College essay - Pyrrhus of Epirus

[Kaiser Franz]

well, i finished off my college coursework, and i got an A- for it, so being rather pleased, i want to show you my work!

What can ancient sources tell us of how typical a Greek was Pyrrhus of Eprius?

Pyrrhus of Epirus is perhaps one of the most famous of Alexander the Great’s successors in the west, having been the first of the Greeks to fight against the expanding Roman Republic. Throughout his life Pyrrhus continuously fought and conquered, but at a great cost, it is from his wars against Rome that we get the expression Pyrrhic victory. He embodied many different characteristics in a tactician that were valued by Greeks. Numerous classical writers have given us many sources to look at his deeds. Plutarch, Appian, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Livy and Pausanias all give information on the man who was known by his troops as Pyrrhus the Eagle. But what sort of man was Pyrrhus? Did he follow Greek values well and how much of a good Greek was he? To what extent are sources biased or favourable to him? By looking at the numerous sources and texts available to us, we can look into this and find out the answers to these questions. After Alexander the Great’s death, his many generals after several decades of wars broke up Alexander’s empire and split it between them. The successors were the dynasties started by Alexander’s main generals. Alexander’s mother, Olympias, was an Epirote princess. Pyrrhus by the time of his death had campaigned in many wars and had fought against Greek rivals and also the states of Rome and Carthage. It is also worth mentioning, that it was said that descendants of Achilles supposedly formed his family and dynasty, obviously it is most likely that he was a character based on myth. But, people like Pyrrhus and even Alexander the Great, saw it necessary or even politically convenient to make themselves related to the greatest of all Greek heroes.

The most outstanding of Pyrrhus' features was his military skill and ability. He was known as a great tactician and strategist, and was known to have written memoirs on his tactics. Pausanias was impressed by "the forethought he displayed whenever a contest was imminent" after having read Pyrrhus' Memoirs . This ‘forethought’ could be linked to cunning in some way. In many of his battles he was able to take smaller forces and quickly crush larger ones, not only this, but Plutarch tells us of how Pyrrhus was also able at siege warfare, the main example being the capture of Eryx. Eryx itself is situated in an extremely mountainous area, and it was an easily defendable position. This shows the ability of Pyrrhus as a strategist.
The idea of contest was very important to the Greeks and this shows Pyrrhus to be taking up a core Greek virtue. Pyrrhus' fame as a soldier was well known, the Tarentines looked to him to help them fight the Romans "on equal terms" as Pausanias continues. This comment is an intelligent statement by Pausanias, as he is able to compliment the Romans and Pyrrhus at the same time, therefore being balanced in his writing.
All the writers on him are sure that Pyrrhus was a brilliant commander. As a general, Pyrrhus was an excellent commander, but was well known for personal strength and bravery in battle. He fought with his men and at times came close to death. Plutarch tells us "those who beheld his exploits and engaged him in the battle to esteem him highly and admire his bravery and talk much about him. For they likened his aspect and his swiftness and all his motions to those of the great Alexander, and thought they saw in him shadows, as it were, and intimations of that leader's impetuosity and might in conflicts." Here Plutarch gives an overall positive impression of Pyrrhus. But by describing Pyrrhus’ ‘Impetuosity’, he contradicts Pausanias’ description of Pyrrhus having ‘forefought’. In this respect, Plutarch adds something negative to the character of Pyrrhus.
Pyrrhus regarded warfare as "the most kingly branch of learning", yet he found all else "as mere accomplishments and held them in no esteem." This showcases one of Pyrrhus' major flaws, his inability to look outside of warfare. Plutarch’s Pyrrhus, according to Professor David Braund, is “narrowly militaristic, imperialist and destructively self-centred" and suffers from pleonexia, what is defined as 'the insatiable desire to have what rightfully belongs to others'. Braund seems to be suggesting that Plutarch is overly biased against Pyrrhus, even though Plutarch at times does show Pyrrhus’ good qualities. Appian tells of how Pyrrhus could not find comfort appealing by telling us of when entering Tarentum Pyrrhus "put an end to their revels and other social gatherings and amusements as incompatible with a state of war". Appian agrees with Plutarch’s vision of Pyrrhus and therefore more biased.
Mainly the conclusion from writers like Plutarch and Appian was that Pyrrhus could not stand inactivity and found the prospect of peace boring and undesirable. This could be seen as going against the idea of Sophrosune. Plutarch tells us of how Pyrrhus was asked out of two flute players, who was best, to which he supposedly said that "'Polysperchon was a good general’, implying that it became a king to investigate and understand such matters only." This gives us an idea of what kind of Greek Pyrrhus would have been; the many city-states had different values. The byword for hard living and the military tradition was Sparta.
The Spartans were known for a life strictly utilitarian and devoid of luxuries and non-essential comforts. From the accounts given, Pyrrhus could be seen as conforming to the Spartan style of living. He was a hard man, who saw war as his business and nothing else. According to David Braund Pyrrhus achieved nothing "substantial beyond warfare and, at best, fleeting victories." This is a very negative view of Pyrrhus taken from analysis of Plutarch’s works.

