Talk:Pyrrhus of Epirus

What Greece are we talking about?

 * Greece as a term was not invented at the time and each kingdom was attacking the other.Epirus was an independent state/nation with a clear Epirotan identity.Let us stick to history and leave politics aside.The first Greek state was a brittish invention of the 19th century romantics.--70.48.117.59 (talk) 17:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Proof. Do you have a proof? Of course no. Dont make false claims with your anti-Greek POV. Even the Romans could laugh at you as your statement returns back as boomerang: If the Epirots were not "Hellenes", then how comes they helped small colonies here, which along with the colonies made by other Greek City-States, on the other side of the Ionian Sea, in the Italian Peninsula, were known as Hellenic and the land as Magna Grecia? But you know that already, right? --85.75.159.93 (talk) 00:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see why this still exists as a statement. Greek states are characterized by their language and their culture, the ethnic consciousness of their people. Today Greece and Cyprus are both Greek states even though only one of them holds the name "Greece". That's how it was during ancient times as well when the Greek people were divided. I find the characterization of a Greek state being "invented" very offensive and simply wrong. If you knew what "Epirus" means in ancient Greek I bet you wouldn't be speaking against every credible historian to have existed. Anyway that's what I had to say. TheAnonymousCoward (talk) 13:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Greece did not existed in the time of Phyrros of Epir. What was the language spoken in the Epir in that time? Surely it was not greek. Then why we have to put a fake name for a period of time that is not knowing as greek period? Hellenistic it is better and this mean that word "greek" and "Greece" must be erased from all the history texts and world encyclopedia as a wrong term telling not the truth. Hellenistic period is also a term decided in 19th century by europians including english and german people. Seen that Hellenistic is a word derived from albanian language like ILLYRIAN then things must be changed drastically. Speaking ethimiologically word Illyrian and Illyria derives from albanian word language meaning Yll, Il, Ilion, Helios, Hyllas (star)and the word Hellenes is of same basis because word Hellenes derives from word Hellas which mean Helios, Hyllas that is the same word for Illyria and Illyrians. Then we are creating such a confusion in world history by introducing such a fake and nonsense term like "greek" term is. What is the language of ancient greeks? Surely it was not greek because modern greek language have no link at all with ancient greek language. Then why we have to talk about greeks and Greece in ancient time meanwhile in that time greeks did not existed at all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.236.39.196 (talk) 16:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Jesus... Remon Kewl13 (talk) 09:23, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

not spokes hellenic langue in Epirus??? Proof that!! because the pre Epirus name was APEIROTAN Απειρωταν that mean endless country. Second, the name Pyrro is a hellenic name for fire Πυρρο. Even Epirus is a hellenic word that mean MAINLAND! and you are coming here to write Epirus has nothing in common with hellens and all of that without any proof!! Even italians are laughing! But yes albanias are common speak without any evidence, because all of ancient history was written in hellenic langue. even word history is a hellenic one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.207.41.243 (talk) 09:22, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The tribes of Epirus were called barbars by hellens, why so? Beavuse they spoke a different language. Epirus had a different governing system from all hellinic states, why so? Women in Epirus were active in the governing affairs and had the possibility to become Queens, a thing that in hellenic states was forbidden, in Illyrian states that was a very common thing 2A02:810D:BE40:514:6DAF:E9D1:EF0B:4430 (talk) 00:24, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Greatest General
I have heard the order of Hannibal's greatest generals as Pyrrhus first, Alexander second, and I have heard it from other sources as the reverse. Can anyone confirm from the original Livy quote which way around it was?
 * According to Plutarch, Hannibal considered Pyrrhus the most skilled general, followed by Scipio and then himself: "Hannibal of all great commanders esteemed Pyrrhus for skill and conduct the first, Scipio the second, and himself the third."

According to Plutarch (Flamininus 21.3-4) the following exchange took place between Scipio Africanus and Hannibal following the Battle of Zama: "When they fell to discussing generals and Hannibal declared Alexander to have been the mightiest of generals, and next to him Pyrrhus, and third himself, Scipio asked with a quiet smile, 'and what would you have said if I had not conquered you?' To which Hannibal replied, 'In that case, Scipio, I should not have counted myself third, but first of generals'." Thus according to Hannibal, first Alexander, second Pyrrhus, third himself. 82.44.82.167 (talk) 16:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC) Catiline63

However, elsewhere in Plutarch (Pyrrhus 8.2) the biographer writes "Hannibal... declared that the foremost of all generals in experience and ability was Pyrrhus, that Scipio [Africanus] was second, and he himself third." (The quote is also presented above.) Plutarch then states that this factoid is also presented in his biography of Scipio. This work is, however, now lost. Curiously, Alexander's name is omitted from this alternate top-three.

Regardless of the actual order, the take-home message is that Pyrrhus was held in high esteem by Hannibal, and in his opinion ranked with Alexander the Great, Scipio Africanus and himself. 82.44.82.167 (talk) 16:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC) Catiline63

Maybe you guys didn't look closely enough, but the sources aren't contradictive. One is about the ablities, the other about might. 87.67.8.251 (talk) 17:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I know this is from 10 years ago. But what would be the difference between abilities and might? I'm pretty sure this is some legendary saying mish-mash Plutarch is recording in two different places. Putting Pyrrhus ahead of anyone doesn't even make sense as Hannibal came much closer to defeating Rome, and Scipio defeated Hannibal so Pyrrhus' inclusion has to be because of the recent memory of the people, perhaps the Romans wanting to put a defeated general who didn't come close to much (but must've scared them), Pyrrhus, above Hannibal who continued to frighten them for generations. The actual Hannibal could've never put Pyrrhus above himself if he was willing to place himself above Alexander merely for defeating Scipio! (among other examples of vanity) Goes to show that the Romans placed this in Hannibal's mouth, or corrupted an actual saying; as who else would think of the Romans as such a formidable power to rank higher than Alexander's conquests? Certainly not Hannibal who nearly brought them to their knees. The fact that in one of the versions Pyrrhus is named first should show us that probably the original, if there was one, had the following order: Alexander, Scipio, himself, and if he'd defeated Scipio, higher than Alexander (which is a bit illogical, but makes sense with Hannibal's character). Not much later some Roman decided to throw Pyrrhus into the mix to shame Hannibal. Cornelius (talk) 17:37, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Unreliable
Its really tragic that some people are triggered by clear nationalism. And the worst, they wanna add their unreliable comments in an encyclopedia. Ploutarch is one of the most reliable and neutral sources of antiquity, his biographies are renowned.

Perhaps the one that claims the opposite has not even read a single setence about his work. Why dont read first the related sources before extracting unreliable critics and statements?

Second, why Rolf Winkes is unreliable source too?

