Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > War and Military History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

War and Military History War and Military History Forum - Warfare, Tactics, and Military Technology over the centuries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old July 24th, 2012, 08:11 PM   #1

emperor of seleucid's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2012
From: Arche Seleukeia
Posts: 2,374
Is Pyrrhus underrated?


We know that one of the most capable general in ancient history considered him to be only under Alexander.

Much of the information on him is limited and I would guess that some were lost. Still, I think there was a reason that Hannibal considered him to be great. People judge Pyrrhus only by the descriptions of a historian who lived after Hannibal.

We know that he never lost a battle and was an excellent fighter himself who fought at Ipssus.
emperor of seleucid is offline  
Remove Ads
Old July 24th, 2012, 08:35 PM   #2

Congo's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: USA
Posts: 2,360

No. He is not underrated.
Congo is offline  
Old July 24th, 2012, 08:49 PM   #3

emperor of seleucid's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2012
From: Arche Seleukeia
Posts: 2,374

Quote:
Originally Posted by Congo View Post
No. He is not underrated.
People say that the only he won was because of Elephants.
emperor of seleucid is offline  
Old July 24th, 2012, 09:00 PM   #4
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,933

Quote:
Originally Posted by emperor of seleucid View Post
We know that one of the most capable general in ancient history considered him to be only under Alexander.

Much of the information on him is limited and I would guess that some were lost. Still, I think there was a reason that Hannibal considered him to be great. People judge Pyrrhus only by the descriptions of a historian who lived after Hannibal.

We know that he never lost a battle and was an excellent fighter himself who fought at Ipssus.
Aside from;
- Pyrrhos' participation in the colossal battle of Ipsos on the defeated side (Antigonos);
- his naval defeat at Messina against the Carthaginians;
- being definitively routed by the Roman consul M. Curius Dentatus at the momentous battle of Beneventum;
- and naturally the defeat of his troops after his own death KIA at Argos,
... Pyrrhos was probably routed at open battle at least a couple of times more.

(And we have yet to talk about the Pyrrhic victories)
sylla1 is offline  
Old July 25th, 2012, 06:40 AM   #5

Fiver's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,479

Quote:
Originally Posted by emperor of seleucid View Post
Much of the information on him is limited and I would guess that some were lost. Still, I think there was a reason that Hannibal considered him to be great. People judge Pyrrhus only by the descriptions of a historian who lived after Hannibal.
Hannibal listing Pyrrhus as great indicates Hannibal is overrated.

People judge Pyrrhus based on results. He did lose battles, even when he won they were too costly. He threw away the results of every victory he had. If anything Pyrrhus is overrated.
Fiver is offline  
Old July 25th, 2012, 06:45 AM   #6

Mangekyou's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: UK
Posts: 7,689
Blog Entries: 5

Pyrrhus is certainly not underrated. He was an adventurer, but his wars in Rome and expedition to Sicily, cost him bigtime.
Mangekyou is offline  
Old July 25th, 2012, 06:54 AM   #7

markdienekes's Avatar
Priest of Baʿal Hammon
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: Oxford
Posts: 4,706
Blog Entries: 15

I don't think so - as an adventurer, King and general, he lived quite an eventful life even since childhood - he's a fascinating figure to read about, but he doesn't stand next to those like Alexander the Great, Hannibal, etc... His victories were costly, and he looked for other campaigns even amidst current ones when the going got tough (going to Sicily for example when he was fighting the Romans), angered his allies both in Italy and Sicily by his actions which shows he didn't have the best diplomatic skills. He failed to take a weak Sparta, then got himself killed and his army routed shortly afterwards at Argos.

He was one tough hombre though, a fine warrior and a good general.

He did make Epirus a power for a brief time too.

Last edited by markdienekes; July 25th, 2012 at 07:27 AM.
markdienekes is online now  
Old July 25th, 2012, 11:06 AM   #8

Salah's Avatar
Baltimorean
Blog of the Year
 
Joined: Oct 2009
From: Maryland
Posts: 23,280
Blog Entries: 182

I think he was personally interesting, but ultimately of little importance.
Salah is offline  
Old July 25th, 2012, 12:18 PM   #9

Isoroku295's Avatar
Priapus
 
Joined: Jan 2009
From: In the Past
Posts: 8,392

Battle of Beneventum was no rout, it was a draw (and some even think it was a victory). Who dares count a naval loss on a general? It's like insulting an undefeated chess player for losing a checkers match. He was no admiral, he was a general. Battle of Ipsus is no negative count either. He didn't command the army, he commanded a part of it. In the end, the loss is on Antigonus Monophthalmus, since Pyrhhus can only have so much influence over the battle. Even is own troop movements were greatly determined by his superiors. And Argos I'd say can't really be included. He died in the battle. For what we know he may have won it had his death not impeded it. Depending on when the death took place, we could very well say it was hardly his fight, but that of who ever succeeds him in the chain of command.
Isoroku295 is offline  
Old July 25th, 2012, 01:50 PM   #10

emperor of seleucid's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2012
From: Arche Seleukeia
Posts: 2,374

Quote:
Originally Posted by sylla1 View Post
Aside from;
- Pyrrhos' participation in the colossal battle of Ipsos on the defeated side (Antigonos);
- his naval defeat at Messina against the Carthaginians;
- being definitively routed by the Roman consul M. Curius Dentatus at the momentous battle of Beneventum;
- and naturally the defeat of his troops after his own death KIA at Argos,
... Pyrrhos was probably routed at open battle at least a couple of times more.

(And we have yet to talk about the Pyrrhic victories)
1. He was not the commander
2. It wasn't a real battle as Pyrrhus was transferring his troops and he was successful in doing to so.
3. It was inconclusive so stop being intellectual dishonest and accept the facts
4. His troops weren't defeated at Argos
5. You don't have any evidence and you have lost your credibility by speculating something that you have no evidence in.
emperor of seleucid is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > War and Military History

Tags
pyrrhus, underrated



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pyrrhus' Teeth Sargon of Akkad Ancient History 15 March 27th, 2016 07:49 AM
Pyrrhus of Epirus Lasher Ancient History 32 November 27th, 2012 10:44 AM
What if Pyrrhus hadn't been so..Pyrrhic? Pyrrhus of Epirus Ancient History 9 October 16th, 2010 03:51 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.