In ancient times, the state of Epirus existed in the north-west of Hellas. Its king's name was Pyrrhus. A talented commander, he enriched military affairs with many innovations. He was the first to surround the military camp with a defensive rampart and ditch. Used elephants in combat.
In 281 BC. e. King Pyrrhus started a war with Rome. He landed in Italy and began to win victories. A year later, the Romans equipped an army designed to crush Pyrrhus. In 279 BC. e. The armies of Rome and Epirus met near the town of Ausculus. After a long battle, the Romans withdrew in full battle order.
Victory went to Pyrrhus. But when he counted his losses, he exclaimed: “Another such victory, and I will be left without an army!” Almost half of the tried and true veteran soldiers died on the battlefield.
After some time, the Romans, having rested and brought up their reserves, attacked Pyrrhus and inflicted a crushing defeat on him. And the expression “Pyrrhic victory” became a common noun, meaning “victory similar to defeat.”
Battle of Lützen
There are many such Pyrrhic victories in history. Sometimes even not great losses, but the death of one person led to defeat. During the Thirty Years' War (1618-1648), the Swedish army under the command of King Gustav II Adolf was considered invincible. Gustav Adolf himself, an excellent commander and skillful politician, was the idol of Sweden and its army.
On November 16, 1632, near the town of Lützen (near Leipzig), the Swedish army clashed with the imperial troops of Albrecht Wallenstein.
King Gustav Adolf personally led the attack of the Smolland Cavalry Regiment, but was wounded in the arm in the battle, and the attack continued without him. Seven people remained with the wounded king. In the fog, a group of imperial cuirassiers stumbled upon them. In the ensuing skirmish, Gustav Adolf was killed.
But the battle continued. Prince Bernhard of Weimar took command. The Swedes gained the upper hand, and the defeated, but not destroyed, imperial troops were forced to retreat. It seems like a victory. The Swedes occupied Leipzig, seizing rich warehouses there and capturing the wounded abandoned by the imperials. But the death of Gustav Adolf, a skilled politician and commander, soon affected the integrity of the coalition. Allies broke away - Russia, Saxony, Brandenburg and others.
Soon, the hitherto invincible Swedes suffered a crushing defeat in the Battle of Nördlingen and retreated to Poland.
Battle of Gross-Jägersdorf
There were cases when a brilliant victory turned into defeat due to stupidity, or even outright betrayal. During the Seven Years' War (1756-1763), Russian troops defeated the Prussian army of Field Marshal Lewald near Gross-Jägersdorf.
But the commander of the Russian army S.F. Apraksin did not take advantage of the victory. On the contrary, having learned about the illness of Empress Elizabeth and wanting to please the heir to the throne Peter III, an ardent admirer of the Prussian king Frederick II, he gives a treasonous order to retreat beyond the Neman. A hasty retreat turns into a stampede. Guns, ammunition, convoys with food and wounded were abandoned. Prussian cavalrymen pursue Russian units along the entire route. On top of everything else, a smallpox epidemic begins. So a brilliant victory turned into a catastrophic defeat. Apraksin was removed from office and put on trial, but without waiting for it, he died from a blow.
Battle of Isandlwana
And it also happens that victory, instead of demoralizing the enemy and plunging him into dust, on the contrary, embitters the defeated side and forces it to consolidate. On January 22, 1879, during the Anglo-Zulu War, at the Battle of Isandlwana, a 22,000-strong Zulu army under the command of Nchingwayo Khoza destroyed a large British detachment. Of the 1,400 Englishmen, only 60 were saved. The victory at Isandlwana became a pyrrhic one for the Zulus - not only because of the losses they suffered of 3,000 people.
Even those of the British who did not want war began to support the “hawks” in the government and agreed to provide all the resources necessary to defeat the Zulus. Troops were sent to South Africa and invaded Zululand, and soon the Zulu state ceased to exist.
Myshkova River
December 12, 1942. German troops under the command of Field Marshal Erich von Manstein attempted to unblock the Paulus group encircled in Stalingrad. The Soviet command did not expect an attack in this area. The powerful tank formations of General Hermann Hoth were opposed by weakened and exhausted units of the 51st Army and the 4th Mechanized Corps.