Ok. lets hear the sources that say that Pyrrhos isn't Greek? Some books of Hojxa regime maybe? Perhaps someone is afraid to point out his own view and just puts npov labels, without opposing anything! I will report that sure. An encyclopedia of the 21th century considers Ploutarch an unrelable rource? If this is heard in a literature department in a University, it will make the entire community to lauph...Alexikoua (talk) 22:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, let's take a look at the references. The first two of, Plutarch, are of a person with greek ethnicity so there is not a neutral point of view. The third reference is a random page made by some uknown guy, anyone could have made that page and is therefore a non-reliable source. The fourth was made by a Greek author, so there's no neutrality. The only valid reference is the last one, whose reliability is disputable. --84.20.83.42 (talk) 10:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, I too find the references unreliable. I can't either see those pages of that book anywhere, therefore the article is not fully verifiable.--EmpD++ (talk) 19:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, Im not surprised, the user that added the npov sign, has already been blocked twice for vandalims in the past.--Alexikoua (talk) 22:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You must be confusing me with someone else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EmpD++ (talk • contribs) 15:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

How can you dare that Plutarch have been using word "greek" in his writtings while word "greek" is created 1.200 years after the life of Plutarch and Plutarch himself never knew word "greek" and "Greece" by himself? This is lie, hypocrisy and hiding the truth. You pretend that Phyro was greek? Did Phyro spoke greek language in his life? No ! Because greek language was created about 2.000 years after the death of Phyro. Modern greek language has no link to ancient greek language that means Phyro never spoke greek. Then why we have to call Phyro as greek unjustfully? The second question is : What is the meaning of word Phyro itself? With which language it can be explained? With what language is it linked? Is it linked with greek language or with albanian language? The answer to those questions show a tremendous lie and manipulation to the world history. The fake history of greeks who were not in existence till the 18 century when this nation was created by germans and english people. History of the world must be rewritten and the truth must be said. It is enough with coverage of the truth.109.236.39.196 (talk) 17:33, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Show us the truth!!! ;) Greek Macedon (talk) 16:58, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Reliable
Someone is playing like a child with reliable sources. The article will remain without these out of the question singns, until someone has something serious to argue (and I dont mean nationalistic, racist arguments that a person's nationality makes him unreliable)Alexikoua (talk) 19:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see what the nationality has to do with this. I don't think that greek references are valid since the article talks about a greek character. They're not Neutral. Please read the rules more carefully before attacking others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EmpD++ (talk • contribs) 15:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I urge all editors to discuss this matter in a spirit of civility and assumption of good faith. Strongly urge. No, really strongly urge. We all clear about that yet? As to the references: nationality does not invalidate sources in and of itself. If additional sources are available, and they are secondary sources of appropriate reliability, then by all means add them, and adjust the article accordingly to reflect the consensus of the available sources (or, note where those sources disagree). OK? Alai (talk) 19:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The main idea is that there are already secondary sources added in the article. The argument to put an pov sign in every ancient personality that is described mainly by authors of the same nationality (and I talk about primary ancient sources) will put automatically an pov sign the vast majority of ancient personalities.

Its gets really wierd, how can Plutarch be reliable when describing Ceasar, and not reliable about decribing a Greek? Suppose for someone Plutarch is 90% unreliable and pov. Why noone doesnt add an pov sign on Plutarch too? (according to the pov unreliable stuff he is describing, according to a user's claim) --Alexikoua (talk) 20:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * If there were secondary sources questioning Plutarch's neutrality (or in some cases, but not in others) it would be appropriate to add them, and their omission might be cause for tagging the article. But the point is to have such a discussion about the existence (or lack) of such sources, rather than getting into a tag revert war, or a name-calling exercise.  If no such substantiation is forthcoming in a reasonable period, the tag can then appropriately be removed.  Alai (talk) 20:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Well... nationality has only something to do with modern sources. There were not many nationalities with people that could write at the time. Who else could read and write than some Greeks and Romans?? Scythians?Dacians?Illyrians? They were at the time mere barbarians.And still, questioning that one source does not mean the article's neutrality is disputed as well.--Michael X the White (talk) 22:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The user EmpD++, insist that there is a possibility to be Ilyyrian. Well, he has started to reveal himself, but too but he can't prove that:
 * 1st ref just mention the name Pyrros and its translation and nothing more.(aka proves nothing)
 * 2nd ref and 3rd lack excact citation and comment about the arguement.
 * Is he shy about discussing the topic here? --Alexikoua (talk) 17:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * His sources are not appropriate (www.aboutnames.ch) or highly POV (Serge Metais). Simple.  --Tsourkpk (talk) 18:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Here I am. I am not Illyrian, in fact I'm Italian.

Ok, maybe the first reference is not that important, but the other ones ARE. They are neutral, since they're from french writers. I have put the exact pages, but you, like always, reverted my changes. My sources ARE reliable, unlike yours. Come on, All your sources are GREEK, which is cannot be neutral because in this article is being discussed the ethnicity of the person. The only neutral one seems a page made by some uknown person (Secondary reference 2) and Pyrrhus by Jacob Abbott. So we got 2 against 2 references. What about the Rolf Winkes one? That's obsolete, it's from old studies and cannot even be verified for reliability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.20.83.62 (talk) 09:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, you have been indefinetly blocked and we all know what that means--Michael X the White (talk) 09:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

He's not Illyrian, off course. Illyrians as an nation ceased to exist since 2nd cent. A.D.. Imagine someone claim that he is Babylonian, Sumerian or Carthaginian? More possible is to talk with an extraterrestial than with an Illyrian today, thats logical.

Moreover the sourced books by him were just propaganda material.Alexikoua (talk) 21:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

From what I am reading here I am understanding that in Wilkipedia there is a greek moderator!Because there is no way that someone with a common sense of logic would say "NO" to all the french and english sources which say that Pirrhus and all Epirus were Illyrian and saying "YES" to the GREEK sources who say that Pyrrhus was a greek!!And by the way!!What the hell are you doing in the page about "Illyria" ??Illyria comes from the ancient GREEK word HYLLUS??Dudes!!Dont play this misserable games!!Illyria comes from the albanian word "i lir" which means "free"!!its not something in which you need to think alot!!In modern albanians we call the illyrians "ilir" and we call a free person "i lir".Illyrians were called like that because all they wanted was freedom!!A freedom that modern Greece doesnt want for its 5000 years old neighbourhood!A freedom that the Wilkipedia "moderators" just sh*t on it!!Moderators,becareful on what you allow to be writen in Wilkipedia,because you have taken the responsibility to write about one of the most dangerous places in the world!!Yes the Balkans is dangerous!!The world wars has always starten from the balkans,and what you are doing is making the hatred which lies in this territory to grow more and more!I am not exagerating but you can be one of the responsibles of a war in the near future!Because pride for what we are and what our grandfathers were is esencial for us,albanians!!So please,study all the sources,or...Fear the Consenquences... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/jurgenalbanian (talk) 01:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I hope not to be banned from Wilkipedia like my patriots,because this is my god damn oppinion,and I think its Democracy where we live on in this moder world!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by jurgenalbanian (talk) 01:09, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no proven link between Albania and Illyria. There are different theories and approaches. The Albanian-Illyrian link was adopted during Hodja regime in Albania, moreover stated that the Epirot tribes were Illyrian too, just to serve propaganda and irredentism purposes. Hope, modern schollars in Tyranna keep an eye on this topics and stop to change history in order just to serve an one sided approach. --Alexikoua (talk) 08:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

