Question: Bactria was led by what king from 255-246 BCE?

Answer: Diodotus

The Greek kingdom of Bactria began as a breakaway satrapy of the Seleucid empire, which, because of the size of the empire, had significant freedom from central control. <hl> Between 255-246 BCE, the governor of Bactria, Sogdiana and Margiana (most of present-day Afghanistan), one Diodotus , took this process to its logical extreme and declared himself king. <hl> Diodotus II, son of Diodotus, was overthrown in about 230 BC by Euthydemus, possibly the satrap of Sogdiana, who then started his own dynasty. In c. 210 BC, the Greco-Bactrian kingdom was invaded by a resurgent Seleucid empire under Antiochus III. While victorious in the field, it seems Antiochus came to realise that there were advantages in the status quo (perhaps sensing that Bactria could not be governed from Syria), and married one of his daughters to Euthydemus's son, thus legitimising the Greco-Bactria dynasty. Soon afterwards the Greco-Bactrian kingdom seems to have expanded, possibly taking advantage of the defeat of the Parthian king Arsaces II by Antiochus.

The Greek kingdom of Bactria began as a breakaway satrapy of the Seleucid empire, which, because of the size of the empire, had significant freedom from central control. Between 255-246 BCE, the governor of Bactria, Sogdiana and Margiana (most of present-day Afghanistan), one <hl> Diodotus <hl>, took this process to its logical extreme and declared himself king. Diodotus II, son of Diodotus, was overthrown in about 230 BC by Euthydemus, possibly the satrap of Sogdiana, who then started his own dynasty. In c. 210 BC, the Greco-Bactrian kingdom was invaded by a resurgent Seleucid empire under Antiochus III. While victorious in the field, it seems Antiochus came to realise that there were advantages in the status quo (perhaps sensing that Bactria could not be governed from Syria), and married one of his daughters to Euthydemus's son, thus legitimising the Greco-Bactria dynasty. Soon afterwards the Greco-Bactrian kingdom seems to have expanded, possibly taking advantage of the defeat of the Parthian king Arsaces II by Antiochus.

Between 255-246 BCE, the governor of Bactria, Sogdiana and Margiana (most of present-day Afghanistan), one <hl> Diodotus <hl> , took this process to its logical extreme and declared himself king.

question: Bactria was led by what king from 255-246 BCE?, context: The Greek kingdom of Bactria began as a breakaway satrapy of the Seleucid empire, which, because of the size of the empire, had significant freedom from central control. Between 255-246 BCE, the governor of Bactria, Sogdiana and Margiana (most of present-day Afghanistan), one Diodotus, took this process to its logical extreme and declared himself king. Diodotus II, son of Diodotus, was overthrown in about 230 BC by Euthydemus, possibly the satrap of Sogdiana, who then started his own dynasty. In c. 210 BC, the Greco-Bactrian kingdom was invaded by a resurgent Seleucid empire under Antiochus III. While victorious in the field, it seems Antiochus came to realise that there were advantages in the status quo (perhaps sensing that Bactria could not be governed from Syria), and married one of his daughters to Euthydemus's son, thus legitimising the Greco-Bactria dynasty. Soon afterwards the Greco-Bactrian kingdom seems to have expanded, possibly taking advantage of the defeat of the Parthian king Arsaces II by Antiochus.


Question: When was Diodotus II overthrown?

Answer: 230 BC

The Greek kingdom of Bactria began as a breakaway satrapy of the Seleucid empire, which, because of the size of the empire, had significant freedom from central control. Between 255-246 BCE, the governor of Bactria, Sogdiana and Margiana (most of present-day Afghanistan), one Diodotus, took this process to its logical extreme and declared himself king. <hl> Diodotus II, son of Diodotus, was overthrown in about 230 BC by Euthydemus, possibly the satrap of Sogdiana, who then started his own dynasty. <hl> In c. 210 BC, the Greco-Bactrian kingdom was invaded by a resurgent Seleucid empire under Antiochus III. While victorious in the field, it seems Antiochus came to realise that there were advantages in the status quo (perhaps sensing that Bactria could not be governed from Syria), and married one of his daughters to Euthydemus's son, thus legitimising the Greco-Bactria dynasty. Soon afterwards the Greco-Bactrian kingdom seems to have expanded, possibly taking advantage of the defeat of the Parthian king Arsaces II by Antiochus.

The Greek kingdom of Bactria began as a breakaway satrapy of the Seleucid empire, which, because of the size of the empire, had significant freedom from central control. Between 255-246 BCE, the governor of Bactria, Sogdiana and Margiana (most of present-day Afghanistan), one Diodotus, took this process to its logical extreme and declared himself king. Diodotus II, son of Diodotus, was overthrown in about <hl> 230 BC <hl> by Euthydemus, possibly the satrap of Sogdiana, who then started his own dynasty. In c. 210 BC, the Greco-Bactrian kingdom was invaded by a resurgent Seleucid empire under Antiochus III. While victorious in the field, it seems Antiochus came to realise that there were advantages in the status quo (perhaps sensing that Bactria could not be governed from Syria), and married one of his daughters to Euthydemus's son, thus legitimising the Greco-Bactria dynasty. Soon afterwards the Greco-Bactrian kingdom seems to have expanded, possibly taking advantage of the defeat of the Parthian king Arsaces II by Antiochus.

question: When was Diodotus II overthrown?, context: The Greek kingdom of Bactria began as a breakaway satrapy of the Seleucid empire, which, because of the size of the empire, had significant freedom from central control. Between 255-246 BCE, the governor of Bactria, Sogdiana and Margiana (most of present-day Afghanistan), one Diodotus, took this process to its logical extreme and declared himself king. Diodotus II, son of Diodotus, was overthrown in about 230 BC by Euthydemus, possibly the satrap of Sogdiana, who then started his own dynasty. In c. 210 BC, the Greco-Bactrian kingdom was invaded by a resurgent Seleucid empire under Antiochus III. While victorious in the field, it seems Antiochus came to realise that there were advantages in the status quo (perhaps sensing that Bactria could not be governed from Syria), and married one of his daughters to Euthydemus's son, thus legitimising the Greco-Bactria dynasty. Soon afterwards the Greco-Bactrian kingdom seems to have expanded, possibly taking advantage of the defeat of the Parthian king Arsaces II by Antiochus.


Question: What leader overthrew Diodotus II?

Answer: Euthydemus

The Greek kingdom of Bactria began as a breakaway satrapy of the Seleucid empire, which, because of the size of the empire, had significant freedom from central control. Between 255-246 BCE, the governor of Bactria, Sogdiana and Margiana (most of present-day Afghanistan), one Diodotus, took this process to its logical extreme and declared himself king. <hl> Diodotus II, son of Diodotus, was overthrown in about 230 BC by Euthydemus , possibly the satrap of Sogdiana, who then started his own dynasty. <hl> In c. 210 BC, the Greco-Bactrian kingdom was invaded by a resurgent Seleucid empire under Antiochus III. While victorious in the field, it seems Antiochus came to realise that there were advantages in the status quo (perhaps sensing that Bactria could not be governed from Syria), and married one of his daughters to Euthydemus's son, thus legitimising the Greco-Bactria dynasty. Soon afterwards the Greco-Bactrian kingdom seems to have expanded, possibly taking advantage of the defeat of the Parthian king Arsaces II by Antiochus.

The Greek kingdom of Bactria began as a breakaway satrapy of the Seleucid empire, which, because of the size of the empire, had significant freedom from central control. Between 255-246 BCE, the governor of Bactria, Sogdiana and Margiana (most of present-day Afghanistan), one Diodotus, took this process to its logical extreme and declared himself king. Diodotus II, son of Diodotus, was overthrown in about 230 BC by <hl> Euthydemus <hl>, possibly the satrap of Sogdiana, who then started his own dynasty. In c. 210 BC, the Greco-Bactrian kingdom was invaded by a resurgent Seleucid empire under Antiochus III. While victorious in the field, it seems Antiochus came to realise that there were advantages in the status quo (perhaps sensing that Bactria could not be governed from Syria), and married one of his daughters to Euthydemus's son, thus legitimising the Greco-Bactria dynasty. Soon afterwards the Greco-Bactrian kingdom seems to have expanded, possibly taking advantage of the defeat of the Parthian king Arsaces II by Antiochus.

Diodotus II, son of Diodotus, was overthrown in about 230 BC by <hl> Euthydemus <hl> , possibly the satrap of Sogdiana, who then started his own dynasty.

question: What leader overthrew Diodotus II?, context: The Greek kingdom of Bactria began as a breakaway satrapy of the Seleucid empire, which, because of the size of the empire, had significant freedom from central control. Between 255-246 BCE, the governor of Bactria, Sogdiana and Margiana (most of present-day Afghanistan), one Diodotus, took this process to its logical extreme and declared himself king. Diodotus II, son of Diodotus, was overthrown in about 230 BC by Euthydemus, possibly the satrap of Sogdiana, who then started his own dynasty. In c. 210 BC, the Greco-Bactrian kingdom was invaded by a resurgent Seleucid empire under Antiochus III. While victorious in the field, it seems Antiochus came to realise that there were advantages in the status quo (perhaps sensing that Bactria could not be governed from Syria), and married one of his daughters to Euthydemus's son, thus legitimising the Greco-Bactria dynasty. Soon afterwards the Greco-Bactrian kingdom seems to have expanded, possibly taking advantage of the defeat of the Parthian king Arsaces II by Antiochus.


Question: The Greco-Bactrian kingdom was invaded by what Seleucid leader?

Answer: Antiochus III

The Greek kingdom of Bactria began as a breakaway satrapy of the Seleucid empire, which, because of the size of the empire, had significant freedom from central control. Between 255-246 BCE, the governor of Bactria, Sogdiana and Margiana (most of present-day Afghanistan), one Diodotus, took this process to its logical extreme and declared himself king. Diodotus II, son of Diodotus, was overthrown in about 230 BC by Euthydemus, possibly the satrap of Sogdiana, who then started his own dynasty. <hl> In c. 210 BC, the Greco-Bactrian kingdom was invaded by a resurgent Seleucid empire under Antiochus III . <hl> While victorious in the field, it seems Antiochus came to realise that there were advantages in the status quo (perhaps sensing that Bactria could not be governed from Syria), and married one of his daughters to Euthydemus's son, thus legitimising the Greco-Bactria dynasty. Soon afterwards the Greco-Bactrian kingdom seems to have expanded, possibly taking advantage of the defeat of the Parthian king Arsaces II by Antiochus.

