It's a fitting example. Pyrrhus was the end of a long military tradition built around a style of warfare centered on the phalanx. He was a master of it.

He gets a bad rap. He was actually a really good general and king. He just wasn't mentally flexible. When he ran into something "new" he didn't have a response to it.

The Romans, unlike earlier societies, didn't copy the phalanx. They invented the "maniple". A completely different way of organizing an army on the battlefield.

Think of two phalanx armies as being two big guys whaling on each other. They stood toe to toe and slugged it out until one side was completely dead or somebody's will broke and they ran.

The Roman army was organized on small flexible units. Think of them as "army ants". Pyrrhus's problem was how do you stand "toe to toe" against an army of ants that's swarming over you?

He beat them, but only by grinding them down in a battle of attrition that left the Romans all dead and his army over 60% gone.

He tried to get them to surrender but they raised another army and the next time they swarmed him to death. He just wasn't mentally flexible enough to let go of what he knew and create something new.

For me, that's the lesson of Pyrrhus.