What is a Pyrrhic victory? “Pyrrhic victory”: the meaning of phraseology What does the popular expression Pyrrhic victory mean?

Philologist, candidate of philological sciences, poet, member of the Union of Writers of Russia.
Publication date:04/01/2019

Many catchphrases penetrate our speech, breaking through the granite slabs of millennia. Indeed, they are as old as time.

The most mysterious phraseological units that seem most mysterious to modern native speakers are those whose roots must be sought deep in the past. Such artifacts include the expression "Pyrrhic victory". Let's try to understand his story!

The meaning of phraseology

When we hear the phrase “Pyrrhic victory,” we should not think that we are talking about a magnificent feast in honor of the winners. This phraseological unit comes from the name of the ancient Greek king Pyrrhus, which we will talk about later.

But the meaning of the idiom is this: “Pyrrhic victory” is a victory bought at too high a price. Such a celebration does not bring joy and looks more like defeat.

The most striking historical example of such a victory is the capture of Moscow by Napoleon in 1812. We all remember how the dream of conquering the Russian capital turned out for the French emperor.

Formally, the enemy got what he wanted, but in fact it was a trap, thanks to which our compatriots managed to completely change the course of the war and put the French to flight.

The expression is also applicable in everyday situations. It can be used to talk about a person who has received a new assignment, going over the heads of his colleagues, losing their friendship and respect.

Origin of phraseology

The legendary battle that gave birth to our phraseology took place in the 3rd century BC. near the town of Auskul on the Apennine Peninsula.

As Plutarch testifies, the war between the Epirus king Pyrrhus and the Roman legions went on with varying success until the first went on an active offensive. In two days of fierce attack, the Epiruses managed to force the Roman troops to retreat.

After some time, the Roman army was replenished with fresh troops and managed to recover, but Pyrrhus’ resources were completely depleted: the best warriors were thrown into the attack.

In historical literature, Pyrrhus is criticized for shortsightedness. In the excitement of the fight, the commander was not always able to predict what step would be next.

Because of this quality of the famous military leader, victory, followed by failure, began to be called Pyrrhic. However, the Epirus king had more than just shortcomings. It is known that it was he who reformed some of the nuances of combat.

For example, he began to fence the territory of a military camp with a ditch and a palisade, whereas before it was simply surrounded by traveling carts around the perimeter.

The king also became famous for involving giant elephants in the battle, which terrified the enemy. Sweeping away everything in their path, the animals opened battles, overwhelming with their greatness.

As you can see, Pyrrhus loved triumphs, but not everyone brought him glory.

Synonymous expressions

It is curious that before the Pyrrhic failures there was a saying “Cadmean victory” with a similar meaning.

Plato and Pausanias describe the protracted war started by Cadmus, the king of Thebes, concluding the story with the following conclusion: “and for the inhabitants of Thebes this was not without major losses, therefore the victory, disastrous for the victors, is called the Cadmean victory.”

The phraseological unit “Trojan horse”, associated with the capture of Troy, has a similar, but not synonymous meaning. This idiom is related to the “Pyrrhic victory” by the semantics of a trap, a trap, something that over time becomes not what it seemed.

Here are a few more Russian-language and borrowed synonyms:

• it is not worth it;
• the game is not worth the candle;
• you rejoice early.

To avoid a Pyrrhic victory, think about the price of success: maybe in some battles it would be better to lose?

King Pyrrhus. Source: Commons.wikimedia.org

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

Origin of the expression

The origin of the expression is associated with the battle of Ausculum (in 279 BC). 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.” Another version of the same phrase is known: “Another such victory, and we are lost.”

The Secret of War Elephants

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 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 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.

Predecessors of the expression

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

“... 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 victory.” (c) “Description of Hellas”, book. IX.

Epirus is a geographical and historical region in southeastern Europe between modern Greece and Albania. Epirus was part of ancient Hellas with the rivers Acheron and Kokytos 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, and Aetolia.

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 Zulu. 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.

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, 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.