What do you think Pyrrhos would have done if he won the battle at Argos?

[Unintended BM]

This may be a stupid question, but if Pyrrhos had beaten everyone at Argos and went on to take over Greece and Macedon, what would he have gone for next? Would he have gone back to Taras and Italy, back to Sicily, or would he have done something else? Eperios is one of my favorite campaigns to play, so I'm just kind of wondering if people knew what Pyrrhos was planning to do next. If I get some interesting answers, it would probably influence my current game with Eperios.

[satalexton]

That would be a bit of a paradox because Pyrrohos was a rather inconsistent person, starting new things but never finishing them. For him to actually finishing something properly and take over Ellas, while possible given his superb abilities, is something he is very unlikely to do.

Perhaps he would, if he survived the roof tiles, have gotten a minor concussion and somehow learn that he must finish wt he started. He may take Barbaropolis, then go teach the Karchedoi a lesson, then emulate Alexandros.......the possibilities are endless with brains like his!

[Mediolanicus]

You could always read my AAR...

It is the history of a Pyrrhos that was never near Argos.

[Lvcretivs]

...the perfectly illustrating quote:

'Pyrrhus was away entertaining one hope after another, and since he made one success but the starting point for a new one, while he was determined to make good each disaster by a fresh undertaking, he suffered neither defeat nor victory to put a limit to his troubling himself and troubling others.' Plutarch, Life of Pyrrhus 30,2

Seriously, any of satalexon's scenarios would be reasonably possible - but I strongly doubt that Pyrrhos - by 272BC historically without a really solid base of operations in the Magna Graecia (reduced to weakly garrisoned Taras) and real political legitimation/pretext ('military assistance against the romans'...), would have set out to attempt a second 'Italian adventure' that early...

[Teucer]

Even with more of Hellas behind him, would Pyrrhos have really had the manpower to get as far north in Italy as Rome?

I wonder how long the Samnites and other south Italian peoples would remain on his side once it became clear he intended to stay on the peninsula for good...

[Lvcretivs]

...most probably not - think of extremely bloody battles with exceedingly high casualty figures (eg. Beneventum ~50%!) quickly reducing the numbers of his irreplaceable veteran native/mercenary phalangitai, forcing Pyrrhos to depend on allied italiote/samnite/lucanian contingents,... while the Romans would have probably raised legion after legion...

[satalexton]

The amount of 'lings Barbaropolis can pump out isn't unlimited. I'm pretty certain that their manpower, resources and territories were no where near the levels of the 2nd Punic War before Cannae.

[SwissBarbar]

Scenario III: Suffers great brain damage, visits the EB-Forum and names himself Cute Wolf (allegory to the dog on his shield)

[Cute Wolf]

Scenario III: Suffers great brain damage, visits the EB-Forum and names himself Cute Wolf (allegory to the dog on his shield)

AArrggghhhh... you blow my cover!!!!!
now all of you should know, that epeirote's dog logo are actually the cute one!!!

EDIT : I give you a balloon, as your joke made my day!!!

[Subotan]

"What if" questions are bad history.

[SwissBarbar]

"What if" questions are bad history.

No one's forced to read this thread. Me, I like these "what if" discussions.

[SwissBarbar]

Thx mate ;-)

[Bucefalo]

As have been said, Pyrrhos is well-known for starting things and not finishing anything. At first it seemed like he wanted to focus on Italy (he rejected the offer of the throne of the macedonians) and his campaigns in Sicily seems to indicate he wanted to emulate Alexander somehow, protecting the greeks of italy agaisnt the "barbarians" of the west. Obviously that meant to carve his own hellenic kingdom there.

After the failure of his campaigns in italy, i don´t think he had any idea of coming back to try again. Pyrrhos then accepted the offer of invading Sparta, and putting there his puppet king. Imho this shows that Pyrrhos had shifted his interests, and was now trying to dominate the other states of greece and expand his dominion in the mainland.

In my opinion, if Pyrrhos had won at Argos he would have probably kept trying to gain control directly or indirectly over the other states in greece, possibly claim the throne of makedonia if that would benefit his cause. Anyhow it is hard to say, because as have been said Pyrrhos is known for not taking well defeats and changing his mind as soon as the plans did not go well. If he had won at Argos, he may have been encouraged to keep campaigning in greece. If he had lost, but survived, he may have been discouraged by his defeats at Sparta and Argos, and decided to do something else, perhaps go back to Italy again? I doubt so, but we will never know.

Imho it is a pity that such a great military mind did not achieve any long-term sucesses, unlike Alexander. But then Alexander did not suffer any defeat, if he did he may have stopped and changed his plans for something different. I think that is what happened to Pyrrhos, his defeats made him unable to stick with his plans and probably abort them too quickly, where it may not have been truly a lost cause and only required more perseverance.

"What if" questions are bad history.

Assuming history had to happen as it did is even worse history.

[Lvcretivs]

"What if" questions are bad history.

... providing clichéd sensationalist 'alternate history' scenarios without a solid factual backdrop of well-done historical research and an healthy dose of skepticism - that's really 'bad history'. I understand your point - ideologically loaded historical revisionism, ... - but 'alternate history' can be a quite entertaining intellectual exercise, if you keep in mind that

we will never know

what would have really happened - that any 'alternate history' scenario is a more or less well informed speculation, which cannot mirror the sheer complexity of real history and should not be taken too seriously.

[Subotan]

No one's forced to read this thread. Me, I like these "what if" discussions.

Meh. That's just my opinion.

... providing clichéd sensationalist 'alternate history' scenarios without a solid factual backdrop of well-done historical research and an healthy dose of skepticism - that's really 'bad history'. I understand your point - ideologically loaded historical revisionism, ... - but 'alternate history' can be a quite entertaining intellectual exercise, if you keep in mind that what would have really happened - that any 'alternate history' scenario is a more or less well informed speculation, which cannot mirror the sheer complexity of real history and should not be taken too seriously.

Of course, they are important for making computer games and films and the like. I wouldn't play historical Strategy games if I didn't find it entertaining. But it's obviously not proper history.

[Apázlinemjó]

Pyrrhos had an EPIC FAIL death, why would you ruin that?

[Duguntz]

Meh. That's just my opinion.

Opinions are like bacteries, everybody have, but it's better to keep them for ourself