This is what I did for my EPQ (A long essay you can do in the UK at 18). I analysed the Pyrrhic war using modern military theory of levels of warfare and concluded that Pyrrhus failed to have any long term coherent strategy which allowed Rome to exploit his mistakes leading to a Roman victory despite Pyrrhus' initial tactical and operational success. I'm very pleased that my research and analysis came to a similar conclusion to the actual historians.
Great video reminding me of my tour of the Naval War College five years ago. The guide talked about a wargame of Syracuse after Vietnam. I asked how can a conflict 2,300 years ago could teach you anything. He said the officer class could not get over the trauma of Vietnam, emotions ran high, so the Naval College developed the Syracuse game. It was a foreign war unpopular in Greece, yet far enough removed in time and space that the officers could calmly analyze it. It seems this ancient history offered a valuable lesson after all.
Pyrrhus was probably considered a "Great" by the Ancients because he performed way above his weight class. However, he was always going to be limited by what Epirus actually was.
"Conquering the world on horseback is easy: it is dismounting and ruling that is hard." -- Ghengis Khan. War for war's sake is possibly the biggest waste of everything.
I suspect Pyrrhus' favourable 'contemporary' reputation rests in some part because he wrote a now-lost tactica - treatise on military tactics, theory and practice. Perhaps the writing included great insights and original thinking. Unless a copy gets found in a dusty tomb we will never know. Plutarch (IIRC) said the way he carried himself reminded people of Alexander, a thing that many tried to emulate but few seemed to accomplish. As others have mentioned, he came from a small and poor state, his exploits need to be viewed through the lens of his resources.
Tricky, I would say, they are also good at winning wars, they are terrible at the postwar strategy. Which is surprising cause the USA was brilliant with the Marshall plan.
@@MichaelCorryFilmsNot really. The previous administration signed the Doha Agreement with the Taliban. That agreement, called a 'surrender document' by National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster, released 5000 Taliban POW's, and set a firm timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. Forces. The current administration was obligated to follow through with the withdrawal schedule, but screwed it up at the last minute.
In addition to all said, feel like a lot of people also mistakenly want to view Pyrhus as a great conqueror and are disappointed when he fails at that. I can imagine that his contemporaries saw more value in his quest for glory and adventure, concepts that are now even despised to an extent.
I like how Professor Taylor at first explains how ancient history does not really inform current politics - then proceeds to make the opposite case that it does. His overall observations were spot on though and he is an excellent speaker.
Pyrrhos Megalos, we the true soldiers by heart and profession will always honour you as one of the grand tacticians and adventurers of history . Fame is fleeting. meaninglessness lasts forever
I would recommend "The Generals" which address the points made here to US generals about objectives and overall strategy failures by the US. Written by Thomas E. Ricks. The North Korean Chosin Battle alone makes for a must read IMO.
Pyrrhus was Significant enough to be a legend and to be remembered as a Hellene that Fought wars for for the admiration of defeating enemy's who he deemed worthy of dying to his professional army, that he raised. The Roman war machine at the time was still in infancy and had only conquests against Barbarians and Samnites, Professional Greek armys at this time Raised by people like Phillip, Alexander Or Pyruss defeated enemy's to begin with for the Satisfaction of not only conquest but for competition in the true Greek spirit of the Olympics this is fact. Truly his most Pyrrhic victory is being Remembered till this day and in Legend, few even talk about his demise because his feats are greater.
This man and those like him should be running the strategy of Government and it's arms of state including the military. Very nice assessment on past l, and present and most likely the future if asked.. Strength through knowledge of the bigger picture.
Thank you for this video. I am again impressed by LWTVs courage in covering tough subjects. I would suggest that Pyrrhus is a good case study for current times, but if you are looking for a historical precedent that reflects today's reality, I would like to suggest looking at the British Empire during the American Revolution. The British during that time suffered from blinding hubris, crippling jobbery and partisan political lawfare, massive debt, and a self-defeating foreign policy and military strategy that was seemingly created and executed by sociopaths with a sense of impunity. As a result they were disdained by their countrymen and their enemies grew rapidly both numerically and qualitatively until their eventual defeat. It is a Greek Tragedy although there are no Greeks.
Fair points all. Sadly, for those who are students of military history, there are an alarming number of examples we could point to and say, “beware.” Pyrrhus is one in a long, long line.
Lack of a Grand Strategy in Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan. What is winning? What goals? No, the Surge failed. You can't fight for the Status quo ante and call it a victory. Pyrrhus comes down to us not for his victories, but because his victories were empty.
