia.
26 On the Sogdian War of 329–327 BCE, see Holt 1988, 52–67; Bosworth 1995, 109–117.
27 A good recent account of Apama’s career is Ramsey 2016, 86–93; also see Widmer 2015;
Harders 2016, 17–21; Engels and Erickson 2016.
28 The only possible exception, emphasized by Tarn 1929, is a reference in a letter of Antiochos
I to the people of Erythrai (OGIS 223, l. 24; cf. 220 l. 20) to the benevolence of his ‘ances-
tors’ (πρόγονοι) towards the Ionian cities.
29 The name Apamā in any case is Persian, and a ‘Lady of the Palace’ Ap-pa-mu-ú appears in
two texts from Borsippa as a wife of Darius I (Zadok 2002; cf. Brosius 1996, 47–49). A
late source, Plut., Artax. 27.4, mentions a daughter of Artaxerxes II named Apama.
I.Didyma 480 = SEG IV 442 (299/8 BCE); cf. Robert 1984; Sherwin-White and Kuhrt
1993, 26–27.
31 The date of Apama’s death is unknown; she is often thought to have died shortly before
Seleukos’ marriage to Stratonike in 299 BCE, or to have ‘divorced’ him and then retired,
but such views have been challenged by Tarn 1929, 139; Brosius 1996, 79; Ogden 1999,
26
— T h e S e l e u k i d Em p i r e —
119–120; and others. In defence of the traditional date, see now Engels and Erickson
2016, 32–33. The once widespread assumption that all Diadochs except Seleukos
‘divorced’ the Iranian wives Alexander had given them, is no longer widely believed (see
now, conclusively, Van Oppen 2014). On the creation of the title of basilissa, see Carney
1991.
32 I.Didyma 480.
33 Liv. 38.13.5.
34 The term ‘pioneering phase’ is from Kosmin 2013, 109.
35 Apameia Rhagiane in northern Iran; the other cities are in the west: Apameia on the
Orontes, Apameia in Mesene, and Apameia on the Euphrates; cf. Cohen 2013, ad loc.
36 On the Iranian aspects of the Seleukids, see Canepa 2018, 170–187 and 307–315. For the
presence of Iranian nobles at the Seleukid court, see Strootman 2011a; 2014, 134–135.The
Seleukid Apamas are daughters of Antiochos I (Paus. 1.7.3; Porph., FGrH 32.5; Euseb.,
Chron. 1.40.5 = 1.249 Schoene) and Antiochos II (BCHP 11), and a consort of Demetrios
II (John of Antioch, FHG IV 561).
37 On Demodamas’ signifcance for the creation of the Seleukid Empire, see Nawotka 2019.
38 I.Didyma 480; Robert 1984.
39 Plin.,NH 6.49. On Demodamas’ activities in the Seleukid northeast, Kosmin 2014, 61–67.
40 Plin.,NH 6.49.
41 FGrH 428.
42 Plin.,NH 2.74; Memnon FHG III, 534 (15); cf. Primo 2009a, 77–78.
43 Plin.,NH 6.58; Strabo 11.7.1–3.
44 Plut., Demetr. 38. The frst reference to Seleukos and Antiochos as joint kings is on a
Babylonian text dated to 18 November 294 BCE (BM 109941; Oelsner 1986, 271).
45 App., Syr. 62; Diod. 21.1.20.
46 Diod. 19.14.1.
47 Plut.,Demetr. 38.1.Antiochos’ responsibilities were extended to include all of Asia early in
281 BCE when his father crossed to Europe to claim the throne of Macedonia (Memnon,
FGrH 434 F 8).
48 It is possible that from the mid-third century BCE there were two Seleukid ‘viceroys’, one
for western Iran (attested are Molon in 223/2 BCE; and still Kleomenes in 148 BCE) and
one in eastern Iran/Central Asia (Diodotos I after c. 256 BCE; Euthydemos [as basileus]
from 206 BCE).
49 Coinage in the name of Seleukos and Antiochos as joint kings was minted only in Bactria
and Aria/Drangiana; see Houghton and Lorber 2002, nos. 233, 235, 283A, 279, 281,
and 282 (ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΣΕΛΕΥΚΟΥ ΑΝΤΙΟΧΟΥ); and nos. 280, 285–290 (ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΝ
ΣΕΛΕΥΚΟΥ [ΚΑΙ] ΑΝΤΙΟΧΟΥ).
50 On the eastern satrapies of the Achaemenid Empire, see Briant 2002, 743–757.
51 Arr., Anab. 3.11.3–7.
52 Arr., Anab. 4.22.3; cf. Holt 1988, 81.
53 Arr., Anab. 5.11.3, 12.2; cf. Bosworth 1995, 125–130. Around 329 BCE, the Macedonian
cavalry had been resupplied with Sogdian horses (Holt 1988, 53 n. 6).
54 Diod. 17.108.1–3; Arr., Anab. 7.6.1; Curt. 7.5.1; Plut., Alex. 71.1. On Alexander’s use of
‘Oriental’ troops see Bosworth 1995, 271–273.
55 Diod. 20.113.4 gives the very high number of 12,000 cavalry fghting for Seleukos. Plut.,
Demetr. 28.3, gives a total of 10,500 cavalry for Seleukos’ and Lysimachos’ combined
armies; see however Bar Kochva 1976, 247 n. 11, suggesting that this is a textual corrup-
tion and the allied cavalry total should instead be read as 15,000 (still a very high number).
Seleukos’ elephants numbered 480 (Diodoros) or 400 (Plutarch).
56 On the persistence of ‘Oriental’, viz., ‘Median’ cavalry in Seleukid armies after the reign of
Seleukos I, see Bar-Kochva 1976, 71–72.
27
— R o l f S t r o o t m a n —
57 The crucial role of the satrap of Bactria in acquiring and forwarding Indian war elephants
is attested on two documents from Seleukid Babylon: BCHP 7, Obv. 13’–15’ (281 BCE?)
and AD I, p. 345, No. -273B, Rev. 30’–32’ (273 BCE); cf. Bernard 1990; Van der Spek
1993.
58 For a full overview of the narrative sources for Antiochos’ (and Alexander’s) coloniz-
ing activities in Margiana, Sogdiana, and Bactria, consult Cohen 2013, 225–288; for the
archaeological evidence, Mairs 2011.
