WI : Carthage agreed to abandon Lilybaeum.

I don't think he could take the fight to Italia, but Sicily and keeping the Romans out seems doable. Without the wealth of modern day Tunisia (note that pre 800s there were three separate areas there that were forests and a lot of the rest were lightly shurbbed areas that could be cleared for fertile land that received lots of rainfall), Rome's growth might be a bit stunted.
 
I don't think he could take the fight to Italia, but Sicily and keeping the Romans out seems doable. Without the wealth of modern day Tunisia (note that pre 800s there were three separate areas there that were forests and a lot of the rest were lightly shurbbed areas that could be cleared for fertile land that received lots of rainfall), Rome's growth might be a bit stunted.

Well, at this point Magna Grecia was already on his side, and I think he'd already taken over Apulia. Why wouldn't he be able to take the fight back there?

I agree that Romes growth would certainly be stunted. I wonder if this would lead to a longer Hellenic period, with a Hellenic Italy being a major player?

The idea of a Hellenic Italy, Hellenic Sicily, Carthaginian Africa and Spain, and Gallic.. Gaul, would make the Western Med much more interesting.
 
The Romans beat back Pyrrhus in OTL and assuming he uses his new resources he has triple the manpower which... well that's not going to be enough. It's not that he doesn't have allies in Magna Grecia. It's that him and his allies lack the reserves to beat the Romans.
 
The Romans beat back Pyrrhus in OTL and assuming he uses his new resources he has triple the manpower which... well that's not going to be enough. It's not that he doesn't have allies in Magna Grecia. It's that him and his allies lack the reserves to beat the Romans.

With the entire might of Sicily? That seems surprising, do you have the numbers for these odds?

I wonder if part of the peace treaty (weird it might be), is that Carthage sends a force to assist Pyrrhus.
 
IIRC, Sicilians at that time were a bit less militaristic. To keep on their good side, Pyrrhus is only going to use volunteers from them (he's a good PR man) and not resort to conscription unless his throne is threatened. Assuming he pays them comparable to his Epirus troops, he only triples his manpower for his anti-Roman coalition, since a lot of them would want to stick to the farm or whatever.
 
He's more likely to turn Sicilian wealth into Macedonian/Greek/Epirote mercenaries than turn Sicilians into soldiers.
 
I accounted for him hiring mercenaries too. The wealth isn't exactly peanuts and tripling manpower isn't exactly not an acomplisment
 
IIRC, Sicilians at that time were a bit less militaristic. To keep on their good side, Pyrrhus is only going to use volunteers from them (he's a good PR man) and not resort to conscription unless his throne is threatened. Assuming he pays them comparable to his Epirus troops, he only triples his manpower for his anti-Roman coalition, since a lot of them would want to stick to the farm or whatever.

Tripling from 100 to 300 is good, but not against 10,000.

Wiki doesn't have any numbers on the battles, but it isn't as if Pyrrhus couldn't win against larger numbers. We aren't talking the destruction of Rome here, just enough for them to drop to a position that leaves both Rome and Magna Grecia in a stronger defensive position.

I'm not convinced mind that Sicily couldn't provide enough troops. With peace assured, and fellow Greeks threatened in the same way they were, and just rescued by fellow Greeks, the propaganda/argument to assist is pretty strong. Especially with Lilybaeum in Sicilian hands. Heck, rather than just fight on the open field, Pyrrhus could go for a naval approach - ship an army from Sicily to take over a good spot to cut Roman supply lines, and isolate the Romans.

Considering he already is meant to have not wanted to fight the Romans in the field again, he might well play to out-strategise them. Trapping a large Roman army, and attacking coastal cities would hurt the Romans.
 
IIRC, Sicilians at that time were a bit less militaristic. To keep on their good side, Pyrrhus is only going to use volunteers from them (he's a good PR man) and not resort to conscription unless his throne is threatened. Assuming he pays them comparable to his Epirus troops, he only triples his manpower for his anti-Roman coalition, since a lot of them would want to stick to the farm or whatever.

Where are you getting the population figures?

Also I'd rather argue the opposite - PR was one of Pyrrhos' weaknesses. If he'd been better at not seemingly like an autocrat he'd have gained more allies for sure and maintained them better.

Even if Pyrrhos hypothetically tripled his army, it seems improbable that he'd use all those soldiers in the field. In OTL he had little problem beating the Roman armies sent against him, he just lacked the consistency and dedication needed to see any project through to victory.

Reserves and reinforcements are good, and crucial to Pyrrhos winning. But, Rome soon will be at the bottom of the barrel in terms of their own manpower and Italic allies won't want to stick it out.
 
-trim-
Even if Pyrrhos hypothetically tripled his army, it seems improbable that he'd use all those soldiers in the field. In OTL he had little problem beating the Roman armies sent against him, he just lacked the consistency and dedication needed to see any project through to victory.

Reserves and reinforcements are good, and crucial to Pyrrhos winning. But, Rome soon will be at the bottom of the barrel in terms of their own manpower and Italic allies won't want to stick it out.

That is an interesting idea - Rome losing its allies. Not saying that they'd defect to Pyrrhus(os?) but having them as a neutral party would lead to Pyrrhos essentially being the strongest power in Italy. Whilst I'd love to see him rofl-stomp his way up the peninsula with an army of Sicilians, Grecians and Greek Mercenaries - I think that fearing that exact outcome could be what stops them abandoning Rome. Not unless being part of Pyrrhus' Empire is a better deal then being a Roman ally. Sure it is security, but that is what Rome provided - unless we're going with a situation where Greek settlers are brought in and only they have to fight, which has some appeal, but also issues.

I think Pyrrhus might be able to overcome those issues - but it isn't a given.
 
I'm finding it really hard to accept the premise that weakening the Roman Republic's greatest opponent (by taking away a city that the Romans had a lot of trouble with) would ultimately lead to a weaker Rome.
 
I'm finding it really hard to accept the premise that weakening the Roman Republic's greatest opponent (by taking away a city that the Romans had a lot of trouble with) would ultimately lead to a weaker Rome.

Now even if it means a different opponent is able to defeat Rome earlier, and limit its power. Rome hasn't even taken control over most of Italia yet. This could very well prevent that entirely. That was Pyrrhus' goal after all.
 
Now even if it means a different opponent is able to defeat Rome earlier, and limit its power. Rome hasn't even taken control over most of Italia yet. This could very well prevent that entirely. That was Pyrrhus' goal after all.

I don't see it giving Pyrrhus enough to beat Rome, either. Maybe he could slow them down a bit, but its not like his little empire had anything to hold it together. Which means once he kicks the bucket, Rome has a power vacuum to their south.
 
I don't see it giving Pyrrhus enough to beat Rome, either. Maybe he could slow them down a bit, but its not like his little empire had anything to hold it together. Which means once he kicks the bucket, Rome has a power vacuum to their south.

You don't think his sons could keep it together after his death? My understanding is that Italy and Sicily were to be made into two Kingdoms under his two sons. (The intention).
 
Top