280 BC and Rome stands at a critical moment in its conquest of Southern Italy and establishing itself as the newest major player in the known world. But standing in its way I’d argue was one of the greatest generals of the Classical Era. A man whose celebrity status in antiquity would have been up there with Alexander, Caesar and Marius. Yet it seems to me modern day historians and presenters have unfairly sidestepped his story.

His name was Pyrrhus, viewed by Hannibal as one of the greatest commanders the world has ever seen, second only to Alexander the Great. It was his campaign against Rome that almost changed the shape of history and the Classical Period as we know it.

Background: A world post-Alexander

The Classical World of 280 BC was one of autocratic warlord Kings. Alexander the Great had died almost half a century before and his former generals had divided up his Empire into their own personal kingdoms. War and competition between these new ‘Successor Kingdoms’ naturally ensued.

The zenith of Classical Greece with Athenian Democracy and Spartan military might had long disappeared. What emerged in its place was desire; the autocratic desire of powerful individuals to become a new Alexander, gaining fame through conquest, victory, power and glory. Pyrrhus was no exception.

A second cousin of the infamous Macedonian, Alexander, and descending from the famed Molossian dynasty, Pyrrhus had the name and the nobility to put himself on the world stage. By 280 BC, he had gained the traits of an outstandingly courageous fighter in battle. Not only had he proven he could fight, but he had also shown himself a sound tactician and politician; all markings of a remarkable Hellenistic King.

Despite being sometimes brutal – such as having his co-ruler murdered – overall he had a good reputation. He had proven that he could fight, negotiate and rule and had put the Kingdom of Epirus – nowadays the area bordering Albania and North West Greece – on the map.

Having expanded his reputation with recent campaigns in Macedonia, yet not achieving much material gain, in 280 BC Pyrrhus would have been eagerly waiting to show what he could do to the rest of the Greek world. That opportunity came but it did not come from the east, but the west: Rome.

A new player

To the west, Rome then was not the Imperial Rome we think of today – stretching from southern Scotland to Jerusalem with mad dictatorial Emperors and lavish palaces. In 280 BC, Rome was a small Republic in central Italy. Its rise over the next 200 years however, would be unprecedented. But even in 280 BC, the ambition of this growing city was visible.

Having become the dominant power in central Italy, Rome looked south to the rich, cultured and civilised Greek cities: The gateway to Greece and beyond. No more so was there such a city as Tarentum. It was in 282 BC, that things between this Greek Jewel and Rome came to a head.

Following an apparent break of a treaty, the Tarentines destroyed Roman ships stationed in their harbour. They did not stop there however. They then forced their fellow Greek cities in Southern Italy to remove any pro-Roman allegiance they may have had. In response, the Romans invaded Southern Italy and Tarentum sent a plea to the Greek World for aid. This was the prime opportunity for that one man across the sea to show what he could do. (info from Appian; Samnite History, here).

Problems with the Pyrrhic War

For an overview of the Pyrrhic War in depth I would really recommend you read Plutarch’s Life of Pyrrhus. Take care to read it with an extremely open mind however. Why an open mind? Because, although we do have a few ancient sources surviving which tell us about the war, most are from a Roman perspective; either from a Roman themselves or a Greek (like Plutarch) writing much later during the Roman period. The saying ‘History is written by the winners’ very much rings true in this case.

Thus, pro-Roman bias is very likely in almost all the ancient sources we have. If you read Plutarch’s biography of Pyrrhus, just see how nobly he portrays certain Romans! A very interesting article by Mary Lefkowitz convincingly highlights this problem and I will put a link to the article at the bottom of this post.

Despite a multitude of sources telling us about the Pyrrhic War, conclusive bias and disagreements over how the war enfolded, means this is a very difficult campaign to write about with complete accuracy. Lefkowitz goes as far to say, ‘No sure reconstruction is possible… we will never know exactly what happened.’ (‘Pyrrhus’ Negotiations with the Romans, 280-278BC,’ 1959, 153)

Pyrrhus in Italy

Now I’ve been keeping you waiting long enough, so now onto why an alternate outcome to this campaign could drastically have changed history as we know it. Yes, you could argue the possibilities are endless (within reason), but that’s what makes counterfactual history so great! You can go wild and so long as you have logical reasoning, it surely could have happened.

Pyrrhus fought three battles against the Romans. Although the first he won decisively at Heraclea in 280 BC, the second was by far his most famous victory at Ausculum the following year. Sadly, it was for all the wrong reasons.

Ever heard the term ‘Pyrrhic Victory?’ – where you win the battle but at too great a cost for it to be worthwhile. This is what happened at Ausculum (Pyrrhus, in the process, getting this type of costly victory named after him). The final battle then occurred four years later in 275BC at Beneventum, where, the Romans soundly defeated Pyrrhus and his allies. Rome had won the war. A map with all the key locations of the Pyrrhic War can be found here.

A similar tale to most Roman campaigns then wouldn’t you think? Initial success for the opponent, but eventually Rome comes through and soundly beats its enemy (take Boudicca’s revolt for instance). What is forgotten is the period between the first two battles at Heraclea and Asculum.

The time when I’d argue (although Roman sources refute this) Pyrrhus was in a position of great strength against the Romans. This was when the speech of one elderly Roman senator foiled Pyrrhus from everlasting fame and victory. Likewise, it was this speech that kept Rome on track to becoming the next great superpower in the Classical World.

The negotiations

Following Heraclea, all sources tend to agree that Pyrrhus’ best negotiator and friend Cineas was sent to Rome with terms of peace for the Romans (For example see Plutarch’s Pyrrh. 18). We do not know exactly what the peace terms were that Pyrrhus proposed; there is simply too much disagreement among our surviving sources. All sources agree however, that the Romans were very close to accepting them.

