Talk:Pyrrhic victory

Borodino, 1812

Considering that the victorious French lost 35 000 men including General Gualainocurt (and 46 other generals, compared to the Russian 39 000 and 23 generals), and the historian Michael glover wrote in his book The Napoleonic Wars - an illustrated history 1792-1815 that another battle before reaching Moscow would anhiliate the French Army,and also that Napoleon had become heavily depressed by the end of the battle (http://www.napolun.com/mirror/napoleonistyka.atspace.com/Borodino_battle.htm#borodinoend) Why wouldn't Borodino count as a Pyrrhic Victory?

Mainly because the article for the battle doesn't state it was one- the article for the battle mentions that *some* historians consider it "pyrrhic", and goes on to list them down in the notes section, but apparently the historian consensus is that it was not one, hence the mention of the minority opinion. There's a quite a discussion on its talk page about this very topic, so I would suggest reading up on that to see why the article states what it does. Nor does the website you linked state that it was one, despite the thing about him being depressed. Remember rule #1 of Wikipedia- your opinion doesn't matter. Sources do. Cheers! --DarthBinky (talk) 10:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I suppose not. But I didn't write that to get an opinion across! On historical matters, I don't have opinions, because that can twist the fabric of truth. It was more a thought that came to me. Thanks anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.224.133 (talk) 15:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

If I came across as being rude, I assure you I didn't intend for that to come across so- I was just pointing out that sources are what matter most (for example, I still disagree that Crete was a pyrrhic victory, but they got a bunch of sources that say otherwise, so my opinion is politely ignored). Like I said, there is/was a raging debate in the Borodino talk section about this subject. I only quickly skimmed it, but from what I could tell, the current state of that article is the result of a compromise there. People tend to want to list all sorts of battles in this article as being "pyrrhic" while the article for the battle itself says no such thing (or even says the opposite!). And that's just silly.  :) Cheers! --DarthBinky (talk) 16:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Someone's just squeezed it back in again here, so it might be worth reexamining this. In my view it was not pyrrhic because it was not Napoleon's losses in the battle that caused the failure of his Russian campaign - also, we did eventually get to a compromise on the article itself and the policy of following the articles for the battles seems sound. Pinkbeast (talk) 01:04, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Merge (2003)

What is thought more appropriate on Wikipedia - using the contents of many sources to massage them into one large page here or to link to an already existing description of the topic if it is as thorough as the third of the links here? I see little use in taking contents from there, re-wording them and mixing them into other facts in order to avoid just copying things from (maybe) copyrighted sources.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Varangian (talk • contribs) 12:18, 20 July 2003

I agree. This page needs to be merged into the page with Pyrrhus_of_Epirus. It seems silly to have the description of Pyrrhus' reign under a linguistics heading. I may do so.

Examples (2003)

You could mention Hitler's "victory" at Stalingrad as an excellent example of a Pyrrhic victory (although I grant that would really be more sarcastic than apropos). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.44.102.108 (talk • contribs) 22 December 2003

Misc

Does anyone want to note the joke that Pyrrhus apparently said this to his aide-de-camp? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul G. Brown (talk • contribs) 04:55, 31 May 2004

Pearl Harbor

In what way would Pearl Harbor be a Pyrrhic victory? Using that logic, the German invasion of Poland, the German invasion of Belgium (WWI), every single invasion caused by a country that eventually lose would be considered a "Pyrrhic victory". In all senses of the word, Pearl Harbor was a complete victory for the Japanese, as was the German Blitzkrieg attack (although it set off a "complicated chain of events" that eventually led to Germany's downfall)... ugen64 01:34, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Agreed....A much better example would be the German invasion of Crete, in which they won the battle, but lost a great deal of men and never used paratroops again.--Habsfannova 21:07, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I may be a little pedantic, but the attack on Pearl Harbor was not "in all senses of the word" a "complete victory." The Japanese were quite upset that they were not able to catch the carriers, which was their top priority. By their own metric, the attack was short of "complete victory." 2601:C:1100:25A:4430:7B91:830C:F707 (talk) 05:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I am adding the Attack on Pearl Harbor as an example of "winning a battle but losing the war" in another part of this article. — Molly-in-md (talk) 15:50, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Battle of Kosovo