59 On the presence of Greeks in Bactria until the coming of Seleukos, Coloru 2009, 123–138.
60 For the narrative sources for Hellenistic Marakanda, consult Cohen 2013, 279–282.
61 Plin.,NH 6.47; Strabo 11.10.2; for Alexander’s foundation, Arr.,Anab. 4.1.3–4, 4.1; Curt.
7.6.13, 25–27; 7.7.1; cf. Cohen 2013, 252–255.
62 On the historical topography of the Merv oasis in ancient times, see Vogelsang 1992,
56–58.
63 Strabo 11.10.1–2 (515–516); Plin.,NH 6.18 (47).
64 On the oasis wall, see Bader, Callieri, Khodzhaniyazov 1998; Cerasetti 2004.
65 Attempts to construct comprehensive narratives include Wolski 1947; Lerner 1999, 13–31;
Coloru 2009, 157–173.
66 See Strootman 2018, 135–136, with n. 29 on 146–147, after a suggestion by Eiland 2003.
67 The conventional view that an independent Parthian ‘state’ (rather than a vassal polity)
emerged is defended at length by Bernard 1994. It is more likely that Seleukos II defeated
the Parni, as Strabo 11.8.8 says, than that he was himself defeated and captured; cf. Drijvers
1998.
68 Justin’s assertion (41.4.6) that Diodotos and Arsakes ‘revolted’ simultaneously is not his-
torical; see Van Wickevoort Crommelin 1998, 261–263; cf. Holt 1999, 63–64.
69 Strabo 11.9.2. For the date, Lerner 1999, 54–58; cf. Jakobsson 2007.
70 Lerner 1996.
71 It cannot be excluded that Antiochos I returned during his twenty years of sole rule,
and there is moreover a possibility that Seleukos II campaigned in the region in the
230s.
72 On the anabasis of Antiochos III, see now Brüggemann 2017, rightly stressing that the
king was not emulating Alexander the Great; specifcally on the campaigns in Bactria, see
Martinez-Sève 2017. Earlier attempts at reconstructing the events include Sherwin-White
and Kuhrt 1993, 197–201; Holt 1999, 126–133; Lerner 1999, 45–62; Coloru 2009, 179–
186; and Plischke 2014, 270–274. Coloru 2017 offers an overview of the anabasis’ various
campaigns with a focus on Antiochos’ political aims.
73 Polyb. 10.49.1–14.
74 Polyb. 10.49.15.
75 Polyb. 11.34.1.
76 Polyb. 11.34.5.
77 Coloru 2009, 181–182, accepts the nomad threat as genuine; Walbank, Commentary on
Polybius II, 313 ad 5, argues that it is a Polybian insertion.
78 Polyb. 11.34.10.
79 Polyb. 11.34.11–12.
80 Polyb. 11.39.12.
81 1 Macc. 8.8 For an interpretation of this passage consult Jakobsson forthcoming; see pre-
liminary Jakobsson and Glenn 2018, 68–70.
82 Polyb. 11.34.13.
83 App., Syr. 11.3.15; cf. Polyb. 4.2.7.
84 Plin.,NH 6.31.138–139; Mittag 2006, 298–307.
85 Polyb. 31.2.9–11; App., Syr. 46 (240).
86 Just. 36.1.4; cf. Jos., AJ 13.185.
28
— T h e S e l e u k i d Em p i r e —
87 Hollis 1996 has argued that Eukratides’ mother was a daughter of Antiochos III, while
Tarn 1951, 196–197 suggested that she was a daughter of Seleukos III; see however the
cautionary remarks by Glenn 2014.
88 For the integration of Central Asia in the economy of the wider Persian Empire—as evi-
denced by a hoard of Achaemenid-period Bactrian, Indian and Greek coins found in Kabul
in 1933—consult Schlumberger 1953. In fact, regular trade between Central Asia and
the Near East by land and by sea was established already in the second millennium BCE
(Olijdam and Spoor 2008), and there even is evidence for the export of Bactrian lapis lazuli
to Mesopotamia and Egypt in the Neolithic (Herrmann 1968; Petrie 2013, 395–396; Bavay
1997). Central Asia is not really as remote as nineteenth-century European narratives like
Kipling’s ‘The man who would be king’ (1888) made us believe it was; on (post)colonial
European perceptions of Ancient Central Asia’s remoteness, see Howe 2015; Coloru this
volume.
REFERENCES
Assmann, J., Die Mosaische Unterscheidung oder der Preis des Monotheismus (München: Carl
Hanser Verlag, 2003).
Bachmann-Medick, D., ‘From hybridity to translation: Refections on travelling concepts’,
in: id., ed., The Trans/National Study of Culture: A Translational Perspective (Berlin: De
Gruyter, 2014) 119–136.
Bader, A., Callieri, P., Khodzhaniyazov, T., ‘Survey of the Antiochus Wall. Preliminary report
on the 1993–1994 campaigns’, in: A. Gubaev, G. A. Koshelenko, and M. Tonsi, eds.,
The Archaeological Map of the Murghab Delta. Preliminary Reports 1990–1995 (Rome:
Istituto Italiano per l’Africa e l’Oriente, 1998) 159–186.
Baimatova, N. S., 5000 Jahre Architektur im Mittelasien. Lehmziegelgewölbe vom 4./3. Jht.
v. Chr. bis zum Ende des 8. Jhs. n. Chr. Archäologie in Iran und Turan 7 (Berlin/Tehran:
Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, 2008).
Bar-Kochva, B., The Seleucid Army. Organisation and Tactics in the Great Campaigns
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976).
Bar-Kochva, B., ‘The deployment of the armies at Magnesia 190 BCE’, in: id., ed., Judas
Maccabaeus: The Jewish Struggle Against the Seleucids (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1989) 567–568.
Baratin, C., and Martinez-Sève, L., ‘Le grenier grec de Samarkand’, in: J. Bendezu-Sarmiento,
ed., L’Archéologie Française en Asie Centrale. Nouvelles recherches et enjeux socioculturels.
Cahiers d’Asie Centrale 21/22 (Paris: De Boccard, 2013) 373–388.
