Pyrrhus Actually Achieves Victory?

What would be the ramifications, both long term and short term, of Pyrrhus of Epirus successfully carving out an Epirote Empire in Magna Graecia and Sicily?

This would require a defeat of Rome that did not sap all of Pyrrhus' forces, affectively checking Roman advance in Magna Graecia, while taking Eryx from the Carthaginians, seizing Sicily for Epirote control (as OTL).
 
So Rome's surrendered, not sacked? Unless he put some harsh conditions on Rome, they're going to come back as soon as possible, when Pyrrhus is off trying to conquer Macedonia or Carthage or something, and will take Magna Graecia - which Pyrrhus wouldn't care about until after he's bitten off more then he can chew somewhere else. Pyrrhus was a talented general, but... not talented enough to conquer like he did IOTL.

The PoD requires Pyrrhus to actually finish a campaign. I always like a successful siege of Lilybaeum - IOTL, it was the last Punic city left in Sicily, but when his fleet was lost, Pyrrhus demanded a new fleet, but abandoned the siege anyways, losing all of his won love in Sicily. Now, he'd have to control his urges and not invade Carthage like he probably wanted to IOTL, wanting to better Agathocles, but if he did, it would be in time for him to come back and fight Rome in the same year he did IOTL, and he'd probably have more men, more money, and Sicily on his side - he has claims to the Syracusan throne, as his son Alexander is Agathocles' grandson. Sicily's a fickle place, but if Pyrrhus can get Alexander established, I think there's a chance it could stay under Epirot control.

If Pyrrhus manages to keep an empire consisting of Epirus, Sicily, and Magna Graecia, I think he could take Greece, Rome, or even Carthage if he wanted to - probably not all three, and any one of those would be hard to control after his death, especially with Sicily and Tarentum, but I think he could has a chance to conquer any of them.

The ramifications defend on the scenario. If he doesn't conquer Carthage at some point, it could be a Carthage wank, with Rome out of the way. Could be an early Rome wank, if Pyrrhus keeps Rome strong enough to fight him again, and he gets caught up in some capaign far away. Or he could establish Macedonian and Sicilian kingdoms with his sons Ptolemy and Alexander, both of which would have potential.
 
Last edited:
Rome was very resilient. Even if Pyrrhus achieved proper victory, Rome would just recover and whoop him when he was off on one of his many adventures.
 

Prefrence

Banned
If Pyrrhus just let the Carthaginians keep liybeaum (ask Monopolist on this he would know the name and this situation) he would have most of Sicily and Southern Italy in addition to his previous holdings under his thumb.

IOTL Carthage decided to give up Sicily but wanted to keep Liybeaum which was necessary for them holding Sardinia. Phyrrhus overdid himself, and attacked, and failed..

Edit: Damn Ninja'd by Monopolist
 
Pyrrhus problem was he had something like ADD when it came to fighting. If he'd focused on just the Romans or just the Carthaginians or just the other Greek successors, he might have accomplished something, but he was always running off to fight somebody new before he had the chance of finishing off anyone.
 
Pyrrhus was more of an adventurer rather than a statesmen. In certain respects, he's like Richard the Lionheart. He was a good general, but not the best at building or maintaining empires. He was also the ruler of a state that was punching above its own weight as well. If he wasn't as well-connected to the Ptolemies (he was married to Antigone, Ptolemy Soter's daughter), he might not have gotten away with some of his exploits.
 
I think having Pyrrhus accept the Macedonian throne when it was offered to him first instead of going to Sicily would help a lot. Sicily can wait a year.

Secondly he should cut his loses and withdraw wherever possible from southern Greece in exchange for peace with the Greek city-states and military aid in the upcoming Italian war.

Thirdly do whatever it takes to get on the good side of the Greeks in Magna Graecia. Their support is crucial.

Lastly be lucky as hell against the Romans, especially initially. Stunning early success would convince numerous disgruntled Italians to join him and put a strain on the Roman ability from stopping them to do so.
 
His plan was to use the manpower of Italy to sweep across the rest of the known world like Alexander did. But as others have pointed out in the thread, this is pretty unlikely as Rome was notoriously difficult to subjugate.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
His plan was to use the manpower of Italy to sweep across the rest of the known world like Alexander did. But as others have pointed out in the thread, this is pretty unlikely as Rome was notoriously difficult to subjugate.
And even if he got Southern Italy he would still lack the manpower to do that. (Thinking of the more powerful States such as Carthage, Macedonia, Seleucids, Ptolemean Empire, Rome round 2 etc.)
 
Top