The most decisive battle for Greek history

[Anonymous]

The Pyrrhus question is interesting, but I think you're overlooking the fact that Pyrrhus DID (technically) defeat the Romans... twice. I don't think Pyrrhus could have stopped Rome anymore than Hannibal could have, or the Antigonids or Seleucids. I don't see any reason to think Pyrrhus was any different, unless you argue that Rome could have better been stopped before they dominated all of Italy... but they were already well on their way anyway. I think Pydna and some of the other Rome vs. a hellenistic power type battles would have had relatively little impact if they'd gone the other way, because the secret of Roman success wasn't winning individual battles. I mean if Hannibal couldn't accomplish much after Lake Trisemene and Cannae, it's clear that virtually no single loss could have stopped Rome. (Of course, when Rome started routinely winning the individual battles, too, it was REALLY all over...)<br>
<br>
Aaron <p></p><i></i>