Barthold, W., An Historical Geography of Iran (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press,
1984).
Bavay, L., ‘Matière première et commerce à longue distance: le lapis-lazuli et l’Égypte
prédynastique’, Archéo-Nil 7 (1997) 79–100.
Bernard, P., ed., Fouilles d'Aï Khanoum. Tome IV: Les monnaies hors trésors. Questions
d'histoire gréco-bactrienne (Paris: De Boccard, 1985).
Bernard, P., ‘Nouvelle contribution de l’épigraphie cunéiforme à l’histoire hellénistique,’ BCH
114 (1990) 513–541.
Bernard, P., ‘L’Asie centrale et l’empire séleucide’, Topoi 4.2 (1994) 473–511.
Bernard, P., ‘Maracanda-Afrasiab colonie grecque’, in: La Persia e l’Asia centrale da Alessandro
al X Secolo (Rome: Accademia nazionale dei Lincei, 1996) 331–365.
Bernard, P., and Francfort, H.-P., Études de géographie historique sur la plaine d’Aï Khanoum
(Afghanistan) (Paris: Éditions du CNRS, 1978).
Bernard, P., and Guillaume, O., ‘Monnaies inédites de la Bactriane grecque a Aï Khanoum
(Afghanistan)’, RN 22 (1980) 9–32.
29
— R o l f S t r o o t m a n —
Bernard, P., Pinault, G. J., and Rougemont, G., ‘Deux nouvelles inscriptions grecques de l’Asie
centrale’, Journal des Savants 2.2 (2004) 333–356.
Betts, A., Yagodin, V. N., Grenet, F., Kidd, F., Minardi, M., Bonnat, M., and Khashimov, S.,
‘The Akchakhan-kala wall paintings: New perspectives on kingship and religion in ancient
Chorasmia’, Journal of Inner Asian Art and Archaeology 7 (2012) 125–165.
Bichler, R., Brinkhaus, H., Wiesehöfer, J., eds., Megasthenes und seine Zeit / Megasthenes and
His Time (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2016).
Bivar, A. D. H., Bactrian Treasure of Qunduz. Numismatic Notes and Monographs of the
Numismatic Society of India 3 (Bombay: Numismatic Society of India, 1955).
Bopearachchi, O., ‘L’indépendance de la Bactriane’, Topoi 4.2 (1994) 519–531.
Bopearachchi, O., ‘Sophytes, the enigmatic ruler of Central Asia’, Nomismatika Khronika 15
(1996) 19–32.
Bopearachchi, O., ‘Les monnaies séleucides de l’Asie centrale et l’atelier de Bactres’, in: M.
Amandry and S. Hurter, eds., Travaux de numismatique grecque offerts à Georges Le Rider
(London: Spink, 1999) 77–93.
Bopearachchi, O., ‘La politique monétaire de la Bactriane sous les Séleucides’, in: V.
Chankowski and F. Duyrat, eds., Le roi et l'économie. Autonomies locales et structures
royales dans l'économie de l'empire séleucide (Paris: Topoi, 2005a) 349–369.
Bopearachchi, O., ‘Royaumes grecs en Afghanistan. Nouvelles données’, in: L’art d’Afghanistan
de la préhistoire à nos jours (Paris: CERDAF, 2005b) 49–69.
Bopearachchi, O., ‘The monetary policy of Bactria under the Seleucids’, in: id., ed., From
Bactria to Taprobane: Selected Works of Osmund Bopearachchi. Volume 1: Central Asian
and Indian Numismatics (New Delhi: Manohar, 2015) 42–60.
Bopearachchi, O., ‘Alexandre le Grand et les portraits monétaires des souverains indogrecs’,
in: Q. Boschung, ed., Bilder der Macht. Das griechische Porträt und seine Verwendung in
der antiken Welt (Paderborn: Wilhelm Fink Verlag, 2017) 255–268.
Bosworth, A. B., Conquest and Empire: The Reign of Alexander the Great (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1988; 2nd edn. 1995).
Bosworth, A. B., ‘The historical settings of Megasthenes’ Indica’, CPh 91 (1996) 113–127.
Bourdieu, P., La distinction. Critique sociale du jugement (Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit, 1979).
Briant, P., L’Asie centrale et les royaumes proche-orientaux du premier millénaire (c. VIIIe-
IVe siècles avant notre ère). Recherches sur les civilisations 42 (Paris: Recherches sur les
Civilisations, 1984).
Briant, P., From Cyrus to Alexander. A History of the Persian Empire. Translated by P. T.
Daniels (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2002).
Brosius, M., Women in Ancient Persia (559–331 BC) (Oxford/New York: Clarendon Press,
1996).
Brüggemann, T., ‘The Anabasis of Antiochus III and the tribal populations of the Upper
Satrapies’, in: C. Feyel and L. Graslin-Thomé, eds., Antiochos III et l'Orient. Actes de
la rencontre franco-allemande tenue à Nancy du 6 au 8 juin 2016. Études nancéennes
d’histoire grecque 3 (Paris: De Boccard, 2017) 341–376.
Burstein, S. M., ‘New light on the fate of Greek in Ancient Central and South Asia’, Ancient
West and East 9 (2010) 181–192.
Canepa, M., The Iranian Expanse: Transforming Royal Identity Through Architecture,
Landscape, and the Built Environment, 550 BCE–642 CE (Berkeley/Los Angeles/Oakland,
CA: University of California Press, 2018).
Capdetrey, L., Le pouvoir séleucide. Territoire, administration, fnances d'un royaume
hellénistique (312–129 avant J.C.) (Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes, 2007).
Carney, E. D., ‘“What’s in a name?” The emergence of a title for royal women in the Hellenistic
Period’, in: S. B. Pomeroy, ed., Women’s History and Ancient History (Chapel Hill, NC/
London: University of North Carolina Press, 1991) 154–172.
30
— T h e S e l e u k i d Em p i r e —
Cary, M., A History of the Greek World, 323 BC–146 BC (London: Methuen, 1951).
Cerasetti, B., ‘Reasoning with GIS: Tracing the Silk Road and the defensive systems of the
Murghab Delta (Turkmenistan)’, The Silk Road 2 (2004) 39–42.