Shouldn't this conflict be included? It fits the classic definition of a technical victory at an intolerably high cost, e.g. the Turk commander was killed by a Serb and the date of the battle is revered by Serbs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.15.45.47 (talk) 04:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The cost was high for the Ottomans, but history shows that it was definitely tolerable. Despite the strong showing by the Serbian forces, the Serbs were exhausted from the battle while the Turks were able to reinforce and continue to flourish; shortly after the battle, the Serbs had to accept Ottoman vassalage to survive. The battle itself was tactically a very ugly win for the Ottomans, but strategically it was decisive and the Ottomans went on to become the dominant force in the region. 208.72.200.10 (talk) 10:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Stalingrad

Also classified as a Pyrrhic victory is World War II on the Eastern Front, where the Soviet Union triumphed over Nazi Germany but lost more than 25 million people in the war, including 11 million troops killed compared to 4 million German and other Axis battle deaths.

Although the Soviets had large losses, they were sustainable for the amount of time required and did not prevent ultimate Soviet victory. A Pyrrhic victory on the other hand is one achieved at the cost of such enormous losses that ultimate victory cannot be achieved. Thus the Soviet campaign is not an example of a Pyrrhic victory whatever the above statement may claim. -- Derek Ross | Talk 21:16, 2004 Oct 2 (UTC)

Yes, but in the grand sweep of history the enormous Soviet WWII death toll can be considered one of the reasons why the Soviet Union lost the Cold War. As it is, the dissolution of the Soviet Union has not only led to Brest-Litovsk-equivalent territorial losses in Europe, but also to the loss of Turkestan. Russia has no desire to reconquer its lost Asian territories due to falling ethnic Russian and rising Muslim populations, which may well mean that in the long term, World War II permanently destroyed Russia's Great Power status. GCarty 13:54, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Maybe, but its hard to argue that Russia would have been better off, had it not fought WWII

Roadrunner 04:13, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Little Bighorn

What about the Battle of the Little Bighorn? Crazy Horse won but the cost was so high that he was eventually forced to surrender. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.136.190.79 (talk • contribs) 11:54, 17 June 2005

See the above example of why Pearl Harbor wasn't a Pyrrhic victory for the Japanese, or why every single attack by the Germans in World War II weren't Pyrrhic. Chief Sitting Bull's forces won as much of a total victory as it is possible to win; Custer's forces died literally down to the last man (the only survivors not part of Sitting Bull's forces were a few Indian scouts hired by the Army, but not considered military members; they were roughly the equivalent of civilian contractors.) Sitting Bull's casualties were much more minor, both in relative and absolute terms. This did however cause a chain of events that eventually led to his downfall, by giving the US more determined resolve to pursue him. However, the battle itself wasn't Pyrrhic by a long shot; Pyrrhic victory refers to a technical victory, but at too high a cost. Sitting Bull's losses in the battle itself were very minor, and that's not the situation a Pyrrhic victory refers to. 67.177.228.64 (talk) 06:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

the Fiction section

I removed that section tonight. It seems that people are confusing "costs of victory" ("unusually high cost" being the requirement to be considered a PV) with "unforeseen negative consequences of victory". They are not the same thing.

I'm not totally familiar with all of the fictional stuff that was listed (mainly Dr. Who), but all of the things listed appeared to be victories that wound up having unexpected negative consequences rather than actual PV's. The Warhammer 40,000 example I could almost see as one, but it doesn't fit well either- the Imperium was forced to fight (and suffer huge casualties, including the Emperor) or be enslaved; it's more similar to a "no-win situation" than a "pyrrhic victory".

I couldn't think of a good actual example to put in there (although I'm sure there's one out there somewhere). Thus I removed the section, as I didn't see a point to a section that had examples that weren't actually examples. :) --DarthBinky 08:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm placing that material here for archival purposes; I didn't create it but was under the impression that certain types of deleted material should be placed on the discussion page: "In the fictional television and movie series Star Trek a no win situation is called the Kobayashi Maru scenerio. One of the possible outcomes of the Kobayashi Maru scenerio is that a starship may rescue an allied vessel in enemy territory but be destroyed in the process, thus a pyrrhic victory.

