How does the EBII community rate Pyrrhos Aikidas?

**Satapatiš** · July 15, 2020, 11:53 AM

It's not his fault that he didn't know how to open the console. Romans were abusing add_population and had Carthage diplomat giving them money.

**Shoebopp** · July 15, 2020, 09:52 PM

> toggle_fow

> sees 6 roman full stacks

> toggle_fow

> exit program

**BailianSteel** · July 16, 2020, 02:51 PM

Originally Posted by Hellenikon

Pyrrhus achieved a lot before EB2 starts, he transformed the backwater Epirus into a fledling hellenistic kingdom and created his own powerbase in Ambrakia, which didn't exist before. He collaborated with Lysimachus to deny Macedon to Demetrius, and annexed half of Macedon and Thessaly. His italian campaign is the first time when he started to struggle, and that was mainly due to manpower.

The battles versus the romans were a manpower grind and he didn't have support of the local greeks for his empire building project, in the same fashion that the macedonians deal constantly with controlling the greeks in mainland greece. His italian army was punching far above the capabilities of Epirus as a kingdom, the elephants and other resources were a loan from Ptolemy. It was only Pyrrhus' tactical genius that allowed this petty hellenistic kingdom to compete with the big powers, he engaged in a foreign policy reminiscing that of Manuel Komnennos, he was trying to improve his state by gambling his resources playing on the big league.

He had to deal with Rome, which was far more resilient that he could have imagined and that campaign depleted the fragile support he was built around - it was about winning, and making those investments pay off for everyone who joined him. He was basically a condottieri who came from the balcans to try to carve his own kingdom in italy, promising stuff to those who would support him. His later campaigns in greece look like the acts of a desperate man who is running out of resources and keeps coming with more and more dangerous gambits in order that one will pay off, and keep him afloat. Those defeats in italy and later his tragic death in Argos led to the decline of the legitimacy of the monarchy in Epirus.

He was historically of the few generals of the age who kept innovating on the battefield, in an age where the hellenistic rulers were settling down on defensive/offensive flank and the rigid phalanx. He made excellent use of his limited resources, and put enough pressure to Carthage and Rome that he was close to winning both wars, he simply couldn't afford all the losses and had to give up. IMO he was the best general of the epigonoi, one of the few who attempted to introduce improvements to the traditional alexandrian battle order, realising it's limitations way before hellenistic generals of the period did. Most of them just kept doing the same thing that had worked in the past, and hellenistic warfare became stuck. He was a sort of failed Napoleon, in the sense of the changes that the later introduced the the formal and standarized 18th century warfare. Pyrrhus' legacy is one of military innovation and tactical excellence, and he wasn't a terrible ruler either, he was just playing iin the big leagues far above the capabilities of his country - his ambition and tactical prowess was such that he nearly succeeded in pulling a "Philip II" and transforming a petty hellenic kingdom into a great hellenistic power.

Come to think of it, Polybios did claim that Pyrrhos adopted Italic arms into his army.

Best of the Epigonoi is a reasonable conclusion.

Originally Posted by Beckitz

I'm pretty sure he's rated 10 stars...

According to EBII's Command stats, he's rated 7...(though most generals rarely have a command stat over 4...)

Originally Posted by Slaytaninc

Good enough tactician but terrible strategist. In that regard I consider him fairly close to Hannibal, but Hannibal was even better at winning battles.

EDIT: As far as command stars go I see no problem with him having the most stars at start since in game it doesn't really affect generalship if your playing the battle as him, but it does affect auto-resolve which I suppose is also fair enough.

In-game he hasn't achieved his full potential, he can still acquire positive command traits and upgrade his starting ones to reach a full 10. His initial stats can also push morale beyond what it normally is under the other generals.

I wouldn't say Hannibal was a terrible strategist. A ridiculously arrogant one that thought he could single-handedly bring down the Res Publica on it's home ground, but his wider strategy of targeting Italy to permanently weaken the Romani was sound.

Originally Posted by Wulfburk

Personally i rate Pyrrhus higher than Alexander. However that doesnt means i think he's the greatest of all time. Its just that, generally, i find the diadochi (pyrrhus included) much more impressive than Alexander.

Pyrrhus id say is lower in rank than Antigonos Monophthalmus, Seleucos and Eumenes. He possibly stands in comparison with Demetrius Poliorcetes. Both of them had their own share of bad luck and wrong political decisions, but they were also great generals with impressive victories under their belt, Demetrius specially with his victory in the aftermath of the battle of gaza and salamis. After Ipsus Demetrius still faced a coalition of ptolemy, lysimachus and seleucos (and Pyrrhus), and when he finally took control of Macedon his grasp wasnt tight. His situation was probably way direr than that of Pyrrhus. I guess it all comes down to how did these generals face the opposition given to them, and not gauging merely by their success or not. Thus one could have lost but done a more impressive effort than the victor.

In regards to Alexander, i find his opposition to be less impressive (specially in terms of the quality of the armies fielded) than the opposition faced by the diadochi, as in, the others diadochi.

I agree with nearly all of this. I do think that the Hakhmanishiya ought to be rated higher, but we barely know anything about them.

**blackbirdgriffin** · July 17, 2020, 01:09 AM

What do you mean by "we barely know anything about them" ?

**Satapatiš** · July 17, 2020, 11:21 AM

Darius III reign isn't very well documented. Persian army might've been better than it appears at a first glance, given that Ariobarzanes did manage somehow (but even the size of his army is debatable).

Also, the viability of the Persian plan is hard to evaluate. They had no way of knowing that Agis or Memnon will not be successful.

The war wasn't one-sided, Alexander made very good strategic calls.

**BailianSteel** · July 17, 2020, 02:54 PM

Originally Posted by blackbirdgriffin

What do you mean by "we barely know anything about them" ?

We barely know anything about the Hakhmanishiya, whether it's how their army runs on a day to day basis, or the lives of their Shahanshahs. Most of our information comes from snippets in Greek histories, and that information is often contradictory without considering agendas or inaccuracies. The life of Cyrus the Great has three separate versions known to us, each largely irreconcilable.