Pyrrhus

Pyrhus was for sure a brillant general. I would like to stress the fact that commanding hellenic type army required more skills than commanding roman/italic type army which was more universal. Hellenic army was more like combined arms including many different types of infantry (not only phalanx).

First problem in Pyrrhic history which i see is that he had always very limited resources. His kingdom wasnt big nor was rich (altough during his reign was changing its borders still was souronded by bigger and richer and thats why Pyrrhus was trying for so long to join richer and bigger Macedonia to his Epir). Romans/Italics were equiping themselves (every soldier was a citisen buying his own equipment and belonging to specified class) while hellenic armies  were completelly armed and sposonsored by the kings. Carthaginians had way more monay than he had. Pyrhus usually had only this army which already raised and equiped, in case of loosing soldiers he didnt have many possibilities to get more, unless he was able to sack some temples or cities, getting some gold this way and hiring mercenaries.

The second problem i see is that he was launching campaigns without preparing good political background before. Was very fast in his decisions and it was probably the reason why he was failing so many times. Exactly the same situation happend in his Italian campaign. He decided to invade Italy with his small army because was told that half of the Italy will revolt against the Rome and support him, what didnt really happend. Altough with his limited forces he was marching up and down Italy and Romans didnt dare to stop him.  Pyrrhus knew that he cant defeat Rome with his forces and he really didnt want to fight with Rome, since the begining was dreaming about Sicily and war against Carthago. But Romans were not going to tollerate invaders nor were going to let them build new kingdom in the southern Italy and Sicily, so allied with Carthaginians against him. And small Epir with its limited financial and human resources wasnt really  an equal opponent for joined forces of Rome and Carthago. Greek cities in the southern Italy also werent reliable allies and as well as Romans didnt want Pyrhus to stay in Italy. In fact in every city was present proRoman faction .

I don't know that much about Pyrrhus, but thankfully you do.

But I still can't see him as a great tactician, because his battles were nowhere near great. So how do you know he was a great tactician? He lost alot of men in his battles, which shows to me that he wasn't really that good of a commander.

Nothing you claimed is true and the argument that Pyrrhus' people were of Illyrian origin is totally false. He was king of the Molossians, the strongest nation in the region of Epirus. The propaganda that Epirote tribes were Illyrian is weak since archaeological findings scattered throughout Epirus prove their pure Hellenic origin.

For example, the oracle of Dodona in the territory of the Molossians was one of the most respectable worship sites of the Greek world, dedicated to Dodonaios Zeus (Zeus of Dodona). All the inscriptions found there during excavations are Greek and written in a northwest Greek dialect, which is a subcategory of the Dorian lingual family.

But if linguistics is not enough to persuade you, we can take a look at ancient sources regarding historical and ethnological issues. So, according to Diodorus of Sicily at 15, 13: "The Illyrians...came down to Epirus and established Alcetas as king of the Molossians...after those events the Molossians resisted and a great battle was fought, in which the victorious Illyrians slaughtered more than 15000 Molossians". The translation is mine since I couldn't find an English one but I assure you it is correct since I understand easily texts of the koine Greek language.

My main questions are two: 1) How come Molossians, the nation of Pyrrhus, were an Illyrian tribe since we see clearly the distinction in the passage between "Illyrioi" and "Molottoi"?
2) Moreover, if the glorious Hellenic nation of Molossis was of Illyrian stock, why would Diodorus mention that Illyrians invaded Epirus? (again we see a clear distinction of geographical nature this time).

But after all, let's see what Pyrrhus himself had to say about Greeks and "barbarians" (non Greeks). According to Plutarch's biography of the great Greek king, he is supposed to comment on the marching army of consul Laevinus as follows: "Megacles, this formation of barbarians is not barbarian, but we will see their acts" (16, 7-8). I must remind you that only a Greek would have described Romans as "barbarians" in the 3rd century BC.

Please try not to make such mistakes and avoid propaganda because you might offend other peoples' past and heritage.

Even if i dont want to enter in your currect discussion about Epirus, i couldnt stop laughing while you are talking about propaganda and paste the link of one of the most well-known propagandistic site in the net aka http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/ to support your claims.

At least can you back up your claims founded in this quote "Its clear the Epirotes were not Greek, nor was Alexander and he didn't really care about Helleniztion" or all your claims about Alexander are taken as well from the above site???