Talk:Pyrrhus of Epirus

message: :Greece as a term was not invented at the time and each kingdom was attacking the other.Epirus was an independent state/nation with a clear Epirotan identity.Let us stick to history and leave politics aside.The first Greek state was a brittish invention of the 19th century romantics.--70.48.117.59 (talk) 17:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Proof. Do you have a proof? Of course no. Dont make false claims with your anti-Greek POV. Even the Romans could laugh at you as your statement returns back as boomerang: If the Epirots were not "Hellenes", then how comes they helped small colonies here, which along with the colonies made by other Greek City-States, on the other side of the Ionian Sea, in the Italian Peninsula, were known as Hellenic and the land as Magna Grecia? But you know that already, right? --85.75.159.93 (talk) 00:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

text: I don't see why this still exists as a statement. Greek states are characterized by their language and their culture, the ethnic consciousness of their people. Today Greece and Cyprus are both Greek states even though only one of them holds the name "Greece". That's how it was during ancient times as well when the Greek people were divided. I find the characterization of a Greek state being "invented" very offensive and simply wrong. If you knew what "Epirus" means in ancient Greek I bet you wouldn't be speaking against every credible historian to have existed. Anyway that's what I had to say. TheAnonymousCoward (talk) 13:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

text: Jesus... Remon Kewl13 (talk) 09:23, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

text: The tribes of Epirus were called barbars by hellens, why so? Beavuse they spoke a different language. Epirus had a different governing system from all hellinic states, why so? Women in Epirus were active in the governing affairs and had the possibility to become Queens, a thing that in hellenic states was forbidden, in Illyrian states that was a very common thing 2A02:810D:BE40:514:6DAF:E9D1:EF0B:4430 (talk) 00:24, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: What Greece are we talking about? 

message: I have heard the order of Hannibal's greatest generals as Pyrrhus first, Alexander second, and I have heard it from other sources as the reverse. Can anyone confirm from the original Livy quote which way around it was?
:According to Plutarch, Hannibal considered Pyrrhus the most skilled general, followed by Scipio and then himself: "Hannibal of all great commanders esteemed Pyrrhus for skill and conduct the first, Scipio the second, and himself the third."
According to Plutarch (Flamininus 21.3-4) the following exchange took place between Scipio Africanus and Hannibal following the Battle of Zama: "When they fell to discussing generals and Hannibal declared Alexander to have been the mightiest of generals, and next to him Pyrrhus, and third himself, Scipio asked with a quiet smile, 'and what would you have said if I had not conquered you?' To which Hannibal replied, 'In that case, Scipio, I should not have counted myself third, but first of generals'." 
Thus according to Hannibal, first Alexander, second Pyrrhus, third himself. 82.44.82.167 (talk) 16:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I know this is from 10 years ago. But what would be the difference between abilities and might? I'm pretty sure this is some legendary saying mish-mash Plutarch is recording in two different places. Putting Pyrrhus ahead of anyone doesn't even make sense as Hannibal came much closer to defeating Rome, and Scipio defeated Hannibal so Pyrrhus' inclusion has to be because of the recent memory of the people, perhaps the Romans wanting to put a defeated general who didn't come close to much (but must've scared them), Pyrrhus, above Hannibal who continued to frighten them for generations. The actual Hannibal could've never put Pyrrhus above himself if he was willing to place himself above Alexander merely for defeating Scipio! (among other examples of vanity) Goes to show that the Romans placed this in Hannibal's mouth, or corrupted an actual saying; as who else would think of the Romans as such a formidable power to rank higher than Alexander's conquests? Certainly not Hannibal who nearly brought them to their knees. The fact that in one of the versions Pyrrhus is named first should show us that probably the original, if there was one, had the following order: Alexander, Scipio, himself, and if he'd defeated Scipio, higher than Alexander (which is a bit illogical, but makes sense with Hannibal's character). Not much later some Roman decided to throw Pyrrhus into the mix to shame Hannibal. Cornelius (talk) 17:37, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Greatest General

