9. The east of Iran—Bactria with Sogdiana, Eastern Arachosia and Gedrosia—was never subject to the Arsacids. Here the Graeco-Bactrian and Graeco-Indian kingdoms held their own, till, in 139 B.C., they succumbed before the invading Mongolian and Scythian tribes (see BACTRIA and works quoted there). But in the Indus district the Greek kings held their ground for an appreciably longer period and, for a while, widely extended their power (see MENANDER OF INDIA). Among the kings then fol lowing, only known to us from their coins, there appears a dynasty with Iranian and sometimes peculiarly Parthian names which seems to have reigned in the Punjab and Arachosia. Its best-known representative, Gondophares or Hyndopherres, to whom legend makes the apostle Thomas write, reigned over Arachosia and the Indus district about A.D. 20. Further, about A.D. 7o, the Periplus of the Erythraean sea mentions that the great commercial town of Minnagar in the Indus Delta was under Parthian kings, "who spent their time in expelling one another." Here, then, it would seem there existed a Parthian dynasty, which probably went back to the conquests of Mith radates I. (cf. Vincent A. Smith, "The Indo-Parthian Dynasties from about 120 B.C. to A.D. 100," in the Zeitschr. der dGutschen morgenl. Gesellsch. 6o, 1906). Naturally, such a dynasty would not long have recognized the suzerainty of the Arsacids. It suc cumbed to the Indo-Scythian empire of the Kushana, who had obtained the sovereignty of Bactria as early as about A.D. 5o, and thence pressed onward into India. In the period of the Periplus (c. A.D. 7o) the Scythians were already settled in the Indus valley (PP. 38, 41, 48), their dominion reaching its zenith under Kanishka (c. A.D. 123-153).
This empire of the Kushana merits special mention here, on account of its peculiar religious attitude, which we may gather from the coins of its kings, on which an alphabet taken from the Greek is employed (cf. Aurel Stein, "Zoroastrian Deities on Indo-Scythian Coins," in The Babylonian and Oriental Record, vol. i., 1887). Kanishka, as is well known, had embraced Buddhism, and some of his coins bear the image and name of Buddha. Iranian divinities, however, predominate on his cur rency: Mithras (Mihro or Helios) ; the Moon Mah (also Selene) ; Athro, the Fire; Orthragno (Verethragna) ; Pharro=Farna (hvarena), "the majesty of kingship"; Teiro= Tir (Tistrya "the archer") ; Nana (Nanaia) ; and others. Here, then, we have a perfect example of syncretism ; as in the Mithras cult in Ar menia, Asia Minor, and still further in the Roman empire. Buddhism and Zoroastrianism have been wedded in the state re ligion, and, in characteristic Indian fashion, are on the best of terms with one another, precisely as, in the Chinese empire at the present day, we find the most varied religions, side by side, and on an equal footing.
O. Originally, a part of the Turanian steppe belonged to the Arsacids; it was the starting-point of their power. Soon, however, the nomads (Dahae) gained their independence, and, as we have seen, repeatedly attacked and devastated the Parthian empire in conjunction with the Tocharians and other tribes of Sacae and Scythians. In the subsequent period, again, we shall frequently
meet them.
Character of the Empire.—It may appear surprising that the Arsacids made no attempt to incorporate the minor states in the empire and create a great and united dominion, such as existed under the Achaemenids and was afterwards restored by the Sas sanids. This fact is the clearest symptom of the inner weakness of their empire and of the small power wielded by the "king of kings." In contrast alike with its predecessors and its successors, the Arsacid dominion was peculiarly a chance formation—a state which had come into existence through fortuitous external cir cumstances, and had no firm foundation within itself, or any intrinsic raison d'être.
Three elements, of widely different kinds, contributed to its origin and defined its character. It was sprung from a nomad tribe (the Parnian Dahae, Scythians) which had estab lished itself in Khorasan (Parthia), on the borders of civilization, and thence gradually annexed further districts as the political situation or the weakness of its neighbours allowed. Conse quently, these nomads were the main pillar of the empire, and from them were obviously derived the great magnates, with their huge estates and hosts of serfs, who composed the imperial coun cil, led the armies, governed the provinces and made and unmade the kings (Strabo xi. 515; Justin xli. 2; the former terming them zeuyyev€is "kinsmen" of the king, the latter Probuli). Of these great families that of Surenas held the privilege of setting the diadem on the head of the new king (Plut. Crass. 21; Tac. Ann. vi. 42).
The military organization, moreover, was wholly nomadic in character. The nucleus of the army was formed of armoured horsemen, excellently practised for long-distance fighting with bow and javelin, but totally unable to venture on a hand-to-hand conflict, their tactics being rather to swarm round the enemy's squadrons and overwhelm them under a hail of missiles. When attacked they broke up, as it seemed, in hasty and complete flight, and having thus led the hostile army to break its formation, they themselves rapidly reformed and renewed the assault. How dif ficult it was for infantry to hold their own against these mounted squadrons was demonstrated by the Roman campaigns, especially in broad plains like those of Mesopotamia. In winter, however, the Parthians were powerless to wage war, as the moisture of the atmosphere relaxed their bows. The infantry, in contrast with its earlier status under the Persians, was wholly neglected. On the other hand, every magnate put into the field as many mounted warriors as possible, chiefly servants and bought slaves, who, like the Janissaries and Mamelukes, were trained exclusively for war. Thus Surenas, in 53 B.C., is said to have put at the king's dis posal i,000 mailed horsemen and, in all, io,000 men, including the train, which also comprised his attendants and harem (Plut. Crass. 21; description of the military organization in Dio Cass. 40, 15; Justin xli. 2). In the army of 50,000 mounted men which took the field against Mark Antony there were, says Justin, only 400 freemen.