Interesting video as retired military ( 35 years ) I heard Professor Taylor mentions Military Larders not looking at what I call the endstate of the war. The US Military dose not do national policy there job is to fight the next battle / campaign that point is drilled in to leaders of our military as young cadets / ROTC . Elected members of of the US Government are responsible for that. He should have left out the Military in his talking points and and brought up our elected officials as letting down the sacrifice of our military members.
Professor Taylor, it’s worth mentioning, is a veteran himself. But indeed you’re right-policy makers are the ones who are supposed to be setting grand strategy.
based off a quote that was apparently from pyrrus when seeing the first roman camps before battle and recognizing the Roman's organization and seriousness. He said something like 'these are not barbarians'. I'm wondering if he was given false intel by 'allies' in magna Graecia to destroy this latin power that was full of barbarians and then discovered it was not so. he needed to do more research before invasion for sure. he was after the booty and loot.
I always thought Pyrrhus' reputation was overrated. Especially after discovering more details about his endeavors before crossing over to help in Magna Graecia. Guy was a mixed bag with too much whimsy. Running off in the middle of something all the time. 😉 Also not a little bad luck judging by how he died.
Hey I have a question, you guys use Fistful of Tows 3 often for wargaming platoon-stand size operations. Have you tried Blitzkrieg Commander? And if so, what are you guys thoughts on it?
If Hannibal was a superior General and Carthage had many times the resources of Epirus and they weren't close to defeating Rome Pyrrhus was always going to be like Arminius, Vercingetorix and others where they can win a battle or 2 but the structure of the Roman Republic/Empire is just to big for any one person to ultimately triumph against. They estimated after Cannae the Romans still had 400k to 600k of troops to call upon to replace the armies just wiped out. There was simply no way any rival person or nation could beat Rome in a long war. Superior Organization, Structure, Resources will always win in the end.
The Romans were close to defeat after Cannae, they'd been obliterated in battle after by one Carthaginian army and immediately after Hannibal captured a large part of southern Italy, Carthage wouldn't commit their full military strength, I read Hanno the Great opposed sending reinforcements and even disbanded a large part of the navy but for years after Cannae the Romans avoided Hannibal and had to recruit slaves and criminals to rebuild the army. Hannibal's had no heavy siege weapons and at places like Terantum where there Romans held the fortress and the harbour it left him largely trapped in Italy. The Romans had a large navy and I believe four armies of about 50,000 men Sardinian and Sicily etc but if Carthage had attacked all out instead of sitting in their backside it could have turned out differently. Hasdrubal was the only other army to try to help Hannibal and by doing so left Iberia to Scipio. Pyrrhus did underestimate the Romans, the Macedonian successors were men who had fought in or were directly related to men who'd ridden with Alexander and conquered all before them. They had at the time the most advanced army on earth, the Macedonian successors only real challenge were each other, so to Pyrrhus who'd fought his peers he must have thought any other army was not on his level, I read that the Romans were wary of Pyrrhus, I read somewhere they panicked after he beat their second army but he went to Sicily to help Syracuse. They all say he had no long term plans and even in his own time one of his fellow Successors (might have been Antigonos I can't remember) said he was a dice player who threw wild getting a great roll and then doing nothing with it. I have read his plan was to rule Macedon but he was always muscled out by bigger players so when he was asked to sail to Italy he had a new plan; beat the Romans, become leader of the Italian Greeks, beat Carthage and become leader Syracuse and then go back to Greece as major player, it's been maybe 20 years since I read Peter Connolly's book Greece and Rome at War but Pyrrhus had a plan he just charged around losing the moment each time. I think it's important also for people to remember that Pyrrhus defeat in Italy wasn't a foreshadowing of the "Legion always beats Phalanx because it's stronger" everyone trots out. Chynospehylae (I think I butchered that name) the Macedonian left was still forming up from marching column when the right wing attacked the Romans and pushed the legions in front of them back down the ridge but in diing so meant the Roman right wing which had reached the top of the ridge could attack the Macedonian left still in column and divert the Triarii to attack the rear of the Macedonian right wing. Phillip V had previously botched an attempt to ship an army to Italy to support Hannibal and had done nothing to drive out the Roman army stationed in Illyria. At Thermopylae, Antiochus had just 10,000 men but like Leonidas before him the enemy couldn't force his phalanx back in the pass, like Xerxes before then the Romans attacked and routed the units guarding mountain pass and the Seleucids had retreat. At Magnesia the phalanx was driving the legions back and Antiochus leading his heavy cavalry actually smashed a legion and forced it to retreat but he not only repeated his mistake from Raphia chasing the beaten enemy instead of redirecting the attack as say Alexander would have done, over on his left his allies were routed by the Pergamon Greeks and the Romans were able to turn the tables and win. The accounts of Mithridates phalanx seem sketchy, they say it was large and it doesn't appear to have been that well trained but good enough to beat Pergamon who'd been a thorn in the Seleucids side even at the height of their power. In medieval times the phalanx returned and took over again and the legion was lost, the Byzantines relying more and more on the cataphract (first introduced to Europe by Antiochus the Great after his campaigns in the east) as their primary arm as the infantry became less and legion like.
