Pyrrhus Burns Rome

[Hymie Goldberg]

In 281 BC Pyrrhus, King of Epirus, landed in Italy with a large army and immediately began kicking the hell out of the Latin League. He destroyed many of the Italic cities but, before he got to Rome, he left to help Syracuse against a Carthaginian offensive in 278.

By not finishing his Italian campaign and razing Rome, he allowed the Romans, as the largest of the remaining Latin cities to consolidate thier power over the rest of the League and rise to full preeminence.

If Pyrrhus takes care of business in Italy before rescuing the Syracusans, the Kingdom of Epirus may have become the Epirian Empire--especially after he uses the resources of Sicily and Italy for his conquest of the Aetolian League and Macedon--although those resources might be better spent going after Carthage.


PS--Pyrrhus is the guy who was the inspiration for the word pyrrhic, as in pyrrhic victory. The guy was a great general who won all his battles but lost all his wars.

[LDoc]

man if Rome is raised it basicly leaves the road open for Carthage to dominate the western Medeteranian (SP?).

[NapoleonXIV]

Rome was sacked by the Gauls in 394BC and then came back. Sacking, even burning a city did not destroy it utterly. Rome would likely be back, persistence was the main Roman virtue, the years might change some and Carthage might even survive (though I doubt it especially if they burn Rome early on, the Romans held a grudge against them even when they hadn't) but in the end, Rome would rule the Mediterranean.

[robertp6165]

Rome was sacked by the Gauls in 394BC and then came back. Sacking, even burning a city did not destroy it utterly. Rome would likely be back, persistence was the main Roman virtue, the years might change some and Carthage might even survive (though I doubt it especially if they burn Rome early on, the Romans held a grudge against them even when they hadn't) but in the end, Rome would rule the Mediterranean.

Well, that depends on how thorough the sacking/burning is. If Pyrrhus utterly destroys the city, massacres most of the population and sells the rest as slaves (as, for example, Rome eventually did to Carthage), then Rome may not recover. However, this of course does not preclude the possibility that something like Rome may arise from one of the remaining members of the Latin League, assuming Pyrrhus doesnt destroy the league completely.

[bill_bruno]

Any information on what siege equipment Pyrrhus had with him? Also bear in mind that he had lost a large chunk of his army in the victories at Heraclea and Asculum and Rome's allies had shown no sign of deserting to him.

If he had stayed in Italy, he could probably knock over some of Rome's Campanian allies (I'm thinking Capua) but I doubt he could take Rome itself.

On the other hand, Rome came very close to accepting Pyrrhus' peace terms after Asculum. I believe they would've kept Rome out of southern Italy and it was only the last minute intervention of the aged, infirm and blind Appius Claudius that induced the Senate to reject them. I think a more realistic POD would be A.C. keeling over and the Senate accepting Pyrrhus' terms.

Alternately, once Pyrrhus had gotten the upper hand over Carthage, the latter offered to cede all of Sicily except for their westernmost post of Lilybaeum. Pyrrhus refused. Had he accepted, he could've resumed activity against Rome sooner.

Pyrrhus would then presumably move into Sicily, grab that and then make another play for the Macedonian throne. Remember that although Pyrrhus was a first-rate tactician, he wasn't one to plan, and stick to, a long-term strategic vision. My guess is he'd win a lot of battles but whatever empire he set up would crumble after his death.