WI: Romans accept peace from Pyrrhus after Heraklea?

So, while reading Pyrrhus of Epirus by Jeff Champion, I came across something interesting that seems to contradict the standard, "Romans never accept peace unless they win" idea. After the battle of Heraklea, where Pyrrhus crushed the consular army of Laevinus, Pyrrhus sent Cinaeas to offer peace terms. They were as followed according to Appian:

-Romans have peace, friendship, and an alliance with Pyrrhus if:
-Tarentum is to be included in the same treaty and the other Greek cities in Italy should remain free under their own laws
-Romans restore to the Lucanians, Samnites, Daunii, and Bruttians what they had taken from them in war

If this is done, Pyrrhus will return all his Roman prisoners without ransom

Thsi essentually would have entailed Rome abandoning everything they had gained south and east of Campania. The Senate, however, was seriously considering accepting this due do their demoralization after Heraklea (Plutarch) or bribes by Cinaes (Zonaras), or, more likely, both.

It was only after the blind and retired Senator Appius Claudius was helped into the Senate house and gave a passionate speech to continue the war that they voted against accepting the offer.

So what if they accepted it? This would be a huge blow to Roman power, and judging from the above and from the Samnite wars that just ended, Rome was willing at this time to make peace treaties that did not entail them winning. What effect would this have on Pyrrhus future in Italy and Sicily? The Tarentines and Italians might say thank you very much, you can leave now, but I don't think he would like that. On another note, this allows him to focus entirely on Sicily and I imagine the Tarentines would be more than happy to lend him their fleet if it got him off of Italy, not having one coming back to haunt him at Lillybaum.

What effect would this have on the Romans as well? I imagine they would try their luck in southern Italy again, but they may very well wait until Pyrrhus is dead or well away from Italy before trying. It would certainly set their conquests back a while and will definitely influence their relationship with Carthage and the southern Italian and Greek cities.

Thoughts?
 
I've read that book. :cool:

My first thought is that Pyrrhus might be more likely to go for Macedonia instead of Sicily ITTL. He'd probably stay in Tarentum for the rest of 280 BC, and even much of 279, going and ensuring that that government and those of the other Greek states would support his rule and continue to donate troops for his armies. But by winter 279, my hunch is that he'd be in Epirus rather than Tarentum. Pyrrhus' goal was always to be King of Macedonia; the Sicilian venture (and thoughts of conquering and sacking Carthage) was a long-term ploy to build up his power base so that he could later press that claim and hold out against other claimants. By being closer to the action, Pyrrhus might decide to fight the Galatians instead of the Carthaginians. This, obviously, has all sorts of potential implications.

If Pyrrhus goes for Sicily... even with a peace with Rome, it's hard for me to conclude that the alternate campaign would go better. Pyrrhus had a fleet IOTL for most of the Sicilian campaign up to Lilybaeum; I suppose butterflies might preserve it ITTL, but if we're assuming that that's not the case, it doesn't salvage Pyrrhus' situation in Sicily if he can get Tarentum to send it's fleet to him. The campaign failed because Pyrrhus gave up the siege of Lilybaeum to pursue conquering Carthage, a venture completely counter to what the Sicilian Greeks asked him to do. They wanted him to oust the Carthaginians from Sicily, and, right when he was in the midst of besieging last and most powerful Punic fortress, he lifts the siege and demands boats to sail his army off to Africa in hopes of sacking Carthage, leaving Lilybaeum in pristine condition. What it takes for Pyrrhus to win the Sicilian campaign is patience; he needed to continue the siege until Lilybaeum was conquered. If he had shown himself capable of that, he (probably) would've gotten the ships he needed from the Sicilian Greeks to cut Lilybaeum off from Carthage, which then could have led on to an invasion of Africa and potentially the conquest of Carthage itself.

The frustrating part about Pyrrhus' Sicilian expedition is that, IMO, it was the right move, and he blew it. A friendly Sicily would have been a great power base for Pyrrhus to work off of not only in staving off Rome and potentially conquering Carthage, but also in making Pyrrhus King of Macedonia. Claiming Macedonia in 279 during the darkest days of the Galatian invasion was a much riskier proposition, and had a lower floor and ceiling of potential benefits than accepting the Sicilian offer.

