Battles that resulted in defeat of both sides? (short lived victories)

xGhost4000x · Jun 9, 2012

I was watching Andromeda and they were talking about the Battle of the Witch Head Nebula where the remains of the Commonwealth fleet were ambushed by the Nietzschean Alliance, the battle apparently resulted in the ultimate destruction of the Commonwealth fleet but not before extreme losses on the Nietzschean side. The end result was that the Nietzschean were so weakend by the battle that they were unable to hold onto their newly conquered empire.

I know there are real world examples of battles like this. What are the most famous?

Amallric · Jun 9, 2012

Well Pyrrhus is the classical example. But wars that ended up in exhaustion of the winning side were very common.

Clophiroth · Jun 9, 2012

Amallric said:
Well Pyrrhus is the classical example. But wars that ended up in exhaustion of the winning side were very common.

Isn´t Qadesh supposed to have both sides really weakened too?

Jazumir · Jun 9, 2012

brusilov´s offensive. Or, well, almost any WW1 battle.

Orm · Jun 9, 2012

Borodino perhaps? Napoleon won against the Russians and could then march into Moscow thinking the Tsar would have to surrender, but instead found himself in a deadly trap about to spring on him.

Clophiroth said:
Isn´t Qadesh supposed to have both sides really weakened too?

Yes, but not to the extent that Egypt or the Hittites collapsed as a consequence.

unmerged(236784) · Jun 9, 2012

Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands, 26 October 1942.
A Japanese tactical victory, but it cost them that which they could not replace.

Happy_Lonely · Jun 9, 2012

The last Byzantine-Sassanid war led eventually to destruction of the latter and near collapse of the former. It was a war though, not a single battle.

Finnish Dragon · Jun 9, 2012

How about the Battle of Stamford Bridge in 1066? The Norwegian king Harald died and the Saxon army under Harold Godwinson was seriously weakened and later defeated by William the Conqueror in Hastings.

celedhring · Jun 10, 2012

Any war where a third party profits from two sides that have bloodied themselves would be a good candidate. Was thinking, for example, of Francisco Pizarro descending into the Inca Empire and capturing Atahualpa right after the Inca emperor had defeated rival prince Huascar in a civil war.

Narwhal · Jun 14, 2012

The famous battle of Lützen - often seen as a turning point of the 30YW - is a perfect example. Sweden keeps the ground, but their king is dead, their impetus gone, and they lost more men (from an already smaller force).

Orm · Jun 14, 2012

Narwhal said:
The famous battle of Lützen - often seen as a turning point of the 30YW - is a perfect example. Sweden keeps the ground, but their king is dead, their impetus gone, and they lost more men (from an already smaller force).

Yes, but Sweden then went on to keep fighting for 16 years with varying success, eventually ending up on the winning side and being considered one of the great powers of Europe for some time after that.

almoravid · Jun 14, 2012

The Third World War.

demanvanwezel · Jun 15, 2012

the battle of Jutland, german tactical victory but their fleet was so damaged that they stayed docked for the rest of WW1

pelloponesian war, sparta won, but was weakened enough for thebes to gain power shortly afterwards

unmerged(138457) · Jun 15, 2012

The Winter War and the Karelian defensive battles of the summer of 1944. Finnish forces repeatedly repulsed major Soviet attacks but on both instances were themselves weakened so much that they had to sue for a disadvantageous peace.

unmerged(47135) · Jun 20, 2012

Narwhal said:
The famous battle of Lützen - often seen as a turning point of the 30YW - is a perfect example. Sweden keeps the ground, but their king is dead, their impetus gone, and they lost more men (from an already smaller force).

Well, that was a blow, but the real dog-years for the Swedish fighting in Germany came after the defeat at Nördlingen two years later. Otoh that victory might perhaps qualify for the Habsburgs re the OP?

unmerged(236784) · Jun 20, 2012

hyder said:
The Winter War and the Karelian defensive battles of the summer of 1944. Finnish forces repeatedly repulsed major Soviet attacks but on both instances were themselves weakened so much that they had to sue for a disadvantageous peace.

They kept their freedom and government institutions. How many other countries invaded by the Red army got that much?

Culise · Jun 20, 2012

bugwar said:
They kept their freedom and government institutions. How many other countries invaded by the Red army got that much?

They lost an eighth of their population, their second-largest city, and a major industrial region in Karelia in spite of their best efforts. How many winners can say that much? Yes, they lost by less than many others could claim, and they did amazingly well to manage that much against a numerically-superior foe like the Soviets, but it's hardly a victory.

Winners that lose? Well, since it came up in another thread, the Targowica Confederacy that tried to turn back the progressive reforms in Poland. Backed by Catherine the Great, they successfully defeated the revolutionaries and Jacobins, even wooing the King to their cause. Their reward was the Second Partition of Poland, which ended with them being considered traitors by Poland at large. Oops.

unmerged(138457) · Jun 20, 2012

Culise said:
They lost an eighth of their population, their second-largest city, and a major industrial region in Karelia in spite of their best efforts. How many winners can say that much? Yes, they lost by less than many others could claim, and they did amazingly well to manage that much against a numerically-superior foe like the Soviets, but it's hardly a victory.

Eight of the population? 12,5%?
Census in 1940 said 3 695 617 people. Wikipedia says 90 146 soldiers and 2086 civilians dead or missing by the end of the Lapland war and not counting the POWs returned by the Russians. That comes around 2,5%, no? Note that the population from Karelia and other occupied areas were evacuated before the Soviets moved in.

Other than that, I agree. And also would like to remind about the heavy war reparations.

Culise · Jun 21, 2012

hyder said:
Eight of the population? 12,5%?
Census in 1940 said 3 695 617 people. Wikipedia says 90 146 soldiers and 2086 civilians dead or missing by the end of the Lapland war and not counting the POWs returned by the Russians. That comes around 2,5%, no? Note that the population from Karelia and other occupied areas were evacuated before the Soviets moved in.

Other than that, I agree. And also would like to remind about the heavy war reparations.

Oh, dear, you're completely right. I was thinking about the population of the ceded Karelian territories, but I completely forgot that they almost universally elected to move west in order to remain in Finland rather than staying and coming under the rule of the Soviets, so they weren't actually lost to Finland.

KanaX · Jun 21, 2012

I think the Finnish tactical victories in 1944 don't really qualify as battles that, by OP's definition, resulted "in defeat of both sides". The Soviet Union was clearly the victor and it's influence in Finland after the war increased massively , compared to the situation before the war. The setbacks on the Karelian front didn't really cripple the Red Army nor was the risk of future invasion completely deterred, as was witnessed during the Lapland War.

Battles that resulted in defeat of both sides? (short lived victories)

General

Field Marshal

Hierololi suprema

Field Marshal

The Magnificent

Banned

Second Lieutenant

Field Marshal

Guionista tirolés

Lt. General

The Magnificent

I ignore U

General

Unelmavävy

Major

Banned

General Nuisance

Unelmavävy

General Nuisance

ಠ_ರೃ