The meaning of the phraseological unit “Pyrrhic victory. Pyrrhic victories An ancient king whose victory was worse than defeat

Excursion into history

In 280 BC, King Pyrrhus landed in Italy with his large army. On the side of Pyrrhus were the recalcitrant Samnites. The army included war elephants, which was a big surprise for the Romans. The first battle ended in a decisive victory for Pyrrhus's army, even though the Romans were vastly outnumbered. A year later, in 279, the Romans sent a new army to crush Pyrrhus. After a long battle, Pyrrhus again managed to defeat the Romans, but, counting the losses, the king cried out: "Another such victory and I will be left without an army!" The Romans fought courageously, and the losses were equivalent - 15 thousand people.

Achievements of Pyrrhus

The king of Epirus is famous not only for the phrase “Pyrrhic victory”, but also for some achievements that enriched the military affairs of that time. It was he who first began to enclose the battle camp with a moat and rampart for defense. After the battle with the Romans, the expression "Pyrrhic victory" became widespread. Basically, it is pronounced when success had to be paid very dearly. Such victories include the Battle of Malplac, the War of the Spanish Succession (1709). Then the British, after defeating the French, discovered that a third of their troops had died. The Battle of Maloyaroslavets (1812) is also a Pyrrhic victory. The French then still managed to take the city, but, as you know, the Napoleonic army did not receive anything worthwhile from such an acquisition.

Contemporaries often compared Pyrrhus to a dice player whose every throw is successful, but who does not know how to use his luck. As a result, this feature of Pyrrhus became the cause of his death. In addition, it was the war elephants, his secret "wonder weapon", that played a decisive role in his death.

Battle of Argos

When the army of Pyrrhus besieged Argos, his soldiers found an opportunity to quietly penetrate the sleeping city, but the king decided to bring war elephants into the city. But since they did not pass through the gate, this caused a noise, and the Argives grabbed their weapons. The battle in the narrow streets led to general confusion, no one heard the orders, it was impossible to determine where anyone was. As a result, Argos became a huge trap for the Epirus army. Trying to get out of the city, Pyrrhus sent a messenger to his son with an order to break the walls so that his army could leave the “captured city”. But his order was misunderstood, and the son of Pyrrhus went to the city to save his father. At the gate, two streams - retreating and those who hurried to their rescue - collided. In this pandemonium, Pyrrhus died at the hands of the mother of the warrior Argos, with whom he fought. The woman decided to help her son and threw a tile at Pyrrhus, hitting him right in the neck, not protected by armor.

"Pyrrhic victory": meaning

So, a Pyrrhic victory is called a victory for which a very high price had to be paid. This is a success that can be equated with defeat. In St. Petersburg, in the very center of the city, there is the Admiralty Tower. Four seated warriors can be seen against the background of the sky at the corners of the tower. Few people know who they are, but these are the four most famous commanders of ancient times: Caesar, Achilles, Pyrrhus and Alexander.

In military affairs, victory in one battle is not always decisive. military history 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 equal to defeat or even surpasses it in the number 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 devastating victories in the history of military affairs. However, Pyrrhus was not the only one who made the classic mistake of a commander - having won the battle, he lost the war.

Before the crushing triumph of Pyrrhus, the expression "Cadmean victory" was common.

Battles of Heraclea and Ausculum

The devastating victory of the same name came at a high cost 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 entered into an alliance with the Greek-speaking city of Tarentum. He led an army of 25 thousand soldiers 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 their defeat, inflicted great damage on Pyrrhus' army. According to Plutarch, after the victory at Ausculum, Pyrrhus declared that one more such victory over the Romans would leave him with no army at all. After further defeats, the Greek conqueror stopped the military campaign against Rome and in 275 BC. e. went back to Greece.

Battle of Malplac

After the King of Spain, Charles II of Habsburg, died without an heir, a military conflict broke out between France and the allied Anglo-Danish-Austrian troops for the empty throne. It lasted 14 years and was called the War of the Spanish Succession. The conflict came to a head in 1709 at Malplac, when a 100,000-strong allied army met up to 90,000 French soldiers. The commander-in-chief of the allied army, 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 that it allowed the French to retreat with minimal losses.

The Battle of Malplaque became the largest military operation XVIII century. The loss of the French army amounted to 12 thousand people, while allied forces lost twice as much, 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, stating that if God deigns to give the opponents another such victory, there will be no trace of their army. The bloodshed at Malplac sowed discord in the ranks of 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 for independence from the British crown. On June 17, a 1,000-strong militia force attempted to resist the capture of several heights near Boston. At Bunker Hill they encountered trained and armed soldiers of the Imperial army, outnumbering the militia by two to one. The Americans successfully fired back and managed to throw back two attempts to attack the red caftans. On the third attempt, the militias had no ammunition left, and they were forced to retreat.

