Pyrrhus of Epirus (Museo archeologico nazionale di Napoli).
After his failed attempt to get the Romans to sign a peace treaty, King Pyrrhus of Epirus had withdrawn his army to Campania. There he had made his winter quarters. At the end of 280 BCE or the beginning of 279 BCE he was visited by a Roman diplomatic delegation. The Romans had sent their best, as the delegation consisted of three former consuls.[1] Gaius Fabricius Luscinus and Quintus Aemilius Papus had jointly served as consuls in 282 BCE, while Publius Cornelius Dolabella had held the office in 283 BCE. The primary goal of the envoys was to secure the release of Roman prisoners of war. Pyrrhus is said to have tried to bribe Fabricius, who according to tradition was very poor. However, the former consul proved to be incorruptible and refused the king’s gold. Pyrrhus then supposedly tried to intimidate the man by positioning one of his elephants behind a curtain, then suddenly opening the curtain and having the animal make a frightening noise. Tradition dictates that Fabricius calmly responded with the words:
“Your gold made no impression on me yesterday, neither does your beast today.”[2]
Impressed by the Roman’s incorruptibility, Pyrrhus is said to have decided to release the prisoners of war without ransom, on the condition that they would be sent back to him if the Senate rejected his peace proposal. This was indeed what happened, and after the Saturnalia the prisoners duly returned to their captivity. The stories that were told about Fabricius are obviously wonderful, but we can be sure that they were either made up or grossly exaggerated.
The battle of Asculum
Achilles in combat against Memnon. Both are dressed as Southern Italian warriors (Rijksmuseum van Oudheden, Leiden).
At un unspecified moment in 279 BCE the armies of Rome and Epirus clashed at Asculum in Apulia. There can be no doubt that it was a large battle. According to Dionysius of Halicarnassus Pyrrhus commanded 70,000 infantry and over 8,000 cavalry. The king moreover still had a number of elephants at his disposal, 19 in total. The Romans had more than 70,000 infantry and about 8,000 cavalry. They had also built dozens of ox-drawn anti-elephant wagons.[3] More about these devices later. The Roman army was led by both consuls of 279 BCE, Publius Sulpicius Saverrio and Publius Decius Mus. It is not easy to reconstruct the battle of Asculum.[4] The most detailed descriptions are those of the aforementioned Dionysius of Halicarnassus (first century) and of Plutarchus (second century), but the problem is that their reports contradict each other on rather essential points. Only Plutarchus for instance claims that the battle was fought over two days. On the first day the two armies reportedly fought each other on difficult terrain, where the king could not make effective use of his cavalry and elephants. Nightfall then ended the fighting.[5] On the second day Pyrrhus managed to occupy the unfavourable terrain in time, forcing the Romans to move to the plains.
The two armies now began deploying in battle formation opposite each other. This must have taken hours, as the battle lines were several kilometres long. In both armies the great majority of the soldiers were allies. According to Dionysius of Halicarnassus only 16,000 of Pyrrhus’ men came from Greece. The rest, whether Greek or not, had been recruited in Italy. On the Roman side there were 20,000 Roman legionaries on the battlefield, the other troops were Latin and Italian allies, or socii. Dionysius’ account offers us a fascinating insight into the ethnic composition of the two armies. The battle line of the king consisted of, from right to left, Macedonian pikemen, Italian mercenaries from Tarentum, troops from Ambrakia (capital of Pyrrhus), regular troops from Tarentum, Bruttii and Lucani, Epirote pikemen from the Molossians, Thesprotians and Chaonians (the three tribes of Epirus), mercenaries from Aetolia, Akarnania and Athamania, and Samnites on the far left. The more than 8,000 horsemen were also from all corners of the world. The king evenly distributed his cavalry across both flanks and positioned elephants and light troops behind them. He himself joined the agema, a squadron of some 2,000 horsemen that served as the royal bodyguard.
Southern Italy and Sicily (https://awmc.unc.edu/).
The 20,000 Romans were subdivided into four legions. The first legion occupied the left flank, the second the right, while the third and fourth legion would fight in the centre. The Romans already made use of the system of three battle lines that supported each other (acies triplex), but apparently in 279 BCE it was not yet common practice to deploy the units of Latin and Italian allies as wings (alae) on the flanks; Dionysius’ report makes clear that these troops were positioned between the Roman legions. Our historian mentions a large number of Italian peoples: Latins, Campanians, Sabines, Umbri, Volsci, Marrucini, Paeligni and Frentani. The cavalry was evenly distributed across both flanks. Lastly, the consuls also had lightly armed men and 300 specially created anti-elephant wagons at their disposal. These wagons had four wheels and were reinforced with wicker screens to offer their crews some protection. The wagons were drawn by oxen and their armament consisted of rotating poles to which tridents, pikes and hooks had been attached. The hooks had moreover been soaked in pitch that was set alight.
Plate featuring two elephants (Villa Giulia, Rome).
The encounter on the second day must have been an immensely confusing experience for those involved. The battle lines were several kilometres long, thousands of feet threw up huge clouds of dust and communication between the flanks and the centre must have been very challenging. It is clear, however, that the two armies were evenly matched. Three crucial events ultimately decided the outcome of the battle. The first important event was the clash between the elephants and the anti-elephant wagons on the Roman right flank. The Roman second legion advanced with the allies against the Samnites and managed to push these back, prompting Pyrrhus to send in his elephants. Initially the Roman anti-elephant devices seemed to work well, and the elephants were repelled by the wagons. However, the wagons quickly proved to be highly immobile. The mahouts began throwing missiles into the vehicles from a distance while the king’s light troops (psiloi) swarmed around the wagons, hacked their way through the wicker screens and killed the crews. They also managed to hamstring the oxen, and soon most of the anti-elephant wagons were knocked out.