Chaniotis, A., ‘The divinity of Hellenistic rulers’, in: A. Erskine, ed., A Companion to the
Hellenistic World (Malden/Oxford: Blackwell, 2003) 431–446.
Chichkina, G. V., ‘Les remparts de Samarcande à l'époque hellénistique’, in: P. Leriche and
H. Tréziny, eds., La fortifcation dans l'histoire du monde grec (Paris: Éditions du CNRS,
1986) 71–78.
Chrubasik, B., Kings and Usurpers in the Seleukid Empire: The Men Who Would Be King
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016).
Cohen, G. M., Hellenistic Settlements in the East: From Armenia and Mesopotamia to Bactria
and India. Hellenistic Culture and Society 54 (Berkeley/Los Angeles, CA: University of
California Press, 2013).
Coloru, O., Da Alessandro a Menandro: il regno greco di Battriana. Studi Ellenistici 21 (Pisa/
Rome: Fabrizio Serra editore, 2009).
Coloru, O., ‘La forme de l’eau: idéologie, politique et stratégie dans l’Anabase d’Antiochos
III’, in: C. Feyel and L. Graslin-Thomé, eds., Antiochos III et l'Orient. Actes de la rencontre
franco-allemande tenue à Nancy du 6 au 8 juin 2016. Études nancéennes d’histoire grecque
3 (Paris: De Boccard, 2017) 303–318.
Curiel, R., and Fussman, G., eds., Le trésor monétaire de Qunduz. MDAFA 20 (Paris:
Klincksieck, 1965).
De la Fuye, A., ‘Monnaies incertaines de la Sogdiane et des contrées voisines’, RN 14 (1910)
281–333.
Drijvers, J. W., ‘Strabo on Parthia and the Parthians’, in: J. Wiesehöfer, ed., Das Partherreich
und seine Zeugnisse (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1998) 278–292.
Dumke, G. R., ‘Diadem = Königsherrschaft? Der Fall des Diodotos I. von Baktrien’, in:
A. Lichtenberger, K., Martin, H.-H., Nieswandt, D. Salzmann, eds., Das Diadem
der hellenistischen Herrscher. Übernahme, Transformation oder Neuschöpfung eines
Herrschaftszeichens? (Bonn: Habelt-Verlag, 2012) 385–393.
Dvurechenskaya, N. D., ‘Предварительные материалы археологических работ 2014 г на
крепости Узундара’, Проблемы истории, филологии, культуры / Journal of Historical,
Philological and Cultural Studies 47.1 (2015) 124–133.
Eiland, M., ‘Parthians in Nineveh: Identifying a nomadic administration’ (2003), available
online at www.parthia.com (accessed 17-07-2016).
Engels, D., ‘Middle Eastern “Feudalism” and Seleukid dissolution’, in: K. Erickson and G.
Ramsey, eds., Seleucid Dissolution: The Sinking of the Anchor. Philippika 50 (Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz Verlag, 2011) 19–36.
Engels, D., ‘Antiochos III. der Große und sein Reich. Überlegungen zur “Feudalisierung” der
seleukidischen Peripherie’, in: F. Hoffmann and K. S. Schmidt, eds., Orient und Okzident
in hellenistischer Zeit. Beiträge zur Tagung “Orient und Okzident – Antagonismus oder
Konstrukt? Machtstrukturen, Ideologien und Kulturtransfer in hellenistischer Zeit”,
Würzburg 10–13 April 2008 (Vaterstetten: Verlag Patrick Brose, 2014) 31–76.
Engels, D., and Erickson, K., ‘Apama and Stratonike: Marriage and legitimacy’, in: A. Coškun
and A. McAuley, eds., Seleukid Royal Women: Creation, Representation and Distortion
of Hellenistic Queenship in the Seleukid Empire. Historia Einzelschriften 240 (Stuttgart:
Franz Steiner Verlag, 2016) 67–86.
Engels, D., Benefactors, Kings, Rulers: Studies on the Seleukid Empire between East and West.
Studia Hellenistica 57 (Leuven: Peeters, 2017).
Erickson, K., ‘Apollo-Nabû: The Babylonian policy of Antiochus I’, in: K. Erickson and G.
Ramsey, eds., Seleucid Dissolution: The Sinking of the Anchor. Philippika 50 (Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz Verlag, 2011) 51–66.
31
— R o l f S t r o o t m a n —
Erickson, K., ‘Antiochos Soter and the Third Syrian War’, in: id., ed., The Seleucid Empire,
281–222 BC: War within the Family (Swansea: Classical Press of Wales, 2018) 253–273.
Frye, R. N., The Heritage of Central Asia: From Antiquity to the Turkish Expansion (Princeton,
NJ: Markus Wiener, 1996).
Gehrke, H.-J., ‘Der siegreiche König. Überlegungen zur hellenistischen Monarchie’, Archiv für
Kulturgeschichte 64.2 (1982) 247–277 = ‘The victorious king: Refections on the Hellenistic
monarchy’, in: N. Luraghi, ed., The Splendors and Miseries of Ruling Alone: Encounters
with Monarchy from Archaic Greece to the Hellenistic Mediterranean. Studies in Ancient
Monarchies 1 (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2013) 73–98.
Glenn, S., ‘Heliocles and Laodice of Bactria: A reconsideration’, The Numismatic Chronicle
174 (2014) 45–59.
Gnoli, G., and Jamzadeh, P., ‘Bahrām (Vahrām (K "’, in: E. Yarshater, et al., eds., Encyclopaedia
Iranica III.5 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1988) 510–514.
Grainger, J. D., Seleukos Nikator: Constructing a Hellenistic Kingdom (London: Routledge,
1992).
Grenet, F., and Rapin, C., ‘Alexander, Aï Khanum, Termez: Remarks on the Spring campaign
of 328’, in: O. Bopearachchi, et al., eds., Alexander’s Legacy in the East: Studies in Honor
of Paul Bernard. Bulletin of the Asia Institute 12 (2001) 79–89.
Grenet, F., ‘Was Zoroastrian art invented in Chorasmia?’, in: M. Minardi and A. Ivantchik,
eds., Ancient Chorasmia, Central Asia and the Steppes: Cultural Relations and Exchanges
from the Achaemenids to the Arabs. Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 24
(Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2018) 68–86.