The victory cost the British too dearly, they lost half of the detachment and were forced to take another height. The militias, on the other hand, perceived 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 the 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. Prior to this, the Russian commanders happily pretended to be retreating, but on the outskirts of the city, Kutuzov deployed his army 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 long, 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 the king of the battlefield, which was littered with the bodies of dead Frenchmen. His army lost 30 thousand soldiers - half the size of the Russian army. Thirty thousand turned out to be too much a large number, especially when conducting military operations on unfriendly Russian soil. The capture of Moscow did not bring relief, since the city lay in ruins - the inhabitants set fire to it immediately after the arrival of the French. Faced with Russian reluctance to surrender, severe cold and famine, Napoleon lost 400,000 of his soldiers.

Battle of Chancellorsville

The second largest battle of the American civil war showcases the unique tactical approach of Confederate General Robert E. Lee. Despite being outnumbered twice by Joseph Hooker's Army of the Potomac, Lee managed to turn the tide of battle in his favor. Taking great risks and ignoring doctrine, General Li divided his troops and twice attacked the better prepared positions of the enemy. Unexpected Confederate maneuvers 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 work of military art and elevates General Lee's tactical intelligence to new heights, the victory was not easy for the Confederates. In the shootout, the closest adviser to the commander-in-chief, General Jackson "Stonewall", was killed, and the total losses of the Virginia army amounted to 13 thousand people. While Hooker's army was able to replenish the ranks of soldiers from among the new recruits, the Confederate victory at Chancellorsville brought only historical glory.

King Pyrrhus. Source: commons.wikimedia.org

A Pyrrhic victory is a victory that was won at too high a price, the result of which did not justify the effort and money invested.

Origin of expression

The origin of the expression is associated with the battle of Ausculum (in 279 BC). Then the Epirusian army of King Pyrrhus for two days attacked the Roman troops and broke their resistance, but the losses were so great that Pyrrhus remarked: “One more such victory, and I will be left without an army.” Another version of the same phrase is known: "Another such victory, and we were lost."

The Secret of War Elephants

In this battle, Pyrrhus won thanks to the presence in his army of war elephants, against which at that time the Romans did not yet know how to fight and therefore were powerless in front of them, “as if before rising water or a destructive earthquake,” as he wrote. Plutarch. The Romans then had to leave the battlefield and retreat to their camp, which, according to the customs of those times, meant a complete victory for Pyrrhus. But the Romans fought courageously, so the winner that day lost as many soldiers as the vanquished - 15 thousand people.

Expression predecessors

Before Pyrrhus, the expression "Cadmean victory" was in common use, based on the ancient Greek epic "Seven against Thebes" and found in Plato in his "Laws". The interpretation of this concept can be found in the ancient Greek writer Pausanias: telling about the campaign of the Argives against Thebes and the victory of the Thebans, he reports:

"... but for the Thebans themselves, this case was not without great losses, and therefore the victory, which turned out to be disastrous for the winners, is called the Cadmeian." (c) "Description of Hellas", book. IX.

Epirus is geographical and historical region in southeastern Europe between present-day Greece and Albania. Epirus was part of ancient Hellas with the Acheron and Kokytos rivers and the Illyrian population. To the north of Epirus was Illyria, to the northeast - Macedonia, to the east - Thessaly.

To the south were the regions of Ambracia, Amphilochia, Acarnania, Aetolia.

Pyrrhic victory Pyrrhic victory
According to the ancient Greek historian Plutarch, the king of Epirus Pyrrhus 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: "One more such victory, and I will be left without an army."
In this battle, Pyrrhus won thanks to the presence in his army of war elephants, against which at that time the Romans did not yet know how to fight and therefore were powerless in front of 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
their camp, which, according to the customs of those times, meant a complete victory for Pyrrhus. But the Romans fought courageously, so the winner that day lost as many soldiers as the defeated - 15 thousand people. Hence this bitter confession of Pyrrhus.
Contemporaries compared Pyrrhus to a dice player who always makes a good throw, but does not know how to use this luck. As a result, this feature of Pyrrhus killed him. Moreover, an ominous role in his death was played by his own “miracle weapon” - war elephants.
When Pyrrhus's army besieged 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 the decision of Pyrrhus to bring war elephants into the city. They did not pass through the gates - the battle towers installed on them interfered. They began to take them off, then put them on the animals again, which caused a noise. The Argives grabbed their weapons, 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 has become a huge trap for the Epirus army.
Pyrrhus tried to get out of the "captured" city as soon as possible. He sent a messenger to his son, who was standing near the city with a detachment, with an order to urgently break 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 help his father. So two oncoming streams collided at the gate - those retreating from the city and those who hurried 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, named Nikon, having lost his wounded driver friend, began to look for him, rush about 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 turmoil, Pyrrhus himself died. He fought a young Argos-sktsm warrior whose mother, like all the women of the city, stood on the roof of her house. Being near the place of the fight, she saw her son and decided to help him. Having broken the tiles from the roof, she threw them at Pyrrhus and hit him in the neck, which was not protected by armor. The commander fell and was finished off on the ground.
But, besides this "sad-born" phrase, Pyrrhus is also known for some achievements that enriched the military affairs of that time. So. he was the first to enclose the military camp with a defensive rampart and a moat. Before him, the Romans surrounded their camp with wagons, so its arrangement usually ended.
Allegorically: a victory that came at a very high price; success equal to defeat (iron.).

