[rubenandthejets]

It's a good example of how Livy tended to write an epic, stiring narrative, not letting historical facts get in the way of a good story.

Pyrrhus was the original "Pyrrhic" victor-he won, but at such cost as to make his victories seem like defeats, according to Livy. Let's look at the reliabilty of Livy.

Livy's track record with events verifiable using other means (eg archaelogical evidence) shows he's much more of a Herodotus than a Thucydides. The ash layer shows Rome was definitely sacked and razed, with radiometric dating putting it around the same time as Livy's heroic defence and saving of the city unscathed. I don't have a copy lying around or I'd dig out a few more for you...sorry.

On the other hand, the Romans were happy to copy many of Pyrrhus' methods, including the practice of enclosing the camp in earthworks and planning its layout like a city.
Plutarch quotes Hannibal who rated Pyrrhus one of the top three generals of all time.
Lastly, the Romans completely reformed their army (the Camillian reforms) in 275 BCE. Why? If it aint broke, don't fix it?

So, according to Livy, the Romans are defeated, but inflict heavy losses making it impossible for Pyrrhus to comtinue campaigning in Italy. When interpreted taking Livy's motives into account and using other sources to check the facts, Pyrrhus probably smashed at least two Roman armies. He was a little contemptuous of Rome and thinking they weren't much of a threat to the Hellenistic war machine headed off to fight for the Greek cause in Sicily.

That's my interpretation, anyway.