Gropp, G., ‘Herrscherethos und Kriegsführung bei Achämeniden und Makedonen’, in: J. Ozols
and V. Thewalt, eds., Aus dem Osten des Alexanderreiches. Völker und Kulturen zwischen
Orient und Okzident: Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indien (Köln: DuMont Buchverlag,
1984) 32–42.
Harders, A.-C., ‘The making of a queen: Seleukos Nikator and his wives’, in: A. Coškun
and A. McAuley, eds., Seleukid Royal Women: Creation, Representation and Distortion
of Hellenistic Queenship in the Seleukid Empire. Historia Einzelschriften 240 (Stuttgart:
Franz Steiner Verlag, 2016) 25–38.
Henkelman, W. F. M., ‘Bactrians in Persepolis – Persians in Bactria’, in: J. Lhuillier and N.
Boroffka, eds., A Millennium of History: The Iron Age in Southern Central Asia (2nd
and 1st Millennia BC). Proceedings of the Conference Held in Berlin (June 23–25, 2015).
Dedicated to the Memory of Viktor Ivanovich Sarianidi (Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag,
2018) 223–256.
Herrmann, G., ‘Lapis-Lazuli: The early phases of its trade’, Iraq 30 (1968) 21–57.
Hollis, A. S., ‘Laodice mother of Eucratides of Bactria’, ZPE 110 (1996) 161–164.
Holt, F. L., ‘The so-called pedigree coins of the Bactrian Greeks’, in: W. Heckel and R.
Sullivan, eds., Ancient Coins of the Graeco-Roman World: The Nickle Numismatic Papers
(Waterloo, ON: Laurier, 1984) 69–91.
Holt, F. L., Alexander the Great and Bactria. Mnemosyne Supplement 100 (Leiden: Brill,
1988).
Holt, F. L., Thundering Zeus: The Making of Hellenistic Bactria. Hellenistic Culture and
Society 32 (Berkeley/Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press, 1999).
Hoo, M., ‘Ai Khanum in the face of Eurasian globalisation: A translocal approach to a
contested site in Hellenistic Bactria’, Ancient West and East 17 (2018) 161–185.
Houghton, A., and Lorber, C. C., Seleucid Coins: A Comprehensive Catalogue. Part 1: Seleucus
I through Antiochus III (New York: American Numismatic Society, 2002).
Houghton, A., and Moore, W., ‘Some early far northeastern Seleucid mints’. ANSMN 29
(1984) 1–9.
32
— T h e S e l e u k i d Em p i r e —
Howe, T., ‘Alexander and “Afghan insurgency’: A reassessment’, in: T. Howe and L. Brice,
eds., Brill’s Companion to Insurgency and Terrorism in the Ancient Mediterranean (Leiden/
Boston, MA: Brill, 2015) 151–182.
Jakobsson, J., ‘The Greeks of Afghanistan revisited’, Nomismatika Khronika 26 (2007) 71–66.
Jakobsson, J., ‘Eumenes II of Pergamon and Eumenes, the Bactrian joint-king – a new discovery
in 1. Macc’, in: I. A. Ladynin and O. L Gabelko, eds., Hellenistic Time Reckoning (Moscow:
Russian State University for the Humanities, forthcoming).
Jansari, S., ‘The Sophytes coins: From the Punjab to Bactria and back again’, Numismatic
Chronicle 178 (2018) 71–98, pl. 8–12.
Kidd, F., ‘Complex connections: Figurative art from Akchakhan-kala and the problematic
question of relations between Khorezm and Parthia’, Topoi 17.1 (2011) 229–276.
Kosmin, P. J., ‘Apologetic ethnography: Megasthenes’ Indica and the Seleucid elephant’, in: E.
Almagor and J. Skinner, eds., Ancient Ethnography. New Approaches (London/New Delhi/
New York/Sidney: Bloomsbury, 2013) 97–115.
Kosmin, P. J., The Land of the Elephant Kings: Space, Territory, and Ideology in the Seleucid
Empire (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2014).
Kosmin, P. J., Time and Its Adversaries in the Seleucid Empire (Cambridge, MA/London:
Harvard University Press, 2018).
Kritt, B., Seleucid Coins of Bactria. Classical Numismatic Studies 1 (Lancaster, PA: Classical
Numismatics Group, 1996).
Kritt, B., ‘Three Seleucid notes. I: Coinage of Antiochus III in Bactria’, AJN 12 (2000) 93–101.
Lerner, J. D., ‘A Graeco-Sogdian mint of Euthydemos’, RN 151.6 (1996) 77–94.
Lerner, J. D., The Impact of Seleucid Decline on the Eastern Iranian Plateau: The Foundations
of Arsacid Parthia and Graeco-Bactria. Historia Einzelschriften 123 (Stuttgart: Franz
Steiner Verlag, 1999).
Lerner, J. D., ‘Correcting the early history at Āy Ḵānom’, Archäologische Mitteilungen aus
Iran und Turan 35/36 (2004) 373–410.
Lerner, J. D., ‘Revising the chronologies of the Hellenistic colonies of Samarkand-Marakanda
(Afrasiab II–III) and Aï Khanoum (Northeastern Afghanistan)’, Anabasis 1 (2010) 58–79.
Lindström, G., ‘Alexander der Große und Baktrien’, Das Altertum 54 (2009) 241–266.
Lyonnet, B., ‘Questions on the date of the Hellenistic pottery from Central Asia (Ai Khanoum,
Marakanda and Koktepe)’, Ancient Cultures from Scythia to Siberia 18.1 (2012) 143–173.
Ma, J., ‘Peer polity interaction in the Hellenistic Age’, Past and Present 180.1 (2003) 9–39.
Mairs, R. R., The Archaeology of the Hellenistic Far East: A Survey. BAR International Series
2196 (Oxford: Archaeopress, 2011).
Mairs, R. R., ‘Glassware from Roman Egypt at Begram (Afghanistan) and the Indian Ocean
trade’, British Museum Studies in Ancient Egypt and Sudan 18 (2012) 1–14.
Mairs, R. R., ‘The Hellenistic far east: From the oikoumene to the community’, in: E.
