The Early Republic: The war with Pyrrhus of Epirus (part 1; 281-280 BCE)

Pyrrhus of Epirus is generally considered one of the greatest generals of Antiquity. But if Fate had decided otherwise, he would have died at a young age. Pyrrhus had been born in 319 BCE as the son of King Aiakides of Epirus. Two years later the Molossians, one of the Epirote tribes, had revolted against their king. Aiakides had been deposed and Neoptolemos II – a grandson of the brother of Pyrrhus’ grandfather Arybbas – had ascended the throne. Epirotes loyal to Aiakides had taken two-year-old Pyrrhus to King Glaukias of the Illyrians. The king then raised him together with his own children. Although Aiakides managed to win back his throne in 313 BCE, he died the same year fighting against the Macedonians. Glaukias ultimately managed to make Pyrrhus King of Epirus in 307 BCE. The young king was just twelve years old at the time.[1]

An adventurous life

Pyrrhus would not be king for long. In 302 BCE the Molossians again revolted in his absence, and as a result Neoptolemos II again ascended the throne. Pyrrhus subsequently joined the entourage of Demetrios Poliorketes, son of the one-eyed Antigonos Monopthalmos, one of the most famous generals of Alexander the Great. Demetrios – whose nickname means something along the lines of “Besieger of Cities” – saw himself as the rightful king of Macedonia. In 303 BCE he had married Pyrrhus’ sister Deidameia, in what were the heydays of the so-called Wars of the Diadochi, the wars between Alexander’s generals and their sons. In 301 BCE Pyrrhus fought in the ranks of Demetrios and Antigonos against a coalition of three other generals, Lysimachos, Kassandros and Seleukos. The latter were victorious in this battle of Ipsos. Although Antigonos, already an octogenarian, was killed, Pyrrhus remained loyal to his son Demetrios. A few years later he arrived at the court of King Ptolemaios of Egypt, yet another general of Alexander, as a hostage.

In 297 BCE Pyrrhus married Antigone, the stepdaughter of Ptolemaios. The king provided his son-in-law with money and an army, and still in 297 BCE he managed to win back his kingdom. After a brief period of joint rule Neoptolemos was eliminated. Then in 294 BCE Pyrrhus’ former brother-in-law Demetrios – Deidameia had passed away in 300 BCE – finally obtained the throne of Macedonia. By now the relationship between Pyrrhus and Demetrios had become very tense and in 289 BCE an open conflict erupted between the two men. Demetrios pillaged Epirus and Pyrrhus in his turn invaded Macedonia. Although he was initially expelled, Demetrios’ expansionist policy had greatly alarmed Lysimachos and Ptolemaios. Together with Pyrrhus they attacked the territories of Demetrios from three sides. There was little Demetrios could do against the offensive, so he quickly decided to flee. Pyrrhus now became the new king of Macedonia, although very much against his will he had to share power with Lysimachos. A few years later, in 285 BCE, Lysimachos ousted Pyrrhus from Macedonia, leaving the latter with just the throne of Epirus. Pyrrhus was now back where he had started.

In the meantime Demetrios had been defeated in Syria and taken prisoner by Seleukos. He would eventually die in captivity. Lysimachos did not enjoy his reign as King of Macedonia for long, for in 281 BCE he was defeated and killed by the aforementioned Seleukos in the battle of Korupedion in present-day Turkey, the last great battle of the Wars of the Diadochi. Seleukos proclaimed himself the new King of Macedonia, but was then murdered by a certain Ptolemaios Keraunos. Keraunos (“lightning bolt”) was the eldest son of King Ptolemaios of Egypt. For reasons that are not entirely clear Ptolemaios had designated his younger son Ptolemaios Philadelphos as his successor. Philadelphos’ half-brother Ptolemaios Keraunos had subsequently left the kingdom and had at an unspecified moment been included in Lysimachos’ entourage. After Lysimachos’ defeat he had apparently been hired by Seleukos, a decision the latter soon came to regret. It was Keraunos who now became the new King of Macedonia. The new king had few rivals left. One remaining rival was of course Pyrrhus, who had held the throne of Macedonia for a number of years as well. But Pyrrhus, who was in his late thirties and had gained a shipload of political, diplomatic and military experience, decided to embark upon a different adventure.

Intervention in Italy

The Greek city of Tarentum in Southern Italy had got itself into serious trouble. Tarentine attacks on a Roman fleet in 282 BCE and on the city of Thurii, which was supported by Rome, the next year had infuriated the Romans, and so had the disgraceful treatment of a Roman delegation that had come to Tarentum. The Lucius Aemilius Barbula interrupted his campaign against the Samnites and attacked Tarentine territory, which he pillaged and burned. At the same time his colleague Quintus Marcius Philippus successfully campaigned against the Etruscans. The next year he was granted a triumph for his victory. It looked like it took the Romans little effort to conduct a war on multiple fronts simultaneously, and it was clear that the Tarentines would not hold out long without external aid. After a fierce debate in the popular assembly they decided to call upon King Pyrrhus of Epirus.

