Was Pyrrhus of Epirus even that good of a tactician?

Was Pyrrhus of Epirus even that good of a tactician?

Tactician, almost undoubtedly.

Strategist? Not during the Italian campaign.

None of his victories in Italy had the massive amounts of casualties like Hannibal's victories did

Casualties don't always win wars. Look at World War 2 if you want an extreme example of that.

This is true when fighting Romans especially. They had a insane pool of manpower to draw from, and were almost totally unphased by losses.

Either way you slice it, they both lost.

Pyrrhos "Any Fight is a Good Fight" Aiakides.
Pyrrhos "Show me the Enemy" Aiakides.
Pyrrhos "Have I mentioned I am Alexander's cousin? Of course I already did!" Aiakides.
Pyrrhos "Rooftile'd" Aiakides.

>MUH ELEPHANTS

Delet this

Nice hat

Tactician? He was a very good one, albeit one prone to make his mistakes like his campaign against Sparta.

Strategist? A terrible one.

Conclusion: Overrated

If anything he's underrated. All most people know about is "muh pyrrhic victory" which does his actual tactical acumen a great disservice.

I don't think you can say that since most people barely know who he is. At most he is remembered for the "Phyrric Victory" and even then most people know just that he won a battle at great cost to his army.

His story, filled with intrigue, familial alliances, double crosses, plus his far ranging military exploits really deserve more exposure.

He was the best Diadochi general. You won't find another who was able to win battles against Rome. But was he better than Hannibal? Nope.

But the guys with the most casualties in WW2 won the war.

>he was a good tactician

What the fuck does that even mean here?
The way greeks fought, there is zero tactics involved, other than shouting at the cavalry to engage the enemy cavalry.

The pyrrhic war is not just remembered because of the neologism he's coined after, but also because it was a turning point in roman history. It's as a direct result of the pyrrhic war that Rome gained its first province Sicilia, and thus finally launching Rome onto the "international scene".

Also the reason why that war itself started is fucking kekworthy. Mamertines were fucking niggers.

Where I am from, people know him because of all the Albanians claiming he is the father of their nation, along with Bill Clinton.

Pyrrhus was extremely highly regarded as tactician and wrote books on it that have since been lost. As said by others he was a terrible strategist. Making both Rome AND Carthage your enemies while not having fully subdued Macedon? That roof tile was a mercy blow.

So was the meeting between Hannibal and Scipio in which Hannibal rates Pyrrhus higher thna himself real? Did it actually happen?

It's literally ancient roman fanfiction. Livy was larping HARD.

The mamertines started the first Punic war, although the start of Pyrrhic war was also hilarious (the Tarentines attacked a Roman vacationer)

You're thinking of traditional hoplite warfare, which was long dead by Pyrrhus' day. Pyrrhus and the rest of the greek world at the time fought in the Macedonian tradition, using specialist pikemen, peltasts and very skilled cavalry. It was simple by modern day standards, but still way more complicated than old school hoplite warfare.

are you high? how can you even think this is a real argument even for a brainlet?

Fuck I'm saving these.

>mamertines started the punic war
Yeah sorry you're completely right. Just had a brainfart. I always get those two mixed up for some fucked up reason.

What type of vacationer takes 10 ships with them

>He was the best Diadochi general

Seleukos is unimpressed.

The wikipedia page summary said he was sightseeing, but he could have been exerting Roman influence there

that was before romans had much luck on the sea

Hey there pol.

>Pyrrhos "Rooftile'd" Aiakides

kek'd