why is Pyrrhus of Epirus regarded as one of the greatest generals of all time?

[-iceblade^]

?

apart from Asculum, i can't find anythign significant that he did, and it seems that neither of his conquests did much to change the world. Hannibal gave the romani a good run for their money. alexander, well, i don't need to say anything about him. so what was Pyrrhus' masterstroke, as it were?

and where can i read more about him?

[torongill]

I was just reading wikipedia about Pyrrus: He fought the Romans, he fought Carthage, he fought Greeks and Macedons and was never defeated in battle. True, his battles against Rome created the phrase "pyrric victory", but if you look carefully at the numbers, he was outnumbered in foot and horse. Actually his only advantage was the length of the sarissa pikes and his elephants. His army suffered terrible losses, but the Romans suffered double his number. Pyrrus wrote books on warfare and Hannibal is reported to have been a devoted student of them(One can only guess the reason for that, heh ). As a comparison, in every battle except for Zama Hannibal had the advantage in cavalry. At Trebia the roman center ripped its way through the Carthaginian front and even after the surprise ambush in the rear Hannibal failed to defeat the Roman hollow square in the center. Even his elephants were driven away. At Trasimene the advance guard managed to carve their way through the opposing Carthaginian forces and escaped(for a day). While Cannae was nothing less than a stroke of genius, Varro helped by stacking his line deeper, thus inviting flanking maneuver. The romans arrived fat, dumb, overconfident and seeing red. Pyrric victory should not be a symbol of a victory at devastating cost, but one against really bad odds.
At least that's my opinion

P.S. True, with hindsight I might be a bit overly critical of Varro at Cannae, but his thinking can be compared to "Let's not stop the river with a dam. I have a better idea - we'll put a really big boulder in the center and the river will be too scared to hit it."

[Xerrop]

...and was never defeated in battle...

At least he lost not many battle that he commanded - but he wasn´t undefeated! In his early years (301bc) he fought as an ally of Antigonos and Demetrios at the desastrous battle of Ipsos. Ok he was only a small commander there, but he lost also own battles like the one against Lysimachos in 284bc where he was expelled from Macedon, and obviously his last battle at Argos.

Anyway don´t know if it´s right to call him one of the greatest generals of all time, but he wrote various books about wars and military tactics. The romans rewarded him as one of their greatest enemies. And many commanders like Hannibal studied his books and campaigns. So atleast the ancient people regarded him as a great general.

And his life was interesting, adventurous and full of military campaigns. He was an important player in the late Diadochi wars and it seems he could not live without wars. That´s probably why he died during a battle.

At the age of two his family was expelled from Epeiros, he grew up in Illyria under King Glaukias, with his support he reclaimed the throne when beeing twelve years old, some years later he was expelled the second time (again by Kassandros), allied with Antigonos and fought at Ipsos, following this huge loss he ruled Corinth and Megara for Demetrios, but after a peace treaty between Demetrios and Ptolemy he lived as hostage in Alexandria. Impressed by his character and skills Ptolemy allied with him and supported his return to Epeiros. The reason for this is simple - Demetrios was doing well meanwhile in Europe and Asia so he needed an challenging rival.
He conquered Kerkyra, Illyrian and Paeonian territories through war or marriage. He received also some Upper-Macedonian territories plus Akarnania and Ambrakia by supporting Alexandros against Antipater (two sons of Kassandros). He then created with Ambrakia his new capital. Later he started various wars and campaigns against Demetrios in Aetolia, Boetia and Macedon. Finally Demetrios was overthrown by his own macedonian army! They proclaimed Pyrrhos as their new king. He was atleast a relative of Alexander the Great.
So he became king of Macedonia, some eastern territories were ceded shortly afterwards to Lysimachos. After some wars over Thessaly and Athen against (and later allied with) Antigonos he lost Macedonia to Lysimachos eventually. After Lysimachos death he tried to claim Macedon again, but Ptolemy Keraunos was supported by the Ptolemaic Empire, so he had no chance and abdicated the throne. Now with additional Ptolemaic money and troops he tried his luck against Romans and Carthagians. During his campaign his two eldest sons were proclaimed kings of Italy and Sicily, but his expedition failed and he returned to Greece. Won against Antigonos Gonatas and captured the macedonian throne again. But then he decided to wage war against Sparta and later Argos - wasn´t the best idea.

[ATN]

Yeah, Pyrrhus was a great general but unlucky.

[-iceblade^]

thanks a LOT. very helpful info.

i failed to notice that Pyrrhus never lost a battle... know anywhere where i can read about him indepth?

[shootie]

thanks a LOT. very helpful info.

i failed to notice that Pyrrhus never lost a battle... know anywhere where i can read about him indepth?

Cant go wrong with Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhus_of_Epirus

P.S. True, with hindsight I might be a bit overly critical of Varro at Cannae, but his thinking can be compared to "Let's not stop the river with a dam. I have a better idea - we'll put a really big boulder in the center and the river will be to scared to hit it."

That should be one of those quotes on EB on the bottom of loading screens lol.

[-iceblade^]

ive read through the wikipedia entry, but id like to know more...

[shootie]

Well Pyrrhus is debated to have suffered a loss at The Battle of Beneventum. Which some historians put as a Roman victory while others say it was Inconclusive. Pyrrhus is indeed a interesting character and I can understand why you would like to learn more about him.

Try looking at this nice time-line I found about him here

[Revan The Great]

I personally reject the notion that Pyrrhus was as great a general as Alexander, Scipio and Hannibal (as Scipio seems to suggest in a conversation with Hannibal). He won plenty of battles I guess, but the sheer schizophrenic nature of his strategic moves is frustrating. He goes to Italy, then Sicily, then back to Italy, or was it to Greece? Invade Sparta, run away from Sparta, try to invade Argos, die at Argos.

I'm sure that as far as his contemporaries go he was a perfectly adequate general, with enough charisma and inspirational leadership to lead an army all over the place, and enough tactical sense to outdo the Romans twice on their home turf. That said, as a strategist he, in my view, leaves much to be desired. In that sense, I really don't think it's fair to call him 'One of the greatest generals of all time'.