1.According to your logic,well there is no proved link between modern greeks and the hellens.In ancient times,the tribes which you are talking about were called hellens not greeks you sick!! 2.Spell his name correctly,its Hoxha not Hodja!!Or you want to make even him greek?? 3.It wasnt adopted during his regime!!Do you know about my national hero Gjergj Kastrioti??Well,his hero was exactly Pirro of Epirus,Thats why his hat had a goat,because Pirros sign was a goat!! Thats why your government wants to make even Gjergj Kastrioti a greek,because when you prove that he was albanian,you prove that even Pirro was albanian!! Do you know the illyrian tribe of albanoi??Thats where modern albanians descend from!!And do you know the names of illyrian kings??Teuta, Agron, Pirro, Bardhyl,etc?? Those names are still used in modern Albania!! So STFU,and fix those crap you have written in Wilkipedia!! 4.Its Tirana not Tyranna you stupid!!!Or do you want to make even my city greek??--Jurgenalbanian (talk) 10:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Well,of course you are not going to fix those pages...Its obvious why Wilkipedia supports this much fanaticly Greece!!Because the greek government has donnated big sums of money to Wilkipedia!!Do you really think that normal people would donate to this crap??NO THEY WOULDNT!! Its the greek government who donates!! Thats why Wilkipedia is making everyone and every land greek!!Thats why only albanians get banned,not greeks!! I am just loosing my time probably. I am like writting in a greek forum not in a discusion page of an enciklopedia!! You people are brainwashed!! No... you are not brainwashed, you nedd money!! And the greek government gives you to much,in change of entirely destroying the entire history of Albania!! Who gives a hell about Albania anyway?? Shame on you!!--Jurgenalbanian (talk) 10:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Ill probably be banned... because democracy is dead in this website...--Special:Contributions/jurgenalbanian (talk) 10:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Read the rules about the wiki policy. What you say are just assumptions, no facts. I believe you can give your arguments without personal attacks. Pyros-Skenderbey-Goat? Whats that, a new kind of heresy? I'm sure the university of Tyrana has a more open minded approach on that.Alexikoua (talk) 13:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * What exactly is your issue (i.e. what do you want to get fixed in the article) and how can I help? I hope we can resolve this amicably. Thanks.--Xenovatis (talk) 10:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Well,a friend of mine before had posted the links of 2 french books and of one english book!And what did the admins do,they just said that they were unreliable!!Why is that so?And what about your sources??They are all greek,or wrotten by people with greek heritage!!I am studying in the university of Tirana(and dont you dare calling it Tyrana anymore because I have even more city pride then national pride,or ill be forced to call your country "Gayreece" and of course you wouldnt like that!) and the history books do state that Pyrrhus was Albanian. Same thing goes for all history books, from elementary to university. I am able to provide sources for my argumentation but as I have seen from the previous users they are merely ignored. So Please re-check your sources, because most of them are impartial, and considering actually checking the sources posted before by the banned users, before deciding to ignore them.--Jurgenalbanian (talk) 14:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Please check the sources in the main article. They are all WP:RS. In any event if you do have RS that suggest otherwise please cite them here so we can add them to the article. And please be aware that racist and homophobic comments are in contravention of WP policy. Thanks.--Xenovatis (talk) 14:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * A new Albanian in Wiki?? Welcome! I guess that makes you 3 now... (except if you're Empd again). I could be writing lots of things but, as you're knew, I'd just want to warn you. Saying things like governments donated money, etc. will just end in you seeming ridiculous and no one taking in serious what you say (we anyway do not care). Things like Phyrrus the Albanian or "it's Tirana you stupid" or even (that's the best one) "they were hellens not greeks", will just earn you a bad reputation around here.
 * Please read the lengthy discussions and ask questions before making any statements. There is only one Albanian around here that we can at least have a decent discussion with and it would be nice if you became the second.
 * P.S. Call anyone the way you like. Nobody cares. Honestly. Just be careful because you may be banned. Cheers!Michael X the White (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes!A new albanian in Wiki!And there will be many more!Now for now I am retreating because as I see you are well organized.Ill make some researches and i'll find the links of some books that I have readen.I'll also ask some friend.But know something!This what you are doing wont last long!Just like the crap about "Skanderbeg the greek" didn't!See you soon...really soon!--Jurgenalbanian (talk) 14:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Brrrrrrrr I tremble --Michael X the White (talk) 18:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

You dont have to!There is no reason to tremble by watching you PC screen!But you will tremble soon! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jurgenalbanian (talk • contribs) 19:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Dont forget to read A. Hitler's, Mein Kapf, and how propaganda can forcibly change history and facts, that's what the tottalitarian regime (1945-1991) had in mind when changing your history books. Fortunately, today at the Albanian univerisities this past is long forgotten, and noone speaks about fictional nationalistic situations. So this pro-Albanian approach adopts only a extremistic minority in your country, too bad.--Alexikoua (talk) 07:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC) 109.236.39.196 (talk) 18:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Well accusing the others for nationalism and being yourself the first who held the flag of nationalism this is purely cruel hypocrisy. You are deffending here by any means the greek nationality of Phyrro meanwhile it is not true. The only source about Phyrro it seems to be Plutarch and here it is how reliable is the source of Plutarch : How can you dare that Plutarch have been using word "greek" in his writtings while word "greek" is created 1.200 years after the life of Plutarch and Plutarch himself never knew word "greek" and "Greece" by himself? This is lie, hypocrisy and hiding the truth. You pretend that Phyro was greek? Did Phyro spoke greek language in his life? No ! Because greek language was created about 2.000 years after the death of Phyro. Modern greek language has no link to ancient greek language that means Phyro never spoke greek. Then why we have to call Phyro as greek unjustfully? The second question is : What is the meaning of word Phyro itself? With which language it can be explained? With what language is it linked? Is it linked with greek language or with albanian language? The answer to those questions show a tremendous lie and manipulation to the world history. The fake history of greeks who were not in existence till the 18 century when this nation was created by germans and english people. History of the world must be rewritten and the truth must be said. It is enough with coverage of the truth. If there is no link that Albania have no link with Illyria then it is more worth that Modern Greece have nothing to do with Hellenes.109.236.39.196 (talk) 18:33, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you have evidence that Pyrrhus spoke Albanian? Do you have evidence that Albanian was spoken at that time? Do you have evidence that Hellenistic (Greek) history is "fake"? Instead of this provocative language, historical revisionism and original research, try to be civil, neutral and fact-based. Read the guidelines.--Z oupan 12:40, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

just another albanian without evidence. You can not trying to convice others with out evidences. The only evidences are in hellenic langue. Hellenic langue exist before Epiros was a state. and the word greek is a italian one used for hellens in south italia. just search for magna grecia. So your arguments provide nothing. so dont blame wikipedia. blame yourself for no providing facts — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.207.41.243 (talk) 09:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Check out the Albanian wikipedia
There they claim Pyrrhus was an Illyrian and the same for the Molossians. It would be funny if it weren't so sad.Xenovatis (talk) 19:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh well...! Who reads it anyway??--Michael X the White (talk) 19:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Every day more people read it. --sulmues (talk) 01:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've posted some stuff from Britannica which, surprise surprise, seems to indicate rather conclusively that Pyrrhus and the Molossians were Greek even if they were not entirely accepted as such in the 5th c. BCE, they certainly were by the 3rd c. BCE. I have named the refs BritA (Pyrrhus) and BritB (Epirus). Please feel free to add them where you think is appropriate. I don't really care enough for this historical era to go through all of it myself. I just read the albanian wiki articles and wanted to make sure this idiocy does not infect the english one.Xenovatis (talk) 19:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The question whether the Molossi were Greek, half-Greek, or barbarian does not belong in this article, no matter how certain either side may be; they have an article of their own. (Both sides are cherry-picking quotations anyway; which is doing so more intensely is one of the questions I prefer to avoid.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What i dont get is how could someone even claim Pyrrhus was an Illyrian. His father was an Aeacidae and his mother was from Thessaly. Even if there are scant doubts by a small number of historians over the Greekness of Molossians, there is no doubt about the Greekness of their royal house. I found this on the subject which includes ancient sources stating the obvious. Johnaldinho (talk) 11:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Who gives a damn?Serbian wikipedia claim Skanderbeg was serbian or greek.Leave it to sq.wikipedia.Here we are at en.wikipedia.Nixious6 (talk) 21:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Inaccurate Map
I realize this sort of thing is a bit of a sensitive subject, but Hammond in his 'Macedonian State' on Page 40 indicates that the Paeonians were linguistically and culturally distinct from their neighbors, whereas on the map in this article they are classified as 'Thracian'. The Thracians were dominant east of Paeonia. Fimbria (talk) 11:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shqypes Arbnore (talk • contribs) 11:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Truth?! Epirus?! Greek?! Albanian?!
I must say that I came to this topic by accident. I was searching about the battle of Mount Erix, and there it quoted Pirrhus of Epirus and else. I was shocked that Pyrrhus (Pirro) was said to be a greek and so on. And than I see the discussion. I am albanian. I've studied language and literature and I have a passion for history. I happen to live in the northern (albanian) part of the solongcalled Epirus. The first thing that I noticed about the article is that it has a strong underlining about Pirro being a greek, Epirus being greek, Molossians having been greeks and so on. Strange, I thought the article was about Pyrrhus of Epirus and his achievements mainly, not about his much discussed nationality. The same about the references: They look to be there only to support the greekness of Pirro, Epirus and so on. If this be true ( and I've seen it in other articles concerning Epirus) than, this article is a failure. Because it's intention is not to inform those who are interested, but to misguide them in the midst of a nationalistic conflict, which though Greece and Albania might be thousands of years old, dates no more than 200 years.