"In the new BBC television series Doctor Who 2005 reference is made that in order to end the last great Time War (Doctor Who) a renegade Time Lord, the Doctor, had to take action that led to his people, the Time Lords, winning the war but at the cost of their own destruction as well as the destruction of their enemy, the Daleks. Thus a pyrrhic victory." 71.162.248.100 (talk) 15:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Ill-defined

Actually Pyrrus had significantly lower casualties than the Romans in nearly ALL his "Pyrric Victories" (and NEVER higher).

I totally agree. Not to say anything of 'another such victory will ultimately cause defeat' !!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.214.170 (talk) 16:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Thermopylae

Wouldn't the Battle of Thermopylae be a Pyrric victory?--Nashaii 23:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

No! beacuse, the spartans did not win!!! And the Pesians still had enough troop to invade greece , occupy athens and fight major battles at salamis, platea and mycale. Thermopylae may be a moral vistory for the greeks but there realy was not a significant loss to the persian army--Vawarner20008:32 march 2 2007

Yes, but in the time it took the Persians to take the pass, the Athenians were able to evacuate to Salamis, right? That's somewhat akin to the Alamo.--SkiDragon 20:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, if the Persian Gates was a Pyrrhic victory, then certainly Thermopylae was.--SkiDragon 19:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The Battle of Thermopylae wasnt a Pyrrhic victory!, the persians didnt lost as many soldiers as certain movies like to tell (or even certain respectable authors). The Persians won, not the Spartans!, the only thing it really did was to slow down the Persians and provide a mythifying story for the greeks. Also, The Alamo was not, in any case whatsoever, a Pyrrhic victory, unless of course you take history lessons from John Wayne.200.83.57.71 01:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep: Thermopylae did not astually mean that the persians would be repulsed, the spartan elite all died and nothing much happened —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.74.196 (talk) 18:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It was an ethical victory for the Greeks and an act that solidified their will as to crush the persians completely in Plataea.21:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree the loss of 300 spartans was no real loss and the other greek forces there weren't really significant, the Persians sufferd terrible casualties but in the Persian war machine they were nothing, the great loss here was the loss of time if the Persians had captured the land route they almost certainly would have gone on to capture a stronghold in greece and would have been able to defeat the greek navy which would bring supplies and it was lack of supplies that contributed to there eventual defeat —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.77.155 (talk) 18:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

It was arguably a strategic victory for the Greeks due to the delay it caused for the Persians, but that in no way makes it a Pyrrhic victory for the Persians. The losses were tolerable for the massive army and the Persians continued their campaign at high strength. The Persian forces were undone at subsequent battles, not Thermopylae. 208.72.200.10 (talk) 11:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Winter War

How about the Winter War where Stalin sacrificed thousands upon thousands to take Finland? David Bergan 17:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this, it will be added to the list and if anyone disagrees feel free to discuss it on here. Bananaman1966

Well, this is a problematic issue. The Soviets didn't meet their goal - which was to take Finland. --Ukas 23:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes and no. Stalin expected to annex Finland. The Soviets did succeed in taking about 10 percent of Finland and giving Leningrad a larger buffer zone against Nazi Germany. They have never returned this territory to Finland. I am returning the Winter War to the list. Caracaskid (talk) 02:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Guliford Courthouse

I am adding the battle of Gulifor Courthouse to the examples. It is paticularly notable since it was called a phyrric victory soon after it was fought.Timber Rattlesnake 04:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Biased?

I am pretty sure that listing "War on Terror" as an example is a political opinion. There has been no permanent damage to the victors thus far. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.217.170.115 (talk) 14:20, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure? Are you really, really sure that there is no permanent damage? Besides by definition a pyrric victory is

"...a victory with devastating cost to the victor." I think it is very true.

Hey, while you are at it you could even name the war on drugs as a Pyrrhic victory... oh wait, whats that?, you can get better and cheaper crack on the streets today?, then i guess its not a victory!, then completely disqualifying it as a pryrrhic victory to begin with, same thing for the War on Drugs, Vietnam, Korea, etc.

Before any addition...

1) It cant be any battle just because the number of loses seem like high, as the deffinition reads within the first 3 lines: "A Pyrrhic victory is a victory with devastating cost to the victor. The phrase is an allusion to King Pyrrhus of Epirus, whose army suffered irreplaceable casualties when he defeated the Romans during the Pyrrhic War".

