Pyrrhic victory
-
What is a Pyrrhic victory?
A Pyrrhic victory is a triumph that comes at such a high cost that it is essentially a defeat. The term originates from King Pyrrhus of Epirus, who defeated the Romans in battles at Heraclea and Asculum in 280 and 279 BCE, respectively, but suffered great losses. After the Battle of Ausculum, Pyrrhus reportedly said, "One more such victory and we are lost".
The repercussions of a Pyrrhic victory, where the victorious side endures substantial losses, can undermine their prospects in future campaigns. The concept extends beyond warfare to sports and business.
3 Britannica SourcesCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
How did the term 'Pyrrhic victory' originate?
The term "Pyrrhic victory" originated from Pyrrhus of Epirus, a king whose triumphs against the Romans in 280 and 279 BCE at Heraclea and Asculum came at such a high cost that they ultimately led to his defeat in 275 BCE at Beneventum.
The term Pyrrhic emerged in the late 16th century to describe victories similar to those of Pyrrhus. By the early 19th century, it was paired with victory, defining a win achieved at an excessive cost. A Pyrrhic victory is a success with such significant harm to the victor that it differs little from defeat.
3 Britannica SourcesCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
Who was King Pyrrhus, and what battles made the term famous?
Pyrrhus of Epirus (319â272 BCE) was a king whose battles against Macedonia and Rome led to the term "Pyrrhic victory". A Pyrrhic victory is a win that comes at such a high cost that it is essentially a defeat.
Pyrrhus was asked to assist Tarentum against Rome in 281 BCE. He arrived in Italy with about 25,000 men and 20 elephants. He won battles at Heraclea in 280 BCE and Asculum in 279 BCE, but suffered heavy casualties. In 275 BCE, he fought the Romans at Beneventum and suffered heavy losses. Although the Romans suffered more casualties in the initial two battles, they could absorb those losses better than Pyrrhus, whose victories ultimately weakened his army.
3 Britannica SourcesCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
Why is a Pyrrhic victory considered a loss in some ways?
A Pyrrhic victory is considered a loss because the costs and repercussions overshadow the triumph. The term originates from King Pyrrhus of Epirus, who defeated the Romans in two battles but suffered great losses. After one battle, he exclaimed, "One more such victory and we are lost".
In warfare, a Pyrrhic victory means winning at such a high expense that it negatively impacts future campaigns. This concept extends beyond military contexts to sports or business, where a win inflicts significant harm, diminishing the sense of accomplishment and future success.
3 Britannica SourcesCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
Can you give another example of a Pyrrhic victory in history or literature?
A Pyrrhic victory is a victory with such a high cost that it is similar to a defeat. The term comes from King Pyrrhus of Epirus, who defeated the Romans in 279 BCE at Asculum but suffered great losses.
Another example of a Pyrrhic victory is Douglas Haig's strategy during World War I. As a British commander, Haig dismissed the impact of machine guns and favored attrition. At the First Battle of the Somme, he ordered his men to advance, resulting in 60,000 British casualties on the first day alone and 420,000 overall. Haig continued this strategy at Passchendaele, where he lost another 275,000 troops. These battles, though resulting in Allied gains, came at a tremendous cost, exemplifying a Pyrrhic victory.
3 Britannica SourcesCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
What lessons can we learn from the idea of a Pyrrhic victory in decision-making or conflict?
A Pyrrhic victory is a triumph that comes at such a high cost that it is essentially a defeat. The term originates from King Pyrrhus of Epirus, who defeated the Romans in battle but suffered irreplaceable losses.
The lesson of a Pyrrhic victory is that winning isn't everything; the cost matters. A sports team might win a game but lose a star player to injury, hurting their future chances. Similarly, a business might win a lawsuit but suffer significant financial and reputational damage. Therefore, it's crucial to consider the long-term consequences of decisions, ensuring that the benefits outweigh the costs.
2 Britannica SourcesCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles.
Pyrrhic victory, a success that brings such significant harm to the victor that it differs little from defeat. Although the triumphant party in a Pyrrhic victory is considered the overall winner, the costs incurred and their future repercussions diminish the sense of genuine success. It is sometimes known as a hollow victory.
