This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Greece Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Sicily Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sicily, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sicily on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SicilyWikipedia:WikiProject SicilyTemplate:WikiProject SicilySicily articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Classical Greece and Rome Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Roman & Byzantine / Classical C‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles C This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Roman and Byzantine military history task force Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC – c. 500 AD) Phoenicia C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Phoenicia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Phoenicia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.PhoeniciaWikipedia:WikiProject PhoeniciaTemplate:WikiProject PhoeniciaPhoenicia articles C This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)Reply[reply]

Carthage's Empire of Ba'al== It is no accident that Brennus (Brian) and Acichorios (?) led the Celts of Gaul to attack Greece in 279 BCE, squarely in the middle of the Pyrrhic War. Rome had allied with Carthage, run by the Priests of Ba'al. And the Celtic La Tene culture was also dominated by Ba'al worshipping Druids (for example, the festival of Bel-taine). Thus, the central Ba'al Priesthood in Carthage, upon declaring war against Greece, ordered its subservient Druids to send their flocks, ie the Celts, into Greece, even as Carthage warred against Greece from the Mediterranean front. Likewise, the Ba'al worshipping Druidic Celts allied with the Ba'al worshipping Carthaginians during the Punic Wars. Julius Caesar's conquest of Ba'al worshipping Gaul and attack on Ba'al worshipping Britain can be viewed as the "Fourth Punic War", mopping up the remnants of Carthage's Ba'al worshipping empire. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ There was no such thing as a Gallic deity called Ba' al. Beltaine had nothing to do with a divinity called Ba' al. Beltane is the anglicised name for the Gaelic May Day festival. It was not about gods. It marked the beginning of the pastoral summer season, when livestock were taken to the summer pastures. Moreover, it was a Gaelic festival, not a Gallic one. It was celebrated in Ireland, Gaelic Scotland and the Isle on Man. In Irish Gaelic it was called Lá Bealtaine, in Scottish Gaelic Là Bealltainn and in Manx Gaelic, Laa Boaltinn/Boaldyn. It was one of four Gaelic seasonal festivals.

Baʿal was a honorific title meaning "lord" in the Northwest Semitic languages spoken in the Levant during antiquity which came to be applied to gods. Baʿal Hammon was the supreme god of the Phoenician city of Tyre and Carthage was a colony of Tyre. Therefore, their god was Baʿal Hammon, not Ba'al. The Phoenicians in the western Mediterranean had contact with the Celts in Hispania, but not with the Celts of Gaul. Moreover, at the time of the Pyrrhic War, Carthage was a republic governed by a pair of suffets and the oligarchy. It was not ruled by any priesthoods and had never been ruled by priests. Similarly, the Celts were not ruled by the druids or any other priests. They were ruled by tribal chieftains.

The Gallic invasion of Greece had to do with Gallic settlement in Pannonia and subsequent expansion into the Balkans. There is no evidence whatsoever of communication between the Carthaginians and the Gauls in the Balkans before or during the Pyrrhic War. The invasion of Greece was part of a migratory movement of this people and was helped by the trouble Lysimachus created in Macedon and Thrace in the last years of his reign and by his death when he was killed in battle in his expedition into Lydia in 281 BC. Moreover, these Gauls invaded Macedon, central Greece and Thrace. They left Epirus, the kingdom of Pyrrhus, alone + the invasion could have been avoided had it not been for the arrogance of the new king, Ptolemy Keraunos.

Julius Caesar did not conquer Ba'al worshipping Gauls because neither the Gauls not any other Celts had such a divinity. The Celts of southeastern Britain, which were the ones Caesar attacked, did not even celebrate the Lá Bealtaine festival. This was celebrated much further north. Thus, the claim that Caesar's Gallic Wars can be viewed as the "Fourth Punic War" is utterly unhistorical and based on totally misplaced and uncorroborated conjectures. --020amonra (talk) 15:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is it true that the Romans did not know elephants before Heraclea, and that they were scared by them in the first battle? I remember that from the school, but I am not completely sure it was true. 66.108.219.181 22:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The elephants which had hitherto been kept in reserve were brought up to meet the cavalry; the horses took fright at them; the soldiers, not knowing how to encounter the huge beasts, turned and fled; the masses of disordered horsemen and the pursuing elephants at length broke the compact ranks of the Roman infantry, and the elephants in concert with the excellent Thessalian cavalry wrought great slaughter among the fugitives. - from "The History of Rome, Book II: From the Abolition of the Monarchy in Rome to the Union of Italy", by Theodor Mommsen

this article reads a lot like a book report.

What did you expect? "Gladiator: the Prequel"? - Vedexent 13:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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 - Vedexent (talk · contribs) 21:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

How close did he really get to Rome?pyrrhusany suggestions to improve this?Megistias (talk) 13:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did he get as close as the map in the article or in the one above?Megistias (talk) 16:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

‘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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]