Stavrianopoulou, ed., Shifting Social Imaginaries in the Hellenistic Period: Narrations, Practices,
and Images. Mnemosyne Supplements 363 (Leiden/Boston, MA: Brill, 2013) 365–387.
Mairs, R. R., ‘The founder’s shrine and the foundation of Ai Khanoum’, in: Naoíse Mac
Sweeney, ed., Foundation Myths in Ancient Societies: Dialogues and Discourses
(Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2015) 103–128.
Mairs, R. R., ‘New discoveries of documentary texts from Bactria: Political and cultural change,
administrative continuity’, in: T. Derda, A. Lajtar, and J. Urbanik, eds., Proceedings of the
27th International Congress of Papyrology. Journal of Juristic Papyrology Supplement 28
(Warsaw: Journal of Juristic Papyrology, 2016a) 2037–2061.
Mairs, R. R., ‘Lapis lazuli, Homer and the Buddha: Material and ideological exchange in West
Asia (c. 250 BCE–200 CE)’, in: T. Hodos, ed., The Routledge Handbook of Archaeology
and Globalization (London/New York: Routledge, 2016b) 885–898.
33
— R o l f S t r o o t m a n —
Mairs, R. R., ‘The men who would be Alexander: Alexander the Great and his Graeco-
Bactrian successors in the Raj’, in: K. R. Moore, ed., Brill’s Companion to the Reception of
Alexander the Great (Leiden/Boston, MA: Brill, 2018) 576–595.
Martínez Ferreras, V., Gurt Esparraguera, J. M., Hein, A., Pidaev, S., Rtveladze, E. V., and
Bolelov, S. B., ‘Tableware in the Hellenistic tradition from the city of Kampyr Tepe in
ancient Bactria (Uzbekistan)’, Archaeometry 58.5 (2016) 736–764.
Martínez Ferreras, V., Angourakis, A., Hein, A., Gurt Esparraguera, J. M., Sverchkov, L.
M., and Sánchez del Corral, A., ‘Pottery in Hellenistic tradition from ancient Bactria: The
Kurganzol fortress (Uzbekistan, Central Asia)’, Journal of Archaeological Science 21 (2018)
1044–1054.
Martinez-Sève, L., ‘Roi et cités en Asie Centrale: un roi indispensable?’, in: C. Feyel, J. Fournier,
L. Graslin-Thomé, and F. Kirbihler, eds., Entités locales et pouvoir central. La cité dominée
dans l’Orient hellénistique (Nancy: A.D.R.A., 2012) 211–233.
Martinez-Sève, L., ‘Remarques sur la transmission aux Parthes des pratiques de gouvernement
séleucides: modalités et chronologie’, Ktema 39 (2014) 123–142.
Martinez-Sève, L., ‘Ai Khanoum and Greek domination in Central Asia’, Electrum 22 (2015)
17–46.
Martinez-Sève, L., ‘Les opérations d’Antiochos III en Bactriane-Sogdiane: l’apport de la
documentation archéologique’, in: C. Feyel and L. Graslin-Thomé, eds., Antiochos III et
l'Orient. Actes de la rencontre franco-allemande tenue à Nancy du 6 au 8 juin 2016. Études
nancéennes d’histoire grecque 3 (Paris: De Boccard, 2017) 271–302.
Mehl, A., Seleukos Nikator und sein Reich I. Seleukos’ Leben und die Entwicklung sein
Machtposition. Studia Hellenistica 28 (Leuven: Peeters, 1986).
Mendoza, M., ‘Stasanor of Soloi and the government of Bactria during the Wars of the
Diadochi’, Anabasis 8 (2017) 44–70.
Minardi, M., Ancient Chorasmia: A Polity Between the Semi-Nomadic and Sedentary Cultural
Areas of Central Asia. Cultural Interactions and Local Developments from the Sixth
Century BC to the First Century AD. Acta Iranica 56 (Leuven: Peeters, 2015).
Minardi, M., and Ivantchik, A. I., eds., Ancient Chorasmia, Central Asia and the Steppes.
Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 24 (Leiden/Boston, MA: Brill, 2018).
Mitchiner, M., Indo-Greek and Indo-Scythian Coinage. Volume 1: The Early Indo-Greeks
and Their Antecedents: Alexander the Great, the Satraps of Egypt, Babylon, Ecbatana,
Bactra and Kapsia: the Seleucids, circa 330 to 150 BC (London: Hawkins, 1975).
Mittag, P. F., Antiochos IV. Epiphanes. Eine politische Biographie. Klio Beihefte N.F. 11
(Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2006).
Morris, I., Why the West Rules—For Now: The Patterns of History and What They Reveal
About the Future (New York: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux, 2010).
Müller, S., ‘The female element of the political self-fashioning of the Diadochi: Ptolemy,
Seleucus, Lysimachus, and their Iranian wives’, in: V. A. Troncoso and E. M. Anson, eds.,
After Alexander: The Time of the Diadochi (323–281 BC) (Oxford/Oakville: Oxbow
Books, 2013) 199–214.
Nawotka, K., ‘Apollo, the tutelary god of the Seleucids, and Demodamas of Miletus’, in:
Z. Archibald and J. Haywood eds., The Power of Individual and Community in Ancient
Athens and Beyond: Essays in Honour of John K. Davies (Swansea: The Classical Press of
Wales, 2019) 261–284.
Naymark, A., ‘Seleucid coinage of Samarqand?’, Journal of the Oriental Numismatic Society
221 (2014) 15–19.
Newell, E. T., The Coinage of the Eastern Seleucid Mints from Seleucus I to Antiochus III.
Numismatic Studies 1 (2nd rev. Edn, New York: American Numismatic Society, 1978).
Oelsner, J., Materialien zur babylonischen Gesellschaft und Kultur in hellenistischer Zeit
(Budapest: Eötvös University, 1986).
34
— T h e S e l e u k i d Em p i r e —
Ogden, D., Polygamy, Prostitutes and Death: The Hellenistic Dynasties (London: Duckworth,
1999).
Olbrycht, M. J., ‘Creating an empire: Iran and Middle Asia in the policy of Seleukos I’, in: P.
Nikonorov, et al., eds., Central Asia From the Achaemenids to the Timurids (St Petersburg:
State Hermitage, 2005) 231–234.