Soviet soldiers fought to the death near the village of Verkhne-Kumsky. Fierce and stubborn fighting continued with varying success from December 13 to 19. Our units were almost completely destroyed. But the Nazi losses turned out to be enormous - by December 17, Hoth had only 35 combat-ready tanks left. Only by bringing up the reserve 17th Tank Division were the Germans able to break through to the Myshkova River. There were only 40 kilometers left to Stalingrad, but the moment was lost. Soldiers of the 51st Army and the 4th Mechanized Corps detained the enemy for five days, paying for it with their lives. During this time, the fresh 2nd Guards Army of General Malinovsky arrived, which completely defeated the enemy. So the German victory near the village of Verkhne-Kumsky can safely be called a Pyrrhic victory.
Borodino
And, of course, the classic example of a Pyrrhic victory is the Battle of Borodino. Napoleon's main goal was not a tactical victory, not the capture of Moscow, but the complete defeat and demoralization of the Russian army. And this just did not happen. The Russian army was leaving the Borodino field, wanting to fight again. Of course, the columns were thinned out, the losses were enormous - 44 thousand soldiers. Indeed, the bloodiest one-day battle in history!
The French lost even more - 50 thousand people, including 49 of their best generals. But losses are different from losses.
If the Russian army, being on its territory, quickly received reinforcements, then the French were in a less advantageous position.
General Ermolov said that the French broke their teeth on the Borodino field. But he spoke these words later.
Initially, the retreat from the battlefield and subsequent departure from Moscow was perceived by the army and the people as a heavy defeat. All of Russia reacted extremely negatively to Kutuzov’s decisions. The wounded Prince Bagration tore off his bandages and bled to death, Emperor Alexander defiantly dressed in civilian dress, theatrically declaring that it was now shameful to wear a Russian uniform.
The generals criticized the commander, the officers swore, the soldiers grumbled.
Ermolov subtly slandered and was openly rude. Only a couple of weeks later, when Napoleon began to make unsuccessful attempts at peace, when the French quartermaster detachments began to be exterminated by Russian peasants, when provisions and fodder for horses dried up in Moscow, when the Cossacks and partisans began to drive thousands of crowds of prisoners into the Tarutino camp, the attitude towards Kutuzov became change. Having understood the brilliant strategic idea that drove Napoleon into the Moscow mousetrap, the army and people moved from censure to approval of Kutuzov.
Thus, a skilled chess player, having sacrificed a strong piece, ultimately wins the entire game. Borodino became a Pyrrhic victory for Napoleon. A tactical victory that led to a catastrophic strategic defeat. The beginning of the collapse of his empire.
Pyrrhic victory Pyrrhic victoryAccording to the ancient Greek historian Plutarch, King Pyrrhus of Epirus in 279 BC. e., after his victory over the Romans at Asculum, he exclaimed: “Another such victory, and we are lost.” Another version of the same phrase is known: “Another such victory, and I will be left without an army.”
In this battle, Pyrrhus won thanks to the presence of war elephants in his army, against which at that time the Romans did not yet know how to fight and therefore were powerless against them, “as if before rising water or a destructive earthquake,” as the same Plutarch wrote. The Romans then had to leave the battlefield and retreat to
his camp, which, according to the customs of those times, meant the complete victory of Pyrrhus. But the Romans fought courageously, so the winner that day lost as many soldiers as the vanquished - 15 thousand people. Hence this bitter confession of Pyrrhus.
Contemporaries compared Pyrrhus to a dice player who always makes a successful throw, but does not know how to take advantage of this luck. As a result, this feature of Pyrrhus destroyed him. Moreover, his own “miracle weapon” - war elephants - played an ominous role in his death.