message: Its really tragic that some people are triggered by clear nationalism. And the worst, they wanna add their unreliable comments in an encyclopedia. Ploutarch is one of the most reliable and neutral sources of antiquity, his biographies are renowned. 
Perhaps the one that claims the opposite has not even read a single setence about his work. Why dont read first the related sources before extracting unreliable critics and statements? 
Second, why Rolf Winkes is unreliable source too? 
Ok. lets hear the sources that say that Pyrrhos isn't Greek? Some books of Hojxa regime maybe? 
Perhaps someone is afraid to point out his own view and just puts npov labels, without opposing anything!
I will report that sure. An encyclopedia of the 21th century considers Ploutarch an unrelable rource? If this is heard in a literature department in a University, it will make the entire community to lauph...Alexikoua (talk) 22:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you, I too find the references unreliable. I can't either see those pages of that book anywhere, therefore the article is not fully verifiable.--EmpD++ (talk) 19:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

text: You must be confusing me with someone else.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by EmpD++ (talk • contribs) 15:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Unreliable

message: There they claim Pyrrhus was an Illyrian and the same for the Molossians. It would be funny if it weren't so sad.Xenovatis (talk) 19:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh well...! Who reads it anyway??--Michael X the White (talk) 19:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Every day more people read it. --sulmues (talk)  01:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've posted some stuff from Britannica which, surprise surprise, seems to indicate rather conclusively that Pyrrhus and the Molossians were Greek even if they were not entirely accepted as such in the 5th c. BCE, they certainly were by the 3rd c. BCE. I have named the refs BritA (Pyrrhus) and BritB (Epirus). Please feel free to add them where you think is appropriate. I don't really care enough for this historical era to go through all of it myself. I just read the albanian wiki articles and wanted to make sure this idiocy does not infect the english one.Xenovatis (talk) 19:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

text: The question whether the Molossi were Greek, half-Greek, or barbarian does not belong in this article, no matter how certain either side may be; they have an article of their own. (Both sides are cherry-picking quotations anyway; which is doing so more intensely is one of the questions I prefer to avoid.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What i dont get is how could someone even claim Pyrrhus was an Illyrian. His father was an Aeacidae and his mother was from Thessaly. Even if there are scant doubts by a small number of historians over the Greekness of Molossians, there is no doubt about the Greekness of their royal house. I found this on the subject which includes ancient sources stating the obvious. Johnaldinho (talk) 11:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Check out the Albanian wikipedia 

message: I realize this sort of thing is a bit of a sensitive subject, but Hammond in his 'Macedonian State' on Page 40 indicates that the Paeonians were linguistically and culturally distinct from their neighbors, whereas on the map in this article they are classified as 'Thracian'. The Thracians were dominant east of Paeonia. Fimbria (talk) 11:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Inaccurate Map