That means that the cost of the battle was so high that the army was crippled without the posibility of fighting another battle whatsoever, let alone another war.

2) In order for a pyrrhic victory to be pyrrhic victory... it must be a victory to begin with!. The terms aplies to victory in either a battle or a war in which the number of casualties in the victors side are so big (in proportion) that the victory itself comes into question. The war on terror, for example, could only be a pyrrhic victory if either the US or the insurgency/Al-Qaeda would win the war, yet neither side has "won" the war yet.200.83.57.71 01:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Iwo Jima & Okinawa

In what way were they pyrrhic victories? In both battles the Japanese took greater or corresponding casualties, lost the ground and certainly didn't cripple their enemy. In addition Iwo Jima ment more than loosing the island and it's defenders because of it's strategic importance.

The term shouldn't be used very lightly. If army A has 10,000 men against army B's 9,000 - and looses 1,000 men against army B's 900 while winning the battle - it's hardly a pyrrhic victory. In Battle of Kursk the Soviets lost more than the Germans, who were really crippled in the Eastern Front after this while the Soviets could easily reinforce their losses.

World War I wasn't exactly pyrrhic victory. Millions fought and millions died and the Central Powers were clearly defeated. When there's a world war going on, a million deaths doesn't make a difference in the big picture. --Ukas 00:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Examples

Removed Chinese participation from WWII. Can't figure out why this was a pyrrhic victory.

Roadrunner 04:12, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've moved the remaining list here:

• The Battle of Thermopylae in 480 BC
• The Byzantine war against the Sassanids 602-629 - both empires were left in ruins, and the Islamic Caliphate would later conquer the Sassanid Empire, and overrun over half of the Byzantine Empire's territory.
• The Battle of Bunker Hill in 1775
• The Battle of Borodino in 1812
• The Battle of York in 1813
• The Battle of the Alamo in 1836
• The Battle of Isandlwana in 1879
• The Battle of Dolores in 1904
• The Battle of Verdun in 1916
• The Battle of Crete in 1941

Thermopylae was not a pyrrhic victory - the Persians stood a good chance of winning the war up until Salamis and Plataea, and they got a chance to devastate one of their main enemies. Since this isn't the first item on this list to be removed, I think someone familiar with the battles should carefully go over them before returning them to this page. Josh

I'm not familiar with the Byzantine war against the Sassandid. I know that the Battle of Bunker hill was one. After reading about the Battle of Borodino it sounds like one. The Battle of York is questionable but the page states it is one. The Battle of the Alamo wasn't one. It was an outright Mexican victory even though the pages has it as one. The only arguement there was that the Mexicans sustanined heavy casualities(not unusual in battles involving a fortress or something similar), and that it became the battle cry for the Texans. The page on the Battle of Isandlwana states that it is one. The Battle of Dolores is also stated that it is one on the page. The Battle of Verdun I consider a stalemate although an argument for a French pyrrhic victory could be made. The Battle of Crete is absolutely one. Falphin 8 July 2005 13:33 (UTC)

I do not see how Battle of Verdun could be considered a French pyrrhic victory. The losses were not that great that France could not afford it, by the end of the battle they could keep going and Germany could not and a loss at Verdun could have costed them the war.

BernardZ (talk)

Josh is perhaps over-restricting the definition of "Pyrrhic victory" here. He proposes that it should be used only for a victory won at a cost so disproportionate that it was a significant factor in the loss of the war. But is that what it really means? The Chambers Dictionary just says "a victory won at too great a cost". For example, Crete definitely falls into the Chambers definition but not into Josh's definition. We ought to be able to cite some justification for the more restrictive definition. Gdr 16:34:07, 2005-08-04 (UTC)

I'm using the standard definition. My understanding was too great a cost meant losses they could not afford, i.e. one that ultimately led to serious problems down the road. Otherwise, what standard are you using for when the cost became too great? Josh

This term is way too overused on Wikipedia anyway. People seem to be on some mission to put the words "Pyrrhic victory" into every page about a costly battle, and it's usually more distracting than informative. I'd never heard it before using Wikipedia. It'd be good to use it less in the bodies of other articles and just put it down in the See also section or when categorizing pages. Tajmahall 05:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

