phyrric victory?

[Hooahguy]

what is the origin of the name?
my history teacher it was named after a persian general.
i say it was from Phyros (sp?)
whos right?

[||Lz3||]

you're absolutely right! he was not persian... (I think the persian empire didn't actually existed anymore by that time)

it was named after Phyrros of Epeiros , battle of Ascalum (I think)

its one of the historical battles featured in EB :2thumbsup:




I think that if you play this mod long enough you will end up knowing a lot more stuff that your H teacher when talking about ancient history :laugh4:

[Ibrahim]

what is the origin of the name?
my history teacher it was named after a persian general.
i say it was from Phyros (sp?)
whos right?

your teacher is a fool-don't trust him.
it was named after King Pyrrhos (king of Epeiros in 272BC). his battles with the romans were so bloody, that his name was attached to victories that are won with a heavy price. battles of Herakleia (heraclea), Asculum?, and Beneventum are the ones you need to look at. the last one was apperrently a draw, though the romani said it was a victory.

[Hooahguy]

thanks- this should be the evidence i need to win $5!

[duncan.gill]

Supposedly he stated after winning a victory over the Romans words to the effect of:

"Another such victory over the Romans and we are undone"

[Gaivs]

The armies separated; and, it is said, Pyrrhus replied to one that gave him joy of his victory that one more such victory would utterly undo him. For he had lost a great part of the forces he brought with him, and almost all his particular friends and principal commanders; there were no others there to make recruits, and he found the confederates in Italy backward. On the other hand, as from a fountain continually flowing out of the city, the Roman camp was quickly and plentifully filled up with fresh men, not at all abating in courage for the loss they sustained, but even from their very anger gaining new force and resolution to go on with the war

Plutarchs Pyrrhus

[QuintusSertorius]

Both Pyrrhus and Hannibal found Roman attitudes rather backward and provincial, compared to modern, sophisticated Hellenic mores. The Hellenic way of war was to fight until you won, then negotiate a peace which would last until the next war when someone was strong enough to want to contest the old settlement. It certainly wasn't total war.

[Cartaphilus]

But that nasty Romans didn't do that, they didn't surrender at all, just kept on fighting. That was the way they beat Hannibal, though he was far greater general than the roman ones.

[QuintusSertorius]

But that nasty Romans didn't do that, they didn't surrender at all, just kept on fighting. That was the way they beat Hannibal, though he was far greater general than the roman ones.

That was entirely my point as to why Hannibal and Pyrrhus were baffled. "Civilised" peoples knew when they were beaten, and sought a ceasefire and accomodated peace. That was the regular pattern of Greek warfare, particularly because every man was valuable and losses difficult to recoup.

[Maion Maroneios]

what is the origin of the name?
my history teacher it was named after a persian general.
i say it was from Phyros (sp?)
whos right?
Man, your history teacher really sucks...:dizzy2:

[Gaivs]

Boggles the mind to see people like that teaching the future generations doesnt it.

[Hooahguy]

i dunno- ill ask him if he really thinks that or if hes just messing w/ me....
i just want my $5

[Obelics]

Both Pyrrhus and Hannibal found Roman attitudes rather backward and provincial, compared to modern, sophisticated Hellenic mores. The Hellenic way of war was to fight until you won, then negotiate a peace which would last until the next war when someone was strong enough to want to contest the old settlement. It certainly wasn't total war.

i see in my opinion Pirro to be the backward and the "ancient" and the romans the true "moderns". i think that "regulated" warfare, someone talk about, didn't existed anymore, after the Peloponnesiac war, warfare reached a new level of "escalation" (think to the massacre of the Melii by the Athenieses), war was almost completely "desacralized". Also Romans had a treaty with the Cartaginians, who wanted Rome to continue the war, to keep Pirro away from sicily. And Romans were happy to be supported by cartag money and fleet i thing, cause they didn't want to fight Pirro and the Cart. at the same time.

