Talk:Pyrrhic War

Pyrrhic Victory?
Any idea why this page suggests a Pyrrhic Greek victory? I'd love to hear an argument that claims the Greeks were ultimately successful, seeing as though Rome conquered most of southern Italy after the conflict and Pyrrhus fled back to Greece.

I would strongly suggest changing the outcome to "Roman victory". It was, after all, Rome's emergence onto the stage of major powers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.42.210.170 (talk) 00:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Carthage's Empire of Ba'al== It is no accident that Brennus (Brian) and Acichorios (?) led the Celts of Gaul to attack Greece in 279 BCE, squarely in the middle of the Pyrrhic War. Rome had allied with Carthage, run by the Priests of Ba'al. And the Celtic La Tene culture was also dominated by Ba'al worshipping Druids (for example, the festival of Bel-taine). Thus, the central Ba'al Priesthood in Carthage, upon declaring war against Greece, ordered its subservient Druids to send their flocks, ie the Celts, into Greece, even as Carthage warred against Greece from the Mediterranean front. Likewise, the Ba'al worshipping Druidic Celts allied with the Ba'al worshipping Carthaginians during the Punic Wars. Julius Caesar's conquest of Ba'al worshipping Gaul and attack on Ba'al worshipping Britain can be viewed as the "Fourth Punic War", mopping up the remnants of Carthage's Ba'al worshipping empire.

There was no such thing as a Gallic deity called Ba' al. Beltaine had nothing to do with a divinity called Ba' al. Beltane is the anglicised name for the Gaelic May Day festival. It was not about gods. It marked the beginning of the pastoral summer season, when livestock were taken to the summer pastures. Moreover, it was a Gaelic festival, not a Gallic one. It was celebrated in Ireland, Gaelic Scotland and the Isle on Man. In Irish Gaelic it was called Lá Bealtaine, in Scottish Gaelic Là Bealltainn and in Manx Gaelic, Laa Boaltinn/Boaldyn. It was one of four Gaelic seasonal festivals.

Baʿal was a honorific title meaning "lord" in the Northwest Semitic languages spoken in the Levant during antiquity which came to be applied to gods. Baʿal Hammon was the supreme god of the Phoenician city of Tyre and Carthage was a colony of Tyre. Therefore, their god was Baʿal Hammon, not Ba'al. The Phoenicians in the western Mediterranean had contact with the Celts in Hispania, but not with the Celts of Gaul. Moreover, at the time of the Pyrrhic War, Carthage was a republic governed by a pair of suffets and the oligarchy. It was not ruled by any priesthoods and had never been ruled by priests. Similarly, the Celts were not ruled by the druids or any other priests. They were ruled by tribal chieftains.

The Gallic invasion of Greece had to do with Gallic settlement in Pannonia and subsequent expansion into the Balkans. There is no evidence whatsoever of communication between the Carthaginians and the Gauls in the Balkans before or during the Pyrrhic War. The invasion of Greece was part of a migratory movement of this people and was helped by the trouble Lysimachus created in Macedon and Thrace in the last years of his reign and by his death when he was killed in battle in his expedition into Lydia in 281 BC. Moreover, these Gauls invaded Macedon, central Greece and Thrace. They left Epirus, the kingdom of Pyrrhus, alone + the invasion could have been avoided had it not been for the arrogance of the new king, Ptolemy Keraunos.

Julius Caesar did not conquer Ba'al worshipping Gauls because neither the Gauls not any other Celts had such a divinity. The Celts of southeastern Britain, which were the ones Caesar attacked, did not even celebrate the Lá Bealtaine festival. This was celebrated much further north. Thus, the claim that Caesar's Gallic Wars can be viewed as the "Fourth Punic War" is utterly unhistorical and based on totally misplaced and uncorroborated conjectures. --020amonra (talk) 15:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Elephants
Is it true that the Romans did not know elephants before Heraclea, and that they were scared by them in the first battle? I remember that from the school, but I am not completely sure it was true. 66.108.219.181 22:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The elephants which had hitherto been kept in reserve were brought up to meet the cavalry; the horses took fright at them; the soldiers, not knowing how to encounter the huge beasts, turned and fled; the masses of disordered horsemen and the pursuing elephants at length broke the compact ranks of the Roman infantry, and the elephants in concert with the excellent Thessalian cavalry wrought great slaughter among the fugitives. - from "The History of Rome, Book II: From the Abolition of the Monarchy in Rome to the Union of Italy", by Theodor Mommsen

comments
this article reads a lot like a book report.


 * What did you expect? "Gladiator: the Prequel"? - Vedexent 13:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Complexities of the War
While most accounts of the war tend to concentrate on the Rome/Pyrrhus conflict (as this article does), the war was really a much more complicated affair. It was a "patchwork quilt" of conflicts, involving Rome, Epirus (Pyrrhus), many of the Latin nations (remember, this predates the quasi-unification of Italia under solid Roman hegemony), and Carthage. The Rome/Epirus conflicts were only one facet of the war, and all facets had impact on the others - even the city to city conflicts of the Latin peoples. All this should be brought into the article - 21:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I know this is a 12-year old post, but the main conflict was indeed solely with Rome. There's a side-campaign with Sicily, which is mentioned and given a big treatment. The rest are Samnite etc revolts. And after that Pyrrhus returns and fights in different, unrelated conflicts. Cornelius (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

map question
How close did he really get to Rome?any suggestions to improve this?Megistias (talk) 13:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC) Did he get as close as the map in the article or in the one above?Megistias (talk) 16:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Cranita Hill
This article states that the Samnites lost the battle. This contradicts what is wrote on the article of the Battle of Cranita Hills,in which the Samnites were victorious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.160.93.16 (talk) 09:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