This action had stopped the Roman advance on the king’s left wing. On the right wing the Macedonian pikemen – who were professional soldiers – had been successful against the first legion and the Roman allies stationed there. But then two events took place that might easily have led to an Epirote defeat. First of all, the third Roman legion and its allies managed to cut a huge gap in the Epirote centre. Although the Epirote pikemen held the line against the fourth legion, on either side of them the Romans hacked and pushed themselves a path through the lines of the Bruttii and Lucani. These fled in disarray, causing a moral breakdown among the troops from Tarentum as well.[6] The soldiers of the third legion and their allies chased down their fleeing adversaries and must have killed scores of them. However, the Romans failed to regroup and swing to the left or right to attack the flank of the enemies that were still fighting. This allowed Pyrrhus to commit part of his agema and horsemen from his right flank. The Romans who had broken through were now themselves attacked in the flank.
Southern Italian warrior on horseback (detail). Image from Paestum.
With his quick thinking Pyrrhus succeeded in checking the advance of the third legion. But still he could have lost the battle as a consequence of a third occurrence. Out of the blue a force of some 4,000 infantry and 400 horsemen from the Daunii had appeared on the battlefield. The Daunii were Apulian allies of the Romans who lived in the town of Arpi. These fresh allies were now on a hill behind the Epirote battle line, so they could have chosen to attack the enemy in the rear. However, the situation on the battlefield was very chaotic, and the Daunii were apparently afraid they might clash with the wrong troops. They therefore decided to launch an attack on the king’s camp. As it was only lightly defended, they quickly took the camp and set it ablaze. Although Pyrrhus had sent some horsemen and elephants to the camp to prevent its capture, these reinforcements had unfortunately arrived too late.[7]
The battle of Asculum was now coming to an end. The Romans from the third legion and their allies entrenched themselves on a densely forested hill. Here the fighting was renewed, with both sides sending reinforcements and much blood being spilled. When sunset was approaching, the consuls withdrew their troops to the Roman camp. It is possible that the soldiers who were still on the hill made use of the darkness to escape. Pyrrhus had won a tactical victory, but he had lost his camp. Some sources moreover claim that he himself had been wounded, an occupational risk for generals who fought in the front ranks. Plutarchus cites the historian Hieronymus of Kardia (third century BCE), who reports that 3,500 of the king’s men and 6,000 Romans had been killed. However, in addition Plutarchus also mentions significantly higher casualties, i.e. 15,000 men lost on both sides.[8] These numbers do not necessarily contradict each other if they represent the number of dead in the first case and the number of dead and wounded in the second. After the battle of Asculum, Pyrrhus is said to have spoken the now famous words: “If we are victorious in one more battle with the Romans, we shall be utterly ruined.”[9] The Pyrrhic victory had been born.
The aftermath of Asculum
Europa and the bull, metope from Selinunte, Sicily (Museo Archeologico Regionale Antonio Salinas, Palermo).
We do not know when exactly the battle of Asculum was fought, but it was probably still early in the war season. Not much later Pyrrhus received some exciting news. In early 279 BCE, Ptolemaios Keraunos, the King of Macedonia, had been killed in a battle against marauding Celtic hordes. Pyrrhus himself had been King of Macedonia between 288 and 285 BCE, but he had been expelled from the kingdom. The death of Ptolemaios Keraunos provided him with a brilliant opportunity to win back his throne. However, crossing over to Macedonia would almost certainly go hand in hand with ending the king’s Italian campaign. Pyrrhus also had another option. The Greek cities of Agrigentum, Syracuse and Leontinoi had asked him to intervene on Sicily. The island had been without a king ever since the death of King Agathokles in 289 BCE. The city of Messana was occupied by former mercenaries from Campania named Mamertines, while the Greek inhabitants of Sicily felt threatened by the ever growing power of the city that had always been the late Agathokles’ greatest enemy, the North African mercantile giant Carthage.
Pyrrhus could in a way claim the Sicilian throne, although admittedly his claim was not very strong. The king had married multiple times, and one of his wives was Lanassa, the daughter of Agathokles. Lanassa had borne Pyrrhus two sons, Alexander and Helenos, but later she had divorced Pyrrhus and had sided with his opponent Demetrios Poliorketes. A weak claim based on a former family connection was, however, still a claim, and Pyrrhus ultimately decided to cross over to Sicily. This did not spell the end for his Italian campaign, as the king left a large part of his army in Italy, including a strong garrison in Tarentum. The Tarentines were obviously not exactly thrilled about this: the king himself had deserted them, but he had left behind an occupation force. This occupation force was a kind of necessary evil, as the Romans too just continued the war against Tarentum after their defeat at Asculum.
The expedition that Pyrrhus was now preparing on Sicily furthermore led to the Romans strengthening their ties with Carthage. Roman-Carthaginian relations were very good at the time. Rome had already concluded treaties with the North African city in 509 BCE, 348 BCE and 306 BCE, and now in 279 BCE a fourth and final treaty was added.[10] Some provisions of the treaty have been preserved, which make clear that the Romans especially hoped for assistance from the Carthaginian fleet. While the Carthaginians had a long maritime tradition, the Roman farmers still needed to get themselves sea legs.
Note
[1] Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Book 19.13.
[2] Plutarchus, Pyrrhus 20.
[3] Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Book 20.1.
[4] For a good reconstruction, see Jeff Champion, Pyrrhus of Epirus, p. 80-92.
[5] Plutarchus, Pyrrhus 21.
[6] Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Book 20.2.
[7] Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Book 20.3.
[8] Plutarchus, Pyrrhus 21.
[9] Plutarchus, Pyrrhus 21.
[10] Polybius, Book 3.25-3.26; Livius, Periochae 13.