Pyrrhus of Epirus had several chances to take the throne of Macedon, and squandered every last one of them. One particular oppurtunity was in 278 BC, when he could either "help" the Greeks of Sicily against the Carthaginians, or take the throne of Macedon, when he recieved two conflicting offers. Pyrrhus decided to go for Sicily, and the rest is history. What if Pyrrhus had left for Macedon instead, leaving the forces in Italy under the command of a capable subordinate? Can Pyrrhus succeed? Does he return to Italy? How does this impact the Romans, Carthaginians, and the wider Hellenistic world?
WI: Pyrrhus takes Macedon?
- Thread starter SunKing105
- Start date
There’s a reason Pyrrhos picked Sicily over Macedon, it was the easier enterprise. If Pyrrhos had decided to seize Macedon, he would have to face the Galatians as Antigonos did. If he fails and is defeated, he dies and that’s it, no need to dwell on that. If he prevails, he would have to stay in Macedon to keep the throne, otherwise Antigonos would take it. In case he decided to go back to Italy anyway, he would lose at Maleventum all the same, since the conditions for that outcome didn’t change. Considering that Pyrrhos did leave a capable subordinate at Tarentum in OTL, we can tell what would happen once he left Italy, either due to Maleventum or to settle things in Macedon. The Romans, while Pyrrhos is away , would simply take Southern Italy back little by little, until they seize Tarentum. If Pyrrhos came back to Macedon after Maleventum, he’d find his kingdom seized by Antigonos, he’d make the same mistakes and die pretty much the same way. If Pyrrhos had stayed in Macedon, Antigonos would probably profit of any reckless mistake his adversary made while also painting Pyrrhos as a Molossian princeling undeserving to rule the superior Macedonians, and himself as the grandson of Antipatros, nephew of Cassandros and the true heir to Macedon’s throne. In any case Antigonos may not have been an enterprising and courageous general, but he was a smarter king than Pyrrhos, if not a smarter man, he’d probably prevail and Pyrrhos would die all the same.
Didn't several officers and governors defect to Pyrrhus during his second attempt(272 BC)? Plus as of 278 BC Antigonus hasn't yet defeated the Celts, and if Pyrrhus does that in his stead, that could be a big boost to his legitimacy. Also, nitpick, I thought the name of the battle was Beneventum, not Maleventum.
The Romans changed the name from Malaventum, a place of bad omens, to Beneventum, a place of good omens, several years after the battle.
They defected, admiring his martial prowess, but once Pyrrhos focused on Sparta, Antigonos easily took the kingdom back. The same thing would happen in this ATL.
Indeed, that’s why I mentioned two outcomes. One where Pyrrhos dies against the Galatians, one where he survives. In the one where he survives, he could either stay in Macedon, or go back to Italy. I’ve written the results of these choices above.
The city was still called Maleventum (bad wind) in 275, when Pyrrhos and the Romans fought, the Romans then changed the name to Beneventum (good wind) in 268 to celebrate the victory there.