True, though this is the case with every historical figure from antiquity. Historians only have access to what survived, and sadly in most cases it’s very little
@@LittleWarsTV yeah, being a HEMA pratitioner, I can even say that even when you have several manuals from the same lineage in less than a 100 years , it is still hard to form a solid opinion. I think it would go down easier if we (as in modern people) were less dogmatic about the filling we propose.
Pyrrhus alienated everyone for the sake of adventure. Man should've just tried to grab megas hellas and try to keep at it after the victories of Heraclea and Asculum and stayed on the ball.
@@LittleWarsTV either that or rejec5 helping Taras outright and try to conquer macedonia and move into the diadochi wars more that way. If he didnt like fighting fellow greeks he could've just waited for the syracusean plea and fight rome instead of Carthage
My Battalion Commander once said to us "Gentlemen the United States Military is the best fighting force in the world on the tactical and semi- strategic level. In a conventional conflict we will win every time. But our freedom of information and speech we fight so hard for is sometimes our downfall in non-existential conflicts."
It seems the Hellenistic world in general didn't have much of a grand strategy. Even Alexander's accomplishments ended traitorously and from greed. Maybe culturally related. Their culture lasted more than their hegemony.
Pyrrhus what’s a very good general and tactician in the battlefield !! Regardless what others say about him !! In the beginning the Roman’s mucked him young inexperienced but after their first defeat they from Pyrrhus they didn’t know we’re to hide and refused to fight against in the battlefield they had a hard time recruiting an army to fight against him. They actually had to knock on doors to recruit an army . The only reason why he abandoned his campaign in southern italy it’s because the lack of money and men Must be taken in account that Greece was just a collective city states but unified as a nation they fought each other The reason he ended in Italy he was invited by the Greeks in southern Italy to helped them fight against Roman’s so he seized the appourtinity Was taught the art of war from Alexander’s successors in Asia and also giving him mercenaries and Greek Macedonian S and other Greek allies and war elephants something that the west hasn’t seen before 😮 he also beet the carthaginians😮 in the Sicily left and went back to Greece fought in argos against the Spartans and he died in the streets fighting in Argos in a most tragic way a woman watching the battle from the roof accidentally a piece of of ceracada fell off and hit Pyrrhus in head falls unconscious and mother Greek officer I forget his name starts slicing his face with his sword open his eyes the officer freezes and cuts his head off to make a long story he dies just like that a vet sad ending you have to read the actual historians there is a original Greek book on him it’s 1000 pages in full detail on him from the beginning and the end for the record he was related to Alexander the Great they were cousins from his mother side Olympia .. wjen when Hannibal lost to the Romans scipio asked Hannibal who is the Greatest general a Off all without second thought he said Alexander the Great Pyrrhus. And him self Hannibal Scipio left with his head down because he wanted to be included too so all that negativity o About Pyrrhus it’s really wrong he is the one that introduced the salute that the Roman’s address Zeus thunderbolt on Roman shields the eagle 🦅 which stands for Zeus the Roman’s adopted again again all Greek thanks to Pyrrhus he was great tactician. And write books in ear tactics and all are lost Reading some 50 page book or the internet you are never going learn on anybody sorry for the long story buts the truth
Pyrrhus was considered by his peers as an outstanding commander. Hard to argue that. His strategic vision away from the battlefield is a lot more muddled, though.
Is it true that America lacks strategic vision? I think it's actually quite clear what America's strategic vision is: uphold the liberal world order and contain those states which seek to undermine it. I think the bigger issue is that the US does not know how to lose gracefully, so instead of acknowledging when it's time to call it quits they tend to fight for way too long and then go into an existential crisis in the rare circumstances they don't win. If you look at the great empires of history, they didn't win every single war they ever got in, far from it. But with the exception of the various wars with the Natives, Americans seem loathe to ever give up, allowing minor regional conflicts to drag out for decades rather than just settling after a year or two.
I think that’s a consequence of the major American wars being existential, at least the ones projected on the American psyche. The revolutionary, war of 1812, civil war, WW1/2, and the Cold War all had existential consequences, which I think put America in a place where we believe all global fires, regardless the threat, need to be stopped with non proportional consequences.