message: I must say that I came to this topic by accident. I was searching about the battle of Mount Erix, and there it quoted Pirrhus of Epirus and else. I was shocked that Pyrrhus (Pirro) was said to be a greek and so on. And than I see the discussion.
I am albanian. I've studied language and literature and I have a passion for history. I happen to live in the northern (albanian) part of the solongcalled Epirus.
The first thing that I noticed about the article is that it has a strong underlining about Pirro being a greek, Epirus being greek, Molossians having been greeks and so on. Strange, I thought the article was about Pyrrhus of Epirus and his achievements mainly, not about his much discussed nationality. The same about the references: They look to be there only to support the greekness of Pirro, Epirus and so on. If this be true ( and I've seen it in other articles concerning Epirus) than, this article is a failure. Because it's intention is not to inform those who are interested, but to misguide them in the midst of a nationalistic conflict, which though Greece and Albania might be thousands of years old, dates no more than 200 years.
Plutarch tells about Pyrrho and his line being a descendant of Neoptolemus, son of Achiles. He tells that Neoptolemus was not born in Epirus; he went there by force of arms. If this be true, and Neoptolemus and Achiles did exist, and if they really belonged to a proto-greek tribe, that makes Pyrrhos of greek blood and that's all.  The real problem behind Pirrhus is the nationality of the people living today in Epirus. If the albanians or the greeks are trying to claim their nationality for themselves, they will surely start from the heroes and so on. When you steal from a house you start with the jewels. Herodotus and Thucidides in their writings refer to Epirus, Macedonia and the Illirian kingdoms and tribes as "Barbaroi" which in that time had a purely linguistic meaning: non-greek speaking people. And their language, being one of the most important attributes of a people, revealed these above quoted people as non greek. 
There are a lot of articles about antic Balkan. They all speak of four main races: Illirian, Greek, Thracian, and the Dacian. Epirus (and Macedonia) appear in history as special entity  only during the rule of a great king and his line. This seems to point that this kingdom was not a race apart.They were Illirian, Greek or Thracians. Most probably a mixture of these three, who themselves were not as apart from each other as might be believed.
The Cambridge University Press and Britannica Online Encyclopedia refering to "Pyrrhus, king of helenistic Epirus" or "the greek army of Pyrrhus", or "the greek hoplites of Pyrrhus" are practically speaking of Epirus in a wellknown history period, and about the type of his army. "Greek riders", for example, was a type of army unit and had nothing to do with nationality; the same as the mostly albanian "Stratiotis" in medieval time.
Another interesting thing is that if Epirus was greek, it was the only such kingdom, all the greece having the city-state form of politic organisation. On the other side, this was typical for the Illirans. The Enkeleian kingdom of Bardhyl, the Taulantian kingdom of Glaukia, the Ardian kingdom of Agron, The Dardan kingdom etc. Two greek colonies in the midst of these kingdoms, Epidamn, and Apolonia were city-states. Note that when Pyrrhus was a child, his supporters are not quoted to even think about taking him to a greek ruler, or even macedonian. they took him instead to Glaukia the taulant, which was not the mightiest ruler in that time. Plutarch says that he was even frightened from the persecutors of Pirro. Than why did they took Pirrho to Glaukia? The reason is simple I think. They belonged to the same people. 
As about Pirrhus being a descendant of Achiles, that's mostly legend, as Achiles himself who claimed his heritage from Zeus, which, I think, no one in his right mind can claim to be true.
Epirus was full of helenistic culture, that's a fact. So was most of Eastern Mediterranean. Even the Egiptian weere having helenistic culture 400-300 BC. That does not make them greek. Writing english in this article does not make me English.
Even if Pirrhus did have greek blood, can anybody say that he did what he did because he had greek blood? Or illirian blood? Can albanians claim glory from the fact that Mother Teresa was born of them (by the way, she has claimed to be albanian)? All the world know her as Mother Teresa of Calcuta!
I think that to have a true opinion about something you have to look at all sides of it. Truth is not property of a race, but God's gift to all people. I would be happy if some articles in Wikipedia would not be a source of disinformation, or examples of simplemind and one-sided ideas. Hoping for these words of mine not to be censured or misinterpreted.
Respect to all.
(next time bringing references)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shqypes Arbnore (talk • contribs) 12:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Truth?! Epirus?! Greek?! Albanian?! 

message: This detailed account comes from the page Antigonus II Gonatas. Would it be possible to integrate some of the information into the last chapters of this page or is there any Wikirule withstanding such an operation? --Borsanova (talk) 00:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pyrrhus' end 

message: In the section "Early life", the statement that Pyrrhus murdered "Neoptolemus II of Epirus, puppet of the now-deceased Seleucus" -- which dates to an edit made on 12 November 2008 -- must be wrong.  
According to the text of the article's "Early life" section, Neoptolemus II was murdered sometime during the period 297-295 BC.  However, "Seleucus" must be Seleucus I Nicator, founder of the Seleucid dynasty and empire.  According to Wikipedia's article "Seleucus I Nicator", he was assassinated in 281 BC.  Thus, according to the "Early life" section of "Pyrrhus of Epirus", Neoptolemus II was murdered sometime during the period 297-295 BC AND after 281 BC ; this is impossible.  Therefore the statement "the now-deceased Seleucus" must be wrong.
Furthermore, Plutarch did NOT claim that Neoptolemus II was the puppet of Seleucus.  Indeed, no reference is provided for this claim.
Therefore I have deleted the claim that Neoptolemus II was the "puppet of the now deceased Seleucus". Cwkmail (talk) 11:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Neoptolemus II of Epirus -- puppet of Seleucus?