The Greek kingdom of Bactria began as a breakaway satrapy of the Seleucid empire, which, because of the size of the empire, had significant freedom from central control. Between 255-246 BCE, the governor of Bactria, Sogdiana and Margiana (most of present-day Afghanistan), one Diodotus, took this process to its logical extreme and declared himself king. Diodotus II, son of Diodotus, was overthrown in about 230 BC by Euthydemus, possibly the satrap of Sogdiana, who then started his own dynasty. In c. 210 BC, the Greco-Bactrian kingdom was invaded by a resurgent Seleucid empire under <hl> Antiochus III <hl>. While victorious in the field, it seems Antiochus came to realise that there were advantages in the status quo (perhaps sensing that Bactria could not be governed from Syria), and married one of his daughters to Euthydemus's son, thus legitimising the Greco-Bactria dynasty. Soon afterwards the Greco-Bactrian kingdom seems to have expanded, possibly taking advantage of the defeat of the Parthian king Arsaces II by Antiochus.

In c. 210 BC, the Greco-Bactrian kingdom was invaded by a resurgent Seleucid empire under <hl> Antiochus III <hl> .

question: The Greco-Bactrian kingdom was invaded by what Seleucid leader?, context: The Greek kingdom of Bactria began as a breakaway satrapy of the Seleucid empire, which, because of the size of the empire, had significant freedom from central control. Between 255-246 BCE, the governor of Bactria, Sogdiana and Margiana (most of present-day Afghanistan), one Diodotus, took this process to its logical extreme and declared himself king. Diodotus II, son of Diodotus, was overthrown in about 230 BC by Euthydemus, possibly the satrap of Sogdiana, who then started his own dynasty. In c. 210 BC, the Greco-Bactrian kingdom was invaded by a resurgent Seleucid empire under Antiochus III. While victorious in the field, it seems Antiochus came to realise that there were advantages in the status quo (perhaps sensing that Bactria could not be governed from Syria), and married one of his daughters to Euthydemus's son, thus legitimising the Greco-Bactria dynasty. Soon afterwards the Greco-Bactrian kingdom seems to have expanded, possibly taking advantage of the defeat of the Parthian king Arsaces II by Antiochus.


Question: Antiochus III married his daughter off to whose son?

Answer: Euthydemus

The Greek kingdom of Bactria began as a breakaway satrapy of the Seleucid empire, which, because of the size of the empire, had significant freedom from central control. Between 255-246 BCE, the governor of Bactria, Sogdiana and Margiana (most of present-day Afghanistan), one Diodotus, took this process to its logical extreme and declared himself king. <hl> Diodotus II, son of Diodotus, was overthrown in about 230 BC by Euthydemus , possibly the satrap of Sogdiana, who then started his own dynasty. <hl> In c. 210 BC, the Greco-Bactrian kingdom was invaded by a resurgent Seleucid empire under Antiochus III. While victorious in the field, it seems Antiochus came to realise that there were advantages in the status quo (perhaps sensing that Bactria could not be governed from Syria), and married one of his daughters to Euthydemus's son, thus legitimising the Greco-Bactria dynasty. Soon afterwards the Greco-Bactrian kingdom seems to have expanded, possibly taking advantage of the defeat of the Parthian king Arsaces II by Antiochus.

The Greek kingdom of Bactria began as a breakaway satrapy of the Seleucid empire, which, because of the size of the empire, had significant freedom from central control. Between 255-246 BCE, the governor of Bactria, Sogdiana and Margiana (most of present-day Afghanistan), one Diodotus, took this process to its logical extreme and declared himself king. Diodotus II, son of Diodotus, was overthrown in about 230 BC by <hl> Euthydemus <hl>, possibly the satrap of Sogdiana, who then started his own dynasty. In c. 210 BC, the Greco-Bactrian kingdom was invaded by a resurgent Seleucid empire under Antiochus III. While victorious in the field, it seems Antiochus came to realise that there were advantages in the status quo (perhaps sensing that Bactria could not be governed from Syria), and married one of his daughters to Euthydemus's son, thus legitimising the Greco-Bactria dynasty. Soon afterwards the Greco-Bactrian kingdom seems to have expanded, possibly taking advantage of the defeat of the Parthian king Arsaces II by Antiochus.

Diodotus II, son of Diodotus, was overthrown in about 230 BC by <hl> Euthydemus <hl> , possibly the satrap of Sogdiana, who then started his own dynasty.

question: Antiochus III married his daughter off to whose son?, context: The Greek kingdom of Bactria began as a breakaway satrapy of the Seleucid empire, which, because of the size of the empire, had significant freedom from central control. Between 255-246 BCE, the governor of Bactria, Sogdiana and Margiana (most of present-day Afghanistan), one Diodotus, took this process to its logical extreme and declared himself king. Diodotus II, son of Diodotus, was overthrown in about 230 BC by Euthydemus, possibly the satrap of Sogdiana, who then started his own dynasty. In c. 210 BC, the Greco-Bactrian kingdom was invaded by a resurgent Seleucid empire under Antiochus III. While victorious in the field, it seems Antiochus came to realise that there were advantages in the status quo (perhaps sensing that Bactria could not be governed from Syria), and married one of his daughters to Euthydemus's son, thus legitimising the Greco-Bactria dynasty. Soon afterwards the Greco-Bactrian kingdom seems to have expanded, possibly taking advantage of the defeat of the Parthian king Arsaces II by Antiochus.


Question: Who stated that the Greco-Bactrians had connections through the silk road?

Answer: Strabo

<hl> According to Strabo , the Greco-Bactrians seem to have had contacts with China through the silk road trade routes (Strabo, XI.XI.I). <hl> Indian sources also maintain religious contact between Buddhist monks and the Greeks, and some Greco-Bactrians did convert to Buddhism. Demetrius, son and successor of Euthydemus, invaded north-western India in 180 BC, after the destruction of the Mauryan empire there; the Mauryans were probably allies of the Bactrians (and Seleucids). The exact justification for the invasion remains unclear, but by about 175 BC, the Greeks ruled over parts of north-western India. This period also marks the beginning of the obfuscation of Greco-Bactrian history. Demetrius possibly died about 180 BC; numismatic evidence suggest the existence of several other kings shortly thereafter. It is probable that at this point that the Greco-Bactrian kingdom split into several semi-independent regions for some years, often warring amongst themselves. Heliocles was the last Greek to clearly rule Bactria, his power collapsing in the face of central Asian tribal invasions (Scythian and Yuezhi), by about 130 BCE. However, Greek urban civilisation seems to have continued in Bactria after the fall of the kingdom, having a hellenising effect on the tribes which had displaced Greek-rule. The Kushan empire which followed continued to use Greek on their coinage and Greeks continued being influential in the empire.

According to <hl> Strabo <hl>, the Greco-Bactrians seem to have had contacts with China through the silk road trade routes (Strabo, XI.XI.I). Indian sources also maintain religious contact between Buddhist monks and the Greeks, and some Greco-Bactrians did convert to Buddhism. Demetrius, son and successor of Euthydemus, invaded north-western India in 180 BC, after the destruction of the Mauryan empire there; the Mauryans were probably allies of the Bactrians (and Seleucids). The exact justification for the invasion remains unclear, but by about 175 BC, the Greeks ruled over parts of north-western India. This period also marks the beginning of the obfuscation of Greco-Bactrian history. Demetrius possibly died about 180 BC; numismatic evidence suggest the existence of several other kings shortly thereafter. It is probable that at this point that the Greco-Bactrian kingdom split into several semi-independent regions for some years, often warring amongst themselves. Heliocles was the last Greek to clearly rule Bactria, his power collapsing in the face of central Asian tribal invasions (Scythian and Yuezhi), by about 130 BCE. However, Greek urban civilisation seems to have continued in Bactria after the fall of the kingdom, having a hellenising effect on the tribes which had displaced Greek-rule. The Kushan empire which followed continued to use Greek on their coinage and Greeks continued being influential in the empire.

According to <hl> Strabo <hl> , the Greco-Bactrians seem to have had contacts with China through the silk road trade routes (Strabo, XI.XI.I).

question: Who stated that the Greco-Bactrians had connections through the silk road?, context: According to Strabo, the Greco-Bactrians seem to have had contacts with China through the silk road trade routes (Strabo, XI.XI.I). Indian sources also maintain religious contact between Buddhist monks and the Greeks, and some Greco-Bactrians did convert to Buddhism. Demetrius, son and successor of Euthydemus, invaded north-western India in 180 BC, after the destruction of the Mauryan empire there; the Mauryans were probably allies of the Bactrians (and Seleucids). The exact justification for the invasion remains unclear, but by about 175 BC, the Greeks ruled over parts of north-western India. This period also marks the beginning of the obfuscation of Greco-Bactrian history. Demetrius possibly died about 180 BC; numismatic evidence suggest the existence of several other kings shortly thereafter. It is probable that at this point that the Greco-Bactrian kingdom split into several semi-independent regions for some years, often warring amongst themselves. Heliocles was the last Greek to clearly rule Bactria, his power collapsing in the face of central Asian tribal invasions (Scythian and Yuezhi), by about 130 BCE. However, Greek urban civilisation seems to have continued in Bactria after the fall of the kingdom, having a hellenising effect on the tribes which had displaced Greek-rule. The Kushan empire which followed continued to use Greek on their coinage and Greeks continued being influential in the empire.


Question: When did Demetrius, son of Euthydemus invade north-western India?

Answer: 180 BC

According to Strabo, the Greco-Bactrians seem to have had contacts with China through the silk road trade routes (Strabo, XI.XI.I). Indian sources also maintain religious contact between Buddhist monks and the Greeks, and some Greco-Bactrians did convert to Buddhism. <hl> Demetrius, son and successor of Euthydemus, invaded north-western India in 180 BC , after the destruction of the Mauryan empire there; the Mauryans were probably allies of the Bactrians (and Seleucids). <hl> The exact justification for the invasion remains unclear, but by about 175 BC, the Greeks ruled over parts of north-western India. This period also marks the beginning of the obfuscation of Greco-Bactrian history. Demetrius possibly died about 180 BC; numismatic evidence suggest the existence of several other kings shortly thereafter. It is probable that at this point that the Greco-Bactrian kingdom split into several semi-independent regions for some years, often warring amongst themselves. Heliocles was the last Greek to clearly rule Bactria, his power collapsing in the face of central Asian tribal invasions (Scythian and Yuezhi), by about 130 BCE. However, Greek urban civilisation seems to have continued in Bactria after the fall of the kingdom, having a hellenising effect on the tribes which had displaced Greek-rule. The Kushan empire which followed continued to use Greek on their coinage and Greeks continued being influential in the empire.

According to Strabo, the Greco-Bactrians seem to have had contacts with China through the silk road trade routes (Strabo, XI.XI.I). Indian sources also maintain religious contact between Buddhist monks and the Greeks, and some Greco-Bactrians did convert to Buddhism. Demetrius, son and successor of Euthydemus, invaded north-western India in <hl> 180 BC <hl>, after the destruction of the Mauryan empire there; the Mauryans were probably allies of the Bactrians (and Seleucids). The exact justification for the invasion remains unclear, but by about 175 BC, the Greeks ruled over parts of north-western India. This period also marks the beginning of the obfuscation of Greco-Bactrian history. Demetrius possibly died about 180 BC; numismatic evidence suggest the existence of several other kings shortly thereafter. It is probable that at this point that the Greco-Bactrian kingdom split into several semi-independent regions for some years, often warring amongst themselves. Heliocles was the last Greek to clearly rule Bactria, his power collapsing in the face of central Asian tribal invasions (Scythian and Yuezhi), by about 130 BCE. However, Greek urban civilisation seems to have continued in Bactria after the fall of the kingdom, having a hellenising effect on the tribes which had displaced Greek-rule. The Kushan empire which followed continued to use Greek on their coinage and Greeks continued being influential in the empire.