Id say that there was this "tendency" of the hellenistic kingdoms generals to hope to be proclamed "king" just after a pair of battle?:clown: As he just free Siracusa from the siege of the Cart, soon all the greek of sicily proclaim him "king of Sicily"... also he didn't accept the Cartaginian surrender after they remained with just Lillibeo...

Also i think it is very important the concept of "Fides", this concept of fidelity and loyalty, was a a sort of rivolutionary concept for the "western" warfare and the keeping of the alliances (cause for example the italics wouldn't never accepted to be some simple "subjected"), it is an important keyword, to understand the behaviour of the allies in the Pirric war and in the Punic wars. The exemplary punition of the Legio Campana, amazed even the greek world. I read that in a statere at Locri, a greek town where Pirro sacked the "greek" temple of Persefon, there is painted the Goddes Persefon and the Goddes "Pistis", where pistis is a word that is the greek rendering of the latin "Fides".

anyway im a simple "reader", not a scholar of ancient story, so im open to who knows more.

[Cartaphilus]

Boggles the mind to see people like that teaching the future generations doesnt it.

I repeat: we are in f***ing decadence, we're lost. Hahaha.
This kind of "teacher" deserves death for that.

:furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3:

[Gaivs]

I repeat: we are in f***ing decadence, we're lost. Hahaha.
This kind of "teacher" deserves death for that.

:furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3:

Maybe in China, but i doubt any other country would execute him haha.

[Tyrfingr]

Do you not realize that hooahguy is messing with you?

[Hooahguy]

im not- but my teacher was- he just likes seeing me work overtime.....
anyhow, i got $5....

[L.C.Cinna]

i see in my opinion Pirro to be the backward and the "ancient" and the romans the true "moderns". i think that "regulated" warfare, someone talk about, didn't existed anymore, after the Peloponnesiac war, warfare reached a new level of "escalation" (think to the massacre of the Melii by the Athenieses), war was almost completely "desacralized".

You are wrong here. The hellenistic kingdoms were huge and limited themselves to use mainly greeks in their forces. Therefore trained professional soldiers were few. There was even some kind of "system" to decide how "great" a victory was. A battle usually ended when one side (usually the phallanx) thought that they had lost. The winners often didn't even try to pursue the enemies but instead started negtiations and tried to win over enemy soldiers. Pyrrhos was used to this kind of warfare, same as were the Macedonians later when they fought the Romans. There's an incident where the Macedonian phalanx raised their sarissae during the battle as a sign that they gave victory to the Romans. They didn't expect that the Roman soldiers would just use the opportunity to charge and slaughter them.

2 different concepts of warfare...

[QuintusSertorius]

You are wrong here. The hellenistic kingdoms were huge and limited themselves to use mainly greeks in their forces. Therefore trained professional soldiers were few. There was even some kind of "system" to decide how "great" a victory was. A battle usually ended when one side (usually the phallanx) thought that they had lost. The winners often didn't even try to pursue the enemies but instead started negtiations and tried to win over enemy soldiers. Pyrrhos was used to this kind of warfare, same as were the Macedonians later when they fought the Romans. There's an incident where the Macedonian phalanx raised their sarissae during the battle as a sign that they gave victory to the Romans. They didn't expect that the Roman soldiers would just use the opportunity to charge and slaughter them.

2 different concepts of warfare...

Absolutely. In Hellenic warfare there were all kinds of things used to demonstrate who had "won" and "lost" a conflict, and thus who had the stronger bargaining position at the negotiating table. The indemnity paid by the "loser" was one such signifier of the outcome.

It was all very civilised in comparison to Roman notions of annihilating the enemy and not ending the war until either they gave up the fight, or you were yourself wiped out.

[machinor]

Also regarding the Pyrrhic victory, I once read that this was mostly a product of Roman propaganda trying to diminish Pyrrhos victories. Basically the same concept als in the tales about the Etruscan king Porsenna who defeated the Romans over and over again but, according to Roman history, was very impressed with several deeds of valour by Romans like for example Scaevola burning his hand after a failed assassination attempt (or something like that). Roman historians often wrote according to the principle of "yeah we did really great and impressed our adversaries and they wouldn't dare to attack us again... oh, btw did I mention we utterly lost?".

