Sight Without Vision: Is this TL Idea Plausible?

Here's the TL idea. Sight Without Vision: Claudius Appius Caecus dies early, and the Romans make peace with Pyrrhus, with Magna Graecia freed from Roman domination. Pyrrhus establishes some alliances and gets out while the getting's good, then, attacks Macedon. Displaying rare political tact, he defeats it and brings south/central Grece under his influence. Success having cured him of his inconstant ways, he settles down to not quite rule Greece and parts of Southern Italy. Of course, his enemies have not been idle, and at his death they spring into action. Can Epirus and its allies withstand the might of Rome, Carthage, and the Seleucids? Is this plausible?
 
Hmm. It's definitely interesting. I'm not sure you can easily cure Pyrrhus of his inconstancy though - it feels like a fundamental part of his character. I would definitely expect him to spring into some sort of Sicilian campaign after a while, which might or might not be a debacle.

However, a Pyrrhus that didn't spend much time in Southern Italy as a ruler would be altogether a more popular Pyrrhos. If he's forced to confront the Celtic invasion of Macedon (something he could probably handle with ease compared to Ptolemy Keraunos) then he will be absent from Italy for a long time - which will make him more appealing to Megale Hellas. In Sicily also he can probably make himself look like a savior rather than a tyrant if he plays his cards right. And he had pretty daring and capable sons, who I think will be well-positioned to succeed him.

(another thing to get Rome off his back that I could suggest might be having him win his battles much more handily than OTL.)
 
Hmm. It's definitely interesting. I'm not sure you can easily cure Pyrrhus of his inconstancy though - it feels like a fundamental part of his character. I would definitely expect him to spring into some sort of Sicilian campaign after a while, which might or might not be a debacle.

However, a Pyrrhus that didn't spend much time in Southern Italy as a ruler would be altogether a more popular Pyrrhos. If he's forced to confront the Celtic invasion of Macedon (something he could probably handle with ease compared to Ptolemy Keraunos) then he will be absent from Italy for a long time - which will make him more appealing to Megale Hellas. In Sicily also he can probably make himself look like a savior rather than a tyrant if he plays his cards right. And he had pretty daring and capable sons, who I think will be well-positioned to succeed him.

(another thing to get Rome off his back that I could suggest might be having him win his battles much more handily than OTL.)
Thanks. I almost feel like having him succeed through the might of his enemies making him more cautious, and his arbitrariness having positive accidental knock-on effects. Rome is too strong, so he liberates Magna Graecia and gets out of the peninsula ASAP, inadvertently avoiding ill will generated by staying too long. Because Macedon is too strong for him to take on, he has to make real concessions to the cities of southern Greece to earn their support , which means they don't go shopping around for a new ally after a few years. Because he's inconstant, once he's achieved his main goal, hegemony over Greece, he just tries to expand his influence, but because the Seleucids are too strong, he can only glandhand potential allies, not coerce them. This means that pretty much every state in the region likes him, and that his network of mutual self-interest and friendly relations is much larger and more stable than any two-bit empire he could cobble together would be. Additionally, his focus on external diplomacy ensure that he's not actually dealing with his realm that often, allowing local power structures to truly rule in their regions, which means that his reign is highly popular, especially compared with the autocracies of the Seleucids, Ptolemaic Egypt, and old Macedon. His inconstancy is infuriating to the historian, so I tried to make it, and other obstacles, an unconscious advantage.
 
I think it's a bit unreasonable to call the Seleucids and Macedonians in general autocratic in their rule, but I very much enjoy the spirit of what you're trying to do. However, in the long run if you don't blunt Rome somehow Pyrrhos' legacy is ultimately irrelevant, particularly with regards to Sicily and Magna Grecia.
 
I think it's a bit unreasonable to call the Seleucids and Macedonians in general autocratic in their rule, but I very much enjoy the spirit of what you're trying to do. However, in the long run if you don't blunt Rome somehow Pyrrhos' legacy is ultimately irrelevant, particularly with regards to Sicily and Magna Grecia.
Well, autocratic compared to Pyrrhus' extremely hands-off management. I also don't know how to blunt Rome, my original idea is that with Pyrrhus liberating Magna Graecia, Rome turns on its "defeatist" leaders, creating a power vacuum. Sensing this opportunity, the Samnites et al give one last go at an independence revolt. Pyrrhus doesn't intervene directly because he's laying the groundwork for his conquest of Macedon, but he sends enough subsidies to ensure that the war is long and costly for both sides, especially Rome. While the Romans eventually win, they only achieve the status quo ante bellum, i.e, not only failing to crush the rebels, but also leaving them enough power and autonomy to potentially rebel again at some later date. Rome has a crisis of confidence because their last two wars were a defeat and a draw, respectively, temporarily undermining the proto-Manifest Destiny expansionary zeal and confidence they had, and the Republic settles down to recover. This removes Rome as an effective obstacle for thirty years or so, and could, depending on how well their national psyche recovers from their distinct lack of victories, could actually turn it into a normal state willing to play by the rules of the power game (i.,e, accept reasonable defeat) when it is ready to fight again. Of course, by the time of Pyrrhus' death, they are able to make war again, hence the sentence in my original post about the anti-Epirote coalition.
 
If the Samnites revolt, or any allies for that matter, I expect they'd do so whIle Pyrrhos is still in Italy, since that would be their best chance, even if Rome is in a state of political chaos later. Also keep in mind that I don't think their manpower has properly recovered from previous defeats. So they'll need allies beyond just a little money.
 
If the Samnites revolt, or any allies for that matter, I expect they'd do so whIle Pyrrhos is still in Italy, since that would be their best chance, even if Rome is in a state of political chaos later. Also keep in mind that I don't think their manpower has properly recovered from previous defeats. So they'll need allies beyond just a little money.
Sorry about my late reply. I meant that the Samnites ad co start their revolt in the few months while Pyrrhus is still in Italy tidying up Magna Graecia. I honestly don't know how to solve the manpower issue, any suggestions? What I meant by Roman internal political crises are Aventine-style Plebeian walkouts. You know what I mean by a crisis/transformation of the Roman national psyche, right?
 
Top