message: I happen to have been studying Plutarch's Life of Pyrrhus all day (using Wikipedia) and I happened to stumble on something interesting: The person(s) who wrote the article on Antigonus II Gonatus basically did little more than summarize three "Lives" of Plutarch: Demetrius, Pyrrhus and Aratus. Actually, it would take a considerable amount of effort to do this, and I certainly laud the person who did it. My purpose writing here is to suggest the summaries of the lives (by Plutarch) contained in the Wikipedia article for Antigonus II Gonatus be incorporated in their respective Wikipedia articles.
For example, the following large segment of text taken from the Antigonus article corresponds to the section of the Pyrrhus article titled "Last wars and death":
:Pyrrhus, king of Epirus, Macedonia's western neighbour, was a general of mercurial ability, widely renowned for his bravery, but he did not apply his talents sensibly and often snatched after vain hopes, so that Antigonus used to compare him to a dice player, who had excellent throws, but did not know how to use them. When the Gauls defeated Ptolemy Ceraunus and the Macedonian throne became vacant, Pyrrhus was occupied in his campaigns overseas. Hoping to conquer first Italy and then Africa, he got involved in wars against Rome and Carthage, the two most powerful states in the western Mediterranean. He then lost the support of the Greek cities in Italy and Sicily by his haughty behaviour. Needing reinforcements, he wrote to Antigonus as a fellow Greek king, asking him for troops and money, but Antigonus politely refused. In 275 BC, the Romans fought Pyrrhus at the Battle of Beneventum which ended inconclusively, although many modern sources wrongly state that Pyrrhus lost the battle. Pyrrhus had been drained by his recent wars in Sicily, and by the earlier "Pyrrhic victories" over the Romans, and thus decided to end his campaign in Italy and return to Epirus.
:Pyrrhus's retreat from Italy, however, proved very unlucky for Antigonus. Returning to Epirus with an army of eight thousand foot and five hundred horse, he was in need of money to pay them. This encouraged him to look for another war, so the next year, after adding a force of Gallic mercenaries to his army, he invaded Macedonia with the intention of filling his coffers with plunder. The campaign however went better than expected. Making himself master of several towns and being joined by two thousand deserters, his hopes started to grow and he went in search of Antigonus. attacking his army in a narrow pass and throwing it into disorder at the Battle of the Aoos River. Antigonus's Macedonian troops retreated, but his own body of Gallic mercenaries, who had charge of his elephants, stood firm until Pyrrhus's troops surrounded them, whereupon they surrendered both themselves and the elephants. Pyrrhus now chased after the rest of Antigonus's army which, demoralised by its earlier defeat, declined to fight. As the two armies faced each other, Pyrrhus called out to the various officers by name and persuaded the whole body of infantry to desert. Antigonus escaped by concealing his identity. Pyrrhus now took control of upper Macedonia and Thessaly, while Antigonus held on to the coastal towns.
:But Pyrrhus now wasted his victory. Taking possession of Aegae, the ancient capital of Macedonia, he installed a garrison of Gauls, who greatly offended the Macedonians by digging up the tombs of their kings and leaving the bones scattered about as they searched for gold. He also neglected to finish off his enemy. Leaving him in control of the coastal cities, he contented himself with insults. He called Antigonus a shameless man for still wearing the purple, but he did little to destroy the remnants of his power.
:Before this campaign was finished, Pyrrhus had embarked upon a new one. In 272 BC, Cleonymus, an important Spartan, invited him to invade Laconia. Gathering an army of twenty-five thousand foot, two thousand horse, and twenty-four elephants, he crossed over to the Peloponnese and occupied Megalopolis in Arcadia. Antigonus, after reoccupying part of Macedonia, gathered what forces he could and sailed to Greece to oppose him. As a large part of the Spartan army led by king Areus was in Crete at the time, Pyrrhus besieged Sparta with great hopes of taking the city easily, but the citizens organized stout resistance, allowing one of Antigonus's commanders, Aminias, the Phocian, to reach the city with a force of mercenaries from Corinth. Soon after this, the Spartan king, Areus, returned from Crete with 2,000 men. These reinforcements stiffened resistance, and Pyrrhus, finding that he was losing men to desertion every day, broke off the attack and started to plunder the country.
:The most important Peloponnesian city after Sparta was Argos. The two chief men, Aristippus and Aristeas, were keen rivals. As Aristippus was an ally of Antigonus, Aristeas invited Pyrrhus to come to Argos to help him take over the city. Antigonus, aware that Pyrrhus was advancing on Argos, marched his army there as well, taking up a strong position on some high ground near the city. When Pyrrhus learned this, he encamped about Nauplia and the next day dispatched a herald to Antigonus, calling him a coward and challenging him to come down and fight on the plain. Antigonus replied that he would choose his own moment to fight and that if Pyrrhus was weary of life, he could find many ways to die.