Demetrius, son and successor of Euthydemus, invaded north-western India in <hl> 180 BC <hl> , after the destruction of the Mauryan empire there; the Mauryans were probably allies of the Bactrians (and Seleucids).

question: When did Demetrius, son of Euthydemus invade north-western India?, context: According to Strabo, the Greco-Bactrians seem to have had contacts with China through the silk road trade routes (Strabo, XI.XI.I). Indian sources also maintain religious contact between Buddhist monks and the Greeks, and some Greco-Bactrians did convert to Buddhism. Demetrius, son and successor of Euthydemus, invaded north-western India in 180 BC, after the destruction of the Mauryan empire there; the Mauryans were probably allies of the Bactrians (and Seleucids). The exact justification for the invasion remains unclear, but by about 175 BC, the Greeks ruled over parts of north-western India. This period also marks the beginning of the obfuscation of Greco-Bactrian history. Demetrius possibly died about 180 BC; numismatic evidence suggest the existence of several other kings shortly thereafter. It is probable that at this point that the Greco-Bactrian kingdom split into several semi-independent regions for some years, often warring amongst themselves. Heliocles was the last Greek to clearly rule Bactria, his power collapsing in the face of central Asian tribal invasions (Scythian and Yuezhi), by about 130 BCE. However, Greek urban civilisation seems to have continued in Bactria after the fall of the kingdom, having a hellenising effect on the tribes which had displaced Greek-rule. The Kushan empire which followed continued to use Greek on their coinage and Greeks continued being influential in the empire.


Question: Whose death signifies the beginning of confusing documentation of Greco-Bactrian history?

Answer: Demetrius

According to Strabo, the Greco-Bactrians seem to have had contacts with China through the silk road trade routes (Strabo, XI.XI.I). Indian sources also maintain religious contact between Buddhist monks and the Greeks, and some Greco-Bactrians did convert to Buddhism. <hl> Demetrius , son and successor of Euthydemus, invaded north-western India in 180 BC, after the destruction of the Mauryan empire there; the Mauryans were probably allies of the Bactrians (and Seleucids). <hl> The exact justification for the invasion remains unclear, but by about 175 BC, the Greeks ruled over parts of north-western India. This period also marks the beginning of the obfuscation of Greco-Bactrian history. Demetrius possibly died about 180 BC; numismatic evidence suggest the existence of several other kings shortly thereafter. It is probable that at this point that the Greco-Bactrian kingdom split into several semi-independent regions for some years, often warring amongst themselves. Heliocles was the last Greek to clearly rule Bactria, his power collapsing in the face of central Asian tribal invasions (Scythian and Yuezhi), by about 130 BCE. However, Greek urban civilisation seems to have continued in Bactria after the fall of the kingdom, having a hellenising effect on the tribes which had displaced Greek-rule. The Kushan empire which followed continued to use Greek on their coinage and Greeks continued being influential in the empire.

According to Strabo, the Greco-Bactrians seem to have had contacts with China through the silk road trade routes (Strabo, XI.XI.I). Indian sources also maintain religious contact between Buddhist monks and the Greeks, and some Greco-Bactrians did convert to Buddhism. <hl> Demetrius <hl>, son and successor of Euthydemus, invaded north-western India in 180 BC, after the destruction of the Mauryan empire there; the Mauryans were probably allies of the Bactrians (and Seleucids). The exact justification for the invasion remains unclear, but by about 175 BC, the Greeks ruled over parts of north-western India. This period also marks the beginning of the obfuscation of Greco-Bactrian history. Demetrius possibly died about 180 BC; numismatic evidence suggest the existence of several other kings shortly thereafter. It is probable that at this point that the Greco-Bactrian kingdom split into several semi-independent regions for some years, often warring amongst themselves. Heliocles was the last Greek to clearly rule Bactria, his power collapsing in the face of central Asian tribal invasions (Scythian and Yuezhi), by about 130 BCE. However, Greek urban civilisation seems to have continued in Bactria after the fall of the kingdom, having a hellenising effect on the tribes which had displaced Greek-rule. The Kushan empire which followed continued to use Greek on their coinage and Greeks continued being influential in the empire.

<hl> Demetrius <hl> , son and successor of Euthydemus, invaded north-western India in 180 BC, after the destruction of the Mauryan empire there; the Mauryans were probably allies of the Bactrians (and Seleucids).

question: Whose death signifies the beginning of confusing documentation of Greco-Bactrian history?, context: According to Strabo, the Greco-Bactrians seem to have had contacts with China through the silk road trade routes (Strabo, XI.XI.I). Indian sources also maintain religious contact between Buddhist monks and the Greeks, and some Greco-Bactrians did convert to Buddhism. Demetrius, son and successor of Euthydemus, invaded north-western India in 180 BC, after the destruction of the Mauryan empire there; the Mauryans were probably allies of the Bactrians (and Seleucids). The exact justification for the invasion remains unclear, but by about 175 BC, the Greeks ruled over parts of north-western India. This period also marks the beginning of the obfuscation of Greco-Bactrian history. Demetrius possibly died about 180 BC; numismatic evidence suggest the existence of several other kings shortly thereafter. It is probable that at this point that the Greco-Bactrian kingdom split into several semi-independent regions for some years, often warring amongst themselves. Heliocles was the last Greek to clearly rule Bactria, his power collapsing in the face of central Asian tribal invasions (Scythian and Yuezhi), by about 130 BCE. However, Greek urban civilisation seems to have continued in Bactria after the fall of the kingdom, having a hellenising effect on the tribes which had displaced Greek-rule. The Kushan empire which followed continued to use Greek on their coinage and Greeks continued being influential in the empire.


Question: Who was the last Greek to clearly rule Bactria?

Answer: Heliocles

According to Strabo, the Greco-Bactrians seem to have had contacts with China through the silk road trade routes (Strabo, XI.XI.I). Indian sources also maintain religious contact between Buddhist monks and the Greeks, and some Greco-Bactrians did convert to Buddhism. Demetrius, son and successor of Euthydemus, invaded north-western India in 180 BC, after the destruction of the Mauryan empire there; the Mauryans were probably allies of the Bactrians (and Seleucids). The exact justification for the invasion remains unclear, but by about 175 BC, the Greeks ruled over parts of north-western India. This period also marks the beginning of the obfuscation of Greco-Bactrian history. Demetrius possibly died about 180 BC; numismatic evidence suggest the existence of several other kings shortly thereafter. It is probable that at this point that the Greco-Bactrian kingdom split into several semi-independent regions for some years, often warring amongst themselves. <hl> Heliocles was the last Greek to clearly rule Bactria, his power collapsing in the face of central Asian tribal invasions (Scythian and Yuezhi), by about 130 BCE. <hl> However, Greek urban civilisation seems to have continued in Bactria after the fall of the kingdom, having a hellenising effect on the tribes which had displaced Greek-rule. The Kushan empire which followed continued to use Greek on their coinage and Greeks continued being influential in the empire.

According to Strabo, the Greco-Bactrians seem to have had contacts with China through the silk road trade routes (Strabo, XI.XI.I). Indian sources also maintain religious contact between Buddhist monks and the Greeks, and some Greco-Bactrians did convert to Buddhism. Demetrius, son and successor of Euthydemus, invaded north-western India in 180 BC, after the destruction of the Mauryan empire there; the Mauryans were probably allies of the Bactrians (and Seleucids). The exact justification for the invasion remains unclear, but by about 175 BC, the Greeks ruled over parts of north-western India. This period also marks the beginning of the obfuscation of Greco-Bactrian history. Demetrius possibly died about 180 BC; numismatic evidence suggest the existence of several other kings shortly thereafter. It is probable that at this point that the Greco-Bactrian kingdom split into several semi-independent regions for some years, often warring amongst themselves. <hl> Heliocles <hl> was the last Greek to clearly rule Bactria, his power collapsing in the face of central Asian tribal invasions (Scythian and Yuezhi), by about 130 BCE. However, Greek urban civilisation seems to have continued in Bactria after the fall of the kingdom, having a hellenising effect on the tribes which had displaced Greek-rule. The Kushan empire which followed continued to use Greek on their coinage and Greeks continued being influential in the empire.

question: Who was the last Greek to clearly rule Bactria?, context: According to Strabo, the Greco-Bactrians seem to have had contacts with China through the silk road trade routes (Strabo, XI.XI.I). Indian sources also maintain religious contact between Buddhist monks and the Greeks, and some Greco-Bactrians did convert to Buddhism. Demetrius, son and successor of Euthydemus, invaded north-western India in 180 BC, after the destruction of the Mauryan empire there; the Mauryans were probably allies of the Bactrians (and Seleucids). The exact justification for the invasion remains unclear, but by about 175 BC, the Greeks ruled over parts of north-western India. This period also marks the beginning of the obfuscation of Greco-Bactrian history. Demetrius possibly died about 180 BC; numismatic evidence suggest the existence of several other kings shortly thereafter. It is probable that at this point that the Greco-Bactrian kingdom split into several semi-independent regions for some years, often warring amongst themselves. Heliocles was the last Greek to clearly rule Bactria, his power collapsing in the face of central Asian tribal invasions (Scythian and Yuezhi), by about 130 BCE. However, Greek urban civilisation seems to have continued in Bactria after the fall of the kingdom, having a hellenising effect on the tribes which had displaced Greek-rule. The Kushan empire which followed continued to use Greek on their coinage and Greeks continued being influential in the empire.


Question: Who was the first Indo-Greek king who did not rule from Bactria?

Answer: Apollodotus I

<hl> After Demetrius' death, civil wars between Bactrian kings in India allowed Apollodotus I (from c. 180/175 BCE) to make himself independent as the first proper Indo-Greek king (who did not rule from Bactria). <hl> Large numbers of his coins have been found in India, and he seems to have reigned in Gandhara as well as western Punjab. Apollodotus I was succeeded by or ruled alongside Antimachus II, likely the son of the Bactrian king Antimachus I. In about 155 (or 165) BC he seems to have been succeeded by the most successful of the Indo-Greek kings, Menander I. Menander converted to Buddhism, and seems to have been a great patron of the religion; he is remembered in some Buddhist texts as 'Milinda'. He also expanded the kingdom further east into Punjab, though these conquests were rather ephemeral.