Plutarch tells about Pyrrho and his line being a descendant of Neoptolemus, son of Achiles. He tells that Neoptolemus was not born in Epirus; he went there by force of arms. If this be true, and Neoptolemus and Achiles did exist, and if they really belonged to a proto-greek tribe, that makes Pyrrhos of greek blood and that's all. The real problem behind Pirrhus is the nationality of the people living today in Epirus. If the albanians or the greeks are trying to claim their nationality for themselves, they will surely start from the heroes and so on. When you steal from a house you start with the jewels. Herodotus and Thucidides in their writings refer to Epirus, Macedonia and the Illirian kingdoms and tribes as "Barbaroi" which in that time had a purely linguistic meaning: non-greek speaking people. And their language, being one of the most important attributes of a people, revealed these above quoted people as non greek.

There are a lot of articles about antic Balkan. They all speak of four main races: Illirian, Greek, Thracian, and the Dacian. Epirus (and Macedonia) appear in history as special entity only during the rule of a great king and his line. This seems to point that this kingdom was not a race apart.They were Illirian, Greek or Thracians. Most probably a mixture of these three, who themselves were not as apart from each other as might be believed.

The Cambridge University Press and Britannica Online Encyclopedia refering to "Pyrrhus, king of helenistic Epirus" or "the greek army of Pyrrhus", or "the greek hoplites of Pyrrhus" are practically speaking of Epirus in a wellknown history period, and about the type of his army. "Greek riders", for example, was a type of army unit and had nothing to do with nationality; the same as the mostly albanian "Stratiotis" in medieval time.

Another interesting thing is that if Epirus was greek, it was the only such kingdom, all the greece having the city-state form of politic organisation. On the other side, this was typical for the Illirans. The Enkeleian kingdom of Bardhyl, the Taulantian kingdom of Glaukia, the Ardian kingdom of Agron, The Dardan kingdom etc. Two greek colonies in the midst of these kingdoms, Epidamn, and Apolonia were city-states. Note that when Pyrrhus was a child, his supporters are not quoted to even think about taking him to a greek ruler, or even macedonian. they took him instead to Glaukia the taulant, which was not the mightiest ruler in that time. Plutarch says that he was even frightened from the persecutors of Pirro. Than why did they took Pirrho to Glaukia? The reason is simple I think. They belonged to the same people.

As about Pirrhus being a descendant of Achiles, that's mostly legend, as Achiles himself who claimed his heritage from Zeus, which, I think, no one in his right mind can claim to be true. Epirus was full of helenistic culture, that's a fact. So was most of Eastern Mediterranean. Even the Egiptian weere having helenistic culture 400-300 BC. That does not make them greek. Writing english in this article does not make me English. Even if Pirrhus did have greek blood, can anybody say that he did what he did because he had greek blood? Or illirian blood? Can albanians claim glory from the fact that Mother Teresa was born of them (by the way, she has claimed to be albanian)? All the world know her as Mother Teresa of Calcuta! I think that to have a true opinion about something you have to look at all sides of it. Truth is not property of a race, but God's gift to all people. I would be happy if some articles in Wikipedia would not be a source of disinformation, or examples of simplemind and one-sided ideas. Hoping for these words of mine not to be censured or misinterpreted. Respect to all. (next time bringing references) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shqypes Arbnore (talk • contribs) 12:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

--sulmues talk contributions 05:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Hallo my friend. I read your opinion about Pyrrhus, Epirus and Epirotes and i can,easily, find many and sever historical mistakes on the issue of their ethnical or national identity. So we must solve these things, with historical facts.

I saw that you used the names of ancient Greeks, so i will start from there. For the very begining i will start from there.

HERODOTUS : For Herodotus Epirotes were Greeks. And we can find this proof from his textes.Herodotus wrote for the despot of Sykion Cleisthenes, after his victory at the Olympic Games, claimed the best of all Hellenes to married his daugther. But lets see the text: 126....Cleisthenes the son of Arisonymos,the son of Myron, the son of Andreas, had a daughter Agariste; and as to her he formed a desire to find out the best man of all Hellenes and assing her to him in marriage....Then all those of Hellenes who had pride either in themselve or in their high descent came us wooers, and for them CLeisthenes had a running-course and a wrestling place made and kept them expreslly for their use. 127. From Italy came Smindyrides the son of Hippocrates of Sybaris, who of all men on earth reached the highest point of luxury (now Sybaris at this time was in the height of its prosperity), and Damasos of Siris, the son of that Amyris who was called the Wise; these came from Italy: from the Ionian gulf came Amphimnestos the son of Epistrophos of Epidamnos, this man from the Ionian gulf: from Aitolia came Males, the brother of that Titormos who surpassed all the Hellenes in strength and who fled from the presence of men to the furthest extremities of the Aitolian land: from Peloponnesus, Leokedes the son of Pheidon the despot of the Argives, that Pheidon who established for the Peloponnesians the measures which they use, and who went beyond all other Hellenes in wanton insolence, since he removed from their place the presidents of the games appointed by the Eleians and himself presided over the games at Olympia,--his son, I say, and Amiantos the son of Lycurgos an Arcadian from Trapezus, and Laphanes an Azanian from the city of Paios, son of that Euphorion who (according to the story told in Arcadia) received the Dioscuroi as guests in his house and from thenceforth was wont to entertain all men who came, and Onomastos the son of Agaios of Elis; these, I say, came from Peloponnesus itself: from Athens came Megacles the son of that Alcmaion who went to Crœsus, and besides him Hippocleides the son of Tisander, one who surpassed the other Athenians in wealth and in comeliness of form: from Eretria, which at that time was flourishing, came Lysanias, he alone from Eubœa: from Thessalia came Diactorides of Crannon, one of the family of the Scopadai; and from the Molossians, Alcon. --- Herodotus 126-127 "The Histories of Herodotus. Volumes I and II" by Herodotus, G. C. Macaulay 2004 watch the book here

So you are wrong, because according to Herodotus, Epirutes were Hellenes and not Illyrians either barbarians. And he never called them like this. As for Thucidides, its true that he called them barbarians but he never called them Illyrians. For example when he wrote about Taulantians, he made clear that they were Illyrian. ---" Its vicinity is inhabited by the Taulantians, an Illyrian people."--- The History of the Peloponnesian War (Mobi Classics)Thucydides, Richard Crawley (Translator) watch the book here

Contrary to this, when he wrote for Mollosians and other Epirutes he never put the term "Illyrian" to thems. Only the term "barbarian", which is a very misunderstunding term at our days. Actually as the global expert on the historical issue of Epirutes, Professor Hammond in his book about Epirus wrote, but this is a different subject.