Pyrrhus although a man of the military was an intelligent man and educated, we gather this from many sources that state good use of cunning or strategy. For example to make sure of his general safety to some degree and to confuse the enemy, he would have many of his close companions and bodyguards dress in similar armour and robes to him, which is a good example of Pyrrhus’ cunning.

His view of parenthood is also the same, as when asked who would take the kingdom after he was gone, Plutarch quotes Pyrrhus, "Whichever of you has the sharpest sword". This ends becoming tragic in that the sons of Pyrrhus would "divide the house". This could be seen as him be neglecting the Oikos or possibly the fact that the kingdom should go to the strongest, similar to Alexander’s last words, when asked who would rule his empire; he was reported to have said “the strongest” . It also seems suspicious that Alexander and Pyrrhus sound so alike, this seems like a formulaic characterisation of the military strong man. Plutarch quoting so heavily with this substantial dialogue seems to also give us an idea that this may not even have been said. Plutarch lived in the 1st century AD; some 300 years after Pyrrhus had died.

The fact he was not able to consider non-military aspects of kingship and ruling are apparent in his neglect to keep an effective treasury back in Epirus; some of his troops were very costly mercenaries. In this respect, he is portrayed, very much like his supposed ancestor Achilles, a man of great strength and bravery, but who could not endure leisure. Antigonus II in Plutarch’s Life of Pyrrhus says, "for him generalship was less a matter of arms than of choosing the right time, and that for Pyrrhus there were many roads open to death, if he did not have the leisure to live". Mainly, one of Pyrrhus' main problems was the lack of sophrosune . Antigonus II Gonatas , according to Plutarch, described Pyrrhus as a dice thrower, who made fine throws, but did not know how to use them once made. Describing Pyrrhus as dice thrower goes against Pausanias’ comment on his ‘forethought’ Perhaps Plutarch used Antigonus as an enemy of Pyrrhus to throw light on his main subject. Antigonus in Plutarch’s writings on Pyrrhus seems to have qualities that Pyrrhus could never have and a greater wisdom. From this we could assume that Plutarch is almost turning Pyrrhus into a literary figure and therefore his writings could not be as reliable as we could think.

Pyrrhus also saw the value of diplomacy; he used his intelligent and gifted emissary Cineas to good affect, although Pyrrhus would not always take the good advice of Cineas. As in many Greek legends and tragedies, characters have not taken heed of the wise advice given to them; this could be said to some degree with Pyrrhus. Cineas does see the folly of Pyrrhus' continuous want for glory and power. Cineas to some extent could be compared to the tutor from Greek tragedy, who being wise gives advice to the hero, but it is usually ignored. Good Kings in ancient Greece were meant to take council with their peers, closest advisors and generals. Pyrrhus, being a successor king after Alexander the Great, was more of a dictator than benevolent ruler, much the same with the other successors of Alexander. Cineas is attributed words in Plutarch’s account and generally seems to give moderate and well thought out judgements. This continues to add upon Pyrrhus being almost a literary creation in Plutarch’s work. Professor Braund uses Antigonus II as a comparison with Pyrrhus. Antigonus II is far more successful, as he knows how to live with leisure and be patient. Pyrrhus was more reckless compared to the other commanders and kings of the Hellenistic world, this sometime paid off well for him, but also at times left him greatly disadvantaged. The great losses he suffered after battles with the Romans left us with his most famous quote, "If we are victorious in one more battle with the Romans, we shall be utterly ruined." He said this after the battle of Asculum in 279BC, and this could be seen as an admission of defeat from Pyrrhus and is also quite paradoxical, in being victorious he is in turn defeated. Pyrrhus seemed to back up his claim by moving his attention to the island of Sicily when the peoples of the Greek settlements there offered him power.