When Pyrrhus's army was besieging the Greek city of Argos, his warriors found a way to infiltrate the sleeping city. They would have captured it completely bloodlessly, if not for Pyrrhus’ decision to introduce war elephants into the city. They did not pass through the gates - the combat towers installed on them were in the way. They began to remove them, then put them back on the animals, which caused a noise. The Argives took up arms, and fighting began in the narrow city streets. There was general confusion: no one heard orders, no one knew who was where, what was happening on the next street. Argos turned into a huge trap for the Epirus army.
Pyrrhus tried to quickly get out of the “captured” city. He sent a messenger to his son, who was standing with a detachment near the city, with an order to urgently break down part of the wall so that the Epirus warriors would quickly leave the city. But the messenger misunderstood the order, and the son of Pyrrhus moved to the city to the rescue of his father. So two oncoming streams collided at the gates - those retreating from the city and those who rushed to their aid. To top it all off, the elephants rebelled: one lay down right at the gate, not wanting to move at all, the other, the most powerful, nicknamed Nikon, having lost his wounded driver friend, began to look for him, rush around and trample both his own and other people’s soldiers. Finally, he found his friend, grabbed him with his trunk, put him on his tusks and rushed out of the city, crushing everyone he met.
In this commotion, Pyrrhus himself died. He fought with a young Argive warrior, whose mother, like all the women of the city, stood on the roof of her house. Being near the scene of the fight, she saw her son and decided to help him. Having broken out a tile from the roof, she threw it at Pyrrhus and hit him in the neck, unprotected by armor. The commander fell and was finished off on the ground.
But, besides this “sadly born” phrase, Pyrrhus is also known for some achievements that enriched the military affairs of that time. So. He was the first to surround the military camp with a defensive rampart and ditch. Before him, the Romans surrounded their camp with carts, and that was how its arrangement usually ended.
Allegorically: a victory that came at a very high price; success equals defeat (ironic).
Encyclopedic Dictionary of winged words and expressions. - M.: “Locked-Press”. Vadim Serov. 2003.
Pyrrhic victory King Pyrrhus of Epirus in 279 BC. defeated the Romans at the Battle of Ausculum. But this victory, as Plutarch (in the biography of Pyrrhus) and other ancient historians say, cost Pyrrhus such great losses in the army that he exclaimed: “Another such victory, and we are lost!” Indeed, in the next year, 278, the Romans defeated Pyrrhus. This is where the expression “Pyrrhic victory” arose, meaning: a dubious victory that does not justify the sacrifices made for it.
Dictionary of popular words. Plutex. 2004.
What does "Pyrrhic victory" mean?
Maxim Maksimovich
There is a region of Epirus in Greece. King Pyrrhus of Epirus in 280 BC. e. waged a long and brutal war with Rome. Twice he managed to win; His army had war elephants, but the Romans did not know how to fight with them. Nevertheless, the second victory was given to Pyrrhus at the cost of such sacrifices that, according to legend, he exclaimed after the battle: “Another such victory - and I will be left without an army!”
The war ended with the defeat and retreat of Pyrrhus from Italy. The words “Pyrrhic victory” have long since become a designation for success, bought at such a high price that, perhaps, defeat would have been no less profitable: “The victories of the fascist troops near Yelnya and Smolensk in 1941 turned out to be “Pyrrhic victories.”
~Fish~
Ausculum, a city in the North. Apulia (Italy), near which in 279 BC. e. There was a battle between the troops of the Epirus king Pyrrhus and the Roman troops during the wars of Rome for the conquest of the South. Italy. The Epirus army broke the resistance of the Romans within two days, but its losses were so great that Pyrrhus said: “one more such victory and I will have no more soldiers left.” Hence the expression “Pyrrhic victory.”
The expression “Pyrrhic victory” also became popular. How did it come about? What does it mean?
Roma Subbotin
Pyrrhic victory
There is a region of Epirus in Greece. King Pyrrhus of Epirus in 280 BC. e. waged a long and brutal war with Rome. Twice he managed to win; His army had war elephants, but the Romans did not know how to fight with them. Nevertheless, the second victory was given to Pyrrhus at the cost of such sacrifices that, according to legend, he exclaimed after the battle: “Another such victory - and I will be left without an army!” The war ended with the defeat and retreat of Pyrrhus from Italy. The words “Pyrrhic victory” have long since become a designation for success, bought at such a high price that, perhaps, defeat would have been no less profitable: “The victories of the fascist troops near Yelnya and Smolensk in 1941 turned out to be “Pyrrhic victories.”