I agree with your assertion that the U.S. sometimes doesn't know when to cut it's losses and scoot gracefully. I almost re-enlisted for a 3rd time in 2004, but called it off after the U.S. invaded Iraq. I knew a major clusterf**k in the making when I saw one, and I did not want to take part. Now, here we are, 21 years later!
His reputation as a great tactician always seems vastly overrated, despite Hannibals inexplicable anecdote where he rates him higher than himself. Really? If you compare him to Hannibal, his victory (ies) vs the Romans are distinctly unimpressive. Hannibal crushed the Romans in multiple battles whereas pyrrhus won once, barely won the second time, and lost the last one. Hardly the stuff of cannae, let alone a lesser victory like canusium. No doubt he was a v good tactician given his reputation, but better than Hannibal? Imo he seems to belong to the 2nd tier of great commanders, below the likes of Alexander, Hannibal, scipio, and antigonus one eyed
Say what you want about US strategy but aren't we clearly on top with no true rival that doesn't involve a coalition of states that still don't measure up? If we are destroyed it will indeed be from within.
it's not the first time an empire rise up to the top but at the end they all crumble !! ..the fact the us is on the top does not mean it's doing good ..the momentum is still there but it's getting slower and slower ..and if they didn't learn from their mistakes and the mistakes of others they will fall like the rest ..the wheel of time have no mercy
I think this mixes "Politics" and "Military Strategy". They are not the same. A despot/king/ruler in ancient times would need to be (literally) great in both areas to succeed (according to this video). It was well-know Pyrrus was NOT well liked and was actually a (very) poor politician. That had no impact on his abilities as a military leader whatsoever.
Trying really hard to shove Pyrrhus into your Iraq War box. This seems to be an even worse way to view history--where every historical example is just an opportunity to support some current view of modern politics and strategy.
So now you are doing Politics. "Politics is war without bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed". I think it should be remembered that with the US it is politicians that decide when and why we start a war and NOT the military. Unlike ancient warfare, it doesn't matter how good your generals and troops are it is the President with or without Congress that decides when we enter a war, how it will be fought, and when it should end. Do you really want to go down this rabbit hole? I believe politics should be left out of wargaming. Save it for history classes.
We discuss politics basically every week inside the club, but not here on the channel. We do, however, cover military history. And I’m not sure it’s “politics” to observe that the US has not won a war since World War 2. Afraid that’s just history at this point.
@@LittleWarsTV If you bring politics into wargaming then how do justify playing the Germans or Japanese in WWII? How can you justify playing Confederates, fighting for slavery, in the ACW, the North Koreans in the Korean War, etc.? My point is you discuss strategy, tactics, weapons, etc. to understand the battles in wargaming. The wars we have "lost" were not the result of the failure of our military but the failure of our politicians. How many of you arm-chair generals have been in a war or even the military? Are you a wargaming channel or a political channel. I for one am NOT interested in hearing your political opinions!
@@LittleWarsTV"The US has not won a war since WW2". I think history will show we won Desert Storm, as well as military actions in Grenada and Panama. I would count the Cuban Missile Crisis as a win. Then there is the Cold War which was not always cold. Ask the Ukrainians fighting to keep their freedom as well as the other former Warsaw Pact countries whether we won the Cold war or not.
Poor Pyrrhus. He was surrounded by Carthage, Macedonia/Greece and Rome. Everyone around him was extremely successful and so was he, but not enough.
Competent. Every single one of these places had competence in their military.
Pyrrhus was playing on Honour mode.
And he made some bad decisions.
@@sciencefliestothemoon2305 They had much more population. It's weird, Tarentum had like a million people, why couldn't they raise more troops?
He also underestimated the momma bear.
@@sciencefliestothemoon2305 i mean ultimatly he died by a brick, so who know what mid have happened if that didnt happen
We can blame russian for that, you know with the bricks and all that stuff 🙂
This is what I did for my EPQ (A long essay you can do in the UK at 18). I analysed the Pyrrhic war using modern military theory of levels of warfare and concluded that Pyrrhus failed to have any long term coherent strategy which allowed Rome to exploit his mistakes leading to a Roman victory despite Pyrrhus' initial tactical and operational success.
I'm very pleased that my research and analysis came to a similar conclusion to the actual historians.
Great video reminding me of my tour of the Naval War College five years ago. The guide talked about a wargame of Syracuse after Vietnam. I asked how can a conflict 2,300 years ago could teach you anything. He said the officer class could not get over the trauma of Vietnam, emotions ran high, so the Naval College developed the Syracuse game. It was a foreign war unpopular in Greece, yet far enough removed in time and space that the officers could calmly analyze it. It seems this ancient history offered a valuable lesson after all.