:The Argives, fearing that their territory would become a war zone, sent deputations to the two kings begging them to go elsewhere and allow their city to remain neutral. Both kings agreed, but Antigonus won over the trust of the Argives by surrendering his son as a hostage for his pledge. Pyrrhus, who had recently lost a son in the retreat from Sparta, did not. Indeed, with the help of Aristeas, he was plotting to seize the city. In the middle of the night, he marched his army up to the city walls and entered through a gate that Aristeas had opened. His Gallic troops seized the market place, but he had difficulty getting his elephants into the city through the small gates. This gave the Argives time to rally. They occupied strong points and sent messengers asking Antigonus for help.
:When Antigonus heard that Pyrrhus had treacherously attacked the city, he advanced to the walls and sent a strong force inside to help the Argives. At the same time Areus arrived with a force of 1,000 Cretans and light-armed Spartans. These forces attacked the Gauls in the market place. Pyrrhus, realising that his Gallic troops were hard pressed, now advanced into the city with more troops, but in the narrow streets this soon led to confusion as men got lost and wandered around. The two forces now paused and waited for daylight. When the sun rose, Pyrrhus saw how strong the opposition was and decided the best thing was to retreat. Fearing that the gates would be too narrow for his troops to easily exit the city, he sent a message to his son, Helenus, who was outside with the main body of the army, asking him to break down a section of the walls. The messenger, however, failed to convey his instructions clearly. Misunderstanding what was required, Helenus took the rest of the elephants and some picked troops and advanced into the city to help his father.
:With some of his troops trying to get out of the city and others trying to get in, Pyrrhus's army was now thrown into confusion. This was made worse by the elephants. The largest one had fallen across the gateway and was blocking the way, while another elephant, called Nicon, was trying to find its rider. This beast surged against the tide of fugitives, crushing friend and foe alike, until it found its dead master, whereupon it picked him up, placed him on its tusks, and went on the rampage. In this chaos Pyrrhus was struck down by a tile thrown by an old woman and killed by Zopyrus, a soldier of Antigonus. Thus ended the career of the most famous soldier of his time.
:Alcyoneus, one of Antigonus's sons, heard that Pyrrhus had been killed. Taking the head, which had been cut off by Zopyrus, he rode to where his father was and threw it at his feet. Far from being delighted, Antigonus was angry with his son and struck him, calling him a barbarian and drove him away. He then covered his face with his cloak and burst into tears. The fate of Pyrrhus reminded him all too clearly of the tragic fates of his own grandfather and his father who had suffered similar swings of fortune. He then had Pyrrhus's body cremated with great ceremony.
:After the death of Pyrrhus, his whole army and camp surrendered to Antigonus, greatly increasing his power. Later, Alcyoneus discovered Helenus, Pyrrhus's son, disguised in threadbare clothes. He treated him kindly and brought him to his father who was more pleased with his behaviour. "This is better than what you did before, my son," he said, "but why leave him in these clothes which are a disgrace to us now that we know ourselves the victors?" Greeting him courteously, Antigonus treated Helenus as an honored guest and sent him back to Epirus.
:This was not the end of Antigonus' problems with Epirus: shortly after Alexander II, the son of Pyrrhus and his successor as king of Epirus, repeated his father's adventure by conquering Macedonia. But only a few years after Alexander was not only expelled from Macedonia by Antigonus' son Demetrius, but he also lost Epirus and had to go into exile in Acarnania. His exile didn't last long, as the Macedonians had at the end to abandon Epirus under pressure from Alexander's allies, the Acarnanians and the Aetolians. Alexander seems to have died about 242 BC, leaving his country under the regency of his wife Olympias who proved anxious to have good relations with Epirus' powerful neighbour, as was sanctioned by the marriage between the regent's daughter Phthia and Antigonus' son and heir Demetrius.
I think that this section is actually better suited to the article for Pyrrhus, and should be included with slight alterations. It lacks style, but is really a great paragraph-by-paragraph summary of Plutarch, which is one of the few sources for Pyrrhus.  I'm more than happy to undertake this myself, but I was concerned that a) It is a *substantial* alteration and b) I am essentially re-appropriating someone else's work and was seeking some guidance.  The end result will be that the Pyrrhus article will be in much better shape.
I guess I should - in closing - repeat my earlier observation:  that the Antigonus II Gonatus article is really nothing more than a lengthy summary of Plutarch, and should be edited for style.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mousebelt (talk • contribs) 02:05, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand Alexikoua's objection. Why shouldn't the article give more detail? john k (talk) 05:23, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree that you go ahead. --Hyphantes (talk) 02:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pyrrhus - Antigonus II Gonatus 