It does not matter what editors on Wikipedia think was or was not a Pyrrhic victory, any battle or war that appears in the example list should only be there it is supported by a verifiable reliable source. I have just put a template at the top of the section ({{unrefsec}}). After a few days (as suggested in WP:PROVEIT) any battle or war listed in the section that does not have a reliable source stating it was a pyrrhic victory should be deleted from the list. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed all examples here need citations. In the mean time, I've cut ones whose articles aren't even claimming "Pyrrhic victory" status. Many were simply small scale successful delaying actions, others were cases which weren't even victories to the ones taking the most casulaties, and two were actually decisive victories to the side taking a lot of casulatites (battle ended the war / or they could still afford it). Jon (talk) 00:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The Alamo was not a pyrrhic victory. It was a complete victory for the Mexicans, and a total defeat for the Texans. There is no reason to list it as an example of Pyrrhic victory, and I am removing it from the list.Pygmypony (talk) 11:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Pearl Harbour is also this kind of victory, I think . Olivier Boisseau 81.252.199.81 (talk) 11:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Pearl Harbor was actually a rather modest operation for the Japanese (in terms of equipment), not the same effect on the Americans though, who have the idea that it was a far more elaborate attack than what it really was (pride, perhaps?).190.160.134.7 (talk) 09:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It also didn't cost the victors anything they couldn't afford to lose - a few planes, some small subs. It was a tactical victory, and a strategic nightmare for both Japan and its allies, but in no sense pyrrhic. Agricolae (talk) 03:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Chancellorsville belongs in the list. It was viewed as a monumental success, resulting in the decimation of several enemy corps, as well as the removal of the overall enemy commander, while the Southern army was virtually intact (with the exception, of course, of the loss of one corp commander) and in a better relative position than before fighting it. Any victory so one-sided that it convinces the victor to launch a full-scale invasion of the enemy territory can hardly be called pyrrhic. Agricolae (talk) 03:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

While I don't disagree with the sentiment, I'm not sure I'd count Iraq as a pyrrhic victory. Yet. 121.127.205.123 (talk) 11:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Recent Vandalism (2008)

New here so not sure what to do about this, but I undid recent vandalism to this page by IP 74.169.2.252. If I'm meant to report this somewhere please can someone inform me on my talk page where. Also corrected some spelling errors. Zaniac 20:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Examples section!

Seriously, the examples need to have some sort of citations for why they're in the list. It was getting pretty ridiculous. The Battle of Little Bighorn a PV? Come on.

I just edited the section with a heavy hand- the ones I left are the ones that actually mention a source for it in the article for that battle, or were the actual Pyrrhic victories. People shouldn't just be sticking one in there because they happen to think it's one- apparently there's a fairly common misconception that any particularly bloody battle is a PV, which is simply not true.

I also removed some "Turko-Tang Battle (681)". I have no idea what it's referencing and couldn't find anything about it.

Cheers! --DarthBinky (talk) 23:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone just re-added the Battle of Crete to the examples list. For one, it wasn't a PV (yes, Germany lost a lot of paratroopers and never made another major para-drop, but it wasn't a ruinous loss and at that point in the war, they could easily sustain the losses). For two, the article doesn't even say it was a PV, it lists is plainly as an "Axis victory". Third (and most importantly), there's no source in that article or here that states that it was indeed a PV. --DarthBinky (talk) 11:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I have a citation, but I just don't know how to add a citation. I do believe that crete is a Phyrric vicroty, as out of 22,000 soldiuers involved, 7,000 were killed, and more than 1 in 4 paretroops were killed. also, this defeat lead to Hitler losing his faith in the fallschirmjagers, and significantly led to the cancvellation of the vital invasion of Malta. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Themidlandmaster (talk • contribs) 11:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I still disagree that it is one (remember, a bloody battle does not automatically equal a PV- like I said, Nazi Germany, at that point, could easily sustain the loss of roughly 6-7 thousand soldiers- if it had been in spring of 1945, it would have been a different story!), but our opinions don't really matter in the grand scheme.