Encyclopedic Dictionary of winged words and expressions. - M .: "Lokid-Press". Vadim Serov. 2003.

Pyrrhic victory Epirus king Pyrrhus 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 tell, cost Pyrrhus such great losses in the army that he exclaimed: "Another such victory, and we are lost!" Indeed, in the following year, 278, the Romans defeated Pyrrhus. Hence the expression "Pyrrhic victory" in the meaning: a dubious victory that does not justify the sacrifices incurred for it.

Dictionary of winged words. Plutex. 2004.

What does "pyrrhic victory" mean?

Maxim Maksimovich

There is a region of Epirus in Greece. Epirus king Pyrrhus in 280 BC. e. waged a long and brutal war with Rome. Twice he managed to win victories; in his army there were war elephants, and 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 in defeat and the retreat of Pyrrhus from Italy. The words “Pyrrhic victory” have long since become a designation of success, bought at such a high price that, perhaps, a 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. Puglia (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 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 warriors." Hence the expression "Pyrrhic victory".

The expression "Pyrrhic victory" has also become winged. How did it come about? What does it mean?

Roma Subbotin

Pyrrhic victory
There is a region of Epirus in Greece. Epirus king Pyrrhus in 280 BC. e. waged a long and brutal war with Rome. Twice he managed to win victories; in his army there were war elephants, and 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 of success, bought at such a high price that, perhaps, a 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 haliullin

The Roman Republic was at war with Greece in 200-300 BC. e.
The king of one little Greek state(Epirus) was Pyrrhus
In one of the campaigns, his army defeated the army of Rome, but suffered monstrous 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 BC e. won another victory over the Roman army, examining it, he saw that more than half of the soldiers died. Astonished, he exclaimed: "Another such victory, and I will lose the whole army." The expression means victory equal to defeat, or victory for which too much has been paid.

Nadezhda sushitskaya

A victory that came at too high a cost. 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 for two days attacked the Roman troops and broke their resistance, but the losses were so great that Pyrrhus remarked: “One more such victory, and I will be left without an army”

The king who won at too high a cost. What answer?

Athanasius44

Pyrrhic victory- an expression that entered all the dictionaries of the world and appeared more than 2 thousand years ago, when the king of Epirus Pyrrhus was able to defeat the Romans at 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 of Mecedon, 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 after 7 years, during an attack on Macedonia, he was killed in the city of Argos, when a woman from the defenders of the city 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 for two days attacked the Roman troops and broke their resistance, but the losses were so great that Pyrrhus remarked: “One more such victory, and I will be left without an army.”

Tamil123

We are talking about the king of Epirus and Macedonia - King Pyrrhus. He fought with Ancient Rome. King Pyrrhus suffered heavy losses, which is why that war became the idiom "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 troops and realized that one more such victory and he would have no soldiers left.

Thus, the expression Pyrrhic victory appeared, that is, a victory given at a very large, usually unacceptable price!

Probably it was PYRRHUS. Since then, this victory bears his name and is called the Pyrrhic victory, that is, the sacrifices made for this victory do not correspond in any way to the victory itself, but are equated with defeat. This is how I understand this expression.

In ancient times, the state of Epirus existed in the northwest of Hellas. His king's name was Pyrrhus. A talented commander, he enriched military affairs with many innovations. He was the first to enclose the military camp with a defensive rampart and a moat. Used in the fighting elephants.

In 281 BC. e. King Pyrrhus started a war with Rome. 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 at the town of Ausculum. After a long battle, the Romans withdrew in full order of battle.
The victory went to Pyrrhus. But when he counted his losses, he exclaimed: “One more 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 pulled up their reserves, attacked Pyrrhus and inflicted a crushing defeat on him. And the expression "Pyrrhic victory" has become a household word, meaning "victory like defeat."