After Demetrius' death, civil wars between Bactrian kings in India allowed <hl> Apollodotus I <hl> (from c. 180/175 BCE) to make himself independent as the first proper Indo-Greek king (who did not rule from Bactria). Large numbers of his coins have been found in India, and he seems to have reigned in Gandhara as well as western Punjab. Apollodotus I was succeeded by or ruled alongside Antimachus II, likely the son of the Bactrian king Antimachus I. In about 155 (or 165) BC he seems to have been succeeded by the most successful of the Indo-Greek kings, Menander I. Menander converted to Buddhism, and seems to have been a great patron of the religion; he is remembered in some Buddhist texts as 'Milinda'. He also expanded the kingdom further east into Punjab, though these conquests were rather ephemeral.

question: Who was the first Indo-Greek king who did not rule from Bactria?, context: After Demetrius' death, civil wars between Bactrian kings in India allowed Apollodotus I (from c. 180/175 BCE) to make himself independent as the first proper Indo-Greek king (who did not rule from Bactria). Large numbers of his coins have been found in India, and he seems to have reigned in Gandhara as well as western Punjab. Apollodotus I was succeeded by or ruled alongside Antimachus II, likely the son of the Bactrian king Antimachus I. In about 155 (or 165) BC he seems to have been succeeded by the most successful of the Indo-Greek kings, Menander I. Menander converted to Buddhism, and seems to have been a great patron of the religion; he is remembered in some Buddhist texts as 'Milinda'. He also expanded the kingdom further east into Punjab, though these conquests were rather ephemeral.


Question: Who succeeded or ruled alongside Apollodotus I?

Answer: Antimachus II

After Demetrius' death, civil wars between Bactrian kings in India allowed Apollodotus I (from c. 180/175 BCE) to make himself independent as the first proper Indo-Greek king (who did not rule from Bactria). Large numbers of his coins have been found in India, and he seems to have reigned in Gandhara as well as western Punjab. <hl> Apollodotus I was succeeded by or ruled alongside Antimachus II , likely the son of the Bactrian king Antimachus I. <hl> In about 155 (or 165) BC he seems to have been succeeded by the most successful of the Indo-Greek kings, Menander I. Menander converted to Buddhism, and seems to have been a great patron of the religion; he is remembered in some Buddhist texts as 'Milinda'. He also expanded the kingdom further east into Punjab, though these conquests were rather ephemeral.

After Demetrius' death, civil wars between Bactrian kings in India allowed Apollodotus I (from c. 180/175 BCE) to make himself independent as the first proper Indo-Greek king (who did not rule from Bactria). Large numbers of his coins have been found in India, and he seems to have reigned in Gandhara as well as western Punjab. Apollodotus I was succeeded by or ruled alongside <hl> Antimachus II <hl>, likely the son of the Bactrian king Antimachus I. In about 155 (or 165) BC he seems to have been succeeded by the most successful of the Indo-Greek kings, Menander I. Menander converted to Buddhism, and seems to have been a great patron of the religion; he is remembered in some Buddhist texts as 'Milinda'. He also expanded the kingdom further east into Punjab, though these conquests were rather ephemeral.

Apollodotus I was succeeded by or ruled alongside <hl> Antimachus II <hl> , likely the son of the Bactrian king Antimachus I.

question: Who succeeded or ruled alongside Apollodotus I?, context: After Demetrius' death, civil wars between Bactrian kings in India allowed Apollodotus I (from c. 180/175 BCE) to make himself independent as the first proper Indo-Greek king (who did not rule from Bactria). Large numbers of his coins have been found in India, and he seems to have reigned in Gandhara as well as western Punjab. Apollodotus I was succeeded by or ruled alongside Antimachus II, likely the son of the Bactrian king Antimachus I. In about 155 (or 165) BC he seems to have been succeeded by the most successful of the Indo-Greek kings, Menander I. Menander converted to Buddhism, and seems to have been a great patron of the religion; he is remembered in some Buddhist texts as 'Milinda'. He also expanded the kingdom further east into Punjab, though these conquests were rather ephemeral.


Question: Who succeeded Antimachus II?

Answer: Menander I

After Demetrius' death, civil wars between Bactrian kings in India allowed Apollodotus I (from c. 180/175 BCE) to make himself independent as the first proper Indo-Greek king (who did not rule from Bactria). Large numbers of his coins have been found in India, and he seems to have reigned in Gandhara as well as western Punjab. Apollodotus I was succeeded by or ruled alongside Antimachus II, likely the son of the Bactrian king Antimachus I. <hl> In about 155 (or 165) BC he seems to have been succeeded by the most successful of the Indo-Greek kings, Menander I . <hl> Menander converted to Buddhism, and seems to have been a great patron of the religion; he is remembered in some Buddhist texts as 'Milinda'. He also expanded the kingdom further east into Punjab, though these conquests were rather ephemeral.

After Demetrius' death, civil wars between Bactrian kings in India allowed Apollodotus I (from c. 180/175 BCE) to make himself independent as the first proper Indo-Greek king (who did not rule from Bactria). Large numbers of his coins have been found in India, and he seems to have reigned in Gandhara as well as western Punjab. Apollodotus I was succeeded by or ruled alongside Antimachus II, likely the son of the Bactrian king Antimachus I. In about 155 (or 165) BC he seems to have been succeeded by the most successful of the Indo-Greek kings, <hl> Menander I <hl>. Menander converted to Buddhism, and seems to have been a great patron of the religion; he is remembered in some Buddhist texts as 'Milinda'. He also expanded the kingdom further east into Punjab, though these conquests were rather ephemeral.

In about 155 (or 165) BC he seems to have been succeeded by the most successful of the Indo-Greek kings, <hl> Menander I <hl> .

question: Who succeeded Antimachus II?, context: After Demetrius' death, civil wars between Bactrian kings in India allowed Apollodotus I (from c. 180/175 BCE) to make himself independent as the first proper Indo-Greek king (who did not rule from Bactria). Large numbers of his coins have been found in India, and he seems to have reigned in Gandhara as well as western Punjab. Apollodotus I was succeeded by or ruled alongside Antimachus II, likely the son of the Bactrian king Antimachus I. In about 155 (or 165) BC he seems to have been succeeded by the most successful of the Indo-Greek kings, Menander I. Menander converted to Buddhism, and seems to have been a great patron of the religion; he is remembered in some Buddhist texts as 'Milinda'. He also expanded the kingdom further east into Punjab, though these conquests were rather ephemeral.


Question: What religion did Menander I convert to?

Answer: Buddhism

After Demetrius' death, civil wars between Bactrian kings in India allowed Apollodotus I (from c. 180/175 BCE) to make himself independent as the first proper Indo-Greek king (who did not rule from Bactria). Large numbers of his coins have been found in India, and he seems to have reigned in Gandhara as well as western Punjab. Apollodotus I was succeeded by or ruled alongside Antimachus II, likely the son of the Bactrian king Antimachus I. <hl> In about 155 (or 165) BC he seems to have been succeeded by the most successful of the Indo-Greek kings, Menander I. Menander converted to Buddhism , and seems to have been a great patron of the religion; he is remembered in some Buddhist texts as 'Milinda'. <hl> He also expanded the kingdom further east into Punjab, though these conquests were rather ephemeral.

After Demetrius' death, civil wars between Bactrian kings in India allowed Apollodotus I (from c. 180/175 BCE) to make himself independent as the first proper Indo-Greek king (who did not rule from Bactria). Large numbers of his coins have been found in India, and he seems to have reigned in Gandhara as well as western Punjab. Apollodotus I was succeeded by or ruled alongside Antimachus II, likely the son of the Bactrian king Antimachus I. In about 155 (or 165) BC he seems to have been succeeded by the most successful of the Indo-Greek kings, Menander I. Menander converted to <hl> Buddhism <hl>, and seems to have been a great patron of the religion; he is remembered in some Buddhist texts as 'Milinda'. He also expanded the kingdom further east into Punjab, though these conquests were rather ephemeral.

In about 155 (or 165) BC he seems to have been succeeded by the most successful of the Indo-Greek kings, Menander I. Menander converted to <hl> Buddhism <hl> , and seems to have been a great patron of the religion; he is remembered in some Buddhist texts as 'Milinda'.

question: What religion did Menander I convert to?, context: After Demetrius' death, civil wars between Bactrian kings in India allowed Apollodotus I (from c. 180/175 BCE) to make himself independent as the first proper Indo-Greek king (who did not rule from Bactria). Large numbers of his coins have been found in India, and he seems to have reigned in Gandhara as well as western Punjab. Apollodotus I was succeeded by or ruled alongside Antimachus II, likely the son of the Bactrian king Antimachus I. In about 155 (or 165) BC he seems to have been succeeded by the most successful of the Indo-Greek kings, Menander I. Menander converted to Buddhism, and seems to have been a great patron of the religion; he is remembered in some Buddhist texts as 'Milinda'. He also expanded the kingdom further east into Punjab, though these conquests were rather ephemeral.


Question: What was Menander I refered to by in Buddhist texts?

Answer: Milinda

After Demetrius' death, civil wars between Bactrian kings in India allowed Apollodotus I (from c. 180/175 BCE) to make himself independent as the first proper Indo-Greek king (who did not rule from Bactria). Large numbers of his coins have been found in India, and he seems to have reigned in Gandhara as well as western Punjab. Apollodotus I was succeeded by or ruled alongside Antimachus II, likely the son of the Bactrian king Antimachus I. <hl> In about 155 (or 165) BC he seems to have been succeeded by the most successful of the Indo-Greek kings, Menander I. Menander converted to Buddhism, and seems to have been a great patron of the religion; he is remembered in some Buddhist texts as ' Milinda '. <hl> He also expanded the kingdom further east into Punjab, though these conquests were rather ephemeral.

After Demetrius' death, civil wars between Bactrian kings in India allowed Apollodotus I (from c. 180/175 BCE) to make himself independent as the first proper Indo-Greek king (who did not rule from Bactria). Large numbers of his coins have been found in India, and he seems to have reigned in Gandhara as well as western Punjab. Apollodotus I was succeeded by or ruled alongside Antimachus II, likely the son of the Bactrian king Antimachus I. In about 155 (or 165) BC he seems to have been succeeded by the most successful of the Indo-Greek kings, Menander I. Menander converted to Buddhism, and seems to have been a great patron of the religion; he is remembered in some Buddhist texts as '<hl> Milinda <hl>'. He also expanded the kingdom further east into Punjab, though these conquests were rather ephemeral.

In about 155 (or 165) BC he seems to have been succeeded by the most successful of the Indo-Greek kings, Menander I. Menander converted to Buddhism, and seems to have been a great patron of the religion; he is remembered in some Buddhist texts as ' <hl> Milinda <hl> '.

question: What was Menander I refered to by in Buddhist texts?, context: After Demetrius' death, civil wars between Bactrian kings in India allowed Apollodotus I (from c. 180/175 BCE) to make himself independent as the first proper Indo-Greek king (who did not rule from Bactria). Large numbers of his coins have been found in India, and he seems to have reigned in Gandhara as well as western Punjab. Apollodotus I was succeeded by or ruled alongside Antimachus II, likely the son of the Bactrian king Antimachus I. In about 155 (or 165) BC he seems to have been succeeded by the most successful of the Indo-Greek kings, Menander I. Menander converted to Buddhism, and seems to have been a great patron of the religion; he is remembered in some Buddhist texts as 'Milinda'. He also expanded the kingdom further east into Punjab, though these conquests were rather ephemeral.


