The Influence of Pyrrhus on Rome

It has often been said that the early Roman Republic's wars of imperialism were won, not by skill, but by sheer manpower and luck. Never is this more eminent than during the years when Pyrrhus came to the defense of Tarentum and waged war on Rome.[1] While the war with Pyrrhus was never actually considered to be a major war of imperialism, it helped to portray how Rome would set about conquering Italy and the Mediterranean world in the years to come.

However, before one can see how Pyrrhus became a threat to Rome it is necessary to understand the political situation of the time. During the two hundred years prior to Pyrrhus's attempted conquest of Rome, what is now termed the struggle for orders raged on within Rome. The Roman patricians, those of noble birth, were forced to give concessions to the Plebeians in order to maintain their aristocracy. The concessions included new laws such as the Lex Canuleia. This law was vastly important to the survival of the Roman Republic during the wars of imperialism. It allowed for the number of patricians to grow by making it legal for patricians and plebeians to intermarry. This helped out the patricians because at this time in Roman history, the patrician families were poor and in everything but name and land. This was a means for them to get back some of their money and keep their honored names from dying out.[2]

When the struggle for the orders finally ended in 287 BC, a new nobility had been created that consisted of those who are descended from a consul. Another concession during the struggle allowed for plebeians to become consul, this was termed becoming a novus homo, meaning "new man", and thus expand the nobility. Nevertheless it was tremendously difficult to become a novus homo. It became a very rare honor. With the nobility entrenched, the power lay within the senate. It contained three hundred lifetime members of ex-magistrates that controlled foreign affairs, public spending, and the appointment of governors and military commanders.

Another important fact to mention about the Roman nobility is the path to consul. A Roman citizen must ascend the cursus honorum, the course of honors or ladder of offices, in order to become consul. The quickest way to accomplish this was through successful military campaigns. This led to a desire for military commands and certain warmongering that neighboring city-states lacked and feared.

The encroachment of Roman colonies on the Tarentum, a city-state of southern Italy, led to conflict. The city of Tarentum believed that Rome had violated an ancient treaty "when a small Roman fleet appeared in the Tarantine gulf."[3] Tarentum responded by attacking the fleet and rejecting senatorial emissaries that came to protest these actions. Tarentum was a city ruled by mobs and demagogues that lacked strong military leadership, and as a result, much like it had in the past, Tarentum turned to a Greek general to fight the coming war with Rome. They called upon Pyrrhus of Epirus, a distant descendent of Alexander the Great, to lead them against the Romans. [4]

At this stage of Pyrrhus's life, he was widely regarded as the greatest general of his time. He had won great honor in the east with his military exploits. He was looked upon both as an excellent general and as a valiant soldier. There are countless accounts in Plutarch's Life of Pyrrhus that detail his extraordinary courage and strength. His fame had spread to Italy, and there was no better choice to lead the armies of Tarentum. Plutarch wrote that "the other kings...represented Alexander with their purple robes, their body-guards, the inclination of their necks, and their louder tones in conversation; but Pyrrhus, and Pyrrhus alone, in arms and action."[5] Antigonus, a contemporary of

Pyrrhus, stated that Pyrrhus was the greatest of his time. But, to add more even more renown there is even a quote from Hannibal that Plutarch mentions in his Life of Pyrrhus that says, of all generals, Pyrrhus was one of the three greatest of all time.

The fact that his fame had spread beyond Greece to Tarentum speaks of his stature as a military general. His only fault seemed to be his inability to maintain what he had conquered. During the entire span of his life, he managed to conquer Sicily, parts of Greece, and Macedonia multiple times. Before coming to Italy in 290 BC, he had already conquered and lost Macedonia once and won many battles against his contemporary Greeks.

Before Pyrrhus left for Tarentum though, he entertained a very interesting conversation with Cineas, a former pupil of Demosthenes. Cineas was often consulted by Pyrrhus in important matters, and on this occasion Cineas asked Pyrrhus what he thought of the invitation to fight for Tarentum against Rome. Pyrrhus, always the ambitious commander said that he wished to conquer Rome and then Italy, followed by Sicily and Carthage. He would create an empire in the west. This would be seen as a great accomplishment, because not even Alexander had conquered the west. But, Cineas responded to him and asked him what course he would pursue next. Pyrrhus responded that all that needed to be conquered would have been conquered and they could relax and enjoy themselves with drinks and be merry. Then Cineas stated the oxymoronic nature of by saying to Pyrrhus, "We have [that already] at hand, without taking any trouble, those great toils and peril, after doing much harm to others and suffering much ourselves."[6]

Pyrrhus was troubled by these words, but his ambition for glory got the better of him and he set sail for Italy with an army of mercenaries. This was to be Rome's first real test of military might. Never before had Rome engaged in war against trained professionals, whose sole occupation was war. The army consisted of around 20,000 foot soldiers, some cavalry forces, and 20 elephants. Laevinus, a Roman consul, with an army of comparable size, if not larger, set out to meet Pyrrhus and battle commenced in the summer of 280 BC near Heraclea. The purpose of the elephant was to deter the Roman cavalry, because horses feared the charging elephants and turned tail. This in turn, allowed for the stalemate of the infantry to be broken by Pyrrhus's cavalry wreaking havoc upon the legions of Rome. In the battle, lower estimates say that Laevinus lost more than 7,000 soldiers on this day, while Pyrrhus sustained losses of only around 4,000. These numbers are of course up for debate as many historians of the period give different accounts of the dead.[7]

