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