Question: When did Menander die?

Answer: 130 BC

After the death of Menander (c. <hl> 130 BC ), the Kingdom appears to have fragmented, with several 'kings' attested contemporaneously in different regions. <hl> This inevitably weakened the Greek position, and territory seems to have been lost progressively. Around 70 BC, the western regions of Arachosia and Paropamisadae were lost to tribal invasions, presumably by those tribes responsible for the end of the Bactrian kingdom. The resulting Indo-Scythian kingdom seems to have gradually pushed the remaining Indo-Greek kingdom towards the east. The Indo-Greek kingdom appears to have lingered on in western Punjab until about 10 AD when finally ended by the Indo-Scythians.

After the death of Menander (c. <hl> 130 BC <hl>), the Kingdom appears to have fragmented, with several 'kings' attested contemporaneously in different regions. This inevitably weakened the Greek position, and territory seems to have been lost progressively. Around 70 BC, the western regions of Arachosia and Paropamisadae were lost to tribal invasions, presumably by those tribes responsible for the end of the Bactrian kingdom. The resulting Indo-Scythian kingdom seems to have gradually pushed the remaining Indo-Greek kingdom towards the east. The Indo-Greek kingdom appears to have lingered on in western Punjab until about 10 AD when finally ended by the Indo-Scythians.

<hl> 130 BC <hl> ), the Kingdom appears to have fragmented, with several 'kings' attested contemporaneously in different regions.

question: When did Menander die?, context: After the death of Menander (c. 130 BC), the Kingdom appears to have fragmented, with several 'kings' attested contemporaneously in different regions. This inevitably weakened the Greek position, and territory seems to have been lost progressively. Around 70 BC, the western regions of Arachosia and Paropamisadae were lost to tribal invasions, presumably by those tribes responsible for the end of the Bactrian kingdom. The resulting Indo-Scythian kingdom seems to have gradually pushed the remaining Indo-Greek kingdom towards the east. The Indo-Greek kingdom appears to have lingered on in western Punjab until about 10 AD when finally ended by the Indo-Scythians.


Question: What kingdom forced the Indo-Greek kingdom to the east?

Answer: Indo-Scythian

After the death of Menander (c. 130 BC), the Kingdom appears to have fragmented, with several 'kings' attested contemporaneously in different regions. This inevitably weakened the Greek position, and territory seems to have been lost progressively. Around 70 BC, the western regions of Arachosia and Paropamisadae were lost to tribal invasions, presumably by those tribes responsible for the end of the Bactrian kingdom. <hl> The resulting Indo-Scythian kingdom seems to have gradually pushed the remaining Indo-Greek kingdom towards the east. <hl> The Indo-Greek kingdom appears to have lingered on in western Punjab until about 10 AD when finally ended by the Indo-Scythians.

After the death of Menander (c. 130 BC), the Kingdom appears to have fragmented, with several 'kings' attested contemporaneously in different regions. This inevitably weakened the Greek position, and territory seems to have been lost progressively. Around 70 BC, the western regions of Arachosia and Paropamisadae were lost to tribal invasions, presumably by those tribes responsible for the end of the Bactrian kingdom. The resulting <hl> Indo-Scythian <hl> kingdom seems to have gradually pushed the remaining Indo-Greek kingdom towards the east. The Indo-Greek kingdom appears to have lingered on in western Punjab until about 10 AD when finally ended by the Indo-Scythians.

question: What kingdom forced the Indo-Greek kingdom to the east?, context: After the death of Menander (c. 130 BC), the Kingdom appears to have fragmented, with several 'kings' attested contemporaneously in different regions. This inevitably weakened the Greek position, and territory seems to have been lost progressively. Around 70 BC, the western regions of Arachosia and Paropamisadae were lost to tribal invasions, presumably by those tribes responsible for the end of the Bactrian kingdom. The resulting Indo-Scythian kingdom seems to have gradually pushed the remaining Indo-Greek kingdom towards the east. The Indo-Greek kingdom appears to have lingered on in western Punjab until about 10 AD when finally ended by the Indo-Scythians.


Question: Around 70 BC, Arachosia and what other region where taken over by tribal invasion?

Answer: Paropamisadae

After the death of Menander (c. 130 BC), the Kingdom appears to have fragmented, with several 'kings' attested contemporaneously in different regions. This inevitably weakened the Greek position, and territory seems to have been lost progressively. <hl> Around 70 BC, the western regions of Arachosia and Paropamisadae were lost to tribal invasions, presumably by those tribes responsible for the end of the Bactrian kingdom. <hl> The resulting Indo-Scythian kingdom seems to have gradually pushed the remaining Indo-Greek kingdom towards the east. The Indo-Greek kingdom appears to have lingered on in western Punjab until about 10 AD when finally ended by the Indo-Scythians.

After the death of Menander (c. 130 BC), the Kingdom appears to have fragmented, with several 'kings' attested contemporaneously in different regions. This inevitably weakened the Greek position, and territory seems to have been lost progressively. Around 70 BC, the western regions of Arachosia and <hl> Paropamisadae <hl> were lost to tribal invasions, presumably by those tribes responsible for the end of the Bactrian kingdom. The resulting Indo-Scythian kingdom seems to have gradually pushed the remaining Indo-Greek kingdom towards the east. The Indo-Greek kingdom appears to have lingered on in western Punjab until about 10 AD when finally ended by the Indo-Scythians.

question: Around 70 BC, Arachosia and what other region where taken over by tribal invasion?, context: After the death of Menander (c. 130 BC), the Kingdom appears to have fragmented, with several 'kings' attested contemporaneously in different regions. This inevitably weakened the Greek position, and territory seems to have been lost progressively. Around 70 BC, the western regions of Arachosia and Paropamisadae were lost to tribal invasions, presumably by those tribes responsible for the end of the Bactrian kingdom. The resulting Indo-Scythian kingdom seems to have gradually pushed the remaining Indo-Greek kingdom towards the east. The Indo-Greek kingdom appears to have lingered on in western Punjab until about 10 AD when finally ended by the Indo-Scythians.


Question: I couldn't could up with another question. But i need to fill this space because I can't submit the hit.

Answer: dom. The resulting Indo-Scythian kingdom seems to have gradually pushed the remaining Indo-Greek

After the death of Menander (c. 130 BC), the Kingdom appears to have fragmented, with several 'kings' attested contemporaneously in different regions. This inevitably weakened the Greek position, and territory seems to have been lost progressively. <hl> Around 70 BC, the western regions of Arachosia and Paropamisadae were lost to tribal invasions, presumably by those tribes responsible for the end of the Bactrian king dom. The resulting Indo-Scythian kingdom seems to have gradually pushed the remaining Indo-Greek kingdom towards the east. <hl> The Indo-Greek kingdom appears to have lingered on in western Punjab until about 10 AD when finally ended by the Indo-Scythians.

After the death of Menander (c. 130 BC), the Kingdom appears to have fragmented, with several 'kings' attested contemporaneously in different regions. This inevitably weakened the Greek position, and territory seems to have been lost progressively. Around 70 BC, the western regions of Arachosia and Paropamisadae were lost to tribal invasions, presumably by those tribes responsible for the end of the Bactrian king<hl> dom. The resulting Indo-Scythian kingdom seems to have gradually pushed the remaining Indo-Greek <hl> kingdom towards the east. The Indo-Greek kingdom appears to have lingered on in western Punjab until about 10 AD when finally ended by the Indo-Scythians.

Around 70 BC, the western regions of Arachosia and Paropamisadae were lost to tribal invasions, presumably by those tribes responsible for the end of the Bactrian king <hl> dom. The resulting Indo-Scythian kingdom seems to have gradually pushed the remaining Indo-Greek <hl> kingdom towards the east.

question: I couldn't could up with another question. But i need to fill this space because I can't submit the hit., context: After the death of Menander (c. 130 BC), the Kingdom appears to have fragmented, with several 'kings' attested contemporaneously in different regions. This inevitably weakened the Greek position, and territory seems to have been lost progressively. Around 70 BC, the western regions of Arachosia and Paropamisadae were lost to tribal invasions, presumably by those tribes responsible for the end of the Bactrian kingdom. The resulting Indo-Scythian kingdom seems to have gradually pushed the remaining Indo-Greek kingdom towards the east. The Indo-Greek kingdom appears to have lingered on in western Punjab until about 10 AD when finally ended by the Indo-Scythians.


Question: I couldn't could up with another question. But i need to fill this space because I can't submit the hit.

Answer: in

<hl> After the death of Menander (c. 130 BC), the K in gdom appears to have fragmented, with several 'kings' attested contemporaneously in different regions. <hl> This inevitably weakened the Greek position, and territory seems to have been lost progressively. Around 70 BC, the western regions of Arachosia and Paropamisadae were lost to tribal invasions, presumably by those tribes responsible for the end of the Bactrian kingdom. The resulting Indo-Scythian kingdom seems to have gradually pushed the remaining Indo-Greek kingdom towards the east. The Indo-Greek kingdom appears to have lingered on in western Punjab until about 10 AD when finally ended by the Indo-Scythians.

After the death of Menander (c. 130 BC), the K<hl> in <hl>gdom appears to have fragmented, with several 'kings' attested contemporaneously in different regions. This inevitably weakened the Greek position, and territory seems to have been lost progressively. Around 70 BC, the western regions of Arachosia and Paropamisadae were lost to tribal invasions, presumably by those tribes responsible for the end of the Bactrian kingdom. The resulting Indo-Scythian kingdom seems to have gradually pushed the remaining Indo-Greek kingdom towards the east. The Indo-Greek kingdom appears to have lingered on in western Punjab until about 10 AD when finally ended by the Indo-Scythians.

After the death of Menander (c. 130 BC), the K <hl> in <hl> gdom appears to have fragmented, with several 'kings' attested contemporaneously in different regions.

question: I couldn't could up with another question. But i need to fill this space because I can't submit the hit., context: After the death of Menander (c. 130 BC), the Kingdom appears to have fragmented, with several 'kings' attested contemporaneously in different regions. This inevitably weakened the Greek position, and territory seems to have been lost progressively. Around 70 BC, the western regions of Arachosia and Paropamisadae were lost to tribal invasions, presumably by those tribes responsible for the end of the Bactrian kingdom. The resulting Indo-Scythian kingdom seems to have gradually pushed the remaining Indo-Greek kingdom towards the east. The Indo-Greek kingdom appears to have lingered on in western Punjab until about 10 AD when finally ended by the Indo-Scythians.


Question: What does "sarvajnaa yavanaa" mean?