AS for their language is well known to our days that they were speaking a very unique form of Greek language. A phenomenon very common for Greek tribes from antiquity to our days. Lets see few facts: 1)--Speakers of these various Greek dialects settled different parts of Greece at different times during the Middle Bronze Age, with one group, the "northwest" Greeks, developing their own dialect and peopling central Epirus-- p.62 In the Shadow of Olympus: The Emergence of Macedon, Eugene N. Borza watch the book here

2)--Theopompus knew fourteen Epirote tribes, speakers of a strong west-Greek dialect....-- N.G.L.Hammond, "Oxford Classical Dictionary," (sorry that i dont put link but i can not find it right now, but u can search the library of gooble books)

3)--The West Greek dialect group denotes the dialects spoken in: (i) the northwest Greek regions of Epeiros, Akarnania, Pthiotid Akhaia.... -- Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity by Jonathan M. Hall watch the book here

I can put more and more (as i found many new, for my archieve, books from scientists that wrote for Epirus), but i think that i made clear my point. Epirotes spoke Greek and actually they spoke their own, unique Greek dialect.

I also found something extemly intresting at your comments. You wrote that Epirus was the only kindom at Greece, in the case that Epirus was Greek. Well my friend, you surprised me. And u surprised me because i didnt expect from someone that claims to be passionated with history, to ignore that 1 of the 2 most importand and famous Greek states in history was kindom. I speak for Sparta. This was a huge mistake from you. And not only it was a kindom, but it had 2 kings (Dorian habit--just rember this for later). Something that happens at Epirus ( actually at Mollosians) many times at its history. Something else that made but impression to me is that u ignore the fact that the 2 of the 3 varius Epirutic tribes were without king (Chaonians and Thesprotians). If u had read Thucydides, then u could knew this.

Something else that u ingore is the reason that explanes why Pyrrhus didnt go to a Greek city-state, kindom, colony etc etc. At his period all of royal descendants or relatives of Alexander the Great were chasing by the Epigones. Thats why Pyrrhus went out of Greek world. But he didnt went (by his saviors) to random kindom. Pyrrhus was brought to Glaukias' court solely for the reason his wife was the Molossian princess Beroea, who happens to be Pyrrhus aunt! SO these are the reasons!!!!!!!!!!!!

The last issue is the opinion of the ancient authors about Epirus and Pyrrhus. Well. We know the Thucydides and STrabo called them barbarians. Lets take as a factt he barbarian means the foreigner, even if at their times this term had the meaning of culturally inferior or the people without Athenian education (as Isocrates inform us). Lets see now what other ancient authors wrote for Pyrrhus and Epirus:

1)Thus the ambassador of Pyrrhus returned; and, when Pyrrhus asked him "what kind of a place he had found Rome to be," Cineas replied, that "he had seen a country of kings, for that all there were such, as Pyrrhus alone was thought to be in Epirus and the rest of Greece." he Breviarum Ab Urbe Condita of Eutropius: The Right Honourable Secretary ... Flavio Eutropio,Eutropius H. W. Bird watch here the book

2)"The deluge in the time of Deucalion, for instance, took place chiefly in the Greek world and in it especially about ancient Hellas, the country about Dodona and the Achelous, a river which has often changed its course. Here the Selli dwelt and those who were formerly called Graeci and now Hellenes." Aristotle Meteorologica watch book here

3)Thus the ambassador of Pyrrhus returned; and, when Pyrrhus asked him "what kind of a place he had found Rome to be," Cineas replied, that "he had seen a country of kings, for that all there were such, as Pyrrhus alone was thought to be in Epirus and the rest of Greece." Eytropius, "Justin, Cornelius Nepos, and Eutropius: Literally Translated with Notes and ..." watch the book here

4)"Greece starts at Oricus and the most ancient part of Greece is Epirus." Claudius Ptolemy, The Geographer

5)"We know of no Greek before Pyrros who fought against Rome" Pausanias, watch the book here

6)"It was for this reason that Pyrrhus was defeated by the Romans also in a battle to the finish. For it was no mean or untrained army that he had, but the mightiest of those then in existence among the Greeks..." The Roman antiquities of Dionysius of Halicarnassus, watch the book here

7)Dont forget the books of Plutarch that compare the lifes of Greek and Roman famous personalities. Plutarch put Pyrrhus at Greek side. So for him, Pyrrhus was Greek.

And for us (Greeks or Hellenes --its the same--) Pyrrhus is not a ticket for glory. He is just another one member of our glorius history. We have glorius civilization (and with this i dont mean that we are supperiors compare to other nations). The glory comes out from our civilization and culture ---> philoshophy, maths, astronomy, science, theater, architecture etc etc. The war achievements are the last part of our " jewels" (as u named them) to our house! Even if we put out the ancient history, we (modern Greeks) have glorius history and very very importand personalities to be proud. For examples: Elytis, Seferis, Hatzidakis, Maria Callas, Papanikolaou, Nanopoulos, Kapodistrias, Ritsos, heroes of WW2, Kolokotronis, Constantin Carathéodory and many many many others. So its not matter of glory, but an issue of history plus ethnical identity and ethnical "property"(if i can say so)! Greetings from Greece my dear neighboor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikolaos7 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Albania TF
Pyrrhus should be placed under TF Albania. We don't know where he was born, but he built two cities in modern Albania (Antigonea and Butrint). I hope no one will revert me when I place the Albania TF tag. --sulmues (talk) 14:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

@Athenean: Please do not make this an edit war. Discuss before you take the Albania TF out of the talk page. --sulmues (talk) 18:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There's nothing to discuss. According to your logic, Alexander the Great and Philip of Macedon should be included also.  I saw your post on the TF talkpage, where you rally the troops to make sure the Albanian POV is represented in this and other articles.  Do you really think that is a constructive attitude?  ("We must make sure these articles are on our 'watchlist' and the Albanian POV is represented!)"


 * We must make sure that all the 2ndary sources are represented.--sulmues (talk) 00:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The fact that the man built cities that are now in modern Albania isn't a good reason to put him in TF Albania. By that logic, Constantine the Great should go under TF Turkey. Kenji Yamada (talk) 04:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That is not the only reason why he should be also under the Albania TF. Pyrrhus of Epirus was a Chaonian and that is undisputed. Chaonians lived in today's Albania and there is lots of evidence that contrast their being Greeks. Albanian archaeology considers them Illyrians. Other non Albanian, neutral archaeologists also think that the Chaonians although participated in Greek wars, did not speak Greek, but Illyrian. The Greek editors will call these claims fringe theories, but it's the Greek authors themselves who call them barbarians which in the hellenistic world meant non-Greek. Thycidides himself considers them barbarians. See the following citations from ThycidiBold textdes: He calls them continuously barbarians, not once but at least five times in his book THE HISTORY OF THE PELOPONNESIAN WAR :


 * The Hellenic troops with him consisted of the Ambraciots, Leucadians, and Anactorians, and the thousand Peloponnesians with whom he came; the barbarian of a thousand Chaonians, who, belonging to a nation that has no king, were led by Photys and Nicanor, the two members of the royal family to whom the chieftainship for that year had been confided. 
 * The order of march was as follows: the centre was occupied by the Chaonians and the rest of the barbarians
 * Chaonians, filled with self-confidence, and having the highest character for courage among the tribes of that part of the continent, without waiting to occupy their camp, rushed on with the rest of the barbarians
 * A panic seizing the Chaonians, great numbers of them were slain; and as soon as they were seen to give way the rest of the barbarians turned and fled. 
 * The enmity of the Ambraciots against the Argives thus commenced with the enslavement of their citizens; and afterwards during the war they collected this armament among themselves and the Chaonians, and other of the neighbouring barbarians.