Olijdam, E., and Spoor, R. H., eds., Intercultural Relations Between South and Southwest
Asia. Studies in Commemoration of E. C. L. During Caspers (1934–1996). Society for
Arabian Studies Monographs 7 (Oxford: Archaeopress, 2008).
Petrie, C. A., ‘Ancient Iran and its neighbours: Emerging paradigms and future direction’, in:
id., ed., Ancient Iran and Its Neighbours: Local Developments and Long-Range Interactions
in the Fourth Millennium BC (Oxford/Oakville: Oxbow Books, 2013) 385–411.
Plischke, S., Die Seleukiden und Iran. Die seleukidische Herrschaftspolitik in den östlichen
Satrapien. Classica et Orientalia 9 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2014).
Plischke, S., ‘Apame und Stratonike – Die seleukidische Königin als Bindeglied zwischen
West und Ost’, in: C. Binder, H. Börm, and A. Luther, eds., Diwan: Untersuchungen
zu Geschichte und Kultur des Nahen Ostens und des östlichen Mittelmeerraumes im
Altertum, Festschrift für Josef Wiesehöfer zum 65. Geburtstag (Duisburg: Wellem Verlag,
2016) 325–346.
Primo, A., La storiografa sui Seleucidi: da Megastene a Eusebio di Cesarea. Studi Ellenistici 10
(Pisa/Rome: Fabrizio Serra, 2009a).
Primo, A., ‘La battaglia di Ipso e la storiografa sui Seleucidi’, Tyche 24 (2009b) 99–102.
Ramsey, G., ‘The diplomacy of Seleukid women: Apama and Stratonike’, in: A. Coškun and
A. McAuley, eds., Seleukid Royal Women: Creation, Representation and Distortion of
Hellenistic Queenship in the Seleukid Empire. Historia Einzelschriften 240 (Stuttgart:
Franz Steiner Verlag, 2016) 87–104.
Rapin, C., Fouilles d'Aï Khanoum. Tome VIII: La Trésorerie du palais hellénistique d'Aï
Khanoum. L'Apogée et la chute du royaume grec de Bactriane. Mémoires de la Délégation
archéologique française en Afghanistan XXXIII (Paris: De Boccard, 1992).
Rapin, C., and Isamiddinov, M., ‘Fortifcations hellénistiques de Samarcande (Samarkand-
Afrasiab)’, Topoi 4.2 (1994) 547–565.
Robert, L., ‘Inscriptions Séleucides de Phrygie et d’Iran’, Hellenica 7 (1949) 22–24.
Robert, L., ‘Pline VI 49, Démodamas de Milet et la reine Apamè’, BCH 108 (1984) 467–472.
Rollinger, R., ‘Megasthenes, mental maps and Seleucid royal ideology: The western fringes of
the world or how Ancient Near Eastern empires conceptualized world dominion’, in: R.
Bichler, H. Brinkhaus, and J. Wiesehöfer, eds., Megasthenes und seine Zeit / Megasthenes
and His Time (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2016) 129–164.
Schlumberger, D., L’Argent grec dans l’empire achéménide. Memoirs de Délégation
Archéologique Française en Afghanistan 14 (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1953).
Seibert, J., Historische Beiträge zu den dynastischen Verbindungen in hellenistischer Zeit.
Historia Einzelschriften 10 (Wiesbaden: Frans Steiner Verlag, 1967).
Sherwin-White, S., and Kuhrt, A., From Samarkhand to Sardis: A New Approach to the
Seleucid Empire (London: Duckworth, 1993).
Stark, S., ‘“Hellenism”’ at the Fringes: On the Relationship between Bactria and Western
Sogdiana (Bukhara oasis)’, in: A. E. Berdimuradov, ed., История и Aрхеология Турана 3: П
освяьенный юбилею Джамалиддина Камаловича Мирзаахмедова (Samarkand: Institute of
Archeology, 2016) 134–150.
Strootman, R., ‘Queen of Kings: Cleopatra VII and the Donations of Alexandria’, in: M.
Facella and T. Kaizer, eds., Kingdoms and Principalities in the Roman Near East. Occidens
et Oriens 19 (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2010) 139–158.
Strootman, R., ‘Hellenistic court society: The Seleukid imperial court under Antiochos the
Great, 223–187 BCE’, in: J. Duindam, M. Kunt, and T. Artan, eds., Royal Courts in
35
— R o l f S t r o o t m a n —
Dynastic States and Empires: A Global Perspective. Rulers and Elites 1 (Leiden/Boston,
MA: Brill, 2011a) 63–89.
Strootman, R., ‘The Seleukid Empire between Orientalism and Hellenocentrism: Writing
the history of Iran in the Third and Second Centuries BCE’, Nāme-ye Irān-e Bāstān: The
International Journal of Ancient Iranian Studies 11.1–2 (2011b) 17–35.
Strootman, R., ‘Babylonian, Macedonian, King of the World: The Antiochos Cylinder from
Borsippa and Seleukid imperial integration’, in: E. Stavrianopoulou, ed., Shifting Social
Imaginaries in the Hellenistic Period: Narrations, Practices, and Images. Mnemosyne
Supplements 363 (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2013) 67–97.
Strootman, R., Courts and Elites in the Hellenistic Empires: The Near East After the
Achaemenids, 330–30 BCE. Studies in Ancient Persia 1 (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press, 2014a).
Strootman, R., ‘Hellenistic imperialism and the idea of world unity’, in: C. Rapp and H.
Drake, eds., The City in the Classical and Post-Classical World: Changing Contexts of
Power and Identity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014b) 38–61.
Strootman, R., ‘Seleucid Era’, in: E. Yarshater, et al., eds., Encyclopaedia Iranica Online (2015
[2008]) www.iranicaonline.org.
Strootman, R., ‘Imperial Persianism: Seleukids, Arsakids, Fratarakā’, in: R. Strootman and M.
J. Versluys, eds., Persianism in Antiquity. Oriens et Occidens 25 (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner
Verlag, 2017a) 169–192.
Strootman, R., ‘Eunuchs, renegades and concubines: The “paradox of power” and the
promotion of favorites in the Hellenistic empires’, in: A. Erskine, L. Llewellyn-Jones, and S.