Another image of Pyrrhus is that of the hero and defender of Greek freedom against Roman invaders. The Greeks highly emphasised the idea of freedom and liberty. This went as far back as to the Persian wars in which the numerous Persian rulers sought to subjugate the Greeks under their control, but in contrast the Romans exiled their Kings and sought freedom along the same lines. A Tarentine, in Appian's History of Rome, said that "If we wish to defend our liberty stoutly and to fight on equal terms, let us call on Pyrrhus...” This acts as a compliment to both Pyrrhus and the Romans themselves, Appian was Greek, but writing at the time of Trajan and Hadrian and therefore could be forgiven to write to appease Roman readers! This theme of Greek liberty is continued in the works of other writers such as Dionysius of Halicarnassus who says that terms sent by Pyrrhus said to the Romans, "I shall not permit you to make desolate the country of men who are my allies, to plunder Greek cities and sell freemen at auction...in order that you may at last stop pillaging all Italy and treating all men arrogantly as if they were slaves." This shows Pyrrhus not only as the defender of Greek liberty in Italy, but of all of the other oppressed peoples of Italy under the Roman yoke. Dionysius’ main goal while writing his histories was to reconcile the Greek and their new Roman rulers by dilating upon the good qualities of the Romans . But it is unclear as to how committed he was to the Italian peoples such as the Samnites; he could well have just used the idea of freedom as an ends to a means. Yet, for all this, as Appian said, Pyrrhus closed all of the institutions such as theatres etc as they did not follow with his idea of war. He ordered "the citizens severe military exercises, under penalty of death if they disobeyed." Of course, this shows that he may not have been as committed to liberty and freedom as described by Dionysius. Also this could be seen as imposing his own slavery, or perhaps this could show he thought liberty must be fought for. After all, why fight for someone else’s freedom if they are not prepared to do so?

Robin Lane Fox states "for three years he showed no more commitment to real freedom than any true Hellenistic King and failed in his hopes. " Fox is not as generally negative to Pyrrhus.
Justin , in his Epitome of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus, described Pyrrhus as "of great assistance to whatsoever side he attached himself," this makes him out to be more of a mercenary than of a king fighting for freedom, Justin continues to say ”and who, while he desired to spoil them, one by one, sought the favour of all." This continues to work upon David Braunds theory of Pyrrhus' pleonexia, his greed. He is seen to be out for his own gain, and the fact that throughout his life he took many risks and started many ventures that in the end were futile. He fought many campaigns in Macedon, Sicily and Italy in order to make massive gains and expand his kingdom but in the end, his inability to stick to one aim or goal ended with him becoming tired of some ventures and going off to find better ones that seemed easier in the short term. Justin talks of how Pyrrhus hoped "of making himself master of Italy" and he describes Pyrrhus' actions in Italy as an "enterprise", almost likening it to a business venture, but this also makes it sound tentative like an experiment of sorts.

One important factor in being a good Greek was that of being pious. Pyrrhus, from many accounts was very devout. Pausanias tells us that Pyrrhus had armour dedicated "in the sanctuary of Itonian Athena...with this inscription on them: Pyrrhus the Molossian hung these shields taken from the bold Gaul’s as a gift to Itonian Athena". This shows that Pyrrhus, a good Greek was fighting against barbarian Hubris. This was a major theme of the time, reducing the mighty and is shown greatly in Greek tragedy. As well as this, he gave Macedonian bucklers to Dodonian Zeus with this inscription: "These once ravaged golden Asia, and brought slavery upon the Greeks. Now ownerless they lie by the pillars of the temple of Zeus, spoils of boastful Macedonia." Pausanias himself was a traveller and wrote an extensive guide to Greece, he therefore must have seen these trophies and can be trusted with this description of Pyrrhus. The fact that Pyrrhus made such great offerings to the gods shows us that he was greatly religious. By doing this; he can be seen as upholding Greek values and therefore be seen as a good Greek. However this could be seen as self-aggrandisement as all Greeks who went to see the temples would see his trophies.