In the end, what Rome does depends on how successful Pyrrhus has been in whichever campaign he chose to go on after leaving Italy. If Pyrrhus is successful in either campaign, Rome would probably withhold from transgressing directly against the Greeks (although Pyrrhus' Italian allies might not be so fortunate). Rome might instead focus on expanding north against what remained of the Etruscans, and the Gauls until Pyrrhus isn't a factor. If Pyrrhus ends up with his head on the pike of a Galatian warlord, Rome swoops right in and conquers the southern Italian tribes and the Italian Greek cities without much trouble. If Pyrrhus kind of bounces around unsuccessfully like he did IOTL, I imagine Rome would be inclined to challenge him for a second round, like OTL.
 
I've read that book. :cool:

My first thought is that Pyrrhus might be more likely to go for Macedonia instead of Sicily ITTL. He'd probably stay in Tarentum for the rest of 280 BC, and even much of 279, going and ensuring that that government and those of the other Greek states would support his rule and continue to donate troops for his armies. But by winter 279, my hunch is that he'd be in Epirus rather than Tarentum. Pyrrhus' goal was always to be King of Macedonia; the Sicilian venture (and thoughts of conquering and sacking Carthage) was a long-term ploy to build up his power base so that he could later press that claim and hold out against other claimants. By being closer to the action, Pyrrhus might decide to fight the Galatians instead of the Carthaginians. This, obviously, has all sorts of potential implications.

If Pyrrhus goes for Sicily... even with a peace with Rome, it's hard for me to conclude that the alternate campaign would go better. Pyrrhus had a fleet IOTL for most of the Sicilian campaign up to Lilybaeum; I suppose butterflies might preserve it ITTL, but if we're assuming that that's not the case, it doesn't salvage Pyrrhus' situation in Sicily if he can get Tarentum to send it's fleet to him. The campaign failed because Pyrrhus gave up the siege of Lilybaeum to pursue conquering Carthage, a venture completely counter to what the Sicilian Greeks asked him to do. They wanted him to oust the Carthaginians from Sicily, and, right when he was in the midst of besieging last and most powerful Punic fortress, he lifts the siege and demands boats to sail his army off to Africa in hopes of sacking Carthage, leaving Lilybaeum in pristine condition. What it takes for Pyrrhus to win the Sicilian campaign is patience; he needed to continue the siege until Lilybaeum was conquered. If he had shown himself capable of that, he (probably) would've gotten the ships he needed from the Sicilian Greeks to cut Lilybaeum off from Carthage, which then could have led on to an invasion of Africa and potentially the conquest of Carthage itself.

The frustrating part about Pyrrhus' Sicilian expedition is that, IMO, it was the right move, and he blew it. A friendly Sicily would have been a great power base for Pyrrhus to work off of not only in staving off Rome and potentially conquering Carthage, but also in making Pyrrhus King of Macedonia. Claiming Macedonia in 279 during the darkest days of the Galatian invasion was a much riskier proposition, and had a lower floor and ceiling of potential benefits than accepting the Sicilian offer.

In the end, what Rome does depends on how successful Pyrrhus has been in whichever campaign he chose to go on after leaving Italy. If Pyrrhus is successful in either campaign, Rome would probably withhold from transgressing directly against the Greeks (although Pyrrhus' Italian allies might not be so fortunate). Rome might instead focus on expanding north against what remained of the Etruscans, and the Gauls until Pyrrhus isn't a factor. If Pyrrhus ends up with his head on the pike of a Galatian warlord, Rome swoops right in and conquers the southern Italian tribes and the Italian Greek cities without much trouble. If Pyrrhus kind of bounces around unsuccessfully like he did IOTL, I imagine Rome would be inclined to challenge him for a second round, like OTL.



Yeah, the incredibly frustrating thing I find about Pyrrhus was as a battlefield commander, he was second only to Alexander in my opinion. His victories and even his defeats show a remarkable command skill and great battlefield control. His impatience and diplomatic blunders screwed him over though.

I essentially agree with you completely, though I think he could have beat the Celts if he returned to Macedonia at that time, though I believe he might opt for the safer and more profitable route first and head to Sicily. Ptolemy Keraunos simply wasn't that good of a general and made a large number of mistakes that lead to his death, namely, basically reefusing support from the 10,000 Dardanians ready to give it to him.


If he has all of Sicily and southern Italy (and possibly sacks Carthage) do you think he would return to confront the Romans again?
 
Yeah, the incredibly frustrating thing I find about Pyrrhus was as a battlefield commander, he was second only to Alexander in my opinion. His victories and even his defeats show a remarkable command skill and great battlefield control. His impatience and diplomatic blunders screwed him over though.