Pyrrhus was probably considered a "Great" by the Ancients because he performed way above his weight class. However, he was always going to be limited by what Epirus actually was.
Absolutely! Epirus….not exactly a powerhouse or economic engine of note!
"Conquering the world on horseback is easy: it is dismounting and ruling that is hard." -- Ghengis Khan. War for war's sake is possibly the biggest waste of everything.
I suspect Pyrrhus' favourable 'contemporary' reputation rests in some part because he wrote a now-lost tactica - treatise on military tactics, theory and practice. Perhaps the writing included great insights and original thinking.
Unless a copy gets found in a dusty tomb we will never know.
Plutarch (IIRC) said the way he carried himself reminded people of Alexander, a thing that many tried to emulate but few seemed to accomplish.
As others have mentioned, he came from a small and poor state, his exploits need to be viewed through the lens of his resources.
His treatise appears to have been widely read at the time. Such a shame it didn’t survive.
I love the way he says "The US is like Pyrrhus in many ways." Without directly saying the US is good at winning battles but keeps losing the wars.
We just keep leaving wars after each election.
Democracies love victories but hates occupations.
Tricky, I would say, they are also good at winning wars, they are terrible at the postwar strategy.
Which is surprising cause the USA was brilliant with the Marshall plan.
We don't lose wars.... we lose interest.
@@MichaelCorryFilmsNot really. The previous administration signed the Doha Agreement with the Taliban. That agreement, called a 'surrender document' by National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster, released 5000 Taliban POW's, and set a firm timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. Forces. The current administration was obligated to follow through with the withdrawal schedule, but screwed it up at the last minute.
In addition to all said, feel like a lot of people also mistakenly want to view Pyrhus as a great conqueror and are disappointed when he fails at that. I can imagine that his contemporaries saw more value in his quest for glory and adventure, concepts that are now even despised to an extent.
I like how Professor Taylor at first explains how ancient history does not really inform current politics - then proceeds to make the opposite case that it does. His overall observations were spot on though and he is an excellent speaker.
To be fair, he says that ancient history doesn’t offer us specific lessons. But it certainly can offer wider perspective on human nature.
He made many excellent points. Thanks for the interesting and enlightening interview. @@LittleWarsTV
Pyrrhos Megalos, we the true soldiers by heart and profession will always honour you as one of the grand tacticians and adventurers of history .
Fame is fleeting. meaninglessness lasts forever
Man, you guys got great timing! Just about to finish a Pyrrhus campaign in Fields of Glory II
I would recommend "The Generals" which address the points made here to US generals about objectives and overall strategy failures by the US. Written by Thomas E. Ricks. The North Korean Chosin Battle alone makes for a must read IMO.
Pyrrhus was Significant enough to be a legend and to be remembered as a Hellene that Fought wars for for the admiration of defeating enemy's who he deemed worthy of dying to his professional army, that he raised. The Roman war machine at the time was still in infancy and had only conquests against Barbarians and Samnites, Professional Greek armys at this time Raised by people like Phillip, Alexander Or Pyruss defeated enemy's to begin with for the Satisfaction of not only conquest but for competition in the true Greek spirit of the Olympics this is fact. Truly his most Pyrrhic victory is being Remembered till this day and in Legend, few even talk about his demise because his feats are greater.
"Ponder and deliberate before you make your move", Szu Tzu🤔
Excellent video and reflections. Cheers!
This man and those like him should be running the strategy of Government and it's arms of state including the military. Very nice assessment on past l, and present and most likely the future if asked.. Strength through knowledge of the bigger picture.
Thank you for this video. I am again impressed by LWTVs courage in covering tough subjects. I would suggest that Pyrrhus is a good case study for current times, but if you are looking for a historical precedent that reflects today's reality, I would like to suggest looking at the British Empire during the American Revolution. The British during that time suffered from blinding hubris, crippling jobbery and partisan political lawfare, massive debt, and a self-defeating foreign policy and military strategy that was seemingly created and executed by sociopaths with a sense of impunity. As a result they were disdained by their countrymen and their enemies grew rapidly both numerically and qualitatively until their eventual defeat. It is a Greek Tragedy although there are no Greeks.
Fair points all. Sadly, for those who are students of military history, there are an alarming number of examples we could point to and say, “beware.” Pyrrhus is one in a long, long line.
Lack of a Grand Strategy in Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan. What is winning? What goals? No, the Surge failed. You can't fight for the Status quo ante and call it a victory. Pyrrhus comes down to us not for his victories, but because his victories were empty.
Democracies love victories but hates occupations.
