Pyrrhic victory: Winning the battle but losing the war

 

By Noralyn O. Dudt

In 279 BC, King Pyrrhus of Epirus (an ancient state in Greece) defeated the Roman legions in the Battle of Asculum. Although he was the victor, he lost many of his Macedonian troops including his commanders and his friends, a toll so devastating that it was tantamount to defeat.  A "pyrrhic victory"  it was.

Pyrrhic victory is a phrase that may not be familiar to many.  The term is used as an analogy in business, politics and sport to describe struggles that end up ruining the victor. It's a victory that comes at a great cost. The losses are so high and heavy  that they outweigh the gain  so as to render the struggle not worth the cost. It's a triumph that negates any true sense of achievement and ultimately  damages long-term progress.

The journal, "The Military Engineer" explains that regardless of what happened with the landmark battle,  King Pyrrhus was a brilliant historical example  of hard-won, hard-fought,  but ultimately meaningless victories. The journal describes Pyrrhus as a "skillful tactician and a brilliant leader—on the battlefield. "

It goes on: “But he ruled in a despotic way and the conquered cities rose against him wherever there was hope of successful resistance.  His victories on the battlefields were simply military successes; he established nothing of permanence;  he did nothing to better the condition of his own people or the people of the lands he occupied; he was merely a despot governing to suit his own whims and fancies."

With that, we can say that Pyrrhus' strength was ultimately secondary to his inefficacy. Whereas his strategies on the battlefield granted him victories,  their lasting effects, and his legacy, remain unimpressive. It acts as a warning to short-lived wins at heavy costs—a theme we often see in politics. History is riddled with these.

When Napoleon sacrificed thousands of his men in a bid to take control of Moscow, he must have forgotten his core role as a leader of the French people. Did he forget that his country should have been the priority? He chose to chase more power and ended up losing the war.

One other example of a hollow victory is when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor in 1941. The surprise attack was swift and Japan was triumphant. However, by provoking an army with superior forces, Japan set something in motion that it could not control. The opponent promptly responded with  significant firepower. Japan won the initial battle but literally lost the war.

A hollow victory, a battle won but a war lost, a pyrrhic victory—phrases that  have endured in culture. To  those involved in the political arena who think appeasing voters is the way to go, I say better  take note. You will win the battle but will lose the war. The people need to be governed and not to be appeased. Good governance, not appeasement will win the "war."

A politician's goal of winning votes and winning people's hearts seem such a winning concept. But go deeper and one can see the  grave consequences. Matters that may look innocent such as when constituents "demand" something that they claim they need...something very appealing that may look great on a politician's record...something that could win him the next election...something that makes him/her look like a hero is tempting indeed. Very appealing at first  but in the long run, it could end up hurting the whole community including those who made the "demands."  A politician's first goal is to win the favor of his constituents whereas a true leader and a statesman  does not. A true leader is one who has a real sense of  what his or her constituents need and would  guide, mentor, and lead them to work toward those goals. A leader is one who can inspire,  one who can take his or her society from  where it is to where it has never been.  One who is willing to lose a battle so he/she can win a war. One who has the patience to work through the tedious process of bringing  several pieces together for a favorable outcome: the politician's knowledge of what his constituents need for the long haul, and the constituents' high level of critical thinking skills  to have a better grasp of the policies  their government tries to enact. It may seem like a losing battle at first but  this is what it takes to win the "war. " A short-term loss, a long-term gain.

 

Next: Greek mythology ( Sisyphus)

 

Noralyn Onto Dudt is a history buff whose visits to the glory that was Greece inspired her to dig deeper into the history and mythology of the ancient Greeks.