The origin of the term Pyrrhic victory can be traced to King Pyrrhus of Epirus. In 281 bce Pyrrhus arrived at Tarentum (modern Taranto) in Magna Graecia on the southern Italian coast with 20 elephants and roughly 25,000 soldiers to defend his fellow Greeks against the advancing Romans. Pyrrhus won the initial two battles, at Heraclea (280 bce) and Asculum (279 bce), but at a significant cost. Gravely depleted, Pyrrhusâs forces lost their momentum and were defeated by the Romans in the final, decisive battle at Beneventum in 275 bce. Even though the Romans suffered a greater number of casualties in both of Pyrrhusâs initial victories, their losses were less severe given the larger size of their army.
In the late 16th century, the term Pyrrhic emerged as an adjective referring to victories resembling that of Pyrrhus. The earliest known usages of the concept appear in Christopher Marloweâs works, and by the early 19th century Pyrrhic had begun to be paired with victory, rendering the precise meaning of a victory achieved at excessive cost.
" height="20" alt="HEW Logo">
In the context of warfare, a Pyrrhic victory is a triumph achieved at great expense, where the victorious party suffers significant losses that diminish the overall sense of success. For example, if side A prevails over side B in a particular battle but suffers a significant number of casualties in the process, the outcome might be a Pyrrhic victory. Although side A has won the immediate conflict, the repercussions of their losses may have a negative impact on their future campaigns. The notion of winning the battle but losing the war is the primary understanding of Pyrrhusâs deeds in the 3rd century bce.
Examples of Pyrrhic victories
There are several other notable Pyrrhic victories in military history. During Napoleonâs invasion of Russia, the French were the victors at the Battle of Borodino (September 7, 1812). Although the French army subsequently occupied Moscow, the Russian government refused to come to terms with Napoleon. Unwilling to risk wintering in Moscow, Napoleon tried to withdraw, but he found his way blocked by Russian Gen. Mikhail Kutuzov. By the time Napoleonâs Grande ArmĂ©e completed its retreat from Russia, it had lost some 80 percent of its strength.
During the American Civil War the Battle of Chancellorsville (April 30âMay 5, 1863) is regarded by many as Confederate Gen. Robert E. Leeâs greatest triumph, but the battlefield victory came at an enormous cost. Lee audaciously divided his army in the face of the much larger Union force and routed Gen. Joseph Hookerâs Army of the Potomac. In the pursuit of Union troops, however, Leeâs ablest lieutenant, Gen. Thomas (âStonewallâ) Jackson, was mistakenly shot by his own men and later succumbed to his wounds. Leeâs success at Chancellorsville also inspired him to mount a disastrous invasion of Pennsylvania; the Union victory at the Battle of Gettysburg (July 1â3, 1863) would prove to be one of the turning points of the war.
During the Vietnam War the Tet Offensive (January 31, 1968) concluded with a clear victory for the forces of the United States and South Vietnam. In deviating from their proven guerrilla tactics, the North Vietnamese suffered a crushing tactical defeat, but the scale of their attack undermined support for the war among the American public. In the wake of Tet, U.S. commander Gen. William C. Westmoreland requested a significant increase in troops, thinking that the time was right to strike the weakened North Vietnamese military. To the increasingly vocal antiwar movement, however, this appeal seemed to confirm that U.S. involvement in Vietnam was escalating in the face of an unfaltering and seemingly unbeatable enemy at the cost of American lives.
The trusted destination for professionals, college students, and lifelong learners.
SUBSCRIBE
Pyrrhic victories in other contexts
Like many metaphors of war, the concept of a Pyrrhic victory also applies in nonmilitary contexts. In sports, for example, one might call it a Pyrrhic victory if team A defeats team B in a football game but loses its most valuable player to a season-ending injury in the process, a cost so great that it diminishes their sense of accomplishment and ability to succeed in the future. In business, if a small business sues a larger competitor with greater resources and legal representation, even if the smaller entity obtains a favourable verdict, the lengthy litigation process may inflict significant harm and costs on the business.