Assuming you do have a reliable source, then you should go to the article on the Battle of Crete and integrate that information there, then we'll make this one match that. It makes no sense to have it say that it's a PV in this article while the article on the battle itself does not. As for adding the source, if you go to the article on the Battle of Crete, it has several sources listed at the bottom- look at how those were done, and follow suit. :) Cheers! --DarthBinky (talk) 13:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Cool. thanks for the help. I'm a bit of a noob. And I think it is a Pyrrhic victory for the forces involved. Ie, for the forces involved in the battle, the losses were catastrophic. Also, is this a list of tactical or strategic victories? If strategic ones can be included, then the battle of isandlwana needs to go back, as it prevented a settlement being reached, and ensured the complete destruction and misiry under the British for the Zulu nation. Kind of like the battle of the little bighorn........................... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Themidlandmaster (talk • contribs) 13:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a short list of examples of Pyrrhic victories. What you are describign are not PV's, rather, bloody battles, unintended side-effects, no-win scenarios, and things like that. They aren't the same thing. Be aware of the definition of PV given at the top of the article- it's a battle where the cost of winning the battle is too high for the victor- in Pyrrhus' case, he simply lost too many troops (and officers) that he couldn't easily replace (in so doing, he actually lost far less than the Romans, but the Romans *could* sustain their losses). Also, like I siad, it makes no sense for this article to claim a given battle is "Pyrrhic" but the article for the battle itself does not say so, or even make a claim (for example, in the Santa Cruz one, there are two quotes, one from a Japanese admiral, and one from a historian, both echoing the quote attributed to Pyrrhus, so I left that battle here). --DarthBinky (talk) 14:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

paragraph 3

The 3rd paragraph, describing the quote is confusing:

"In both of Pyrrhus's victories, the Romans lost more men than Pyrrhus did. However, the Romans had a much larger supply of men from which to draw soldiers, so their losses did less damage to their war effort than Pyrrhus's losses did to his."

the paragraph begins talking about Pyrrhus's victories and ends talking about his losses. I understand that the losses are the losses of his men, but it is unclear. I attempted to change it to:

"In both of Pyrrhus's victories, the Romans lost more men than Pyrrhus did. However, the Romans had a much larger supply of men from which to draw soldiers, so their losses did less damage to their war effort than Pyrrhus's victories did to his."

but that didn't stick, perhaps it should at least say "the losses of pyrrhus's troops". As I understand it, Pyrrhus's "losses" would have been considered insignificant compared to those of the Romans, but the romans just kept throwing worthless soldiers at him until he was overwhelmed, like lemmings over a cliff, one should not stand in the way. Literedball (talk) 04:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Losses versus strength

Battle	Year		Pyrrhus	Rome
Heraclea	280BC	Casualties	4-13,000	7-15,000
		Strength	35,000	40,000
Asculum	279BC	Casualties	3,500	6,000
		Strength	40,000	40,000
Source: p71-2 Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars 259 to 146 BC by Duncan Head.

The Roman soldiers were not worthless. But they came from a citizen's army raised from a state that had many cities, including one very large city. One of the strengths of a citizen' army is that military experience is spread widely, which makes it easy to raise new armies and to provide battle casualty replacements.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Removed Irrelevant American References

As this is an article about the Greek historical origins of the term 'Pyrrhic Victory', and assuming this section conforms to the ideal that Wikipedia is a World Encyclopedia I have removed the irrelevant US examples. 92.238.154.53 (talk) 00:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Popular Culture

Could famous uses in the media also be included in this article; I believe they could further explain the subject. For example the infamous Saw films: extreme pain and mutilation (sawing your leg off to free from chains) is normally a victory in the Saw world, a defeat (jaws ripped off, burnt to death, trapped forever...) normally results in death. Another example is in The Dark Night, the Joker's plans normally result in a similar problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ipfreely555 (talk • contribs) 01:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The films you mention are not notable.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The Siege of Port Arthur as a Pyrrhic victory

Copied from User talk:76.184.139.223 The Siege of Port Arthur as a Pyrrhic victory

You listed the Siege of Port Arthur (1904-1905) in the Russo-Japanese War as a Pyrrhic victory. Perhaps you would like to consider some similar cases?