[Labrat]

Also regarding the Pyrrhic victory, I once read that this was mostly a product of Roman propaganda trying to diminish Pyrrhos victories. Basically the same concept als in the tales about the Etruscan king Porsenna who defeated the Romans over and over again but, according to Roman history, was very impressed with several deeds of valour by Romans like for example Scaevola burning his hand after a failed assassination attempt (or something like that). Roman historians often wrote according to the principle of "yeah we did really great and impressed our adversaries and they wouldn't dare to attack us again... oh, btw did I mention we utterly lost?".
Sounds reasonable. For someone who won two Phyric victories and lost one battle, Phyrus was remarkable proactive: going of to fight in Sicily, offending Carthage and keeping Rome from attacking Taras. That doesn't suggest he had suffered major casualties, now does it?

[machinor]

Well, it seems that Pyrrhos was not very patient in his campaigns. Several times, he dropped a running campaign because it was not progressing fast enough and started over somewhere different.

[Tyrfingr]

im not- but my teacher was- he just likes seeing me work overtime.....
anyhow, i got $5....

You're actually serious? Your HISTORY teacher thought that the phrase "pyrrhic victory" was after a persian general? Where do you live? In Alabama or something?

[Hooahguy]

georgia. almost the same thing.

[Maion Maroneios]

Aren't there any Universities in Georgia? I'm certain, that is why your teacher must have been joking or something...

[General Appo]

Well, it seems that Pyrrhos was not very patient in his campaigns. Several times, he dropped a running campaign because it was not progressing fast enough and started over somewhere different.

Did not Antigonos Gonatas compare him to a dice player who had excellent throws, but did not know how to use them? I´d say that´s a pretty good escription of Pyrrhos.

[Hooahguy]

guys? dont u get it?
he was joking w/ me- he knows who its named after, he just wanted to see if i would believe him or do my own research and find out...

[Obelics]

You are wrong here. The hellenistic kingdoms were huge and limited themselves to use mainly greeks in their forces. Therefore trained professional soldiers were few. There was even some kind of "system" to decide how "great" a victory was. A battle usually ended when one side (usually the phallanx) thought that they had lost. The winners often didn't even try to pursue the enemies but instead started negtiations and tried to win over enemy soldiers. Pyrrhos was used to this kind of warfare, same as were the Macedonians later when they fought the Romans. There's an incident where the Macedonian phalanx raised their sarissae during the battle as a sign that they gave victory to the Romans. They didn't expect that the Roman soldiers would just use the opportunity to charge and slaughter them.

2 different concepts of warfare...

i wasn't aware of the episode of the raising Sarissas, that was interesting, thanks. But still it seems to me the things here are exposed from a philoPirric point of view (sorry for the neologism). Regulated (or call it ritual or sacral) warfare wasn't that of the poleis of greek age? a sort of sport, there is this Team of Athens that today will meet the Team of i dont know, Argo, the team of Athens won, they raised a trophy on the place, from both the teams there were killed almost only a few of nobles, while the most part of the common soldier routed, and everyone went back home, hoping to win the next time, a sort of ritual/sacralized way, but that was ages before Pirro. Pirro and the Hellenistic generals had to use only greeks and the number were low, so this took to this sort of "in-house" kind of warfare (im taking for good your post, cause as i say im not a scholar of Ancient History). So what? The Republic had to undertand what were the in-house rules of the game, and stay to it? What i really dont get, is the fact that it seems a sort of propaganda to say that the Hellenistic generals actually never lost, a time they were unlucky, at another time their enemies were cheaters, or they weren't enough "civilized" to understand that they had to lost. It's like saying that the Vietnamises didn't won the war, cause they didn't know they actually lost, or again is like to say that the Generals of the Ancien Régime were beaten, just cause Napoleon wasn't a man of the Ancien Régime anymore, and so he was unfair, he cheated?... I think He was the true modern and alive guy, while the various gentlemens of the Ancient Régimes were the dead and buried mummyes. When i say that Pirros was the backward and the Republic was the Modernity, im tolking in these terms. As i sayd warfare, in my knowledge, was almost completely desacralized, ages before Pirro. That doesent means that the Hellenistic kingdom couldn't invent a sort of in-house warfare among them, cause they had some problem to recruit new soldiers, but that was of no use for the Republic.