About the run-up to the war
‘Rome sent out a fleet of ships that entered the Bay of Tarentum’

Rome must have known that this would violate the treaty, so why did they do it? Did they expect Tarentum to grant an exception, was war with Tarentum their actual ulterior goal, or did they like Turii so much that they went into oh-well-it-cannot-be-helped-let's-hope-nobody-notices mode? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.82.82 (talk) 00:35, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Appian on Pyrrhus' rationale for the Sicilian campaign
In the section, "Sicilian Campaign (278-75 BC)", the third paragraph begins by saying:


 * "Appian wrote that Pyrrhus begun to be more concerned about Sicily than Italy because Agathocles, the tyrant of Syracuse and self-proclaimed king of Sicily, had just died and Pyrrhus had married his daughter Lanassa. However, Appian must have been confused. Agathocles died in 289 BC, nine years before Pyrrhus’ venture in Italy and eleven years before he went to Sicily. Moreover, Lanassa had left Pyrrhus in 291 BC."

The article on Pyrrhu's (ex)-wife, Lanassa, gives a possible clarification of Appian's comment (who might still have misinterpreted the events):


 * "After the death of Agathocles (289 BC) Pyrrhus, as former husband of Lanassa, asserted hereditary claims to Sicily. On the basis of these claims the inhabitants of Syracuse asked Pyrrhus in 279 BC for assistance against Carthage."

So I added in this article, immediately after the last sentence I cited above this line:


 * "It's possible Appian was referring to Pyrrhus' hereditary claims following Agathocles' death, and this relatively recent event, Pyrrhus' claims, as well as Pyrrhus' proximity prompted the inhabitants of Syracuse in 279 BC to ask him for assistance against Carthage."

This cites Dionysius of Halicarnassus, an independent source, which I've included. Cornelius (talk) 09:05, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Source for rewrite, Kent 2020
The best book on the Pyrrhic war is probably: It was also notably well praised in Acoup: Other positive reviews include Ancient World magazine and the Classical Review. I would be willing to cooperate on a rewrite of this article. Ifly6 (talk) 20:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Patrick Kent also has a really solid A History of the Pyrrhic War (2020) well worth a read if you want to understand that war
 * I want to note that my reading of the always confusing and often confused sources for Pyrrhus’ three major battles follows P. A. Kent, A History of the Pyrrhic War (2020) which is also absolutely the thing you should read if you want to understand the course of Rome’s famous war with Pyrrhus of Epirus.

Infobox result parameters
Re edits: 1, 2, 3, etc. This really isn't that hard to understand. WP:MILMOS:

The only appropriate parameter in this instance is something like Anti-Pyrrhic victory or Anti-Epirote victory (if "Anti-Pyrrhic victory" sounds too close to "pyrrhic victory" in the metaphorical sense).

Under the guidance from MILMOS, the contention in this instance is no longer fighting about what exactly should be said, it is only as to whether one of four options should be taken: Pyrrhus won, Pyrrhus' enemies won, it was inconclusive, or "See aftermath". It's clear that the war ended with Pyrrhus' invasion rebuffed; I would say Pyrrhus' enemies won. Adding in how specifically they did so is not consistent with guidance. Ifly6 (talk) 20:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)


 * This is a flawed reading of the guideline. The purpose of that section is to prevent additional details like "Tactical victory for X, strategic victory for Y" and the like. For complex conflicts, more information can be added. Your change to the box causes confusion (nowhere in the article is the phrase "Anti-Pyrrhic" defined) and it gives the mistaken impression that Rome and Carthage fought the war in concert. Parsecboy (talk) 10:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The infobox MOS does not permit stuff like Pyrrhus retreats. The proper way to express a required division by geography, which you say above, would be a single line such as Roman victory in Italy; Carthaginian victory in Sicily. I'm aware this MOS thing is also being discussed at WP:MILHIST, which I think sides broadly with the statement X victory and brevity: the template itself is very clear with this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". Ifly6 (talk) 14:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That's an odd reading of the discussion, which has come to the conclusion that 2.49.34.117's (the same individual as the IP who edited this page) edits, which are generally in line with your argument here, are unhelpful and should be reverted wholesale. Parsecboy (talk) 15:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I see no indication that that discussion came to that conclusion other than your saying you were doing it. The statement that you are doing reverts is not the same as the reverts are agreed upon. The first reply indicated the IP's reading of the guideline was correct, the second in my reading said short notes such as "See aftermath" should not be removed because they were in the guideline, the third criticised the MOS as not being a strong consensus; in response to the question of whether reversions should be done someone then answered if are factually incorrect or are definitely not an improvement which is highly equivocal.
 * Regardless do you object to the phrasing Roman victory in Italy; Carthaginian victory in Sicily and omission of Pyrrhus retreats? I think this addresses your issues with "Anti-Pyrrhic" and "war in concert" while avoiding factual inaccuracies and being consistent with MILMOS. Ifly6 (talk) 17:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)