Talk:Pantaleon

Untitled
Hi PHG!

Bopearachchi does not claim that Pantaleon ruled in Arachosia and Gandhara only. He gives a double-edged arrow between Pantaleon and Agathocles on the table on p453, probably indicating that the two kings ruled the same kingdom of Bactria and India (they share some mintmarks, as you know).

Bopearachchi also credits Pantaleon as the first king to rule in India, based on the fact that Demetrius I never struck Indian coins. This is a numismatician's view and its weaknesses are obvious to me: striking coins and conquering are two different things. Demetrios I well may have conquered India without striking coins there; so did Alexander. The Indian minting crafts were much inferior to the Greek, and to me it's perfectly plausible that Demetrius simply sent metal hoards home to his own state-of-the-art mints in Bactria, to strike unilingual coins to pay his soldiers. Pantaleon on the other hand may have had reasons to appeal to the Indian population if he wanted their support against other Greek kings. His Indian coins do not seem the work of a conqerour but of a governor trying to widen his base of support.

Also, Bopearachchi bases his chronology on a mistake; he believes that Euthydemus I ruled from 230 BCE. This date should rather be c.222 BCE as is shown in The Impact of Seleucid Decline on the Eastern Iranian Plateau: The Foundations of Arsacid Parthia and Graeco-Bactria by Jeffrey D. Lerner. Therefore Bopearachchi's approximative end date for Euthydemus I (200 BCE) - which is probably chosen to fix a reasonable limitation of 30 years to his reign - is challenged. Euthydemus may well have reigned until 195 BCE, which alters the reign of Demetrius I and thus, domino-style, all the later kings until Eucratides, whose reign as you know could be roughly estimated from other sources. Best Regards - as usual I appreciate your suggestions! --Sponsianus 20:02, 2 September 2005 (UTC)