Any historical examples of a Pyrrhic victory?
Bonus points for being baited into a win and then losing a war.
Well if you didn't knew phyrric victory comes from Pyrrhus of Epirus in the first Punic war who always won the battle but could not reinforce in the way Rome could, so his casualties meant more to him than e Roman casualties Medano to the Romans
Pyrrhus' invasion of Italy
>>1319066
>Punic war
>Pyrrhus of Epirus
pick one
Right, sorry don't know where I got Punic war from
Arguably the Tet Offensive where the US was able to inflict devastating losses to the VC, but ultimately lost the war because of hippies.
>>1319109
Does that really qualify as a pyrrhic victory? The VC didn't win the battles, although they won the war.
A pyrrhic victory means the losses were barely worth the win.
I am particularly interested in a scenario where a general is able to bait an army into a gauntlet, lose the fight and inflict heavy casualties and then take some wins to take a war. I am theory crafting in my head, I know chances are it doesn't exist.
>>1319118
I suppose it doesn't if you don't count the psychological losses to the US populace that undermined the overall war effort.
Soviet victory in Winter War against Finland. One soviet general even proclaimed they had won enough land to bury their dead.
>>1319054
Vietnam War (for both sides)
Korean War (for both sides)
>>1319118
The us civil war
Think about it
>>1319162
Really Makes You Think
E
A
L
L
Y
Well first we should clarify what a pyrrhic victory actually is, because most people just assume it's about k/d ratios like here
>>1319118
>>1319148
A pyrrhic victory means that you've won, but you no longer have the ability to continue conducting war, or your ability has been seriously hampered. Pyrrhus himself certainly killed a lot of Romans, but he couldn't go on forever because he was losing his back line and elephants.
The battle of Verdun
Operation Citadel.
>>1319172
Then Winter War counts. None of the actual war goals were achieved either.