Pyrrhus would obviously not cross the Ionic Sea if there was not something in it for him as well. He knew very well that he was in a position to make demands, and that the Tarentines were under severe pressure to accept them. The king demanded that they would pay the costs of the war, acknowledge him as supreme commander of all forces and accept an Epirote garrison in Tarentum.[2] After the Tarentines had agreed to these terms, Pyrrhus sent his most important advisor Kineas ahead with 3,000 men. These troops were led by one Milon, who immediately proved his value and raised Tarentine morale. The consul Barbula supposedly broke off his campaign when he heard of the arrival of reinforcements and withdrew to Apulia. During the retreat the Tarentines lured him and his army into an ambush in a narrow pass. The consul managed to save his army by using prisoners of war as human shields. According to the historian Zonaras, this allowed him to escape.[3] From the Fasti Triumphales we know that Barbula was awarded a triumph, not just for victories over the Tarentines, but also over the Samnites and Sallentini. So apparently the Romans considered his campaign a success, despite the ambush.

Now it was time for Pyrrhus himself to come to Italy. In 280 BCE he crossed the sea with 20,000 infantry, 3,000 cavalry, 2,000 archers, 500 slingers and 20 elephants. Unfortunately the crossing proved to be highly problematic. The Epirote fleet was caught in a heavy storm and the ships were scattered. The king himself washed ashore in Messapia, where fortunately the inhabitants were sympathetic to his cause. Ultimately Pyrrhus managed to reach Tarentum with a small force, where the rest of his army soon joined him. He immediately made clear to the Tarentines that he expected them to fight in his army. Citizens who were loath to serve thereupon tried to flee the city, but the king must nevertheless have recruited several thousands of Greeks in this way. Pyrrhus initially wanted to wait for the arrival of his Italian allies, such as Samnites, Lucani and Messapii, but quickly realised that he had no time. The new consul Publius Valerius Laevinus had invaded Lucania and looted his way through the region.

The battle of Heraclea

The armies of Pyrrhus and Laevinus ultimately bumped into each other at Heraclea. The consul had his camp on one shore of the river Siris, the king on the other. The Romans were full of confidence, and it is possible that they had more men in the field than their opponents. Laevinus sent his cavalry and infantry across the river, forcing the pickets that Pyrrhus had left on the riverbank to retreat for fear of being surrounded. Pyrrhus now sprang into action and galloped towards the enemy at the head of 3,000 horsemen. As befitted a commander in the best tradition of Alexander the Great, the king personally participated in the fighting. This almost led to his demise when a commander of a unit of Frentanian horsemen managed to kill the king’s horse with a javelin. Pyrrhus was saved by his bodyguards in the nick of time and the Frentanian, one Oplakos, was killed.[4]

Pyrrhus and his cavalry had failed to prevent the Roman crossing and were now themselves pushed back. Meanwhile the rest of his army had arrived. The Romans would now have to deal with two elements in the Epirote army with which they had no experience yet: infantry armed with long pikes and elephants. The king’s pikemen fought in a dense phalanx with lances over six metres long. They could basically only be defeated if their formation fell apart or their adversaries managed to attack their vulnerable flanks or rear. The Romans had no experience fighting against war elephants either. Horses were afraid to come near these colossal animals and the enormous beasts made a huge impression on foot soldiers as well. The battle was nevertheless evenly matched for a long time. Sometimes Pyrrhus’ men had the upper hand, sometimes the Romans. Then a rumour began to circulate that Pyrrhus had been killed. Fearing that he would again be attacked by an Oplakos, the king had given his cloak and armour to one of his hetairoi. This Megakles had subsequently been killed. This must have led to panic in the Epirote ranks, although Pyrrhus quickly managed to restore order by showing himself to the troops with his head uncovered.