Answer: the all-knowing Yavanas

Several references in Indian literature praise the knowledge of the Yavanas or the Greeks. <hl> The Mahabharata compliments them as " the all-knowing Yavanas " (sarvajnaa yavanaa) i.e. "The Yavanas, O king, are all-knowing; the Suras are particularly so. <hl> The mlecchas are wedded to the creations of their own fancy." and the creators of flying machines that are generally called vimanas. The "Brihat-Samhita" of the mathematician Varahamihira says: "The Greeks, though impure, must be honored since they were trained in sciences and therein, excelled others....." .

Several references in Indian literature praise the knowledge of the Yavanas or the Greeks. The Mahabharata compliments them as "<hl> the all-knowing Yavanas <hl>" (sarvajnaa yavanaa) i.e. "The Yavanas, O king, are all-knowing; the Suras are particularly so. The mlecchas are wedded to the creations of their own fancy." and the creators of flying machines that are generally called vimanas. The "Brihat-Samhita" of the mathematician Varahamihira says: "The Greeks, though impure, must be honored since they were trained in sciences and therein, excelled others....." .

The Mahabharata compliments them as " <hl> the all-knowing Yavanas <hl> " (sarvajnaa yavanaa) i.e. "The Yavanas, O king, are all-knowing; the Suras are particularly so.

question: What does "sarvajnaa yavanaa" mean?, context: Several references in Indian literature praise the knowledge of the Yavanas or the Greeks. The Mahabharata compliments them as "the all-knowing Yavanas" (sarvajnaa yavanaa) i.e. "The Yavanas, O king, are all-knowing; the Suras are particularly so. The mlecchas are wedded to the creations of their own fancy." and the creators of flying machines that are generally called vimanas. The "Brihat-Samhita" of the mathematician Varahamihira says: "The Greeks, though impure, must be honored since they were trained in sciences and therein, excelled others....." .


Question: Who said "The Yavanas, O king, are all-knowing; the Suras are particularly so."?

Answer: The Mahabharata

Several references in Indian literature praise the knowledge of the Yavanas or the Greeks. <hl> The Mahabharata compliments them as "the all-knowing Yavanas" (sarvajnaa yavanaa) i.e. "The Yavanas, O king, are all-knowing; the Suras are particularly so. <hl> The mlecchas are wedded to the creations of their own fancy." and the creators of flying machines that are generally called vimanas. The "Brihat-Samhita" of the mathematician Varahamihira says: "The Greeks, though impure, must be honored since they were trained in sciences and therein, excelled others....." .

Several references in Indian literature praise the knowledge of the Yavanas or the Greeks. <hl> The Mahabharata <hl> compliments them as "the all-knowing Yavanas" (sarvajnaa yavanaa) i.e. "The Yavanas, O king, are all-knowing; the Suras are particularly so. The mlecchas are wedded to the creations of their own fancy." and the creators of flying machines that are generally called vimanas. The "Brihat-Samhita" of the mathematician Varahamihira says: "The Greeks, though impure, must be honored since they were trained in sciences and therein, excelled others....." .

question: Who said "The Yavanas, O king, are all-knowing; the Suras are particularly so."?, context: Several references in Indian literature praise the knowledge of the Yavanas or the Greeks. The Mahabharata compliments them as "the all-knowing Yavanas" (sarvajnaa yavanaa) i.e. "The Yavanas, O king, are all-knowing; the Suras are particularly so. The mlecchas are wedded to the creations of their own fancy." and the creators of flying machines that are generally called vimanas. The "Brihat-Samhita" of the mathematician Varahamihira says: "The Greeks, though impure, must be honored since they were trained in sciences and therein, excelled others....." .


Question: Who wrote the Brihat-Samhita?

Answer: Varahamihira

Several references in Indian literature praise the knowledge of the Yavanas or the Greeks. The Mahabharata compliments them as "the all-knowing Yavanas" (sarvajnaa yavanaa) i.e. "The Yavanas, O king, are all-knowing; the Suras are particularly so. The mlecchas are wedded to the creations of their own fancy." and the creators of flying machines that are generally called vimanas. <hl> The "Brihat-Samhita" of the mathematician Varahamihira says: "The Greeks, though impure, must be honored since they were trained in sciences and therein, excelled others....." . <hl>

Several references in Indian literature praise the knowledge of the Yavanas or the Greeks. The Mahabharata compliments them as "the all-knowing Yavanas" (sarvajnaa yavanaa) i.e. "The Yavanas, O king, are all-knowing; the Suras are particularly so. The mlecchas are wedded to the creations of their own fancy." and the creators of flying machines that are generally called vimanas. The "Brihat-Samhita" of the mathematician <hl> Varahamihira <hl> says: "The Greeks, though impure, must be honored since they were trained in sciences and therein, excelled others....." .

question: Who wrote the Brihat-Samhita?, context: Several references in Indian literature praise the knowledge of the Yavanas or the Greeks. The Mahabharata compliments them as "the all-knowing Yavanas" (sarvajnaa yavanaa) i.e. "The Yavanas, O king, are all-knowing; the Suras are particularly so. The mlecchas are wedded to the creations of their own fancy." and the creators of flying machines that are generally called vimanas. The "Brihat-Samhita" of the mathematician Varahamihira says: "The Greeks, though impure, must be honored since they were trained in sciences and therein, excelled others....." .


Question: Who said "The mlecchas are wedded to the creations of their own fancy."

Answer: The Mahabharata

Several references in Indian literature praise the knowledge of the Yavanas or the Greeks. <hl> The Mahabharata compliments them as "the all-knowing Yavanas" (sarvajnaa yavanaa) i.e. "The Yavanas, O king, are all-knowing; the Suras are particularly so. <hl> The mlecchas are wedded to the creations of their own fancy." and the creators of flying machines that are generally called vimanas. The "Brihat-Samhita" of the mathematician Varahamihira says: "The Greeks, though impure, must be honored since they were trained in sciences and therein, excelled others....." .

Several references in Indian literature praise the knowledge of the Yavanas or the Greeks. <hl> The Mahabharata <hl> compliments them as "the all-knowing Yavanas" (sarvajnaa yavanaa) i.e. "The Yavanas, O king, are all-knowing; the Suras are particularly so. The mlecchas are wedded to the creations of their own fancy." and the creators of flying machines that are generally called vimanas. The "Brihat-Samhita" of the mathematician Varahamihira says: "The Greeks, though impure, must be honored since they were trained in sciences and therein, excelled others....." .

question: Who said "The mlecchas are wedded to the creations of their own fancy.", context: Several references in Indian literature praise the knowledge of the Yavanas or the Greeks. The Mahabharata compliments them as "the all-knowing Yavanas" (sarvajnaa yavanaa) i.e. "The Yavanas, O king, are all-knowing; the Suras are particularly so. The mlecchas are wedded to the creations of their own fancy." and the creators of flying machines that are generally called vimanas. The "Brihat-Samhita" of the mathematician Varahamihira says: "The Greeks, though impure, must be honored since they were trained in sciences and therein, excelled others....." .


Question: Who said "The Greeks, though impure, must be honored since they were trained in sciences and therein, excelled others...."

Answer: Varahamihira

Several references in Indian literature praise the knowledge of the Yavanas or the Greeks. The Mahabharata compliments them as "the all-knowing Yavanas" (sarvajnaa yavanaa) i.e. "The Yavanas, O king, are all-knowing; the Suras are particularly so. The mlecchas are wedded to the creations of their own fancy." and the creators of flying machines that are generally called vimanas. <hl> The "Brihat-Samhita" of the mathematician Varahamihira says: "The Greeks, though impure, must be honored since they were trained in sciences and therein, excelled others....." . <hl>

Several references in Indian literature praise the knowledge of the Yavanas or the Greeks. The Mahabharata compliments them as "the all-knowing Yavanas" (sarvajnaa yavanaa) i.e. "The Yavanas, O king, are all-knowing; the Suras are particularly so. The mlecchas are wedded to the creations of their own fancy." and the creators of flying machines that are generally called vimanas. The "Brihat-Samhita" of the mathematician <hl> Varahamihira <hl> says: "The Greeks, though impure, must be honored since they were trained in sciences and therein, excelled others....." .

question: Who said "The Greeks, though impure, must be honored since they were trained in sciences and therein, excelled others....", context: Several references in Indian literature praise the knowledge of the Yavanas or the Greeks. The Mahabharata compliments them as "the all-knowing Yavanas" (sarvajnaa yavanaa) i.e. "The Yavanas, O king, are all-knowing; the Suras are particularly so. The mlecchas are wedded to the creations of their own fancy." and the creators of flying machines that are generally called vimanas. The "Brihat-Samhita" of the mathematician Varahamihira says: "The Greeks, though impure, must be honored since they were trained in sciences and therein, excelled others....." .


Question: What period was Hellenistic culture at it's height?

Answer: Hellenistic

<hl> Hellenistic culture was at its height of world influence in the Hellenistic period. <hl> Hellenism or at least Philhellenism reached most regions on the frontiers of the Hellenistic kingdoms. Though some of these regions were not ruled by Greeks or even Greek speaking elites, certain Hellenistic influences can be seen in the historical record and material culture of these regions. Other regions had established contact with Greek colonies before this period, and simply saw a continued process of Hellenization and intermixing.

<hl> Hellenistic <hl> culture was at its height of world influence in the Hellenistic period. Hellenism or at least Philhellenism reached most regions on the frontiers of the Hellenistic kingdoms. Though some of these regions were not ruled by Greeks or even Greek speaking elites, certain Hellenistic influences can be seen in the historical record and material culture of these regions. Other regions had established contact with Greek colonies before this period, and simply saw a continued process of Hellenization and intermixing.

question: What period was Hellenistic culture at it's height?, context: Hellenistic culture was at its height of world influence in the Hellenistic period. Hellenism or at least Philhellenism reached most regions on the frontiers of the Hellenistic kingdoms. Though some of these regions were not ruled by Greeks or even Greek speaking elites, certain Hellenistic influences can be seen in the historical record and material culture of these regions. Other regions had established contact with Greek colonies before this period, and simply saw a continued process of Hellenization and intermixing.


Question: Even though some regions were not ruled by Greeks, they still were influenced by which culture?

Answer: Hellenistic

<hl> Hellenistic culture was at its height of world influence in the Hellenistic period. <hl> Hellenism or at least Philhellenism reached most regions on the frontiers of the Hellenistic kingdoms. Though some of these regions were not ruled by Greeks or even Greek speaking elites, certain Hellenistic influences can be seen in the historical record and material culture of these regions. Other regions had established contact with Greek colonies before this period, and simply saw a continued process of Hellenization and intermixing.

