15,697
edits
Changes
m
{{Mediawiki:AmNative}}
Admin moved page How Did the Term “Pyrrhic Victory” Originate? to How Did the Term “Pyrrhic Victory” Originate
[[File: Pyrrhus.jpg|300px250px|thumbnail|left|Bust of King Pyrrhus of Epirus]]__NOTOC__
The term “Pyrrhic Victory” is commonly said but its origins are rarely understood by those who use it. The term can be traced to the reign of King Pyrrhus of Epirus (ruled 297-272 BC), who was known for being a truly Hellenistic king – always bellicose and looking to expand his kingdom and reputation through war and intrigue. The term is generally applied to any military victory that is extremely costly, often costing the victor more than it was worth. A couple of notable modern examples include the Battle of the Alamo in 1836 and the Soviet-Finnish Winter War of 1939-1940. In both of these examples, victory only came at the great loss of life and for the most part, they proved to be long-term strategic failures.
====Pyrrhus and Epirus====
[[File: Pompeii_war_elephant.jpg|300px250px|thumbnail|left|Statue from Pompeii, Italy of a War Elephant]]
In many ways, Pyrrhus was truly a man of his era, although perhaps early in his life and career, he was a little out of place. He was the son of Aeacid, the King of Epirus, which is located in what is modern northwest Greece. Pyrrhus and his family were descended from the Greek-speaking Molossian tribe, and despite having long-term cultural contacts with the Greek city-states to the south and Macedon to the east, the Epirots were often considered <i>barbarians</i> by the other Greeks.
===Winning the Battles but Not the Wars===
[[File: Pyrrhic_War.jpg|300px250px|thumbnail|left|Map Showing Pyrrhus’ Movements in Italy and Sicily during the Pyrrhic War]]With his opportunities in Greece temporarily exhausted, Pyrrhus began looking abroad for new chances to enlarge his possessions and fame. It did not take long for a situation to present itself in Italy. The people of the Greek city of Tarentum feared the encroaching Romans, so they invited the Greek -speaking Pyrrhus to Italy to protect them in 280 BC, which marked the beginning of the Pyrrhic War (280-275 BC). <ref> Plutarch, Pyrrhus, XIII</ref> When Pyrrhus arrived in Tarentum, he found the Greeks of the city living a similar lifestyle to the Greeks of the city-states: they enjoyed poetry, philosophy, and the finer things in life. The Epirots and Macedonians were not used to that type of lifestyle, so Pyrrhus essentially put the city under martial law and conscripted many of the men into his army. He then marched out and met the Romans near Heraclea. Plutarch wrote that it was a costly battle that Pyrrhus only won due to his elephant corps.
“At last, as the Romans began to be driven back by the elephants, and their horses, before they could get near the great beasts, started to panic and bolt, Pyrrhus seized the his opportunity: as the Romans faltered, he launched a charge with his Thessalian cavalry and routed the enemy with great slaughter . According to Dionysius, the Romans lost nearly 15,000 men and Pyrrhus 13,000, while Hieronymus reduces these figures to 7,000 on the Roman side and 4,000 on the Greek. But these were some of Pyrrhus’ best troops, and in addition he lost many of the friends and commanders whom he trusted and employed the most.” <ref> Plutarch, Pyrrhus, XVII</ref>
Pyrrhus perhaps believed that the Romans would entertain a treaty after his victory at Heraclea, but he was woefully mistaken. The Romans quickly replenished their army and marched south to meet the Greek army near Asculum in 279 BC. The Battle of Asculum ended in an even more costly victory for Pyrrhus.
===The Reasons Behind the Pyrrhic Victory===
[[File: Roman_coin_of_Pyrrhus.jpg|300px250px|thumbnail|right|Depiction of a Roman Coin Showing One of Pyrrhus’ Elephants]]An A close examination reveals that the true problem with Pyrrhus’ victories was not necessarily how costly they were, but more so the his lack of an effective political and diplomatic strategy he employed with themto consolidate his victories. Pyrrhus’ poor diplomatic skills turned the Greeks of Italy and Sicily against him and even made the Romans and Sicilians – natural enemies and competitors for control of the western Mediterranean – to make temporary peaceallies. Polybius wrote that the two powers formalized the anti-Pyrrhus alliance in writing.
“If either the Romans or the Carthaginians enter into an alliance against Pyrrhus, they shall both have it stipulated in writing that it shall be permissible for either of them to help the other in the other’s territory at a time of war.” <ref> Polybius. <i> The Histories.</i> Translated by Robin Waterfield. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), III, 25 </ref>
===Conclusion===
The term “Pyrrhic Victory” originated with King Pyrrhus of Epirus in the third century BC after he recorded costly victories that were due to his obstinacy and myopic worldview. There is no doubt that Pyrrhus was brave and charismatic and at least an average tactician, but his diplomatic and political skills were woefully lacking for such a powerful man. If Pyrrhus had followed up his battlefield victories with successful negotiations, another general’s name may now be used to describe a military victory that costs more than it is worth.
===References===
<references/>
