what the hell does that even mean?
Sounds like a Pyrrhic victory.
>>812897
another win for the eternal anglo
divid and conquer
>>812897
It means the Aztecs held the field but were unable to do anything that would stop the Spanish from coming back with overwhelming force.
>>812897
It's when you is winning the battle but losing the war
>he doesn't know the difference between tactics and strategy
come on man
I suppose that its from La Noche Triste.
Aztecs expell the Spaniards from their capital, buth they managed to retreat and weere able to came back time after.
la noche triste
>>812897
without knowing the particular battle, it basically would mean the aztecs took the field or whatever other immediate objective, but at a cost that fucked them over later on.
>>813778
Guess obsidian blades can't melt plate armor.
>>812897
A tactical victory refers to success in a specific, localised battle/clash that usually occurs within a much, much smaller time-frame than the overall war.
A strategic victory refers to the bigger picture in the fight between the two sides. Very often a strategic victory entails one side achieving its overall long-term goals in a conflict.
To give an example, you might argue that the Germans won a tactical victory against the Soviets in the 1945 Battle of Bautzen. But there's no doubt that the Soviets won the overarching strategic victory on the Eastern Front within the space of a couple of months.
>>815342
Pyrrhic victory?
Large-scale, long-term goal = strategy
Completion of a tactical objective = tactical
There are three points needed to be captured.
Team A wants to capture point number 1, even if it costs them points number 2 and 3.
If Team A captures point number 1, they get a tactical victory, but Team B captures point number 2 and 3, which earns them a strategic victory.
>>815376
This can indeed happen in the context of a Pyrrhic victory but a Pyrrhic victory isn't necessary for this scenario to happen.
>>815423
I see. I'm making a false equivalency.
But the battle in OP was arguably a Pyrrhic victory for the aztecs right?
>>815435
>But the battle in OP was arguably a Pyrrhic victory for the aztecs right?
I have no idea. Did the Aztecs pay a devastating toll to win OP's battle?