Very interesting video. I liked it.
Great video 🤟
Interesting video as retired military ( 35 years ) I heard Professor Taylor mentions Military Larders not looking at what I call the endstate of the war. The US Military dose not do national policy there job is to fight the next battle / campaign that point is drilled in to leaders of our military as young cadets / ROTC . Elected members of of the US Government are responsible for that. He should have left out the Military in his talking points and and brought up our elected officials as letting down the sacrifice of our military members.
Professor Taylor, it’s worth mentioning, is a veteran himself. But indeed you’re right-policy makers are the ones who are supposed to be setting grand strategy.
based off a quote that was apparently from pyrrus when seeing the first roman camps before battle and recognizing the Roman's organization and seriousness. He said something like 'these are not barbarians'. I'm wondering if he was given false intel by 'allies' in magna Graecia to destroy this latin power that was full of barbarians and then discovered it was not so. he needed to do more research before invasion for sure. he was after the booty and loot.
Yeah! More Pyrrhus!
The lesson of history is someone has to be the loser.
I always thought Pyrrhus' reputation was overrated. Especially after discovering more details about his endeavors before crossing over to help in Magna Graecia. Guy was a mixed bag with too much whimsy. Running off in the middle of something all the time. 😉 Also not a little bad luck judging by how he died.
More like he just ran out of all that good luck that kept him alive earlier in life, and Lady Luck came to collect. 😄
Tbf he started with very little, if he had control of Macedon rather than Epirus then he would have been able to achieve far more in his life.
Professor Taylor shares your view and also does not rank Pyrrhus highly
@@LittleWarsTV I noticed! 😄
Hey I have a question, you guys use Fistful of Tows 3 often for wargaming platoon-stand size operations. Have you tried Blitzkrieg Commander? And if so, what are you guys thoughts on it?
We have copies but haven’t tried it yet! Would like to!
I discovered Blitzkrieg Commander about 5 years ago. My 6mm armies are from 1941-42 North Africa. It's a very good system and plays out well.
If Hannibal was a superior General and Carthage had many times the resources of Epirus and they weren't close to defeating Rome Pyrrhus was always going to be like Arminius, Vercingetorix and others where they can win a battle or 2 but the structure of the Roman Republic/Empire is just to big for any one person to ultimately triumph against.
They estimated after Cannae the Romans still had 400k to 600k of troops to call upon to replace the armies just wiped out. There was simply no way any rival person or nation could beat Rome in a long war. Superior Organization, Structure, Resources will always win in the end.
The Romans were close to defeat after Cannae, they'd been obliterated in battle after by one Carthaginian army and immediately after Hannibal captured a large part of southern Italy, Carthage wouldn't commit their full military strength, I read Hanno the Great opposed sending reinforcements and even disbanded a large part of the navy but for years after Cannae the Romans avoided Hannibal and had to recruit slaves and criminals to rebuild the army. Hannibal's had no heavy siege weapons and at places like Terantum where there Romans held the fortress and the harbour it left him largely trapped in Italy. The Romans had a large navy and I believe four armies of about 50,000 men Sardinian and Sicily etc but if Carthage had attacked all out instead of sitting in their backside it could have turned out differently. Hasdrubal was the only other army to try to help Hannibal and by doing so left Iberia to Scipio.
Pyrrhus did underestimate the Romans, the Macedonian successors were men who had fought in or were directly related to men who'd ridden with Alexander and conquered all before them. They had at the time the most advanced army on earth, the Macedonian successors only real challenge were each other, so to Pyrrhus who'd fought his peers he must have thought any other army was not on his level, I read that the Romans were wary of Pyrrhus, I read somewhere they panicked after he beat their second army but he went to Sicily to help Syracuse.
They all say he had no long term plans and even in his own time one of his fellow Successors (might have been Antigonos I can't remember) said he was a dice player who threw wild getting a great roll and then doing nothing with it. I have read his plan was to rule Macedon but he was always muscled out by bigger players so when he was asked to sail to Italy he had a new plan; beat the Romans, become leader of the Italian Greeks, beat Carthage and become leader Syracuse and then go back to Greece as major player, it's been maybe 20 years since I read Peter Connolly's book Greece and Rome at War but Pyrrhus had a plan he just charged around losing the moment each time.