But let's talk about the Albanian archaeologists' work: Korkuti very clearly says that Antigonia (Chaonia) has an Illyrian culture. . He continues saying that it was the glaukians another Illyrian tribe who enthroned Pyrrhus. How could the Illyrians enthrone the Greeks? This person has been the director of the Albanian institute of Archaeology for 30 years. I know that Megistias will make sure to tell us that he was doing it to make Enver Hoxha happy, but that's not true: his website was opened after Hoxha's death. Liquidating the non-Greek hypothesis of the Chaonians and Phyrrus is not a good way to behave in Wikipdia, but since I am not an archaeologist or historian I will not edit-war. Thank you! --sulmues talk contributions 05:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This still isn't a sufficient reason. You've made a case that Pyrrhus wasn't a Greek.  Even if you could show that his contemporaries called him an Ἰλλυριός, that wouldn't make him Albanian.  I've lived in Albania and believe me, I know how sure Albanians can be about their Illyrian ancestry.  But without involving nationalist commitments, the strongest statement we can make with warrant is that some of the ancient groups of people known to their contemporaries as Illyrians may have comprised a large proportion of the ancestry of many modern Albanians.  We don't have the continuity of evidence to make a stronger statement than that.  So making a case that Pyrrhus was an "Illyrian" (a difficult notion to define in the first place) doesn't show that he has a direct relevance to modern Albania. Kenji Yamada (talk) 05:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, after reading more of Korkuti, I don't see any place where he specifically talks about Pyrrhus being an Illyrian, so I rest my case and I apologize to the community for my edits under this talk page. Kenji, Greeks don't make a distinction between ancient Greeks and modern Greeks. So don't the Albanians, they are convinced that they are the descendants of the Illyrians and actually for that there is plenty of evidence, especially by Korkuti, Prendi, Ceka and many others. All I'm saying is that no one of them has clearly made a case for the Illyrian origin of Pyrrhus. --sulmues talk contributions 05:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Pyrrhus' end
This detailed account comes from the page Antigonus II Gonatas. Would it be possible to integrate some of the information into the last chapters of this page or is there any Wikirule withstanding such an operation? --Borsanova (talk) 00:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Pyrrhus's retreat from Italy, however, proved very unlucky for Antigonus. Returning to Epirus with an army of eight thousand foot and five hundred horse, he was in need of money to pay them. This encouraged him to look for another war, so the next year, after adding a force of Gallic mercenaries to his army, he invaded Macedonia with the intention of filling his coffers with plunder. The campaign however went better than expected. Making himself master of several towns and being joined by two thousand deserters, his hopes started to grow and he went in search of Antigonus. attacking his army in a narrow pass and throwing it into disorder at the Battle of the Aoos River. Antigonus's Macedonian troops retreated, but his own body of Gallic mercenaries, who had charge of his elephants, stood firm until Pyrrhus's troops surrounded them, whereupon they surrendered both themselves and the elephants. Pyrrhus now chased after the rest of Antigonus's army which, demoralised by its earlier defeat, declined to fight. As the two armies faced each other, Pyrrhus called out to the various officers by name and persuaded the whole body of infantry to desert. Antigonus escaped by concealing his identity. Pyrrhus now took control of upper Macedonia and Thessaly, while Antigonus held on to the coastal towns.

But Pyrrhus now wasted his victory. Taking possession of Aegae, the ancient capital of Macedonia, he installed a garrison of Gauls, who greatly offended the Macedonians by digging up the tombs of their kings and leaving the bones scattered about as they searched for gold. He also neglected to finish off his enemy. Leaving him in control of the coastal cities, he contented himself with insults. He called Antigonus a shameless man for still wearing the purple, but he did little to destroy the remnants of his power.

Before this campaign was finished, Pyrrhus had embarked upon a new one. In 272 BC, Cleonymus, an important Spartan, invited him to invade Laconia. Gathering an army of twenty-five thousand foot, two thousand horse, and twenty-four elephants, he crossed over to the Peloponnese and occupied Megalopolis in Arcadia. Antigonus, after reoccupying part of Macedonia, gathered what forces he could and sailed to Greece to oppose him. As a large part of the Spartan army led by king Areus was in Crete at the time, Pyrrhus besieged Sparta with great hopes of taking the city easily, but the citizens organized stout resistance, allowing one of Antigonus's commanders, Aminias, the Phocian, to reach the city with a force of mercenaries from Corinth. Soon after this, the Spartan king, Areus, returned from Crete with 2,000 men. These reinforcements stiffened resistance, and Pyrrhus, finding that he was losing men to desertion every day, broke off the attack and started to plunder the country.

The most important Peloponnesian city after Sparta was Argos. The two chief men, Aristippus and Aristeas, were keen rivals. As Aristippus was an ally of Antigonus, Aristeas invited Pyrrhus to come to Argos to help him take over the city. Antigonus, aware that Pyrrhus was advancing on Argos, marched his army there as well, taking up a strong position on some high ground near the city. When Pyrrhus learned this, he encamped about Nauplia and the next day dispatched a herald to Antigonus, calling him a coward and challenging him to come down and fight on the plain. Antigonus replied that he would choose his own moment to fight and that if Pyrrhus was weary of life, he could find many ways to die.

The Argives, fearing that their territory would become a war zone, sent deputations to the two kings begging them to go elsewhere and allow their city to remain neutral. Both kings agreed, but Antigonus won over the trust of the Argives by surrendering his son as a hostage for his pledge. Pyrrhus, who had recently lost a son in the retreat from Sparta, did not. Indeed, with the help of Aristeas, he was plotting to seize the city. In the middle of the night, he marched his army up to the city walls and entered through a gate that Aristeas had opened. His Gallic troops seized the market place, but he had difficulty getting his elephants into the city through the small gates. This gave the Argives time to rally. They occupied strong points and sent messengers asking Antigonus for help.

When Antigonus heard that Pyrrhus had treacherously attacked the city, he advanced to the walls and sent a strong force inside to help the Argives. At the same time Areus arrived with a force of 1,000 Cretans and light-armed Spartans. These forces attacked the Gauls in the market place. Pyrrhus, realising that his Gallic troops were hard pressed, now advanced into the city with more troops, but in the narrow streets this soon led to confusion as men got lost and wandered around. The two forces now paused and waited for daylight. When the sun rose, Pyrrhus saw how strong the opposition was and decided the best thing was to retreat. Fearing that the gates would be too narrow for his troops to easily exit the city, he sent a message to his son, Helenus, who was outside with the main body of the army, asking him to break down a section of the walls. The messenger, however, failed to convey his instructions clearly. Misunderstanding what was required, Helenus took the rest of the elephants and some picked troops and advanced into the city to help his father.

With some of his troops trying to get out of the city and others trying to get in, Pyrrhus's army was now thrown into confusion. This was made worse by the elephants. The largest one had fallen across the gateway and was blocking the way, while another elephant, called Nicon, was trying to find its rider. This beast surged against the tide of fugitives, crushing friend and foe alike, until it found its dead master, whereupon it picked him up, placed him on its tusks, and went on the rampage. In this chaos Pyrrhus was struck down by a tile thrown by an old woman and killed by Zopyrus, a soldier of Antigonus. Thus ended the career of the most famous soldier of his time.

Alcyoneus, one of Antigonus's sons, heard that Pyrrhus had been killed. Taking the head, which had been cut off by Zopyrus, he rode to where his father was and threw it at his feet. Far from being delighted, Antigonus was angry with his son and struck him, calling him a barbarian and drove him away. He then covered his face with his cloak and burst into tears. The fate of Pyrrhus reminded him all too clearly of the tragic fates of his own grandfather and his father who had suffered similar swings of fortune. He then had Pyrrhus's body cremated with great ceremony.