Bulat Khaliullin
The Roman Republic fought with Greece in 200-300 BC. e.
The king of one small Greek state (Epirus) was Pyrrhus
In one of the campaigns, his army defeated the army of Rome, but suffered terrible losses
As a result, he lost the next battle, and then he himself was killed by a piece of a tiled roof during street fighting
Kikoghost
When Pyrrhus in 279 B.C. e. won another victory over the Roman army, examining it, he saw that more than half of the fighters had died. Amazed, he exclaimed: “Another such victory, and I will lose my entire army.” The expression means a victory that is equal to a defeat, or a victory for which too much has been paid.
Nadezhda Sushitskaya
A victory that came at too high a price. Too many losses.
The origin of this expression is due to the battle of Ascullus in 279 BC. e. Then the Epirus army of King Pyrrhus attacked the Roman troops for two days and broke their resistance, but the losses were so great that Pyrrhus remarked: “Another such victory, and I will be left without an army.”
The king who won at too great a cost. What answer?
Afanasy44
Pyrrhic victory- an expression that is included in all dictionaries of the world and appeared more than 2 thousand years ago, when the king of Epirus Pyrrhus was able to defeat the Romans near the town of Ausculum during his raid on the Apennine Peninsula. In a two-day battle, his army lost about three and a half thousand soldiers and only the successful actions of 20 war elephants helped him break the Romans.
King Pyrrhus, by the way, was a relative of Alexander the Great and was his second cousin, so he had someone to learn from. Although in the end he lost the war with the Romans, he returned to his place. And 7 years later, during an attack on Macedonia, he was killed in the city of Argos, when a woman from the city’s defenders threw tiles at him from the roof of a house.
Vafa Aliyeva
Pyrrhic victory - this expression owes its origin to the battle of Ausculum in 279 BC. e. Then the Epirus army of King Pyrrhus attacked the Roman troops for two days and broke their resistance, but the losses were so great that Pyrrhus remarked: “Another such victory, and I will be left without an army.”
Tamila123
We are talking about the king of Epirus and Macedonia - King Pyrrhus. He fought with Ancient Rome. King Pyrrhus suffered great losses, which is why that war became the phraseology “Pyrrhic victory” - a victory on the way to which there were so many losses that the taste of victory is not felt.
Valery146
The Greek king Pyrrhus won the battle with the enemy, losing more than half of his army and realized that one more such victory and he would have no soldiers left.
This is how the expression Pyrrhic victory appeared, that is, a victory achieved at a very high, usually unacceptable price!
It was probably PYRRHUS. Since then, this victory bears his name and is called a Pyrrhic victory, that is, the sacrifices made for this victory in no way correspond to the victory itself, but are equated to defeat. This is approximately how I understand this expression)))
In military affairs, victory in one battle is not always decisive. Military history has witnessed such triumphs that came at too high a price. Their name is Pyrrhic victories.
Origin of the term "Pyrrhic victory"
In the art of warfare, this term refers to a victory that is equivalent to defeat or even exceeds it in terms of losses. The name of the term comes from the name of the Greek commander Pyrrhus, who coveted the laurels of Alexander the Great and won one of the most destructive victories in the history of military affairs. However, Pyrrhus was not the only one to make the classic mistake of a commander - having won a battle, he lost the war.
Before the devastating triumph of Pyrrhus, the expression “Cadmean victory” was in use.
Battles of Heraclea and Ausculum
The devastating victory of the same name came at a high price to the leader of the army of Epirus, the ambitious commander Pyrrhus, who decided to conquer Rome. He first invaded Italy in 280 BC. e., having concluded an alliance with the Greek-speaking city of Tarentum. He led an army of 25 thousand warriors and 20 war elephants, which the Roman opponents saw for the first time. Elephants had a decisive influence on the victory at Heraclea.