He was a talented battlefield commander, yes, but not a particularly clever grand strategist, which in my book weighs him down a bit, distancing him significantly from the likes of Alexander. Out of the Diadochi generals, Pyrrhus to me is a more talented Demetrius Poliorcetes. Making Epirus a power was a major accomplishment; his battles against Rome were all fought competently; and his strategy in defeating Rome (essentially the same as Hannibal's, to win over Rome's allies) was sound. But ultimately he lost every campaign he went on, often for stupid mistakes rather than any true misfortune, and that has to factor rather heavily on his overall legacy.

Antigonus Gonatas is a good contrast to Pyrrhus (as he is to his father). Pyrrhus is traditionally considered the more capable soldier, yet in their war it was Antigonus who in the end won, despite his defeats. Does that make Pyrrhus the more talented general, for winning battles, or Antigonus, for defeating two major threats to his rule in Pyrrhus and the Celts?

I essentially agree with you completely, though I think he could have beat the Celts if he returned to Macedonia at that time, though I believe he might opt for the safer and more profitable route first and head to Sicily. Ptolemy Keraunos simply wasn't that good of a general and made a large number of mistakes that lead to his death, namely, basically reefusing support from the 10,000 Dardanians ready to give it to him.

Oh, I think he could've defeated the Celts too (in 279). It's within his capabilities; he had the army and was a talented enough general to do it. It's still a much more dangerous enterprise though than becoming King of Sicily and ousting the Carthaginians.

Success on whichever route he chooses has its benefits with another fight with Rome.

If he has all of Sicily and southern Italy (and possibly sacks Carthage) do you think he would return to confront the Romans again?

Unless Rome marches on Tarentum while Pyrrhus is gone, I think he'd go straight to Macedonia to claim his crown. Rome would be the aggressor against Pyrrhus; not the other way around. There's just not a lot of real interest in Rome on Pyrrhus' part.
 
He was a talented battlefield commander, yes, but not a particularly clever grand strategist, which in my book weighs him down a bit, distancing him significantly from the likes of Alexander. Out of the Diadochi generals, Pyrrhus to me is a more talented Demetrius Poliorcetes. Making Epirus a power was a major accomplishment; his battles against Rome were all fought competently; and his strategy in defeating Rome (essentially the same as Hannibal's, to win over Rome's allies) was sound. But ultimately he lost every campaign he went on, often for stupid mistakes rather than any true misfortune, and that has to factor rather heavily on his overall legacy.
Speaking of Demetrius, I think he gets less credit than he deserves as well. He is remembered for Gaza, Rhodes, and going on a ridiculous invasion of the east at the end, but he was a very good commander (I think I agree with you there?). It's interesting that he didn't lose his kingdom due to military failure but more due to how he ruled and like Pyrrhus, he always had to be on campaign.

Anyway, I would like to see the besieger take on Rome. I imagine a scenario could be put together for him to be sought out by the Tarentines if he stays alive into 280, and I imagine the other diadochoi would be more than happy to send him off west for a period. I would like to see how he would conduct a siege of Rome-certainly he was bold and reckless enough to try it, and his knack for awesome siege equipment and tactics would make for a very interesting siege.

Antigonus Gonatas is a good contrast to Pyrrhus (as he is to his father). Pyrrhus is traditionally considered the more capable soldier, yet in their war it was Antigonus who in the end won, despite his defeats. Does that make Pyrrhus the more talented general, for winning battles, or Antigonus, for defeating two major threats to his rule in Pyrrhus and the Celts?
I don't know, I think Antigonus Gonatas was more lucky than anything. I don't give him too much credit for his defeat of the Celts, because it seems like he just happened to be in the right place at the right time. With Pyrrhus, his triumph was more due to Pyrrhus diplomatic and strategic blunders than to skill on his own part.



Oh, I think he could've defeated the Celts too (in 279). It's within his capabilities; he had the army and was a talented enough general to do it. It's still a much more dangerous enterprise though than becoming King of Sicily and ousting the Carthaginians.

Success on whichever route he chooses has its benefits with another fight with Rome.

Agreed.
Unless Rome marches on Tarentum while Pyrrhus is gone, I think he'd go straight to Macedonia to claim his crown. Rome would be the aggressor against Pyrrhus; not the other way around. There's just not a lot of real interest in Rome on Pyrrhus' part.

Agreed.
 
@Monopolist.
sure he could go after the galatians, but he'd attack Corinth first, probably in two battles, so:
(his) Acts (are)
Romans
1 Corinthians
2 Corinthians
Galatians
....
:p ;)
 
Top