According to Zonaras, Laevinus had kept part of his cavalry in hiding and now used it for an attack on the Epirote rear.[5] This would no doubt have led to a victory for the consul against an ordinary opponent. But Laevinus’ opponent was Pyrrhus of Epirus, and the king immediately launched a counterattack with his elephants, which until then had not yet participated in the fighting. The king’s rapid response caused the Roman cavalry attack to fail. Pyrrhus then used his elephants and Thessalian cavalry to attack the Roman left flank. The attack was so fierce that this part of the Roman battleline was quickly in danger of being overrun. Thereupon the whole Roman army retreated and withdrew across the river Liris again. Livius claims that Pyrrhus later inspected the fallen Roman soldiers and discovered that they had all perished with their heads facing the enemy.[6] There is every reason to doubt this claim, but the Roman army was certainly not destroyed in a disorderly flight. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, who wrote in the first century, reports that there were 15,000 Roman dead and 13,000 fatalities in Pyrrhus’ army.[7] However, Plutarchus, who wrote about a century later, cites the historian Hieronymus of Kardia, who was a contemporary of Pyrrhus. Hieronymus mentions just 7,000 Roman and 4,000 Epirote dead.[8]

The war continues

Roman losses were certainly serious, but their beaten maniples could be replenished. This was much more difficult for Pyrrhus, who was a long way from home. The fact that he had lost many friends and officers did not help either. On the other hand the king did manage to capture the Roman camp and also gained a few extra allies. The Greek cities of Locri and Croton offered him their services and the Bruttii also decided to side with the king.[9] However, neither Pyrrhus, nor the Romans profited from the events that took place in Rhegium this year. Rhegium was a Greek city, but it was also a Roman ally. The Romans had stationed a garrison of 4,000 men commanded by a certain Decius Vibellius in the city. These soldiers were Roman citizens without voting rights – they had civitas sine suffragio – but they were also Campanians. On the other side of the Strait of Messina was the city of Messana. Campanian mercenaries who called themselves Mamertines (after their war god Mamers) had taken over this city after the death of the Sicilian king Agathokles in 289 BCE. Decius’ soldiers in Rhegium now decided to follow the example of their Campanian brethren. They treacherously took the city they were required to protect and butchered part of the population.

The tactical defeat at Heraclea had not led to panic among the Romans. They did blame Laevinus for what had happened, although it is difficult to see what the consul should have done differently. As a precautionary measure, the Romans did recall the other consul, Tiberius Coruncanius, from his campaign in Etruria. That campaign was probably in its closing stages anyway, and for his victories over the armies of Volsinii and Vulci Coruncanius was awarded a triumph. The consul was an extraordinary man. He is considered the first professor of Roman law and would serve as the first plebeian pontifex maximus some 25 years later.[10] Laevinus had by now received reinforcements and was tailing Pyrrhus while the latter advanced on Rome. The route the king took must be reconstructed from fragmentary sources. According to Zonaras the king tried to capture the cities of Capua and Neapolis in Campania, but failed because Laevinus had reinforced these in time.[11] From the works of Appianus, Eutropius and Florus we can deduce that Pyrrhus then followed the route Fregellae – Anagnia – Praeneste.[12] The Praenestini did not have a cordial relationship with Rome. In 380 BCE they had been subjugated, and during the Latin war they had fought with the rebels against Rome. It is quite conceivable that they saw the king as a liberator and simply allowed him to enter their city.

Pyrrhus was now about 30 kilometres from Rome as the eagle flies. However, no one really expected him to launch an attack on the city, as Rome was protected by strong city walls, built in the previous century. The walls were some four metres thick and had a height of between eight and ten metres. With a total length of about 11 kilometres they closed off an area of about 426 hectares.[13] The king therefore decided to negotiate. He sent his loyal envoy Kineas to Rome to start peace talks. It looks like Kineas was initially successful, partly because he had not only contacted the leading senators, but also their wives. In the end he made the Romans a wonderful offer, which most senators reportedly wanted to accept: all prisoners of war were to be released without ransom, the Romans were to enter into a treaty of friendship with Pyrrhus and Tarentum was to be granted full amnesty. The Senate nevertheless rejected the offer, something which was attributed to a speech by the former censor and consul Appius Claudius Caecus. Because of problems with his vision – Caecus means “blind” – he had not attended Senate meetings for a while, but he was loath to miss this session. His strong words made the other senators change their minds, and they refused to make peace. And so the war against Pyrrhus of Epirus continued.[14]

Notes

[1] The most readable classical biography of Pyrrhus is that by Plutarchus from the second century. For a modern biography, see Jeff Champion, Pyrrhus of Epirus.

[2] Jeff Champion, Pyrrhus of Epirus, p. 50.

[3] Zonaras 8.

[4] Plutarchus, Pyrrhus 16.

[5] Zonaras 8.

[6] Livius, Periochae 13.

[7] Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Book 19.11-12.

[8] Plutarchus, Pyrrhus 17.

[9] Jeff Champion, Pyrrhus of Epirus, p. 71.

[10] Livius, Periochae 18.

[11] Zonaras 8.

[12] Appianus, Samnite wars 3; Florus, Book 1.13; Eutropius, Book 2.12.

[13] The Atlas of Ancient Rome, part 1, p. 83; Jonathan P. Roth, Roman warfare, p. 17.

[14] Plutarchus, Pyrrhus 18-19; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Book 19.13.