Enraged, Pyrrhus continued to capture the Roman Republic and a year later reached Ausculum. This time the Romans were better prepared and, despite the defeat, inflicted enormous damage on Pyrrhus's army. According to Plutarch, after the victory at Ausculum, Pyrrhus said that one more such victory over the Romans - and he would have no army left at all. After further defeats, the Greek conqueror stopped his military campaign against Rome and in 275 BC. e. went back to Greece.
Battle of Malplaquet
After the King of Spain, Charles II of Habsburg, died without leaving an heir, a military conflict broke out between France and the allied Anglo-Danish-Austrian forces over the empty throne. It lasted 14 years and was called the War of the Spanish Succession. The conflict reached its climax in 1709 at Malplaquet, when the Allied army of one hundred thousand met with French soldiers, whose number reached 90 thousand. The Allied commander-in-chief, the Duke of Marlborough, was impatient to crush the French, and on September 11 he launched a large-scale offensive with infantry and cavalry. The French used a number of shelters and obstacles, but despite this, the Duke's troops, after seven hours of bloody battle, broke the enemy's resistance. The Habsburg army was so tired and thinned out that it allowed the French to retreat with minimal losses.
The Battle of Malplaquet was the largest military operation of the 18th century. The losses of the French army amounted to 12 thousand people, while the Allied forces lost twice as many, which at that time amounted to a quarter of the entire Habsburg army. The French commander-in-chief, the Duke de Villars, in a report to King Louis XIV, repeated the words of Pyrrhus, saying that if God deigns to give the opponents another such victory, not a trace will remain of their army. The bloodshed at Malplaquet sowed discord among the Allied marshals, and by 1712 the agreement began to lose its force.
Battle of Bunker Hill
In 1775, the first blood began to be shed in the War of Independence from the British Crown. On June 17, a thousand-strong militia unit tried to resist the capture of several heights near Boston. At Bunker Hill they encountered trained and armed Imperial Army soldiers outnumbering the militia two to one. The Americans successfully fired back and managed to push back two attempted attacks by the Red Caftans. On the third attempt, the militia had no ammunition left, and they were forced to retreat.
The victory was too costly for the British; they lost half of their squad and were forced to occupy another height. The militia took their defeat as a moral victory over the enemy - they coped with a professional military detachment, which also had a numerical advantage.
Battle of Borodino
Lermontov’s famous poem begins with a question: “Tell me, uncle, it’s not without reason...” And it’s not without reason... The Battle of Borodino became the bloodiest day in Napoleon’s military campaign. In 1812, Bonaparte was closer than ever to Moscow. Before this, the Russian commanders had happily pretended to be retreating, but on the approaches to the city, Kutuzov turned his army around to face the enemy. The French did not waste time and rushed into a direct attack on the fortifications of the Russian army. The battle was bloody and lengthy, only in the evening the French managed to break the enemy. Napoleon took pity on his elite warriors and allowed Kutuzov to withdraw the army with minimal losses.
Napoleon remained king of the battlefield, which was littered with the bodies of the dead French. His army lost 30 thousand soldiers - half as many as the Russian army. Thirty thousand turned out to be too large a number, especially when conducting military operations on unfriendly Russian soil. The capture of Moscow did not bring relief, since the city lay in ruins - residents set it on fire immediately after the arrival of the French. Faced with Russian unwillingness to surrender, severe cold and hunger, Napoleon lost 400 thousand of his soldiers.
Battle of Chancellorsville
The second largest battle of the American Civil War demonstrates the unique tactical approach of Confederate General Robert E. Lee. Despite being outnumbered twice by Joseph Hooker's Army of the Potomac, Lee was able to turn the tide of the battle in his favor. Taking enormous risks and disregarding doctrine, General Lee divided his troops and twice attacked better-prepared enemy positions. Unexpected maneuvers by the Confederates prevented Hooker from encircling General Lee's army, and a few days later the Unionists were forced to retreat in disgrace.