Not only this, but it was said by Plutarch that "People of a splenetic habit believed that he cured their ailment" and that "the great toe of his right foot had a divine virtue". This gives another view on the religious aspect of Pyrrhus, not only was he a man of great piety and respect for the gods, but he also, according to some, possessed some divine powers! But having said this, could Plutarch be mocking Pyrrhus? Or could Plutarch be mocking Pyrrhus’ followers, the Romans were not as superstitious about their leaders as the Greeks, and this could Plutarch’s way of accounting for Pyrrhus’ evident charisma, as he could clearly attract support, which in itself is a positive comment.

As for Pyrrhus’ supposed great ancestor, Achilles, he was the perfect warrior, the greatest of the Homeric heroes who defeated the Trojans. Pausanias writes of how Pyrrhus “was a descendant of Achilles making war upon a colony of Trojans”. This example shows how important Achilles was, to people such as Alexander the Great. Pyrrhus coming from the mythical house of Molossis, the dynasty supposedly started by Molossus, the grandson of Achilles gave Pyrrhus some great propaganda images. Some Epirot coins show Thetis, the mother of Achilles, which shows the extent the Kings of Epirus to be associated with Achilles. Not only that, but almost all writers, from Plutarch to Appian all include the fact he was ‘descended’ from Achilles.

Plutarch describes the death of Pyrrhus. While attacking Argos Pyrrhus was concussed by a roof tile thrown by a grieving mother of a soldier killed in battle, while unconscious an enemy soldier cut off Pyrrhus’ head. Although Plutarch states that the soldier, Zopyrus, became frightened as “Pyrrhus gave him a terrible look”. This almost makes Pyrrhus into a monster, similar to the Gorgons of myth. But still, the circumstances of his death are almost amusing, concussed by a roof tile thrown by a woman and then decapitated. This sounds as if Pyrrhus was a victim of his own incessant warfare. Once again, Plutarch’s account seems to make Pyrrhus into a literary character, beyond a normal or historical figure.

Overall many sources seem to take a fairly negative view of Pyrrhus, and this is probably because of the fact that many of the writers were Roman or writing under Roman rule. The victors usually write the history, and this is no different. Plutarch makes Pyrrhus out almost to be a negative literary character, almost mocking him in places. Appian too is negative showing Pyrrhus’ bad Xenia when he arrives in Tarentum. Alongside them Dionysius of Halicarnassus’ account shows Pyrrhus in a negative light, like Pyrrhus being arrogant. Although Dionysius’ work seems to have a substantial ammount of dialogue and not being of the same period as Pyrrhus, it could well be that Dionysius is taking liberties and making Pyrrhus a literary character, similar to Plutarch’s Pyrrhus. Justin’s Pyrrhus is shown as a greedy and dishonest man, which is against the core Greek value of moderation. Having said this, Justin’s account was an Epitome of a work by Pompeius Trogus who lived at the time of Julius Caesar and could therefore be forgiven for giving a biased view. All of these writers were not only Romans, Plutarch and Dionysius were both Greeks and would be expected to be sympathetic to Pyrrhus being a fellow Greek. Given these sources, could Pyrrhus have been this inept, arrogant and a poor example of Greek values despite all of the things he achieved? He was a brave and strong warrior and was not afraid to fight alongside his men and at times came close to death. He had proved himself a brilliant tactician and strategist, beating well organized and disciplined armies and well defended citadels. Pyrrhus also showed valour and great piety, in this respect Pyrrhus was in some ways a good Greek. Pausanias seems to be a favourable source with more backing evidence. Pausanias was a keen traveller and wrote his travels in his ‘Description of Greece’, he had seen the evidence of the offerings made by Pyrrhus first hand and had probably noted the stories from all over Greece relating to him. On how good or bad a Greek Pyrrhus was depends on which source you look at, some are overly biased and pro-Roman and give him negative traits and un-Greek attitudes. Others are more balanced and sometimes generally sympathetic to Pyrrhus and give him overly positive traits and make him a good example of being good Greek, Pausanias’ account is the best description of this.

[motiv-8]

Care to adjoin your bibliography?

[Kaiser Franz]

i'll try, i left a copy at college, so when i can, i'll copy it and type it up. although i didnt use much