Have you thought of listing the Battle of Midway as a Pyrrhic victory for the US Navy? They lost an aircraft carrier and huge numbers of aircraft. Or what about the Battle of Gettysburg as a Pyrrhic victory for the US Army - casualties were huge. Maybe the Battle of Tarawa should be listed as Pyrrhic victory for the US Marines, who suffered heavy casualties. In the words of Gordon Brown, "get real".

I have reverted your addition of the Siege of Port Arthur to the list of Pyrrhic victories. Please don't add it again.Toddy1 (talk) 04:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Thermopylae

I removed Thermopylae from the list of examples here- the article for the battle has a section under "Significance" on why historians *don't* consider it a PV, so it doesn't seem appropriate to have it listed as one here. Cheers! --DarthBinky (talk) 11:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Tet Offensive.

North Vietnam soundly defeated on the field of battle. But managed to scare American civilians into thinking they were much stronger than they were. Now that i see it written out I'm not sure i have a case but you can be the judge of it. Mullhawk (talk) 17:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

If war did not have a political dimension, then the Tet Offensive would have been a ruinous defeat for the Viet Kong. The cost of defeating the communists was not ruinous for the Americans and South Vietnamese.

It is probably true to say that the Johnson administration failed to maintain the support of the American people for the war. Even this is debatable. Some would argue that the majority of the people were behind the war, and that it was a vocal minority who opposed it.

The failure of American political will to continue the Vietnam War was important. It continued to be important all through the 1970s and 1980s.

But this is a different effect than a Pyrrhic victory.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Battle of iquique

Just added battle of iquique as an example. While the battle was technically won by the peruvians, it end up costing peru the whole war. Without that battle, patriotism wouldn't have kicked in on chile, which was the main factor of chile winning the war (triggered mass enrollment). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.120.188.30 (talk) 22:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

 Undone This entry was already gone when I edited the list for references today. There are no citations for this claim in the Battle of Iquique article, and in fact there is no mention of Pyrrhic victory at all. If you have a reliable source for these claims, then please add it to Battle of Iquique. Even then, though, it might not be a good illustration for the PV article here; see discussions of how the Attack on Pearl Harbor was not a PV. — Molly-in-md (talk) 23:20, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

The Deluge or Post hoc ergo propter hoc

I removed the Deluge from the list as it is clearly a case of the Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. The arguement seems to be that Poland was badly weakened by Deluge that it led to the partitions of Poland. But that is a case of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy if there ever was one. The Deluge happened in the mid-17th century while Poland was not partitioned until the late 18th century, or put it another way, a good 100 plus years had passed. It is absurd to say that Poland was badly weakened by its costly victory in the Deluge that it was partitioned some 130 odd years later. Just because one thing happens after another does not mean that they are necessarily related. --A.S. Brown (talk) 00:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

"No reason to celebrate"

This seems weirdly out of character to me -- I almost want to add a "citiation needed" tag... but yeah -- for instance it seems very likely that one would celebrate the pyrrhic victory of their enemies (or even aim to inflict such a "victory" on them). BrainSlugs83 (talk) 23:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Where are the examples???

This talk page is largely devoted to discussions of what battles could be considered PVs, and yet the "Examples" section in the article was completely removed by DreamGuy on 24 December 2012. No discussion, no winnowing based on the talk page, no nothing -- just boom, the entire section wiped. I stumbled upon this situation while researching the Battle of Malplaquet (which is clearly a PV) and wondering why there weren't any PV examples on the Pyrrhic victory page. Can someone who is more attached to this page please restore what is clearly a useful section, perhaps with judicious editing? Molly-in-md (talk) 16:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

 Resolved: Just to be clear, the Examples section was overhauled in 2017 so this comment is no longer applicable. — Molly-in-md (talk) 15:03, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Add pronunciation?

Hello, the original reason I came to this page was to find out how to pronounce it (Pie-rik? Fare-ik? Fie-rik?). Anyway, I can look it up elsewhere, but that might be a useful addition in the beginning of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.123.31.144 (talk) 01:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done Just added in IPA and respelling, with an audio from Wiktionary. — Molly-in-md (talk) 18:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

not the same as a hollow victory

A Pyrrhic victory weakens the victor. A hollow victory is more along the lines of ruination or obsolescence of whatever was being fought over. 96.246.56.180 (talk) 20:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I came to the talk page to look for exactly this point. They're not synonymous at all - you could win a completely crushing victory, without any casualties, but it still be 'hollow'. --2001:8B0:110D:1:B43D:6A1F:F6E6:EED8 (talk) 20:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Since "hollow victory" is apparently a topic that brings readers to the PV page, I have added an entry in the "Related concepts" section with examples and citations. — Molly-in-md (talk) 23:09, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Examples

Here are some examples of some battles that may be considered Pyrrhic victories. discuss them at your leisure. These were earlier examples that were deleted.