message: The information is wrong about Pyrrhis being greek.Pyrrhys in albanian Piro wich is is a common name in albania even used today is albanian.He was a Chaonian which lived in today's Albanian territory.Chaonian actually fought in some greek wars but they were not speaking greel language,but Illyrian. 185.89.158.126 (talk) 11:52, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: bollocks Plonkernello (talk) 14:02, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pyrrhis of Epirus is Albanian. 

message: Pyrrhus aka Pyrrhus of Epirus was a king of the Epirus region in today's territories of Albania and Greece. He was known as a strong general and was even a big concern to early Rome for his conquests. There are proofs that he was albanian. Here is a letter that Skanderbeg sent to Prince of Taranto: 
"Morever you scorn our people, claiming the albanians as nothing more than a sheep, and according to your customs think of us with only insults. It would seem you know nothing of the origins of our race. Our elders were the Epirotes from whence Pyrrhus himself came fourth, the might of whom the Romans could barely withstand. Those very Epirotes whom with their weapons set fourth and conquered Taranto and much of Italy".
If you want more proofs see what the parliament of Greece said about the Albanian race in 1867. They considered the albanians to be the descendants of the Epirotes. 146.0.19.46 (talk) 16:18, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pyrrhus was Albanian 

message: I'm not sure, maybe it isn't 178.43.149.152 (talk) 18:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Albania even real 

message: Guys im curious what do you think?
Should be be more specific on presuming what a historical figure was? (Like spartan, kushite, arvanite, Suebi) or simply the group overall? (Like greek, egyptian, albanian, german)? Because im trying to maintain the same rules in every article. Thank You! RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 19:34, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Roughly, WP does not care about personal opinions including mine and yours. Pyrrhus was a king of an Epirotan tribe and the Epirotan tribes where ethnically Greek of Dorian extraction. This is the consensus in Academia. Everything else is POV pushing so I would advise you to drop the stick and move on. Best Othon I (talk) 10:42, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Epirote or Greek 

message: are many prof thet he was a illyrian but your government don't want to accept it molosian was a illyrian tribe this is very clearly 217.73.142.85 (talk) 09:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wasn't a Greek  

message: . Soro333 (talk) 19:12, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why isn't it mentioned that he was Co-King of Macedon together with Lysimachus from 288 BC to 285 BC? 

message: Pyrrhus was not greek but illyrian, even an illyrian called agron had adopted him, i will cite many books prooving he was of illyrian origins. Arbe21 21 (talk) 15:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Question: Can you cite those books here? User:CanonNi (talk|contribs) 01:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Awhellnawr123214 (talk) 04:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2024