It was all very civilised in comparison to Roman notions of annihilating the enemy and not ending the war until either they gave up the fight, or you were yourself wiped out.

ive never heard of a "civilized" way of making war... I can just accept the fact that the hellenistic Kingdoms warfare was a sort of sklerotized warfare, not civilized. We are talking of war, and pirro lost, the Romans were able to secure the Republic and to throw away another menace. Were the Athenienses "uncivilized", cause they took the war to a whole new scale in the Peloponnesiac war? Was the French Republic "uncivilized" cause, being "encircled" they took the war to a new level?. The expansion of the Roman Empire in the republican age, was a sort of self-alimentation thing: i secure the italics (and that can not be achieved just after have won a battle and being spontaneously proclamed King-like thing, i need the Fides), but then there are the Cart. and the greek towns of the south. Then i secure that and there is another probelm to come. I dont judge it cause im a man of 2 thousand years after, that would be ridiculous. I just could reserve for myself the right to judge the wars and the behaviour of my time, included the passed century, when i can share, more or less, the same or just paragonables moral achievements. Goind back in the centuries, i could be a judge just until i can recognize some of my own, when things are not anymore recognizable, i can only try to "understand".

All this kind of "Civilized/uncivilized" warfare things, reminds me of that Episode of the Fury or Roland from Ariosto, when Orlando The Paladin go in England(?) and he has this talking with a local lord (im not sure about the details cause i readed it time ago) anyway he starts wining about the invention of the Cannon, it is a diabolik thing, while it was lost forever the good old times of the Chivalry... well, so the Rinascimental power were uncivilized, cause they completely changed the way of the honorous medieval warfare?

i think a lot of these prejudice are due to the fact that some people tend to see the Romans a sort of ancient american marines, or even worse some nazis, nothing of more far from the reality... so they were unfair, they were imperialists, they wiped out everything etc. while other people knew how to conduct a polite and "civilized" war, never annihilating its enemies... i call this propaganda. If you want a better paragon for the Roman Republic think on the French first republic, and thing to Carthage and the Hellenistic kingdoms as the European States of the Ancien Régime (they were already buried, but they didn't know it), It is still a hightly questionable comparison, as every comparison from different ages, but sure is better of the actual prejudice of some people to think to the Roman Republic as a sort of wannabe Police of the World.

[General Appo]

The only civilised way to conduct a war is to get all the leaders who wants a war in the first place (before the propaganda takes effect) to gather in a small room and then force them to kill each other. This goes for any time, including today.

[QuintusSertorius]

Note I said "civilised in comparison".

[pezhetairoi]

Ah hooahguy, now you've finally come right out and said it. You know, it wasn't clear that you were joking before, because remember we had this discussion earlier in the Tavern started by (was it Dhampir?) about what a lecturer said which was total crap because the lecturer teaching ancient history was not qualified in ancient history?

So it's happened before, so we didn't know if you were kidding. Heh.

[Hooahguy]

nah, he was teaching US history

[pezhetairoi]

o.O that's even weirder.

Well, you should get your teacher to come up with more $5 challenges. It's a good source of income, since you've got the whole answer key right here in the Org. :)

[Flying Pig]

I've never actually understood why Phyrros never did an alaxander. I mean, he had the genius and the army, but never did much

[johnhughthom]

Sounds like a good teacher, happy to lose a $5 bet as long as you are learning something.

[johnhughthom]

I've never actually understood why Phyrros never did an alaxander. I mean, he had the genius and the army, but never did much


Probably a lack of focus.

[artaxerxes]

[QUOTE=hooahguy;1935974]my history teacher it was named after a persian general.
QUOTE]


ROFL. Hehe. My classical studies teacher told me Alexanders empire was split up in three parts with Ptolemies having Egypt and Seleucids having Macedonia and somebody else having Asia....