<hl> Hellenistic <hl> culture was at its height of world influence in the Hellenistic period. Hellenism or at least Philhellenism reached most regions on the frontiers of the Hellenistic kingdoms. Though some of these regions were not ruled by Greeks or even Greek speaking elites, certain Hellenistic influences can be seen in the historical record and material culture of these regions. Other regions had established contact with Greek colonies before this period, and simply saw a continued process of Hellenization and intermixing.

question: Even though some regions were not ruled by Greeks, they still were influenced by which culture?, context: Hellenistic culture was at its height of world influence in the Hellenistic period. Hellenism or at least Philhellenism reached most regions on the frontiers of the Hellenistic kingdoms. Though some of these regions were not ruled by Greeks or even Greek speaking elites, certain Hellenistic influences can be seen in the historical record and material culture of these regions. Other regions had established contact with Greek colonies before this period, and simply saw a continued process of Hellenization and intermixing.


Question: Hellenism or Philhellenism reached the frontiers of what kingdom?

Answer: Hellenistic

<hl> Hellenistic culture was at its height of world influence in the Hellenistic period. <hl> Hellenism or at least Philhellenism reached most regions on the frontiers of the Hellenistic kingdoms. Though some of these regions were not ruled by Greeks or even Greek speaking elites, certain Hellenistic influences can be seen in the historical record and material culture of these regions. Other regions had established contact with Greek colonies before this period, and simply saw a continued process of Hellenization and intermixing.

<hl> Hellenistic <hl> culture was at its height of world influence in the Hellenistic period. Hellenism or at least Philhellenism reached most regions on the frontiers of the Hellenistic kingdoms. Though some of these regions were not ruled by Greeks or even Greek speaking elites, certain Hellenistic influences can be seen in the historical record and material culture of these regions. Other regions had established contact with Greek colonies before this period, and simply saw a continued process of Hellenization and intermixing.

question: Hellenism or Philhellenism reached the frontiers of what kingdom?, context: Hellenistic culture was at its height of world influence in the Hellenistic period. Hellenism or at least Philhellenism reached most regions on the frontiers of the Hellenistic kingdoms. Though some of these regions were not ruled by Greeks or even Greek speaking elites, certain Hellenistic influences can be seen in the historical record and material culture of these regions. Other regions had established contact with Greek colonies before this period, and simply saw a continued process of Hellenization and intermixing.


Question: Before Hellenestic influence, Greek colonies were on the shores of the Taman and what other peninsula?

Answer: Crimean

<hl> Before the Hellenistic period, Greek colonies had been established on the coast of the Crimean and Taman peninsulas. <hl> The Bosporan Kingdom was a multi-ethnic kingdom of Greek city states and local tribal peoples such as the Maeotians, Thracians, Crimean Scythians and Cimmerians under the Spartocid dynasty (438–110 BCE). The Spartocids were a hellenized Thracian family from Panticapaeum. The Bosporans had long lasting trade contacts with the Scythian peoples of the Pontic-Caspian steppe, and Hellenistic influence can be seen in the Scythian settlements of the Crimea, such as in the Scythian Neapolis. Scythian pressure on the Bosporan kingdom under Paerisades V led to its eventual vassalage under the Pontic king Mithradates VI for protection, circa 107 BCE. It later became a Roman client state. Other Scythians on the steppes of Central Asia came into contact with Hellenistic culture through the Greeks of Bactria. Many Scythian elites purchased Greek products and some Scythian art shows Greek influences. At least some Scythians seem to have become Hellenized, because we know of conflicts between the elites of the Scythian kingdom over the adoption of Greek ways. These Hellenized Scythians were known as the "young Scythians". The peoples around Pontic Olbia, known as the Callipidae, were intermixed and Hellenized Greco-Scythians.

Before the Hellenistic period, Greek colonies had been established on the coast of the <hl> Crimean <hl> and Taman peninsulas. The Bosporan Kingdom was a multi-ethnic kingdom of Greek city states and local tribal peoples such as the Maeotians, Thracians, Crimean Scythians and Cimmerians under the Spartocid dynasty (438–110 BCE). The Spartocids were a hellenized Thracian family from Panticapaeum. The Bosporans had long lasting trade contacts with the Scythian peoples of the Pontic-Caspian steppe, and Hellenistic influence can be seen in the Scythian settlements of the Crimea, such as in the Scythian Neapolis. Scythian pressure on the Bosporan kingdom under Paerisades V led to its eventual vassalage under the Pontic king Mithradates VI for protection, circa 107 BCE. It later became a Roman client state. Other Scythians on the steppes of Central Asia came into contact with Hellenistic culture through the Greeks of Bactria. Many Scythian elites purchased Greek products and some Scythian art shows Greek influences. At least some Scythians seem to have become Hellenized, because we know of conflicts between the elites of the Scythian kingdom over the adoption of Greek ways. These Hellenized Scythians were known as the "young Scythians". The peoples around Pontic Olbia, known as the Callipidae, were intermixed and Hellenized Greco-Scythians.

question: Before Hellenestic influence, Greek colonies were on the shores of the Taman and what other peninsula?, context: Before the Hellenistic period, Greek colonies had been established on the coast of the Crimean and Taman peninsulas. The Bosporan Kingdom was a multi-ethnic kingdom of Greek city states and local tribal peoples such as the Maeotians, Thracians, Crimean Scythians and Cimmerians under the Spartocid dynasty (438–110 BCE). The Spartocids were a hellenized Thracian family from Panticapaeum. The Bosporans had long lasting trade contacts with the Scythian peoples of the Pontic-Caspian steppe, and Hellenistic influence can be seen in the Scythian settlements of the Crimea, such as in the Scythian Neapolis. Scythian pressure on the Bosporan kingdom under Paerisades V led to its eventual vassalage under the Pontic king Mithradates VI for protection, circa 107 BCE. It later became a Roman client state. Other Scythians on the steppes of Central Asia came into contact with Hellenistic culture through the Greeks of Bactria. Many Scythian elites purchased Greek products and some Scythian art shows Greek influences. At least some Scythians seem to have become Hellenized, because we know of conflicts between the elites of the Scythian kingdom over the adoption of Greek ways. These Hellenized Scythians were known as the "young Scythians". The peoples around Pontic Olbia, known as the Callipidae, were intermixed and Hellenized Greco-Scythians.


Question: What kingdom under the Spartocid dynasty consisted of Maeotians, Thracians, Crimean Scythians and Cimmerians?

Answer: Bosporan

Before the Hellenistic period, Greek colonies had been established on the coast of the Crimean and Taman peninsulas. <hl> The Bosporan Kingdom was a multi-ethnic kingdom of Greek city states and local tribal peoples such as the Maeotians, Thracians, Crimean Scythians and Cimmerians under the Spartocid dynasty (438–110 BCE). <hl> The Spartocids were a hellenized Thracian family from Panticapaeum. The Bosporans had long lasting trade contacts with the Scythian peoples of the Pontic-Caspian steppe, and Hellenistic influence can be seen in the Scythian settlements of the Crimea, such as in the Scythian Neapolis. Scythian pressure on the Bosporan kingdom under Paerisades V led to its eventual vassalage under the Pontic king Mithradates VI for protection, circa 107 BCE. It later became a Roman client state. Other Scythians on the steppes of Central Asia came into contact with Hellenistic culture through the Greeks of Bactria. Many Scythian elites purchased Greek products and some Scythian art shows Greek influences. At least some Scythians seem to have become Hellenized, because we know of conflicts between the elites of the Scythian kingdom over the adoption of Greek ways. These Hellenized Scythians were known as the "young Scythians". The peoples around Pontic Olbia, known as the Callipidae, were intermixed and Hellenized Greco-Scythians.

Before the Hellenistic period, Greek colonies had been established on the coast of the Crimean and Taman peninsulas. The <hl> Bosporan <hl> Kingdom was a multi-ethnic kingdom of Greek city states and local tribal peoples such as the Maeotians, Thracians, Crimean Scythians and Cimmerians under the Spartocid dynasty (438–110 BCE). The Spartocids were a hellenized Thracian family from Panticapaeum. The Bosporans had long lasting trade contacts with the Scythian peoples of the Pontic-Caspian steppe, and Hellenistic influence can be seen in the Scythian settlements of the Crimea, such as in the Scythian Neapolis. Scythian pressure on the Bosporan kingdom under Paerisades V led to its eventual vassalage under the Pontic king Mithradates VI for protection, circa 107 BCE. It later became a Roman client state. Other Scythians on the steppes of Central Asia came into contact with Hellenistic culture through the Greeks of Bactria. Many Scythian elites purchased Greek products and some Scythian art shows Greek influences. At least some Scythians seem to have become Hellenized, because we know of conflicts between the elites of the Scythian kingdom over the adoption of Greek ways. These Hellenized Scythians were known as the "young Scythians". The peoples around Pontic Olbia, known as the Callipidae, were intermixed and Hellenized Greco-Scythians.

question: What kingdom under the Spartocid dynasty consisted of Maeotians, Thracians, Crimean Scythians and Cimmerians?, context: Before the Hellenistic period, Greek colonies had been established on the coast of the Crimean and Taman peninsulas. The Bosporan Kingdom was a multi-ethnic kingdom of Greek city states and local tribal peoples such as the Maeotians, Thracians, Crimean Scythians and Cimmerians under the Spartocid dynasty (438–110 BCE). The Spartocids were a hellenized Thracian family from Panticapaeum. The Bosporans had long lasting trade contacts with the Scythian peoples of the Pontic-Caspian steppe, and Hellenistic influence can be seen in the Scythian settlements of the Crimea, such as in the Scythian Neapolis. Scythian pressure on the Bosporan kingdom under Paerisades V led to its eventual vassalage under the Pontic king Mithradates VI for protection, circa 107 BCE. It later became a Roman client state. Other Scythians on the steppes of Central Asia came into contact with Hellenistic culture through the Greeks of Bactria. Many Scythian elites purchased Greek products and some Scythian art shows Greek influences. At least some Scythians seem to have become Hellenized, because we know of conflicts between the elites of the Scythian kingdom over the adoption of Greek ways. These Hellenized Scythians were known as the "young Scythians". The peoples around Pontic Olbia, known as the Callipidae, were intermixed and Hellenized Greco-Scythians.


Question: Which Scythian people with the Bosporans have strong trade contacts with?

Answer: Pontic-Caspian steppe

Before the Hellenistic period, Greek colonies had been established on the coast of the Crimean and Taman peninsulas. The Bosporan Kingdom was a multi-ethnic kingdom of Greek city states and local tribal peoples such as the Maeotians, Thracians, Crimean Scythians and Cimmerians under the Spartocid dynasty (438–110 BCE). The Spartocids were a hellenized Thracian family from Panticapaeum. <hl> The Bosporans had long lasting trade contacts with the Scythian peoples of the Pontic-Caspian steppe , and Hellenistic influence can be seen in the Scythian settlements of the Crimea, such as in the Scythian Neapolis. <hl> Scythian pressure on the Bosporan kingdom under Paerisades V led to its eventual vassalage under the Pontic king Mithradates VI for protection, circa 107 BCE. It later became a Roman client state. Other Scythians on the steppes of Central Asia came into contact with Hellenistic culture through the Greeks of Bactria. Many Scythian elites purchased Greek products and some Scythian art shows Greek influences. At least some Scythians seem to have become Hellenized, because we know of conflicts between the elites of the Scythian kingdom over the adoption of Greek ways. These Hellenized Scythians were known as the "young Scythians". The peoples around Pontic Olbia, known as the Callipidae, were intermixed and Hellenized Greco-Scythians.

