Pyrrhus vs Rome

Close, but not as close to Rome as Hannibal did - much of the arena for this conflict was mainly around Southern Italy, but he did press as far North as Beneventum. He could have got much further, but his battles were so costly in men, resources, tactical risk and timing that he just couldn't continue - at the battle of Asculum,  the Romans had lost 6,000 men and the Epirots around 4'000, and although Pyrrhus won, his force was shattered, but was still quite powerful. It is from such victories that the term "Pyrrhic victory" comes from, as Pyrrhus put so much into his battles that it apparently jeprodised his chances of actually wining the campaign to a large degree. I believe that Maharbal's quote "Hannibal knew how to win a victory but not how to use it" is actually more applicable to Pyrrhus than Hannibal.

I actually mean geographically - according to Livy, Hannibal actually came within the direct environs of Rome, but Pyrrhus never even came as close. Aside from having struck a bargin with the king of Macedonian, Casander (I think...) that he would leave his imperialism in Greece and conquer in Italy, he used the pretense that he was coming to aid the Greeks in southern Italy, and accordingly this is where he landed and began his campaign, and it was also where he could probably have gained more allies for his campaigns. I think the reason why Pyrrhus was more emphasised at the time was that it was the first major invasion of Italy that the Romans had to deal with from Greece. Obviously, there was the Gallic invasion in 390/389 (it depends if you trust Polybius over Livy for these two dates), but this was obviously from the north and the Gauls were a frequent enemy of the Romans. Nobody thought that a squabbling successor would attempt to step over the Adriatic crashing right down into Italy. Also, there wasn't much lead up to Pyrrhus's invasion - at least not to the Romans - and it was a massive suprise to everyone.

You're right! I've read most of the surviving texts of Livy, but your interesting statement prompted me to do some skimming and looking through the indexes and there are indeed no mentions of Pyrrhus, king of Epirus except in alludation. Yes, as you correctly stated, the books concerning Pyrrhus are probably lost, but Livy often relates to previous events much more than this long after they happpened in his histories, so we would initially assume that he would do the same for Pyrrhus but...he doesn't? Why is this? He uses Polybius - as he admits - as his primary source, who himself includes loads of relevant detail about Rome as well as relevant information about the successors and other nations that Livy did use, and was interested in Rome and looked at it critically in his writings. Also, Roman records from before 389/390 BC (probably primarily because of the Gallic invasion...) are the main culprits for fragmented sources and loss to the Roman historian, and the Pyrrhic wars are way after this date, so Livy should have a large enough amount of information at his disposal to be mentioning Pyrrhus outside of the lost books which concern him. Polybius and Diodrous are our main sources for these events, I would be assuming.

Pyrrhus is in many ways the figure of an age of transition. On one hand, he seems to have ambitions to emulate Alexander the Great, and carve out an empire in Western Mediterranean.  On the other hand, he failed at a comprehensive program of empire building, and his interventions, particularly in Italy, often had rather limited aims, similar to the type of  foreign interventions that were common in the 4th century. Tarentum had in the past appealed to Spartan and Epirote condottiere (including Pyrrhus' uncle) to help them with incursions of local Lucanians--they were simply making a new appeal against a new set of barbarians. Pyhrrus' own peace offer to Rome, which essentially would have restricted Roman influence in Southern Italy, suggests that while Pyrrhus hoped to keep Southern Italy in his sphere of influence, but did not have any concrete plans of conquest or incorporation.

Edited by dexippus - 20-Dec-2007 at 08:21

phyrric victory= "another one victory like this and i have to turn back alone at home"