After the death of Pyrrhus, his whole army and camp surrendered to Antigonus, greatly increasing his power. Later, Alcyoneus discovered Helenus, Pyrrhus's son, disguised in threadbare clothes. He treated him kindly and brought him to his father who was more pleased with his behaviour. "This is better than what you did before, my son," he said, "but why leave him in these clothes which are a disgrace to us now that we know ourselves the victors?" Greeting him courteously, Antigonus treated Helenus as an honored guest and sent him back to Epirus.

Neoptolemus II of Epirus -- puppet of Seleucus?
In the section "Early life", the statement that Pyrrhus murdered "Neoptolemus II of Epirus, puppet of the now-deceased Seleucus" -- which dates to an edit made on 12 November 2008 -- must be wrong.

According to the text of the article's "Early life" section, Neoptolemus II was murdered sometime during the period 297-295 BC. However, "Seleucus" must be Seleucus I Nicator, founder of the Seleucid dynasty and empire. According to Wikipedia's article "Seleucus I Nicator", he was assassinated in 281 BC. Thus, according to the "Early life" section of "Pyrrhus of Epirus", Neoptolemus II was murdered sometime during the period 297-295 BC AND after 281 BC ; this is impossible. Therefore the statement "the now-deceased Seleucus" must be wrong.

Furthermore, Plutarch did NOT claim that Neoptolemus II was the puppet of Seleucus. Indeed, no reference is provided for this claim.

Therefore I have deleted the claim that Neoptolemus II was the "puppet of the now deceased Seleucus". Cwkmail (talk) 11:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Nice job, just checked the material.Alexikoua (talk) 19:43, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Pyrrhus - Antigonus II Gonatus
I happen to have been studying Plutarch's Life of Pyrrhus all day (using Wikipedia) and I happened to stumble on something interesting: The person(s) who wrote the article on Antigonus II Gonatus basically did little more than summarize three "Lives" of Plutarch: Demetrius, Pyrrhus and Aratus. Actually, it would take a considerable amount of effort to do this, and I certainly laud the person who did it. My purpose writing here is to suggest the summaries of the lives (by Plutarch) contained in the Wikipedia article for Antigonus II Gonatus be incorporated in their respective Wikipedia articles.

For example, the following large segment of text taken from the Antigonus article corresponds to the section of the Pyrrhus article titled "Last wars and death":


 * Pyrrhus, king of Epirus, Macedonia's western neighbour, was a general of mercurial ability, widely renowned for his bravery, but he did not apply his talents sensibly and often snatched after vain hopes, so that Antigonus used to compare him to a dice player, who had excellent throws, but did not know how to use them. When the Gauls defeated Ptolemy Ceraunus and the Macedonian throne became vacant, Pyrrhus was occupied in his campaigns overseas. Hoping to conquer first Italy and then Africa, he got involved in wars against Rome and Carthage, the two most powerful states in the western Mediterranean. He then lost the support of the Greek cities in Italy and Sicily by his haughty behaviour. Needing reinforcements, he wrote to Antigonus as a fellow Greek king, asking him for troops and money, but Antigonus politely refused. In 275 BC, the Romans fought Pyrrhus at the Battle of Beneventum which ended inconclusively, although many modern sources wrongly state that Pyrrhus lost the battle. Pyrrhus had been drained by his recent wars in Sicily, and by the earlier "Pyrrhic victories" over the Romans, and thus decided to end his campaign in Italy and return to Epirus.
 * Pyrrhus's retreat from Italy, however, proved very unlucky for Antigonus. Returning to Epirus with an army of eight thousand foot and five hundred horse, he was in need of money to pay them. This encouraged him to look for another war, so the next year, after adding a force of Gallic mercenaries to his army, he invaded Macedonia with the intention of filling his coffers with plunder. The campaign however went better than expected. Making himself master of several towns and being joined by two thousand deserters, his hopes started to grow and he went in search of Antigonus. attacking his army in a narrow pass and throwing it into disorder at the Battle of the Aoos River. Antigonus's Macedonian troops retreated, but his own body of Gallic mercenaries, who had charge of his elephants, stood firm until Pyrrhus's troops surrounded them, whereupon they surrendered both themselves and the elephants. Pyrrhus now chased after the rest of Antigonus's army which, demoralised by its earlier defeat, declined to fight. As the two armies faced each other, Pyrrhus called out to the various officers by name and persuaded the whole body of infantry to desert. Antigonus escaped by concealing his identity. Pyrrhus now took control of upper Macedonia and Thessaly, while Antigonus held on to the coastal towns.
 * But Pyrrhus now wasted his victory. Taking possession of Aegae, the ancient capital of Macedonia, he installed a garrison of Gauls, who greatly offended the Macedonians by digging up the tombs of their kings and leaving the bones scattered about as they searched for gold. He also neglected to finish off his enemy. Leaving him in control of the coastal cities, he contented himself with insults. He called Antigonus a shameless man for still wearing the purple, but he did little to destroy the remnants of his power.
 * Before this campaign was finished, Pyrrhus had embarked upon a new one. In 272 BC, Cleonymus, an important Spartan, invited him to invade Laconia. Gathering an army of twenty-five thousand foot, two thousand horse, and twenty-four elephants, he crossed over to the Peloponnese and occupied Megalopolis in Arcadia. Antigonus, after reoccupying part of Macedonia, gathered what forces he could and sailed to Greece to oppose him. As a large part of the Spartan army led by king Areus was in Crete at the time, Pyrrhus besieged Sparta with great hopes of taking the city easily, but the citizens organized stout resistance, allowing one of Antigonus's commanders, Aminias, the Phocian, to reach the city with a force of mercenaries from Corinth. Soon after this, the Spartan king, Areus, returned from Crete with 2,000 men. These reinforcements stiffened resistance, and Pyrrhus, finding that he was losing men to desertion every day, broke off the attack and started to plunder the country.
 * The most important Peloponnesian city after Sparta was Argos. The two chief men, Aristippus and Aristeas, were keen rivals. As Aristippus was an ally of Antigonus, Aristeas invited Pyrrhus to come to Argos to help him take over the city. Antigonus, aware that Pyrrhus was advancing on Argos, marched his army there as well, taking up a strong position on some high ground near the city. When Pyrrhus learned this, he encamped about Nauplia and the next day dispatched a herald to Antigonus, calling him a coward and challenging him to come down and fight on the plain. Antigonus replied that he would choose his own moment to fight and that if Pyrrhus was weary of life, he could find many ways to die.
 * The Argives, fearing that their territory would become a war zone, sent deputations to the two kings begging them to go elsewhere and allow their city to remain neutral. Both kings agreed, but Antigonus won over the trust of the Argives by surrendering his son as a hostage for his pledge. Pyrrhus, who had recently lost a son in the retreat from Sparta, did not. Indeed, with the help of Aristeas, he was plotting to seize the city. In the middle of the night, he marched his army up to the city walls and entered through a gate that Aristeas had opened. His Gallic troops seized the market place, but he had difficulty getting his elephants into the city through the small gates. This gave the Argives time to rally. They occupied strong points and sent messengers asking Antigonus for help.
 * When Antigonus heard that Pyrrhus had treacherously attacked the city, he advanced to the walls and sent a strong force inside to help the Argives. At the same time Areus arrived with a force of 1,000 Cretans and light-armed Spartans. These forces attacked the Gauls in the market place. Pyrrhus, realising that his Gallic troops were hard pressed, now advanced into the city with more troops, but in the narrow streets this soon led to confusion as men got lost and wandered around. The two forces now paused and waited for daylight. When the sun rose, Pyrrhus saw how strong the opposition was and decided the best thing was to retreat. Fearing that the gates would be too narrow for his troops to easily exit the city, he sent a message to his son, Helenus, who was outside with the main body of the army, asking him to break down a section of the walls. The messenger, however, failed to convey his instructions clearly. Misunderstanding what was required, Helenus took the rest of the elephants and some picked troops and advanced into the city to help his father.
 * With some of his troops trying to get out of the city and others trying to get in, Pyrrhus's army was now thrown into confusion. This was made worse by the elephants. The largest one had fallen across the gateway and was blocking the way, while another elephant, called Nicon, was trying to find its rider. This beast surged against the tide of fugitives, crushing friend and foe alike, until it found its dead master, whereupon it picked him up, placed him on its tusks, and went on the rampage. In this chaos Pyrrhus was struck down by a tile thrown by an old woman and killed by Zopyrus, a soldier of Antigonus. Thus ended the career of the most famous soldier of his time.
 * Alcyoneus, one of Antigonus's sons, heard that Pyrrhus had been killed. Taking the head, which had been cut off by Zopyrus, he rode to where his father was and threw it at his feet. Far from being delighted, Antigonus was angry with his son and struck him, calling him a barbarian and drove him away. He then covered his face with his cloak and burst into tears. The fate of Pyrrhus reminded him all too clearly of the tragic fates of his own grandfather and his father who had suffered similar swings of fortune. He then had Pyrrhus's body cremated with great ceremony.
 * After the death of Pyrrhus, his whole army and camp surrendered to Antigonus, greatly increasing his power. Later, Alcyoneus discovered Helenus, Pyrrhus's son, disguised in threadbare clothes. He treated him kindly and brought him to his father who was more pleased with his behaviour. "This is better than what you did before, my son," he said, "but why leave him in these clothes which are a disgrace to us now that we know ourselves the victors?" Greeting him courteously, Antigonus treated Helenus as an honored guest and sent him back to Epirus.
 * This was not the end of Antigonus' problems with Epirus: shortly after Alexander II, the son of Pyrrhus and his successor as king of Epirus, repeated his father's adventure by conquering Macedonia. But only a few years after Alexander was not only expelled from Macedonia by Antigonus' son Demetrius, but he also lost Epirus and had to go into exile in Acarnania. His exile didn't last long, as the Macedonians had at the end to abandon Epirus under pressure from Alexander's allies, the Acarnanians and the Aetolians. Alexander seems to have died about 242 BC, leaving his country under the regency of his wife Olympias who proved anxious to have good relations with Epirus' powerful neighbour, as was sanctioned by the marriage between the regent's daughter Phthia and Antigonus' son and heir Demetrius.

