Talk:Pyrrhic War

message: Any idea why this page suggests a Pyrrhic Greek victory?  I'd love to hear an argument that claims the Greeks were ultimately successful, seeing as though Rome conquered most of southern Italy after the conflict and Pyrrhus fled back to Greece.  
I would strongly suggest changing the outcome to "Roman victory".  It was, after all, Rome's emergence onto the stage of major powers.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.42.210.170 (talk) 00:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Pyrrhic Victory?

message: this article reads a lot like a book report.
:What did you expect? "Gladiator: the Prequel"? - Vedexent 13:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  comments 

message: While most accounts of the war tend to concentrate on the Rome/Pyrrhus conflict (as this article does), the war was really a much more complicated affair. It was a "patchwork quilt" of conflicts, involving Rome, Epirus (Pyrrhus), many of the Latin nations (remember, this predates the quasi-unification of Italia under solid Roman hegemony), and Carthage. The Rome/Epirus conflicts were only one facet of the war, and all facets had impact on the others - even the city to city conflicts of the Latin peoples. All this should be brought into the article -  21:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know this is a 12-year old post, but the main conflict was indeed solely with Rome. There's a side-campaign with Sicily, which is mentioned and given a big treatment. The rest are Samnite etc revolts. And after that Pyrrhus returns and fights in different, unrelated conflicts. Cornelius (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complexities of the War 

message: How close did he really get to Rome?pyrrhusany suggestions to improve this?Megistias (talk) 13:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  map question 

message: This article states that the Samnites lost the battle. This contradicts what is wrote on the article of the Battle of Cranita Hills,in which the Samnites were victorious.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.160.93.16 (talk) 09:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle of Cranita Hill 

message: ‘Rome sent out a fleet of ships that entered the Bay of Tarentum’
Rome must have known that this would violate the treaty, so why did they do it? Did they expect Tarentum to grant an exception, was war with Tarentum their actual ulterior goal, or did they like Turii so much that they went into oh-well-it-cannot-be-helped-let's-hope-nobody-notices mode?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.82.82 (talk) 00:35, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the run-up to the war 

message: In the section, "Sicilian Campaign (278-75 BC)", the third paragraph begins by saying:
:"Appian wrote that Pyrrhus begun to be more concerned about Sicily than Italy because Agathocles, the tyrant of Syracuse and self-proclaimed king of Sicily, had just died and Pyrrhus had married his daughter Lanassa. However, Appian must have been confused. Agathocles died in 289 BC, nine years before Pyrrhus’ venture in Italy and eleven years before he went to Sicily. Moreover, Lanassa had left Pyrrhus in 291 BC."
The article on Pyrrhu's (ex)-wife, Lanassa, gives a possible clarification of Appian's comment (who might still have misinterpreted the events):
:"After the death of Agathocles (289 BC) Pyrrhus, as former husband of Lanassa, asserted hereditary claims to Sicily. On the basis of these claims the inhabitants of Syracuse asked Pyrrhus in 279 BC for assistance against Carthage."
So I added in this article, immediately after the last sentence I cited above this line:
:"It's possible Appian was referring to Pyrrhus' hereditary claims following Agathocles' death, and this relatively recent event, Pyrrhus' claims, as well as Pyrrhus' proximity prompted the inhabitants of Syracuse in 279 BC to ask him for assistance against Carthage."
This cites Dionysius of Halicarnassus, an independent source, which I've included. Cornelius (talk) 09:05, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appian on Pyrrhus' rationale for the Sicilian campaign 

message: The best book on the Pyrrhic war is probably:  It was also notably well praised in Acoup:
* 
* 
Other positive reviews include Ancient World magazine and the Classical Review. I would be willing to cooperate on a rewrite of this article. Ifly6 (talk) 20:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source for rewrite, Kent 2020