Talk:Pyrrhus of Epirus
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
||
 |
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. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. |
This is a very well done entry! Good job.
Pyrrhus probably was neither Illyrian nor Greek. Although he was influenced by the Greek culture, he belonged to a separate people of Epirus (Thesproti, Chaones, Molossians). Today, in the United States, World History books used at schools do not mention Epirus or Macedonia as lands of Greek people.--70.240.180.62
If he didn't at least consider himself Greek then why would he constantly refer to the Romans as barbarians? And why would the Greeks of Italy prefer to submit to Pyrrhus rather than the Romans? It's certain that Epirus and Macedon had influences from barbarians and were frowned upon by the Greek city-states. After all Macedon and Epirus never adopted the polis, which is what really differentiated them from the rest of Greece. They were most certainly Greek by language, religion and ancestry, and they viewed themselves as such. Miskin 15:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Epirus was semi-Greek. Certainly the aristocracy and the royal family, which believed itself descended from Achilles (note the names - Neoptolemus, Pyrrhus, Aeacides), considered itself to be Greek, just as the Macedonian royal house did. My understanding is that the languages of Epirus and Macedonia are generally considered to be in the same branch of Indo-European as Greek, but so little is known about them that it's not completely sure. john k 04:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
I have heard the order of Hannibal's greatest generals as Pyrrhus first, Alexander second, and I have heard it from other sources as the reverse. Can anyone confirm from the original Livy quote which way around it was?
--- Why should Pyrrhus (or Pyrrhos, if you prefer) not be Greek ? His name was greek, and so as that of his ancestors.Their culture, religiton and customs were greek. Maybe it's because they didn't know of the internet and didn't carry around them identity cards procalaiming their ethnic origin to everyone that causes such a stir today. Just becase they lived in kingdoms and not city-state formations doesn't mean that they were barbarians. ( Not to mention that for a long time, many greek states had kings too ...). And, anyway, the classification of american schoolbooks isn't a n official doctrine of archaeologists worldwide. Besides, it's not as if they would go into details about everyone. But claiming the Epirotes to be anything else than greek is quite a joke (a rather bad one).
Pyrrhus was a Molossi, and related more to the Illyrians than the Greeks. The Greeks used to consider Epeirotes "barbarians." Still, by Pyrrhus's time, Epeiros was hellenized. So I guess in that way, Pyrrhus would be "Greek" ...
Actually, Pyrrhus Italic textwasItalic text greek. At least, that's what the anchient writer Pausanias calls him. In his ΕΛΛΑΔΟΣ ΠΕΡΙΗΓΗΣΙΣ he mentions Pyrrhos as the first person from Greece beyond the Ionian sea to have to have marched against the Romans : Ουτω Πυρρος εστιν ο πρωτος εκ της Ελλάδος της περαν Ιονιου διαβας επι Ρωμαιους. Attika, I,12,1. Can anyone answer why a people or a group does not belong to the anchient greek people(s), when: a)They define and consider themselves as Greeks b)They speak and use between themselves a greek dialect (a doric one, by the way, and not an attic one picked up from others) c) They are referred to by others (anchient writers and poets)as Greeks d) The inscriptions that are found in the regions that they lived are in Greek e) The names they used for themselves were greek. Even if they were mot greek, on what is their assumed origin as Illyrians based on ? Anchient texts? Linguistic similarities ? Archaeological founds ? The geographical proximity to another nation doesn't signify an ethnic relation on it's own. In that case, Ionians and Persians should be considered sister nations.
[edit] PYRRHUS IS ALBANIAN
Pyrrhus was Illyrian from epirus,he is refered to by thr greeks as barbarian and is called by his troops the "EAGLE" because of his great courage on the battlefield. When he heard this he told his soldiers 'It is because of you that I am an eagle, because your arms are my wings'. At the momment the article is mess,it has to be rewritten very soon, preferably without the Greek Propaganda Xalvas 17:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Isn't the Albanian double-headed eagle a ripoff from the Byzantine Greek emblem of the Paleologoi family? There's no evidence that it has any sort of continuity from antiquity. There's not even any evidence that Albanians are an Illyrian people in the first place (aside the fact that Epirus was not Illyrian land). Miskin 21:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- The Epirotes are not considered Illyrians. They were semi-Greek, and have always been considered to be such. The Epirot royal family certainly considered itself Greek, Pyrrhus among them, and scholars generally consider the Epirot language to be in the same family as Greek. There is no particular evidence for the existence of Albanians before, I believe, the early 2nd millennium AD (the Albanians article gives 1043 as the first mention). john k 21:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