Personally I agree with Lefkowitz (158-9), that the terms were most likely quite harsh. These terms are shown in Appian (App. Sam. 10.3), stating that the Romans had to recognise the independence of Pyrrhus’ allied Greek cities in Southern Italy. Furthermore, the terms would forbid Rome from ever declaring war on these cities again. The terms may also have included demanding tribute from Rome, that tribute being either in troops or money.

We know from Plutarch (Pyrrh. 14) that Pyrrhus’ ambitions stretched further than just mainland Italy; further west to Sicily, Carthage and then head back east to Macedon and Greece. A demand for tribute to aid his future campaigns therefore does not seem a huge unlikelihood to me.

The reason why such harsh terms were likely? Pyrrhus had decisively won the previous encounter at Heraclea and soon afterwards came very close to Rome itself; 300 stades (54km) according to Plutarch (17.4), bringing with him also a replenished army from various cities in Southern Italy. These cities, seeing the victory of this Epirote, had now rushed to his cause. It seems to me that following Heraclea, Pyrrhus controlled all the cards. Whatever the peace terms, all sources agree that the Romans nearly accepted them.

The Roman Churchill

But in the end the Romans did not accept the terms. Why? Referred to in all sources and a powerful Roman anecdote for centuries to come, the speech of an elderly, blind, but respected senator, Appius Claudius. Sources differ in how much detail they portray the speech but as I’ve been mainly using him I’d suggest Plutarch’s version at Pyrrh. 18-19.

This Appius usually did not even go to the senate house for debates but stayed at home due to his old age. He made this exception, however, because of the seriousness of the situation and his complete opposition to accepting the terms.

The gist of the speech is that he is ashamed that the Romans could even consider submitting to Pyrrhus, a man he viewed only as an Alexander wannabe. It was this speech that apparently caused the Romans to change their mind, reject the terms and keep fighting.

If you were looking for a more modern comparison, try 1940. It was Churchill’s speech to his cabinet that ensured Great Britain kept fighting against Nazi Germany. This is despite calls from some senior figures, including the then Foreign Secretary, Viscount Halifax, to sue for peace. Both Churchill’s and Appius Claudius’ impassioned speeches in this respect I see as very similar. They ensured that the nation on the back foot did not submit. Both in turn would then overcome the odds against them.

Indeed what would follow after Appius’ speech was a complete change in fortune for the Romans. Too big a cost at Ausculum the following year and then a clear defeat at Beneventum in 275 BC left Pyrrhus’ campaign in tatters. The Romans meanwhile, were now clear to occupy Southern Italy.

What if?

It’s amazing to think what would have happened if Appius Claudius had not come ‘out of retirement’ that day. What if he had not made that passionate speech? Ancient Sources, especially the ones from a Roman perspective, big up the virtues of this elderly senator; his heroic reputation, rhetoric and patriotism for Rome. I’d argue therefore that without such a role model figure being at the senate house that day, the whole of the Classical World as we know it would be different. Perhaps Rome would have accepted the peace terms, what then?

Possibly that would have meant the end of any aspirations of Roman expansion east, at least in the short term. Any chance of a Roman conquest of the Greek World would then have also become much less likely. Furthermore, 280 BC was a time of autocratic Hellenistic powers in the central Mediterranean.

The Roman Republic idea may well, therefore, have died very quickly. Seeing as Rome could not expand southwards and conquer these Greek cities, it is possible that these same cities could have influenced Rome overtime to change its ideology. An oligarchy or even an autocracy seem most likely.

Rome had been ever influenced by the Greek colonies since they settled in the 7th Century BC. What is there to argue that with an Epirote Empire protecting them, they wouldn’t continue doing so after 280 BC in this alternate reality?

An Epirote empire?

Rather than a Roman Empire therefore, we may well have been learning about the Epirote Empire of Pyrrhus. Pyrrhus’ ambitions lay beyond just Italy; to Sicily, Carthage, Macedon and Greece. The conquering of Rome would have increased his reputation and allowed him to recruit more soldiers from Italy.

Having this new power, Pyrrhus could well have found it possible to conduct a very prosperous campaign in Sicily against his next foe: Carthage. With Rome defeated, a second Alexander could well have risen, be that Pyrrhus or another Greek general.

Gladiatorial Games, the Roman Legionary, Virgil’s Aeneid, tales of legendary men such as Augustus, Cicero or Livy; all these things could well have never existed if Pyrrhus had quelled Roman power in his campaign. Instead, perhaps we would have been learning about a Greek-cultured Rome, famed for its love of theatre and drama?

Conclusion

The possibilities are fruitful and endless. It is amazing to think how different a Classical world we may have been learning about today if Appius Claudius, the Roman Churchill, had not spoken at the senate house that day in 280 BC.

Enjoy the article? Please leave a like! It’s only one click.

Notes, links and related reading

Subscribe below to keep up to date with regular new content!

You can access Jstor here.

Mary R. Lefkowitz, ‘Pyrrhus’ Negotiations with the Romans, 280-278BC,’ Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, Vol. 64, 1959, 147-177.

Online translation of Plutarch’s Life of Pyrrhus can be found here.

Online translation of Appian can be found here.

Author: Tristan Hughes Twitter Facebook

Did you enjoy this article? Signup today and receive free updates straight in your inbox. We will never share or sell your email address. I agree to have my personal information transfered to MailChimp ( I agree to have my personal information transfered to MailChimp ( more information

Share this: Tweet





WhatsApp



Like this: Like Loading...