I think it's important also for people to remember that Pyrrhus defeat in Italy wasn't a foreshadowing of the "Legion always beats Phalanx because it's stronger" everyone trots out. Chynospehylae (I think I butchered that name) the Macedonian left was still forming up from marching column when the right wing attacked the Romans and pushed the legions in front of them back down the ridge but in diing so meant the Roman right wing which had reached the top of the ridge could attack the Macedonian left still in column and divert the Triarii to attack the rear of the Macedonian right wing. Phillip V had previously botched an attempt to ship an army to Italy to support Hannibal and had done nothing to drive out the Roman army stationed in Illyria. At Thermopylae, Antiochus had just 10,000 men but like Leonidas before him the enemy couldn't force his phalanx back in the pass, like Xerxes before then the Romans attacked and routed the units guarding mountain pass and the Seleucids had retreat. At Magnesia the phalanx was driving the legions back and Antiochus leading his heavy cavalry actually smashed a legion and forced it to retreat but he not only repeated his mistake from Raphia chasing the beaten enemy instead of redirecting the attack as say Alexander would have done, over on his left his allies were routed by the Pergamon Greeks and the Romans were able to turn the tables and win. The accounts of Mithridates phalanx seem sketchy, they say it was large and it doesn't appear to have been that well trained but good enough to beat Pergamon who'd been a thorn in the Seleucids side even at the height of their power.
In medieval times the phalanx returned and took over again and the legion was lost, the Byzantines relying more and more on the cataphract (first introduced to Europe by Antiochus the Great after his campaigns in the east) as their primary arm as the infantry became less and legion like.
well our opinion about Phyrrus is based on filling to many gaps with our contenporary shortcomings and thinking we know better.
True, though this is the case with every historical figure from antiquity. Historians only have access to what survived, and sadly in most cases it’s very little
@@LittleWarsTV yeah, being a HEMA pratitioner, I can even say that even when you have several manuals from the same lineage in less than a 100 years , it is still hard to form a solid opinion. I think it would go down easier if we (as in modern people) were less dogmatic about the filling we propose.
War serves policy. When there appears a lack of (or poor) strategy, you should first look to those that develop policy, not strategy.
Pyrrhus alienated everyone for the sake of adventure. Man should've just tried to grab megas hellas and try to keep at it after the victories of Heraclea and Asculum and stayed on the ball.
Probably so, yes! Though it’s hard to see him outlasting the Romans over time. Very hard….
@@LittleWarsTV either that or rejec5 helping Taras outright and try to conquer macedonia and move into the diadochi wars more that way. If he didnt like fighting fellow greeks he could've just waited for the syracusean plea and fight rome instead of Carthage
He loved war is why. War for the sake of war is a far higher drive than lowly strategy or worldly pragmatism.
War is the continuation of policy by other means. What happens if there IS no policy?
My Battalion Commander once said to us "Gentlemen the United States Military is the best fighting force in the world on the tactical and semi- strategic level. In a conventional conflict we will win every time. But our freedom of information and speech we fight so hard for is sometimes our downfall in non-existential conflicts."
It seems the Hellenistic world in general didn't have much of a grand strategy. Even Alexander's accomplishments ended traitorously and from greed. Maybe culturally related. Their culture lasted more than their hegemony.
Pyrrhus what’s a very good general and tactician in the battlefield !! Regardless what others say about him !! In the beginning the Roman’s mucked him young inexperienced but after their first defeat they from Pyrrhus they didn’t know we’re to hide and refused to fight against in the battlefield they had a hard time recruiting an army to fight against him. They actually had to knock on doors to recruit an army . The only reason why he abandoned his campaign in southern italy it’s because the lack of money and men Must be taken in account that Greece was just a collective city states but unified as a nation they fought each other The reason he ended in Italy he was invited by the Greeks in southern Italy to helped them fight against Roman’s so he seized the appourtinity Was taught the art of war from Alexander’s successors in Asia and also giving him mercenaries and Greek Macedonian
S and other Greek allies and war elephants something that the west hasn’t seen before 😮 he also beet the carthaginians😮 in the Sicily left and went back to Greece fought in argos against the Spartans and he died in the streets fighting in Argos in a most tragic way a woman watching the battle from the roof accidentally a piece of of ceracada fell off and hit Pyrrhus in head falls unconscious and mother Greek officer I forget his name starts slicing his face with his sword open his eyes the officer freezes and cuts his head off to make a long story he dies just like that a vet sad ending you have to read the actual historians there is a original Greek book on him it’s 1000 pages in full detail on him from the beginning and the end for the record he was related to Alexander the Great they were cousins from his mother side Olympia .. wjen when Hannibal lost to the Romans scipio asked Hannibal who is the Greatest general a
Off all without second thought he said Alexander the Great Pyrrhus. And him self Hannibal Scipio left with his head down because he wanted to be included too so all that negativity o
About Pyrrhus it’s really wrong he is the one that introduced the salute that the Roman’s address Zeus thunderbolt on Roman shields the eagle 🦅 which stands for Zeus the Roman’s adopted again again all Greek thanks to Pyrrhus he was great tactician. And write books in ear tactics and all are lost Reading some 50 page book or the internet you are never going learn on anybody sorry for the long story buts the truth
Pyrrhus was considered by his peers as an outstanding commander. Hard to argue that. His strategic vision away from the battlefield is a lot more muddled, though.