Wallace, eds., The Hellenistic Court: Monarchic Power and Elite Society From Alexander
to Cleopatra (Swansea: The Classical Press of Wales, 2017b) 121–142.
Strootman, R., ‘The coming of the Parthians: Crisis and resilience in Seleukid Iran in the reign
of Seleukos II’, in: K. Erickson, ed., The Seleukid Empire, 281–222 BC: War Within the
Family (Swansea: Classical Press of Wales, 2018) 129–150.
Strootman, R., ‘Imperial titulature in the Seleukid and post-Seleukid Middle East’, in: R.
Oetjen and F. X. Ryan, eds., Seleukeia: New Perspectives in Seleucid History, Archaeology
and Numismatics in Honor of Getzel M. Cohen (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2019) 123–157.
Sverchkov, L. M., ‘The Kurganzol Fortress (on the history of Central Asia in the Hellenistic
Era)’, Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 14 (2008) 123–191.
Tarn, W. W., ‘Queen Ptolemais and Apama’, CQ 23.3/4 (1929) 138–141.
Tarn, W. W., ‘Two notes on Seleucid history: (1) Seleucus’ 500 elephants. (2) Tarmita’, JHS
60 (1940) 84–94.
Tarn, W. W., The Greeks in Bactria and India (2nd edn., Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1951).
Thonemann, P., The Hellenistic World: Using Coins as Sources (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2015).
Van der Spek, R. J., ‘The astronomical diaries as a source for Achaemenid and Seleucid
history’, Bibliotheca Orientalis 50 (1993) 91–101.
Van Oppen, B., ‘The Susa marriages: A historiographical note’, Ancient Society 44 (2014)
25–41.
Van Wickevoort Crommelin, B., ‘Die Parther und die parthische Geschichte bei Pompeius
Trogus-Iustin’, in: J. Wiesehöfer, ed., Das Partherreich und seine Zeugnisse (Stuttgart:
Franz Steiner Verlag, 1998) 259–277.
Vogelsang, W., ‘Some remarks on eastern Iran in the late Achaemenid period’, in: H. W. A.
M. Sancisi-Weerdenburg, ed., Achaemenid History I: Sources, Structures and Synthesis.
Proceedings of the Groningen 1983 Achaemenid History Workshop (Leiden: Nederlands
Institituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 1987) 183–189.
36

— T h e S e l e u k i d Em p i r e —
Vogelsang, W. J., The Rise and Organisation of the Achaemenid Empire. The Eastern Iranian
Evidence. Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East 3 (Leiden: Brill,
1992).
Von den Hoff, R., ‘Alexanderbildnisse und imitatio Alexandri in Baktrien’, in: G. Lindström,
S. Hansen, M. Tellenbach, and A. Wieczorek, eds., Zwischen Ost und West. Neue
Forschungen zum antiken Zentralasien. Wissenschaftliches Kolloquium 30.9.-2.10.2009
in Mannheim. Archäologie in Iran und Turan 14 (Darmstadt: Philipp von Zabern, 2013)
83–98.
Walbank, F. W., A Historical Commentary on Polybius. Volume II (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1967).
Wallace, S., ‘Greek culture in Afghanistan and India: Old evidence and new discoveries’,
Greece and Rome 63.2 (2016) 205–226.
Wenghofer, R. ‘New interpretations of the evidence for the Diodotid revolt and the secession
of Bactria from the Seleucid Empire’, in: K. Erickson, ed., The Seleukid Empire, 281–222
BC: War Within the Family (Swansea: Classical Press of Wales, 2018) 151–172.
Wenghofer, R., and Houle, D. J., ‘Marriage diplomacy and the political role of royal women
in the Seleukid Far East’, in: A. Coškun and A. McAuley, eds., Seleukid Royal Women:
Creation, Representation and Distortion of Hellenistic Queenship in the Seleukid Empire.
Historia Einzelschriften 240 (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2016) 191–208.
Wheatley, P. V., ‘Seleukos and Chandragupta in Justin XV 4’, in: H. Hauben and A. Meeus,
eds., The Age of the Successors and the Creation of the Hellenistic Kingdoms (323–276
B.C). Studia Hellenistica 53 (Leuven: Peeters, 2014) 501–516.
Widemann, F., Les successeurs d’Alexandre en Asie centrale et leur héritage culturel (Paris:
Riveneuve, 2009).
Widmer, M., ‘Apamè. Une reine au cœur de la construction d’un royaume’, in: A. Bielman-
Sánchez, I. Cogitore, and A. Kolb, eds., Femmes infuentes dans le monde hellénistique et à
Rome, IIIe s. av. J.-C. – Ier s. ap. J.-C. (Grenoble: ELLUG, 2015) 17–34.
Wolski, J., L’effondrement de la domination des Séleucides en Iran au IIIe siècle av. J.-C.
Bulletin International de l’Academie Polonaise des Sciences et des Lettres Supplement V 13
(Cracow: Imprimerie de l’Université, 1947).
Wolski, J., ‘Les Iraniens et le royaume gréco-bactrien’, Klio 38 (1960) 110–121.
Wolski, J., ‘Les Séleucides et l'heritage d'Alexandre le Grand en Iran’, in: B. Virgilio, ed., Studi
Ellenistici 1 (Pisa: Fabrizio Serra, 1984) 9–20.
Wright, N. L., Divine Kings and Sacred Spaces: Power and Religion in Hellenistic Syria (301–
64 BC). BAR International Series 2450 (Oxford: Archaeopress, 2012).
Wu, X., ‘Land of the unruleables: Bactria in the Achaemenid period’, in: K. O. Weber, E. Hite,
L. Khatchadourian, and A. T. Smith, eds., Fitful Histories and Unruly Publics: Rethinking
Temporality and Community in Eurasian Archaeology (Leiden/Boston, MA: Brill, 2017)
258–287.
Zadok, R., ‘An Achaemenid queen’, N.A.B.U. 3 (2002), 63–66.
Zavyalov, V. A., ‘The fortifcations of the city of Gyaur Kala, Merv’, in: J. Cribb and G.
Herrmann, eds., After Alexander: Central Asia Before Islam (Oxford/London: Oxford
University Press, 2007) 313–329.