A lot of people have been calling Hillary's victory a Pyrrhic Victory.

As commonly understood, this is a battle in which you take such heavy losses, that you lose the war. However, while poetic, this is not really what the victory of Pyrrhus was, or should represent.

First, let me set the stage: The GREATEST Empire that the world has known up until that point has fallen into complete disarray. Alexanders Generals Divvy up his Empire amongst themselves and fight for the scraps of power, relying on mostly the tactics created not by Alexander, but his Father, Philip II, who had revolutionized the Phalanx into an offensive tool. Combined with the Heavy Macedonian Cavalry, this Hammer and Anvil Tactic had soundly routed the Persians, and numerous other kingdoms, but found itself stymied when face to face with equal forces.

For decades, the Successor States to Alexanders Empire fought among each other, relying on anything they could in order to gain an edge over their opponents. Chariot, Elephants, Camels, the list goes on and on with the attempts that the successor states used to gain advantages over each other.

Into this, We have the Hellenic State of Epirus on the west coast of what we now think of as Greece. The ruling family is deposed, and Pyrrhus goes to live with the tribes of Illyria. He's restored to his throne through marriage and aid of the Ptolemy's of Egypt. As it is, the struggles between the great and civilized Hellenic States continue, but Pyrrhus notes a VERY dangerous threat growing in the west, unlike the rest of his allies. He tries to convince them of the threat, but none of them pay it much heed, preferring to concentrate on their own petty squabbles. Some Claim that Pyrrhus wanted to create his own Empire in Italy, but that is of course, subject to the motives of the Roman Historians.

Pyrrus WON the 1st war. He Could have completely destroyed the Romans, but chose not to, instead, offering them a peace treaty, which was rejected by the Romans. At this point, Pyrrhus STILL did not continue the war against the Romans, instead turning his attention on Carthage, upon request from Sicilian Hellenes. The Sicilian's were quite happy to have Pyrrhus fight their war for him, but refused to pay for it when he requested help.

The end result was that Pyrrhus threw away everything he had, in service to an ally who cared NOTHING about him or his country. While he was doing this, Rome struck at him, and No Hellenic state came to his aid, resulting in a complete loss of the gains in Modern Italy.

So, the lesson of Pyrrhus is NOT that you can win a battle but lose the war. The lesson of Pyrrhus is that you have to win the war you are fighting, before you look to the future. And don't fight other people's wars FOR them.

Of course, that is my interpretation as a admittedly Amateur Historian. Other interpretations are welcome and interesting. Just amazed how few people know exactly what the expression means, or the rich history and lessons behind the concept.