✌
Is it true that America lacks strategic vision? I think it's actually quite clear what America's strategic vision is: uphold the liberal world order and contain those states which seek to undermine it. I think the bigger issue is that the US does not know how to lose gracefully, so instead of acknowledging when it's time to call it quits they tend to fight for way too long and then go into an existential crisis in the rare circumstances they don't win. If you look at the great empires of history, they didn't win every single war they ever got in, far from it. But with the exception of the various wars with the Natives, Americans seem loathe to ever give up, allowing minor regional conflicts to drag out for decades rather than just settling after a year or two.
I think that’s a consequence of the major American wars being existential, at least the ones projected on the American psyche. The revolutionary, war of 1812, civil war, WW1/2, and the Cold War all had existential consequences, which I think put America in a place where we believe all global fires, regardless the threat, need to be stopped with non proportional consequences.
Isn’t that why Saint MATTIS says to study Thucydides? 😊
I agree with your assertion that the U.S. sometimes doesn't know when to cut it's losses and scoot gracefully. I almost re-enlisted for a 3rd time in 2004, but called it off after the U.S. invaded Iraq. I knew a major clusterf**k in the making when I saw one, and I did not want to take part. Now, here we are, 21 years later!
Victory in any meaningful sense was never our aim.
His reputation as a great tactician always seems vastly overrated, despite Hannibals inexplicable anecdote where he rates him higher than himself. Really? If you compare him to Hannibal, his victory (ies) vs the Romans are distinctly unimpressive. Hannibal crushed the Romans in multiple battles whereas pyrrhus won once, barely won the second time, and lost the last one. Hardly the stuff of cannae, let alone a lesser victory like canusium. No doubt he was a v good tactician given his reputation, but better than Hannibal? Imo he seems to belong to the 2nd tier of great commanders, below the likes of Alexander, Hannibal, scipio, and antigonus one eyed
Say what you want about US strategy but aren't we clearly on top with no true rival that doesn't involve a coalition of states that still don't measure up? If we are destroyed it will indeed be from within.
How is 1995 going?
it's not the first time an empire rise up to the top but at the end they all crumble !! ..the fact the us is on the top does not mean it's doing good ..the momentum is still there but it's getting slower and slower ..and if they didn't learn from their mistakes and the mistakes of others they will fall like the rest ..the wheel of time have no mercy
I think this mixes "Politics" and "Military Strategy". They are not the same. A despot/king/ruler in ancient times would need to be (literally) great in both areas to succeed (according to this video). It was well-know Pyrrus was NOT well liked and was actually a (very) poor politician. That had no impact on his abilities as a military leader whatsoever.
Trying really hard to shove Pyrrhus into your Iraq War box. This seems to be an even worse way to view history--where every historical example is just an opportunity to support some current view of modern politics and strategy.
So now you are doing Politics. "Politics is war without bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed". I think it should be remembered that with the US it is politicians that decide when and why we start a war and NOT the military. Unlike ancient warfare, it doesn't matter how good your generals and troops are it is the President with or without Congress that decides when we enter a war, how it will be fought, and when it should end. Do you really want to go down this rabbit hole? I believe politics should be left out of wargaming. Save it for history classes.
We discuss politics basically every week inside the club, but not here on the channel. We do, however, cover military history. And I’m not sure it’s “politics” to observe that the US has not won a war since World War 2. Afraid that’s just history at this point.
@@LittleWarsTV If you bring politics into wargaming then how do justify playing the Germans or Japanese in WWII? How can you justify playing Confederates, fighting for slavery, in the ACW, the North Koreans in the Korean War, etc.? My point is you discuss strategy, tactics, weapons, etc. to understand the battles in wargaming. The wars we have "lost" were not the result of the failure of our military but the failure of our politicians. How many of you arm-chair generals have been in a war or even the military? Are you a wargaming channel or a political channel. I for one am NOT interested in hearing your political opinions!
@@LittleWarsTV"The US has not won a war since WW2". I think history will show we won Desert Storm, as well as military actions in Grenada and Panama. I would count the Cuban Missile Crisis as a win. Then there is the Cold War which was not always cold. Ask the Ukrainians fighting to keep their freedom as well as the other former Warsaw Pact countries whether we won the Cold war or not.