Battle of Lützen

There are many such pyrrhic victories in history. Sometimes not even big losses, but the death of one person led to defeat. During Thirty Years' War(1618-1648) The Swedish army under the command of King Gustav II Adolf was considered invincible. Gustav Adolf himself, a magnificent commander and a skilled politician, was the idol of Sweden and its army.
On November 16, 1632, near the town of Lützen (near Leipzig), the Swedish army met in battle with the imperial troops of Albrecht Wallenstein.
King Gustavus Adolphus personally led the charge of the Smolland Cavalry Regiment, but was wounded in the arm in action and the charge continued without him. Seven people remained with the wounded king. A group of Imperial cuirassiers stumbled upon them in the mist. In the ensuing skirmish, Gustav Adolf was killed.
But the battle continued. The command was taken over by Prince Bernhard of Weimar. The Swedes prevailed, and the defeated, but not defeated, imperial troops were forced to withdraw. It seems to be a victory. The Swedes occupied Leipzig, capturing 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. The allies broke away - Russia, Saxony, Brandenburg and others.

Soon the hitherto invincible Swedes suffered a crushing defeat at the Battle of Nördlingen and withdrew to Poland.

Battle of Gross-Jägersdorf

There were times when a brilliant victory turned into a defeat due to stupidity, and even outright betrayal. During the Seven Years' War (1756-1763), Russian troops inflicted a defeat on the Prussian army of Field Marshal Lewald near Gross-Egersdorf.

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 wishing to please the heir to the throne Peter III, an ardent admirer of the Prussian king Frederick II, he gives a treacherous order to retreat beyond the Neman. A hasty retreat turns into a stampede. Cannons, ammunition, carts with food and the wounded were thrown. The Prussian cavalrymen are chasing the Russian units all the way. In addition, a smallpox epidemic begins. So a brilliant victory turned into a catastrophic defeat. Apraksin was removed from his post and put on trial, but, without waiting for him, he died from a blow.

Battle of Isandlwana

And it also happens that a victory, instead of demoralizing the enemy and plunging him into dust, on the contrary, hardens the defeated side, 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 escaped. The victory at Isandlwana was pyrrhic for the Zulus - not only because of the losses they suffered in 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. AT South Africa troops were sent to invade 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, an attempt was made to unblock the Paulus group surrounded in Stalingrad. The Soviet command did not expect an attack in this area. The powerful tank formations of General Herman Goth were opposed by the weakened and exhausted units of the 51st Army and the 4th Mechanized Corps.

Soviet soldiers rose to death near the village of Verkhne-Kumsky. Fierce and stubborn fighting continued with varying success from 13 to 19 December. Our units were almost completely destroyed. But the losses of the Nazis turned out to be huge - by December 17, Goth had only 35 combat-ready tanks left. Only pulling up the reserve 17th tank division, the Germans were able to break through to the Myshkova River. There were only 40 kilometers to Stalingrad, but the moment was lost. The 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 approached, which completely defeated the enemy. So the victory of the Germans near the village of Verkhne-Kumsky can be safely called a Pyrrhic victory.

Borodino

And, of course, the classic example of a Pyrrhic victory is the Battle of Borodino. The main goal of Napoleon is not a tactical victory, not the capture of Moscow, but the complete defeat and demoralization of the Russian army. And that just didn't happen. The Russian army was leaving the Borodino field, wanting to fight again. Of course, the columns went thinner, the losses were huge - 44 thousand fighters. Still, the bloodiest one-day battle in history!

The French lost even more - 50 thousand people, including 49 of the best generals. But losses are different.

If the Russian army, being on its territory, quickly received reinforcements, then the French were in a less advantageous position.
General Yermolov said that the French had broken their teeth on the Borodino field. But he said these words later.

Initially, the retreat from the battlefield and the subsequent withdrawal from Moscow were 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 the bandages and bled to death, Emperor Alexander defiantly dressed in civilian clothes, theatrically declaring that it was now shameful to wear a Russian uniform.
The generals criticized the commander, the officers cursed, the soldiers grumbled.
Ermolov subtly slandered and frankly rude. Only a couple of weeks later, when Napoleon began to make unsuccessful attempts at peace, when the quartermaster detachments of the French began to be exterminated by Russian peasants, when provisions and fodder for horses ran out in Moscow, when Cossacks and partisans began to drive thousands of crowds of prisoners to the Tarutino camp, the attitude towards Kutuzov became change. Understanding the ingenious strategic idea that drove Napoleon into the Moscow mousetrap, the army and the people moved from censure to approval of Kutuzov.

So a skilled chess player, sacrificing a strong piece, eventually wins the whole game. Borodino was a pyrrhic victory for Napoleon. A tactical victory leading to a catastrophic strategic defeat. The beginning of the collapse of his empire.