Although the Battle of Chancellorsville is considered a masterpiece of military art and elevated General Lee's tactical intelligence to new heights, victory was not easy for the Confederates. The commander-in-chief's closest adviser, General Stonewall Jackson, was killed in the skirmish, and the total losses of the Army of Virginia amounted to 13 thousand people. While Hooker's army was able to replenish its ranks with new recruits, the Confederates' victory at Chancellorsville brought only historical glory.
Pyrrhic victory- an achievement that led to disaster, a victory that cost too much sacrifice, a success that led to failure, an acquisition that turned into losses.The history of phraseological units dates back to antiquity. King Pyrrhus of Epirus achieved victory in the battle with the Romans, but at the cost of too many casualties for his army. “Another such victory, and I will be left without an army,” exclaimed Pyrrhus when the Romans retreated and he counted his losses. And indeed, a year later the Romans took revenge, the army of Pyrrhus was defeated
Epirus and Pyrrhus
The city of Ioannina is the capital of modern Epirus
Epirus is a region in the northwest of the Peloponnese peninsula on the coast of the Ionian Sea. Today it is divided between Greece and Albania. In ancient times, this territory was inhabited by tribes of Illyrians, who were later assimilated by the Greeks and Italians. Today, Albanians and some Croats consider themselves partly descendants of the Illyrians. The Illyrians had a state. It existed from the 5th to the 2nd centuries BC and fell under the blows of the Romans. The battle, after which King Pyrrhus recognized his victory as “Pyrrhic,” took place in Italy, near the city of Auscula (now Ascoli Satriano) in 279 BC. In it, both troops suffered heavy losses - 15 thousand people each, but the Romans, firstly, retreated to their camp in order, and secondly, had more opportunities to restore combat effectiveness, while Pyrrhus lost the best part of the army, which was difficult to replace
"Pyrrhic Victory" and "Cadmean Victory"
Before our era, the concept of “Pyrrhic victory” did not exist. But there was another phraseological unit, close in meaning - “Cadmean Victory”. Ancient intellectuals owe its appearance to the ancient Greek playwrights, who described in their tragedies the struggle of the brothers Eteocles and Polyneices for power over Thebes, a rich and powerful city in central Greece. Both brothers died in one of the fierce battles (Cadmus - the legendary founder of Thebes)
*** Ancient Greek historian Diodorus Siculus (90 - 30 BC): “The Cadmean victory is a proverb. It means that the victors failed, while the vanquished were not in danger due to the magnitude of their strength. King Pyrrhus lost many of the Epirotes who came with him, and when one of his friends asked how he assessed the battle, he replied: “If I win another such victory over the Romans, I will not have a single warrior left from those that came with me"(“Historical Library.” Book XXII)
*** Ancient Greek geographer Pausanias (110-180 AD): “The Argive army came to the center of Boeotia from the center of the Peloponnese, and Adrastus recruited allies from both Arcadia and Messenia. In equal measure, mercenaries came to the Thebans from the Phocians and Phlegians from the country of the Minyans. In the battle that took place at Ismenia, the Thebans were defeated in the first clash, and, being put to flight, they fled and hid behind the walls of the city. Since the Peloponnesians did not know how to take walls by storm, they carried out their attacks more with enthusiasm than with knowledge of the matter, and the Thebans, hitting them from the walls, killed many of them; and then, leaving the city, they attacked the rest of them, thrown into disorder, and defeated them, so that the whole army perished except Adrastus. But for the Thebans themselves, this matter was not without great losses, and therefore the victory, which turned out to be disastrous for the victors, is called the Cadmean (Cadmian) victory.”(“Description of Hellas”, IX, 9, 1)
"Pyrrhic victories" in history
Application of the expression "Pyrrhic victory"
-
“The impresario greeted Rachmaninov with a respectful and comic bow. - I admit, you won... But no matter how it turned out to be a Pyrrhic victory. “Serious trials await you... All proceeds from my concerts will go to the Red Army Fund” (Nagibin “Bells”)
-
“The Russian government won Pyrrhus’ victory thanks to a lack of understanding of the people” (Gorky “To the Workers of All Countries”)