With this victory, Pyrrhus began his march on Rome, but stopped short and decided to wait and send an envoy to Rome. Caius Fabricius, a prominent senator of Rome, had stated that the Roman defeat was simply due to its commander and Rome had not been conquered. Pyrrhus had in effect conquered Laevinus, not Rome. Much to the dismay of Pyrrhus Rome had already refilled its depleted legions with new soldiers, and thus, Cineas was sent as the diplomat to Rome. Cineas, being the excellent public speaker that he was, spun tales of peace in Italy and gifts for Rome. He offered on behalf of Pyrrhus to return all the captured soldiers without ransom and to help Rome in the "subjugation of Italy, and in return for these favours asked only friendship for himself, immunity for the Tarentines, and nothing else."[8] Many senators of Rome were tempted by this proposal for peace fearing a larger battle to come now that many of the Italian states had joined Pyrrhus.

But an elderly senator by the name of Appius Cladius spoke out against the Roman senators who feared defeat from Pyrrhus. He cried out wishing for blindness and deafness so he would not be able to see or hear these men who called themselves Romans. He appealed to them saying, even if Alexander himself had come to Italy, then the Romans would stand against him. Pyrrhus's actions could not go unpunished. Thus, Cineas was sent back to Pyrrhus to report that only if Pyrrhus was to depart Italy could negotiations for peace occur. Rome would not negotiate with an enemy upon her own soil.[9]

Upon telling Pyrrhus of what transpired in Rome, he made comments upon the senate that would help shed light on the real nature of politics in Rome. In theory, Rome was a republic, but in actuality it functioned much more as an oligarchy. He called the entity of the senate, "a council of many kings."[10] He was impressed by its regal nature, but even more by the people of Rome.

He feared the Roman people would be like a "Lernaean hydra,"[11] a multi-headed beast that when one head was cut off more would grow. He saw that the consul had already raised an army twice the size of the previous one, and still there seemed to be a multitude of people within Rome that could bear arms. This would become one of the most important factors leading to the Roman conquest of the Mediterranean world in the years to come.

With an army of over 40,000 men, the Romans marched on Pyrrhus the following year and met him near Asculum. On the first day of fighting the terrain prevented Pyrrhus from using both his cavalry and elephants and the battle was fought to a stalemate. However, on the second day, Pyrrhus maneuvered his elephants in a way that allowed him to defeat the Romans despite their gallantry upon the field of combat. Plutarch writes that Pyrrhus told a man who praised his victory, "If we are victorious in one more battle with Romans, we shall be utterly ruined."[12] In some accounts it is written that over 15,000 soldiers died on each side in this battle.

That many losses seriously hindered Pyrrhus's ability to maintain his campaign against Rome. He was running out of Greek mercenaries and the Italian states he was fighting for were beginning to care less and less for the war. Further, the meager amounts of soldiers and their inept quality provided by the Italian states he was leading in battle hindered his ability to wage an effective war against Rome.[13]

Pyrrhus had proven over the years that he should not be left in charge of conquests. He had repeatedly conquered lands and then left to fight for more glory, while his lands were taken back by his other Greek enemies. His resolve in the battle for Rome wavered now too. A call came from Sicily for aid against the Carthaginians who had laid siege to the cities of Arigentum, Syracuse, and Leotini. So, seeking glory Pyrrhus left Tarentum and traveled to Sicily with his army to take on the Carthaginians.[14]

The cities of Sicily welcomed him as a hero as he marched through winning battles left and right. He instantly felt he had made the right choice in coming to Sicily as surely this would cause his fame to grow ever more and be a step towards an empire in the west. When the Carthaginians offered him peace, "He replied to them (his heart being intent upon greater things) that there could be no friendship...unless they abandoned all Sicily."[15] This is reminiscent of the request the Romans made for Pyrrhus about Pyrrhus leaving Italy.

But, Pyrrhus changed his mind when he thought of the glory that would be his if he could only conquer Libya and within it Carthage. So, Pyrrhus made the Sicilians help him build a Navy, but in the process was much too harsh and treated the people of Sicily as slaves. So over the course of the year he changed in the eyes of the people from being a war hero to tyrant and all the cities of Sicily began to rise up against him. At this point in time, he realized his war with Carthage would never occur. Now, wishing to leave Sicily without the pretext of turning tail, he caught a break when Tarentum once again called for his help. So, he saw his opportunity to get out of the mess he had failed to govern in Italy and he left. Plutarch tells of how he looked back from his ship and remarks, "My friends, what a wrestling ground for Carthaginians and Romans we are leaving behind us!"[16]

