After doing some research, I found something that could potentially be interesting and seems to contradict the standard that Rome doesn't accept peace until they win. After the battle of Heraklea, from which we get the phase, "Pyrrhic victory", Pyrrhus sent Cineas to offer peace terms, which included the following, according to Appian:
Rome has peace, friendship, and alliance with Pyrrhus if Tarentum is to be included in the same treaty and the other Greek cities were free under their own laws, that the Romans restore to the Lucanians, Samnites, Daunii, and Bruttians what they had taken from them in war, and that if this is done, Pyrrhus would release all Roman prisoners without ransom.
Despite what this would've truly entailed for Rome, essentially becoming a second-rate power, the Senate was actually seriously considering it, possibly due to either the demoralization after Heraklea, bribes from Cineas, or even both. It was only once the blind and retired senator Appius Claudius Caecus was helped into the senate house, carried on a litter, and gave a passionate speech, as well as warning that Pyrrhus could not be trusted, that the Senate voted against accepting Pyrrhus' terms. What if the encounter had not happened, and the senate vote took place by the time he could arrive, accepting the treaty? What would be the effect on Roman politics, since no doubt there were still probably many opposed to this kind of peace, and how would it influence Roman policy?The Tarentines and other Italians might say, "okay, thanks for kicking the Romans out, but we don't need you anymore." while Pyrrhus is trying to entrench his power there, and once the Roman threat disappears, there would probably be conflicts between Pyrrhus and his allies. How would he fare in Sicily, and could he also manage to take the Macedonian throne and boot out Antigonus Gonatas? Could we actually see a Pyrrhic empire form? Will Rome go for a second round in Italy, and how are the Punic Wars affected? Could Pyrrhus also defeat the Galatians?
Rome has peace, friendship, and alliance with Pyrrhus if Tarentum is to be included in the same treaty and the other Greek cities were free under their own laws, that the Romans restore to the Lucanians, Samnites, Daunii, and Bruttians what they had taken from them in war, and that if this is done, Pyrrhus would release all Roman prisoners without ransom.
Despite what this would've truly entailed for Rome, essentially becoming a second-rate power, the Senate was actually seriously considering it, possibly due to either the demoralization after Heraklea, bribes from Cineas, or even both. It was only once the blind and retired senator Appius Claudius Caecus was helped into the senate house, carried on a litter, and gave a passionate speech, as well as warning that Pyrrhus could not be trusted, that the Senate voted against accepting Pyrrhus' terms. What if the encounter had not happened, and the senate vote took place by the time he could arrive, accepting the treaty? What would be the effect on Roman politics, since no doubt there were still probably many opposed to this kind of peace, and how would it influence Roman policy?The Tarentines and other Italians might say, "okay, thanks for kicking the Romans out, but we don't need you anymore." while Pyrrhus is trying to entrench his power there, and once the Roman threat disappears, there would probably be conflicts between Pyrrhus and his allies. How would he fare in Sicily, and could he also manage to take the Macedonian throne and boot out Antigonus Gonatas? Could we actually see a Pyrrhic empire form? Will Rome go for a second round in Italy, and how are the Punic Wars affected? Could Pyrrhus also defeat the Galatians?
Last edited: