Are all wars pretty much destined for one side to win from the very beginning? Like it seems in retrospect that every loser in every war had literally no chance of ever winning.
Was there ever a war where everyone expected one side to win and then they got they lost? I know for example that everyone thought the south would lose the war in like a month and they would just give up after getting their asses kicked in one battle, but the war dragged on for 5 years and the south was actually winning at the start
>>318362
The French Revolutionary Wars come to mind
Also the Teutonic Wars
Hindsight is 20/20.
>>318362
>Was there ever a war where everyone expected one side to win and then they got they lost?
Russo-Japanese War
Soviet-Polish War
Winter War (arguable)
First Chechen War
>>318362
French Revolutionary Wars as one anon mentioned
Israeli-Arab wars (especially 1948)
All types of civil wars
Most if not all successful guerrilla operations
>>318392
Arabs BTFO
>>318362
Second punic war
Napoleon's Invasion of Russia
>>318418
Even carthage knew Hannibal would lose
Pretty much everyone was expecting the French and British to roll over the Germans in the opening stages of WW2.
Or at the minimum, for the French to last much longer.
>>318362
War of the Public Weal and the Burgundian Swiss war spring to mind.
>>318392
everyone knew israel would win
iraq war
vietnam war
most of the Napoleonic wars
the early mongol invasions
franco prussian war
![AmericanRevolutionaryWarMon[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/AXgoYGX.jpg "AmericanRevolutionaryWarMon[1].jpg")
The American War of Independence.
Surely this was winnable by Britain?
Commit proper amount of troops and naval power, remove baguette, then give the bloody colonials some representation to stop it happening again
>>318463
>iraq war
do you think the US failed to achieve its tactical and strategic goals in the campaigns of 2003-2008?
>>318428
I've heard it said that Carthage probably could have won at some stages when Hannibal was in Italy, but that rivals of his back in Carthage screwed him intentionally.
>>318463
>iraq war
That went pretty much how everyone expected though. The coalition fores steamrolling saddam, thecountry falling into a civil war, and then the coalition steam rolling the fighters they didnt like and proping up the ones they did like
>>318481
Britain's economy was in the shitter after they expended so many resources to take a billion square kilometers of jack shit in North America during a war which Frederick the Great had to carry them on his back for. They were just really really bad at colonial management, and they were fucked in the war from the start.
>>318481
King George III was literally looney tunes tier crazy
>>318532
>letting rebel scum take the lands you fought hard for
the damn colony probably had Catholics there too, King George III was in the right. The colonies would pay for their freedom from French (Catholic) occupation
>>318553
The Colonies were probably way more anti-catholic than the British Crown at the time.
>>318553
One reason for the war was that the British crown had tolerated Catholic settlers in Canada.
>>318553
Still upset, Geordie?
>>318444
For those who don't know anything about the Burgundian wars. (1470s)
The duke of Burgundy owned most of the low countries and a significant part of France and was allied with savoy. Though we do not know for sure it has been suggested he tried to recreate Middle Francia. He held the richest lands north of the Alps and a significant fleet, on military campaigns he literally slept in a silk tent with gold embroidery that could house 3000 people. Savoy got in some trouble with the Swiss who fell lived in its lands when a bunch of Swiss attacked a merchant. The Duke wanted to invade Switzerland but the Swiss begged him not too telling him they were so poor that if he ransomed every Swiss he would not have enough money to buy golden spurs for all his Knights.
The Duke of Burgundy decided to invade anyways with one of the most advanced armies of his day. He had Flemish pikmen, German hand gunners equipped with matchlock arquebuses, English and Burgundian longbow archers, mounted crossbowmen, Italian Condottieri and Burgundian Knights, 300 feet of pontoon bridge and around 200 pieces of artillery.
The Swiss had a militia of halberd and pikemen, no artillery to speak of and no cavalry safe for those provided by a few allies.
Then the Duke of Burgundy proceeded to not do a single sensible thing and he was beaten three times in a row. He had virtually no scouts and got surprised by the Swiss every single time, his soldiers were either eating or fled when the Burgundian cavalry feigned a retreat to draw the Swiss in the field of fire of their archers and cannons. Most battles resulted in a rout before the fighting had begun, however the effectiveness of his field artillery was demonstrated when one of his cannons fired a shot that killed a dozen or so knights from Lorraine.
After two terrible and clumsy defeats he went full emo, grew out a beard and drank wine everyday. Then he proceeded to engage in a suicidal battle that cost him his life.
>>318578
Charles Carroll, Daniel Carroll, and Thomas Fitzsimmons were all catholic. The deceleration of Independence also ended all the English laws against catholics after the glorious revolution that fucked with Catholics even in their own safe haven state of Maryland. You know, the whole freedom of religion thing
>>318481
The Empire was yet to reach its height. French support was enough to skew the war in favour of the rebels.
The french won the independance war.
>>318463
>franco prussian war
Are you trolling?
Both sides were on par
>>318481
Not everybody thought the American revolution would be totally crushed by British military superiority. Thoughtful and intelligent Britons such as Edmund Burke and William Pitt the Elder knew full well that the Americans, which they thought of as Englishmen, were committed to their ideals and to victory, and were not pushovers. They also knew that the French would inevitably get involved if for no other reason than to harm British interests. They also knew that there were a slew of incompetent military leaders in the British army AND government that would pursue the campaign in a wasteful and disastrous manner. These people wanted reconciliation with the colonies, not a harder stance. The British who pursued this harder stance belonged to the stupid party, and obviously ate their words.
>>318362
France was universally considered the preeminent land power right until it was absolutely crushed by the Wehrmacht. On paper, there was no reason that they wouldn't have been able to resist at LEAST as hard as their fathers did in WWI. Internally they were weak though. Now it's clear, but back then no one thought they would fold so easily.
>>318362
the 7 years war
the was absolutely no way Prussia could have won that without the miracle, despite all of Frederick's skill.
>>318362
>Confederate cavalry
>holding a Sharps rifle
TRIGGERED.
