How can a mere mortal give justice to an analysis of Pyrrhus' war-torn and truncated life? In my wisdom, I decided to confine my research to the accounts portrayed by ancient writers, particularly Plutarch, who wrote about Pyrrhus in his book 'The Age of Alexander'. This book I own and can readily access from the bookshelf in my study. Of course, there are modern books about Pyrrhus that could be included in my background reading. In fact, there are important historical source works on the man, and this does not include modern monographs or literary papers published in respectable history journals. As I'm not immortal, nor a historian, I have decided to eschew modern source works. Also, if truth be told, I have other important stuff in my life that requires my attention. In addition, at heart, I'm a fundamentally lazy man, and in matters concerning the following, I will, as usual, be relying heavily on my personal Muse. During periods of frenzied/frenetic writing, regardless of topic, she pours out her musings (sorry) into my ear in a dulcet, silky tone. I can only follow and obey. I make no excuses for the reliance on voices within. My Muse has been a constant, soothing companion throughout my adult life, and I will continue to expound on her profundity, except concerning her constant, strident utterances about 'burning stuff'.
Generalship
The more I've read (I lied about not reading widely- couldn't help it) and reflected on Pyrrhus' generalship, the more insight I've gained, and the more I've come to respect and appreciate his battlefield tactics and the brilliance of his fighting leadership. It seems a great pity that he is virtually unknown today and that his prowess is rarely compared with that of ancient Great Captains, such as Hannibal and Alexander. This oversight demands redress. Watch this space.
According to Plutarch, Hannibal is said to have rated Pyrrhus the greatest general after, of course, Alexander the Great (b.327 BC). If this be the case, then to be rated by Hannibal above himself is a high accolade indeed. Let us see if this claim stands up to scrutiny.
There is no doubt that Pyrrhus was a brave man and exposed himself in battle to the point of being reckless. I mentioned in my previous post on the man that I considered his Heroic Style of Generalship as folly. On reflection, I have changed my mind on this matter. During battle, he always sought out the thickest of action. His armour and helmet set him apart and clearly marked his identity not only to his own troops but also to the enemy. During the first battle with the Romans at Heraclea (280 BC), a companion of Pyrrhus remarked that a Roman cavalry officer was keeping a keen eye on Pyrrhus' movements and warned him to take care. Pyrrhus is said to have remarked, ''No man can escape his fate". At that moment, the Roman charged and transfixed Pyrrhus' horse with his spear. At the same time, the Roman's horse was also laid low by a lance. Thereafter, the unhorsed Roman fought with fanatic bravery born of despair but was isolated and killed by Pyrrhus' companions. After this salutary incident, Pyrrhus is said to have taken greater care to downplay any ostentatious adornments that might have signified his identity. Any general exposing himself to great danger during battle invites death. The death of Pyrrhus on the battlefield would certainly have given heart to the enemy, and they would be quick to pass on the information to their hard-pressed men. Moral, intangible as a quality it might be, is an important part of how men fight on the battlefield. The death of Pyrrhus in battle would likely dishearten the men and spread general despondency. Conversely, the presence of Pyrrhus in the heart/heat of battle would encourage his men to fight as men possessed. In addition, any leader of a host who decides to fight alongside his frontline troops is likely to be blind to the developing tactical situation. The captain atop high ground can review the battle as a whole and take note of inevitable changes for good or for ill. The wise commander, taking in the larger picture as it unfolds, can deploy his reserves as necessary to preserve battlefield dominance. With all that said, this is the counsel of perfection.
Perhaps I have done Pyrrhus a disservice, and on mature reflection, I have concluded that he could not have fought any other way, given his cultural background and tactical organisational skills. I baulk at calling Pyrrhus Greek, as he was much akin culturally and by temperament to the Macedon- mayhap it is better to signify him as 'Hellenistic'. Therefore, he could have fought no other way. His soldiers expected Pyrrhus to be out front, displaying valour and exhorting his men to fight as fiercely as he did. Pyrrhus, as kin to the great Alexander and descendant of Achilles, believed he was marked for greatness. And to this end he emulated the heroic theme that Alexander mastered. Let us not forget that by nature, Pyrrhus was extraordinarily pugnacious. He sought out conflict and would often provoke a fight for its own sake. Pyrrhus had been trained in the arts of war from a young age and was extraordinarily proficient in dispatching folk to the shores of the River Styx, with alarming alacrity. This reinforces my opinion that Pyrrhus was no civilised Greek in the Classical sense. Although charming, charismatic and educated, Pyrrhus appears to have had a good degree of the 'Barbar' about him, something he was quick to note about his most formidable opponent, the Romans. Mayhap, he protests too much. I suspect Pyrrhus was more akin to the Romans than he would like to admit. I suspect the irony was lost to him. For the Athenians, the upstart Macedonians were a little too savage to be considered as 'fully Greek'. Political reality was never something the proud, haughty Greeks were willing to accept in theory; real politics had to be imposed by 'Lesser Breeds'. No doubt, Pyrrhus despised the barbarian hordes beyond the borders of Hellen, but was blind to the savage within his own soul. I think it would be best to describe Pyrrhus, although not devoid of grace and allure, as at his core, a barbarian with a lavish coat, two generations applied, of 'refined varnish' with a goodly tint of the Hellen. Throughout his life, the rendering of civilisation was apt to rub off. A most complex and fascinating 'gentleman'.
Another important point needs to be emphasised regarding his style of generalship. Macedonian armies relied heavily upon heavy infantry organised into a phalanx. The men were densely packed in formation, and their primary weapon was the sarisa, a variable-length pike, typically 13 to 23 feet. In this way, the troops could wield a formidable 'hedge' of bristling points. However, by its very nature, the phalanx was not tactically flexible once deployed, and its units were difficult to redirect once contact with the enemy was made. However. Pyrrhus was not solely reliant on the phalanx and achieved battlefield mastery and tactical flexibility by deploying a mixed array of troops, together with a command structure that devolved authority to competent subordinates who could respond to a dynamic battlefield situation.
I'll have more to say about Pyrrhus's generalship and tactical deployment in the context of a fluid, evolving battle environment in the next thrilling instalment. Due to constraints concerning the blogging format, I am compelled to split my thesis into several instalments. To be honest, I never anticipated that my critique of this man's martial ability would be so complex and deep. Never mind, this series of posts will develop as required. I have not written the follow-up posts yet. My Muse has the annoying habit of fucking off when most needed. She will return; although cruel and heartless, she inevitably comes back to tickle my senses once again. O fickle and capricious mistress, come sit on my weary shoulder and pour your profundity into my ever eager ear.
No comments:
Post a Comment