in the less explored parts of
Africa. South of this Parnian country lies what is now the
province of Khorasan, mountainous; then a Seleucan satrapy known
as Parthia;--also inhabited by Turanians, but of a little more
settled sort; the satrap was Andragoras, who, like Diodotus in
Bactria (only not quite so much so), had made himself independent
of the reigning Antiochus (II). With him Arsaces found refuge
after his defeat by Diodotus, and there spent the next seven
years:--whether enjoying Andragoras' hospitality, or making
trouble for him, this deponent knoweth not. In 248, however, he
proceeeded to slay him and to reign in his stead. Two years
later, Arsaces died, and his brother Tiridates succeeded him and
carried on the good work; he was driven out by Seleucus II in
238, but returned to it when the latter was called westward by
rebellions soon after. Thenceforward the Parthian kingdom was,
as you might say, a fact in nature; though until a half-cycle
had passed, a small and unimportant one, engaged mostly in
reinvogorating the native Turanianism of the Parthians with fresh
Parnian importations from the northern steppes. Then, in 170,
Mithradates I came to the throne, and seriously founded an
empire. He fought Eucratidas of Bactria, and won some territory
from him. He fought eastward as far as to the Indus; then
conquered Meida and Babylonia in the west. In 129 Demetrius II
Nicator, the reigning Seleucid, attacked Mithradates' son,
Phraates II, and was defeated; and the lands east of the
Euphrates definitely passed from Seleucid to Parthian control.

Why not, then, count as manvantaric doings in West Asia
this rise of the Parthians to power? Why relegate them
and their activities to the dimness of pralaya? Says the
_Encyclopaedia Britannica:_

"The Parthian Empire as founded by the conquests of Mithradates I
and restored, once by Mithradates II (the Great, c. 124 to 88
B.C.), and again by Phraates II (B.C. 76 to 70), was, to all
exterior appearances, a continuation of the Achaemenid dominion.
Thus the Arsacids now began to assume the old title 'King of
kings' (the shahanshah of modern Persia), though previously their
coins as a rule had borne only the legend 'great king.' The
official version preserved by Arrian in his _Parthica,_
derives the line of These Parnian nomads from [the Achaemenian]
Artaxerxes II. In reality however the Parthian empire was
totally different from its predecessor, both exte