Pyrrhus vs Ali Bey

good luck with your essay, that's surely a tough one. You'll have a ton of research to do, if only to find out what those two did - the comparison part is the easiest, I gues.

I wish I knew more about Ali Pasha then I do, but unfortunately, I dont have any info on any military strategies he used against the Turks or anything in perticular. With Pyrrhus I am far less blind. Much of his military success can be attributed to the Roman ill knowledge and fear of his elaphants. In nearly all of his battles they were won right after their intervention with the Romans gaining the upper hand before then. I think Pyrrhus is an underrated general, an early proto-type of Hannibal. He would suffer from the same problem the later genius would. Lack of support(the eventual abandonment of Pyrrhus by the very cities that brought him to italy), an enemy fighting in its own turf determined till the end, insufficient and generally inferior army(Pyrrhus would later be forced to used Tarantines in his army, who were not accustomed to the Sarissa). Pyrrhus was a good general but in the end, he was fighting against odds and lost.

I dont see how Ali Pasha compares to Pyrrhus however, as Pyrrhus was not in Epirus, his campaigns were offensives, yet Ali Pasha, with the exception of the local attacks on the Souliots and other people of Epirus(razing of Moscopole) was defensive in the larger part. The defenses he setup in Ioannina were incredibly large and made it so a small amount of reinforcement could handle a strong Ottoman attack.

Edited by Iskender Bey ALBO

vulkan02, do you mean mortar by any chance?

I believe they use it in walls and they call modern weapons 'mortar's' so perhaps that is it?

That's the one, it is interesting though that weapon is called as such AND the stuff in walls is called the same...