I think that this section is actually better suited to the article for Pyrrhus, and should be included with slight alterations. It lacks style, but is really a great paragraph-by-paragraph summary of Plutarch, which is one of the few sources for Pyrrhus. I'm more than happy to undertake this myself, but I was concerned that a) It is a *substantial* alteration and b) I am essentially re-appropriating someone else's work and was seeking some guidance. The end result will be that the Pyrrhus article will be in much better shape.

I guess I should - in closing - repeat my earlier observation: that the Antigonus II Gonatus article is really nothing more than a lengthy summary of Plutarch, and should be edited for style. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mousebelt (talk • contribs) 02:05, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I really don't understand why is this 'synopsis' needed hear. In fact we do not need a synopsis of Ploutarch in this article. Imagine adding similar data on Ceasar, Alexander, Solon etc..Alexikoua (talk) 15:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Plutarch is the major source for Pyrrhus, and after (as stated above) spending an entire day on Plutarch's life of Pyrrhus, it seemed indispensable to his story. But, perhaps I was thinking more to the subject itself, rather than the spirit of an encyclopedia article, and went a bit overboard. Thank you for at least acknowledging the change. That said, perhaps someone should take a look at the article on Antigonus II Gonatus, from whence I retrieved the synopsis (of Pyrrhus) in its entirety. (see above comments)Mousebelt (talk) 22:25, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't understand Alexikoua's objection. Why shouldn't the article give more detail? john k (talk) 05:23, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I would agree that you go ahead. --Hyphantes (talk) 02:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Pyrrhis of Epirus is Albanian.
The information is wrong about Pyrrhis being greek.Pyrrhys in albanian Piro wich is is a common name in albania even used today is albanian.He was a Chaonian which lived in today's Albanian territory.Chaonian actually fought in some greek wars but they were not speaking greel language,but Illyrian. 185.89.158.126 (talk) 11:52, 29 November 2021 (UTC)


 * bollocks Plonkernello (talk) 14:02, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Pyrrhus was Albanian
Pyrrhus aka Pyrrhus of Epirus was a king of the Epirus region in today's territories of Albania and Greece. He was known as a strong general and was even a big concern to early Rome for his conquests. There are proofs that he was albanian. Here is a letter that Skanderbeg sent to Prince of Taranto: "Morever you scorn our people, claiming the albanians as nothing more than a sheep, and according to your customs think of us with only insults. It would seem you know nothing of the origins of our race. Our elders were the Epirotes from whence Pyrrhus himself came fourth, the might of whom the Romans could barely withstand. Those very Epirotes whom with their weapons set fourth and conquered Taranto and much of Italy". If you want more proofs see what the parliament of Greece said about the Albanian race in 1867. They considered the albanians to be the descendants of the Epirotes. 146.0.19.46 (talk) 16:18, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Is Albania even real
I'm not sure, maybe it isn't 178.43.149.152 (talk) 18:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Epirote or Greek
Guys im curious what do you think? Should be be more specific on presuming what a historical figure was? (Like spartan, kushite, arvanite, Suebi) or simply the group overall? (Like greek, egyptian, albanian, german)? Because im trying to maintain the same rules in every article. Thank You! RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 19:34, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Roughly, WP does not care about personal opinions including mine and yours. Pyrrhus was a king of an Epirotan tribe and the Epirotan tribes where ethnically Greek of Dorian extraction. This is the consensus in Academia. Everything else is POV pushing so I would advise you to drop the stick and move on. Best Othon I (talk) 10:42, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Okay cool time to make arvanites albanian then. Pick up the stick i dropped now and come after me. RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 10:13, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

I can't understand your argument here. Arvanites here in antiquity?Alexikoua (talk) 04:47, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Nobody mentioned antiquity. If the enthic tribe its less important than major ethnicity group then according to Othon I every Arvanite should be written as Albanian like every Dorian as Greek. "Pyrrhus was a king of an Epirotan tribe and the Epirotan tribes where ethnically Greek of Dorian extraction" the same can be said then for Odysseas Androutsios that he was Albanian since "Arvanites were ethnically Albanians of Tosk extraction". But that wouldn't be professional would it? Thats why it should beentioned that he was Epirotean. RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 10:58, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Pyrrhus ruled over various regions of ancient Greece: Macedonia, Epirus, central, southern Greece, Greek colonies in Italy... "Epirotean" is misleading. I don't know how we can support this view. In terms of royal origins he was an 'Aeacidae' and this is stated.Alexikoua (talk) 22:54, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Wasn't a Greek
are many prof thet he was a illyrian but your government don't want to accept it molosian was a illyrian tribe this is very clearly 217.73.142.85 (talk) 09:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Why isn't it mentioned that he was Co-King of Macedon together with Lysimachus from 288 BC to 285 BC?
. Soro333 (talk) 19:12, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2024
Pyrrhus was not greek but illyrian, even an illyrian called agron had adopted him, i will cite many books prooving he was of illyrian origins. Arbe21 21 (talk) 15:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting question.svg Question: Can you cite those books here?  (talk | contribs) 01:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Awhellnawr123214 (talk) 04:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)