Before the Hellenistic period, Greek colonies had been established on the coast of the Crimean and Taman peninsulas. The Bosporan Kingdom was a multi-ethnic kingdom of Greek city states and local tribal peoples such as the Maeotians, Thracians, Crimean Scythians and Cimmerians under the Spartocid dynasty (438–110 BCE). The Spartocids were a hellenized Thracian family from Panticapaeum. The Bosporans had long lasting trade contacts with the Scythian peoples of the <hl> Pontic-Caspian steppe <hl>, and Hellenistic influence can be seen in the Scythian settlements of the Crimea, such as in the Scythian Neapolis. Scythian pressure on the Bosporan kingdom under Paerisades V led to its eventual vassalage under the Pontic king Mithradates VI for protection, circa 107 BCE. It later became a Roman client state. Other Scythians on the steppes of Central Asia came into contact with Hellenistic culture through the Greeks of Bactria. Many Scythian elites purchased Greek products and some Scythian art shows Greek influences. At least some Scythians seem to have become Hellenized, because we know of conflicts between the elites of the Scythian kingdom over the adoption of Greek ways. These Hellenized Scythians were known as the "young Scythians". The peoples around Pontic Olbia, known as the Callipidae, were intermixed and Hellenized Greco-Scythians.

The Bosporans had long lasting trade contacts with the Scythian peoples of the <hl> Pontic-Caspian steppe <hl> , and Hellenistic influence can be seen in the Scythian settlements of the Crimea, such as in the Scythian Neapolis.

question: Which Scythian people with the Bosporans have strong trade contacts with?, context: Before the Hellenistic period, Greek colonies had been established on the coast of the Crimean and Taman peninsulas. The Bosporan Kingdom was a multi-ethnic kingdom of Greek city states and local tribal peoples such as the Maeotians, Thracians, Crimean Scythians and Cimmerians under the Spartocid dynasty (438–110 BCE). The Spartocids were a hellenized Thracian family from Panticapaeum. The Bosporans had long lasting trade contacts with the Scythian peoples of the Pontic-Caspian steppe, and Hellenistic influence can be seen in the Scythian settlements of the Crimea, such as in the Scythian Neapolis. Scythian pressure on the Bosporan kingdom under Paerisades V led to its eventual vassalage under the Pontic king Mithradates VI for protection, circa 107 BCE. It later became a Roman client state. Other Scythians on the steppes of Central Asia came into contact with Hellenistic culture through the Greeks of Bactria. Many Scythian elites purchased Greek products and some Scythian art shows Greek influences. At least some Scythians seem to have become Hellenized, because we know of conflicts between the elites of the Scythian kingdom over the adoption of Greek ways. These Hellenized Scythians were known as the "young Scythians". The peoples around Pontic Olbia, known as the Callipidae, were intermixed and Hellenized Greco-Scythians.


Question: From whom did the Scythians of Central Asia discover Hellenistic culture?

Answer: Greeks of Bactria

Before the Hellenistic period, Greek colonies had been established on the coast of the Crimean and Taman peninsulas. The Bosporan Kingdom was a multi-ethnic kingdom of Greek city states and local tribal peoples such as the Maeotians, Thracians, Crimean Scythians and Cimmerians under the Spartocid dynasty (438–110 BCE). The Spartocids were a hellenized Thracian family from Panticapaeum. The Bosporans had long lasting trade contacts with the Scythian peoples of the Pontic-Caspian steppe, and Hellenistic influence can be seen in the Scythian settlements of the Crimea, such as in the Scythian Neapolis. Scythian pressure on the Bosporan kingdom under Paerisades V led to its eventual vassalage under the Pontic king Mithradates VI for protection, circa 107 BCE. It later became a Roman client state. <hl> Other Scythians on the steppes of Central Asia came into contact with Hellenistic culture through the Greeks of Bactria . <hl> Many Scythian elites purchased Greek products and some Scythian art shows Greek influences. At least some Scythians seem to have become Hellenized, because we know of conflicts between the elites of the Scythian kingdom over the adoption of Greek ways. These Hellenized Scythians were known as the "young Scythians". The peoples around Pontic Olbia, known as the Callipidae, were intermixed and Hellenized Greco-Scythians.

Before the Hellenistic period, Greek colonies had been established on the coast of the Crimean and Taman peninsulas. The Bosporan Kingdom was a multi-ethnic kingdom of Greek city states and local tribal peoples such as the Maeotians, Thracians, Crimean Scythians and Cimmerians under the Spartocid dynasty (438–110 BCE). The Spartocids were a hellenized Thracian family from Panticapaeum. The Bosporans had long lasting trade contacts with the Scythian peoples of the Pontic-Caspian steppe, and Hellenistic influence can be seen in the Scythian settlements of the Crimea, such as in the Scythian Neapolis. Scythian pressure on the Bosporan kingdom under Paerisades V led to its eventual vassalage under the Pontic king Mithradates VI for protection, circa 107 BCE. It later became a Roman client state. Other Scythians on the steppes of Central Asia came into contact with Hellenistic culture through the <hl> Greeks of Bactria <hl>. Many Scythian elites purchased Greek products and some Scythian art shows Greek influences. At least some Scythians seem to have become Hellenized, because we know of conflicts between the elites of the Scythian kingdom over the adoption of Greek ways. These Hellenized Scythians were known as the "young Scythians". The peoples around Pontic Olbia, known as the Callipidae, were intermixed and Hellenized Greco-Scythians.

Other Scythians on the steppes of Central Asia came into contact with Hellenistic culture through the <hl> Greeks of Bactria <hl> .

question: From whom did the Scythians of Central Asia discover Hellenistic culture?, context: Before the Hellenistic period, Greek colonies had been established on the coast of the Crimean and Taman peninsulas. The Bosporan Kingdom was a multi-ethnic kingdom of Greek city states and local tribal peoples such as the Maeotians, Thracians, Crimean Scythians and Cimmerians under the Spartocid dynasty (438–110 BCE). The Spartocids were a hellenized Thracian family from Panticapaeum. The Bosporans had long lasting trade contacts with the Scythian peoples of the Pontic-Caspian steppe, and Hellenistic influence can be seen in the Scythian settlements of the Crimea, such as in the Scythian Neapolis. Scythian pressure on the Bosporan kingdom under Paerisades V led to its eventual vassalage under the Pontic king Mithradates VI for protection, circa 107 BCE. It later became a Roman client state. Other Scythians on the steppes of Central Asia came into contact with Hellenistic culture through the Greeks of Bactria. Many Scythian elites purchased Greek products and some Scythian art shows Greek influences. At least some Scythians seem to have become Hellenized, because we know of conflicts between the elites of the Scythian kingdom over the adoption of Greek ways. These Hellenized Scythians were known as the "young Scythians". The peoples around Pontic Olbia, known as the Callipidae, were intermixed and Hellenized Greco-Scythians.


Question: Hellenized Scythians were known as?

Answer: young Scythians

Before the Hellenistic period, Greek colonies had been established on the coast of the Crimean and Taman peninsulas. The Bosporan Kingdom was a multi-ethnic kingdom of Greek city states and local tribal peoples such as the Maeotians, Thracians, Crimean Scythians and Cimmerians under the Spartocid dynasty (438–110 BCE). The Spartocids were a hellenized Thracian family from Panticapaeum. The Bosporans had long lasting trade contacts with the Scythian peoples of the Pontic-Caspian steppe, and Hellenistic influence can be seen in the Scythian settlements of the Crimea, such as in the Scythian Neapolis. Scythian pressure on the Bosporan kingdom under Paerisades V led to its eventual vassalage under the Pontic king Mithradates VI for protection, circa 107 BCE. It later became a Roman client state. Other Scythians on the steppes of Central Asia came into contact with Hellenistic culture through the Greeks of Bactria. Many Scythian elites purchased Greek products and some Scythian art shows Greek influences. At least some Scythians seem to have become Hellenized, because we know of conflicts between the elites of the Scythian kingdom over the adoption of Greek ways. <hl> These Hellenized Scythians were known as the " young Scythians ". <hl> The peoples around Pontic Olbia, known as the Callipidae, were intermixed and Hellenized Greco-Scythians.

Before the Hellenistic period, Greek colonies had been established on the coast of the Crimean and Taman peninsulas. The Bosporan Kingdom was a multi-ethnic kingdom of Greek city states and local tribal peoples such as the Maeotians, Thracians, Crimean Scythians and Cimmerians under the Spartocid dynasty (438–110 BCE). The Spartocids were a hellenized Thracian family from Panticapaeum. The Bosporans had long lasting trade contacts with the Scythian peoples of the Pontic-Caspian steppe, and Hellenistic influence can be seen in the Scythian settlements of the Crimea, such as in the Scythian Neapolis. Scythian pressure on the Bosporan kingdom under Paerisades V led to its eventual vassalage under the Pontic king Mithradates VI for protection, circa 107 BCE. It later became a Roman client state. Other Scythians on the steppes of Central Asia came into contact with Hellenistic culture through the Greeks of Bactria. Many Scythian elites purchased Greek products and some Scythian art shows Greek influences. At least some Scythians seem to have become Hellenized, because we know of conflicts between the elites of the Scythian kingdom over the adoption of Greek ways. These Hellenized Scythians were known as the "<hl> young Scythians <hl>". The peoples around Pontic Olbia, known as the Callipidae, were intermixed and Hellenized Greco-Scythians.

These Hellenized Scythians were known as the " <hl> young Scythians <hl> ".

question: Hellenized Scythians were known as?, context: Before the Hellenistic period, Greek colonies had been established on the coast of the Crimean and Taman peninsulas. The Bosporan Kingdom was a multi-ethnic kingdom of Greek city states and local tribal peoples such as the Maeotians, Thracians, Crimean Scythians and Cimmerians under the Spartocid dynasty (438–110 BCE). The Spartocids were a hellenized Thracian family from Panticapaeum. The Bosporans had long lasting trade contacts with the Scythian peoples of the Pontic-Caspian steppe, and Hellenistic influence can be seen in the Scythian settlements of the Crimea, such as in the Scythian Neapolis. Scythian pressure on the Bosporan kingdom under Paerisades V led to its eventual vassalage under the Pontic king Mithradates VI for protection, circa 107 BCE. It later became a Roman client state. Other Scythians on the steppes of Central Asia came into contact with Hellenistic culture through the Greeks of Bactria. Many Scythian elites purchased Greek products and some Scythian art shows Greek influences. At least some Scythians seem to have become Hellenized, because we know of conflicts between the elites of the Scythian kingdom over the adoption of Greek ways. These Hellenized Scythians were known as the "young Scythians". The peoples around Pontic Olbia, known as the Callipidae, were intermixed and Hellenized Greco-Scythians.