Upon returning to Italy, Pyrrhus immediately assumed command and began his campaign for Rome again. However, this time around he faced many more issues. Since his departure to Sicily a sense of resentment had grown for Pyrrhus, because the Tarentines and their Italian allies had suffered defeat upon defeat since his departure. Not only did this lead to fewer recruits for Pyrrhus's army, but also a sense of demoralization within the ranks. His once proud army had been reduced to little more than unhappy conscripts.[17]

Still, despite all the issues with his army Pyrrhus was fine military commander and desired greatly to fight and add glory to his name. Rome, having the endless flow of soldiers at this time had two armies ready to meet Pyrrhus, each led by a consul. So, Pyrrhus faced an issue. He could not do battle with one for fear of the other coming to its aid and being outflanked. So, he decides to take the risky move and sends one half of his army against one consul and leads the other half near to city of Beventum where the other army was camped, waiting for the other consul to meet up with it. Pyrrhus's plan was to set out and attack at night, but due to the "densely wooded country, his lights did not hold out, and his soldiers lost their way and straggled."[18]

As a result, the next day he was forced to march upon the Romans in broad daylight, and Manius, the consul, was able to rouse his men. The Romans stood against the armies of Pyrrhus steadfastly until the elephants overwhelmed them, but Manius roused the guards, which charged the elephants with javelins. Consequently, the elephants, frightened as they were, turned and "[ran] back through the ranks of their own men, thus causing disorder and confusion there."[19] With this turn of tides, the Romans won the battle and secured their supremacy over Italy as Pyrrhus left for good in 275 BC. By 265 BC, "Rome was in firm control of all Italy south of the Po valley."[20]

With Italy secured, Rome would be able to wage her wars of imperialism over the next two hundred years. While Pyrrhus himself may have only influenced Rome in a small way, his encounter with the Romans foreshadows the years to come. Rome has emerged as a military power, although not yet due to the skill of its commanders, but rather from its seemingly limitless population. Further, Rome never needs to fear, like Pyrrhus, attaining what will become known as a Pyrrhic victory. A victory of this fashion occurs when the losses are so great on the winning general's side that in essence there is no resolve, because the surviving army is in effect crippled

The next point that the war with Pyrrhus illustrates is the staunch pride felt by Romans. When Cineas is in the senate giving messages of peace, Roman fama and dignitas come out in the form of Appius Cladius's arguments for war against a general who no one believes they can beat. He is appealing to the dignity and honor of Romans that no Roman should ever let a foreign king dictate terms. The situation with Pyrrhus is most similar to that of Hannibal during the Second Punic War, while Hannibal rampages up and down Italy. Even when there an enemy exists that at the moment cannot be defeated, Rome will not surrender.

With that idea entrenched within the senate it becomes necessary to again mention Cineas's description of the senate as an assembly of kings. This is an excellent reference in a primary source nonetheless as to how the famous Roman Republic in fact functioned much more like an oligarchy. And, the most important prerequisite to climbing of the cursus honorum or in essence the path to power is the necessity of successful military command. It was very rare for Roman citizens to attain high offices, without winning honor upon the battlefield. As a result, there were many ambitious Romans seeking to win honor as generals. Coupling this fact with the almost limitless supply of Roman soldiers, it is no wonder that the war with Pyrrhus ushered the Romans into a whole new age of imperialism.

Bibliography

Boren, Henry C. The Roman Republic. New Jersey: D. Van Norstrand Company, Inc, 1965.

Crawford, Michael. The Roman Republic. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1992.

David, Jean-Michel. The Roman Conquest of Italy. Trans. By Antonia Nevill. Malden: Blackwell Publishers Inc, 1997.

Harris, William V. War and Imperials in Republican Rome: 327-70 B.C. New York: Oxford University Press, 1979.

Plutarch. Roman Lives IX: Demetrius and Antony, Pyrrhus and Gaius Marius. Trans. By Bernadotte Perrin. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1920.

Robinson, Cyril E. A History of the Roman Republic. New York: Barnes and Noble Inc, 1932.

[1] William V. Harris. War and Imperialism in Republican Rome. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1979), 107.

[2] Henry C. Boren. The Roman Republic. (New Jersey: D. Van Norstrand Company Inc, 1965), 22-24.

[3] Boren. The Roman Republic, 28.

[4] Cyril E. Robinson. A History of the Roman Republic. (New York: Barnes and Noble Inc, 1932), 75-6.

[5] Plutarch. Roman Lives IX. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1920), 367.

[6] Plutarch. Roman Lives IX, 389.

[7] Plutarch. Roman Lives IX, 401.

[8] Plutarch. Roman Lives IX, 403.

[9] Plutarch. Roman Lives IX, 405-7.

[10] Plutarch. Roman Lives IX, 407.

[11] Plutarch. Roman Lives IX, 407.

[12] Plutarch. Roman Lives IX, 417.

[13] Robinson. A History of the Roman Republic, 78.

[14] Plutarch. Roman Lives IX, 415-9.

[15] Plutarch. Roman Lives IX, 421.

[16] Plutarch. Roman Lives IX, 425.

[17] Plutarch. Roman Lives IX , 427.

[18] Plutarch. Roman Lives IX, 429.

[19] Plutarch. Roman Lives IX, 429.

[20] Boren. The Roman Republic, 29.