Well, I didn't mean that Pyrrhos's victories were only half victories or something like that, only that his victories, being the best performance the Hellens ever had over Rome, were still in no way near Cannae, Carrhae or Teutonic Forest.
I agree the successor kingdoms were unfortunate that they had to face Rome at the worst possible time for them. But considering almost any barbarian tribe and, as you put it, even "the sorry remain of Carthage" could teach the Romans a lesson on the consequence of arrogance and rashness, the Hellenistc world looked simply too bad in comparison.
My opinion is that it has something to do with the facts that they were too close to the Romans, both geographically and culturally. And whatever they excel in, the Romans are better, so it's almost impossible to play their strength against Rome's weakness, while the Nomads have their deserts and HAs, the Gauls their shock troops, the Germans their forests, the Spaniards their mountains and skirmishers.

Reply

Both Greeks and Hellenes had declined in military power before Rome encountered them. The Greeks never recovered from being smashed by the Macedonians, and the Hellenic Successors all suffered from depleted Hellenic populations due to decades of constant warfare.

Reply

the romans suffered heavily in iberia 7 legions destroyed in 10 years against viriathus 2 legions destroyed against the numantines and had it not been for one of the grachus a 3rd one would have happened

Reply