• Battle of Heraclea (280 BC) – Pyrrhus of Epirus + Italian allies against the Romans
• Battle of Asculum (279 BC) – Pyrrhus of Epirus + Italian allies against the Romans
• Battle of Didao - one of Jiang Wei's Northern Expeditions during the Three Kingdoms. Shu Han VS Cao Wei
• Battle of Avarayr
• Battle of Lützen (1632) - Thirty Years' War
• Battle of Malplaquet (1709) – War of the Spanish Succession
• Battle of Bunker Hill (1775) - American Revolutionary War
• Battle of Guilford Court House (1781) - American Revolutionary War
• Battle of Berezina (1812) - French invasion of Russia (1812)
• Battle of Vuelta de Obligado (1845) - Anglo-French blockade of the Río de la Plata
• Battle of Crete (1941) – World War II
• Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands (1942) – World War II Pacific theatre, Solomon Islands Campaign
• Unternehmen Bodenplatte (1945) – World War II, Battle of the Bulge
• Battle of Chosin Reservoir (1950) – Korean War
• Battle of Vukovar (1991) – Croatian War of Independence

173.21.185.76 (talk) 22:36, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Reply

In the hopes of heading off somebody who would insert good-faith but erroneous entries into the example list, I'm going to document my opinion on these items. We must be careful to use the actual meaning of Pyrrhic victory (not the popular, overused meaning) as published in reliable sources. With those points in mind...

Some of these battles are definitely PVs and, as of this writing, appear in the example section with citations:

• Battle of Asculum (279 BC)
• Battle of Avarayr (451)
• Battle of Malplaquet (1709)
• Battle of Bunker Hill (1775)
• Battle of Guilford Court House (1781)
• Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands (1942)
• Battle of Chosin Reservoir (1950)
• Battle of Vukovar (1991)

Some are not PVs:

• Battle of Lützen (1632) – Swedes lost their king but otherwise it was a victory, not a PV
• Battle of Berezina (1812) – was a disaster but not a PV
• Battle of Vuelta de Obligado (1845) – both sides absorbed their losses so no PV
• Battle of Crete (1941) – Axis won that one early in the war when they could afford the losses, despite a few references in the main article
• Unternehmen Bodenplatte (1945) – an operational failure so not a PV, despite a few references in the main article

Some could be PVs but in my opinion should not appear as an example:

• Battle of Heraclea (280 BC) – predates Pyrrhus's quotation so would be awkward to include
• Battle of Didao – possibly, but the article is long and complicated, so it is not a good example for further study or understanding

— Molly-in-md (talk) 20:41, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

• The Battle of the Somme (1916), technically a French/English victory but at an appalling cost in manpower and with minimal gains of ground. Though it could also be argued that "bloodletting stalemate" is a more fitting description.

• The Suez Crisis (1956) - the British and French cabinets wanted to support Israel and assert themselves as power brokers, but only succeeded in showing the world that they were no longer any first-rate powers in the post-war world.

Russia's takeover of Crimea in 2014 may also turn out to become a Pyrrhic victory - it was a very easy win in military terms, they took the area without even firing a shot, but the consequences to the economy and standing of Russia have been serious and very difficult to reverse. Time will tell...83.254.151.150 (talk) 00:53, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Winning a battle but losing the war

A Pyrrhic victory does not necessarily cost you a war. BernardZ (talk)

Battle of Vukovar

There's been a recent edit war over this. FWIW, I think it belongs in - its own page describes it as pyrrhic and says "The battle exhausted the JNA and proved a turning point in the Croatian war." Pinkbeast (talk) 14:06, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Agree after reviewing the main article and some additional research. I added citations to the entry here. — Molly-in-md (talk) 18:56, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

This topic again reared its head in August 2019. Via a mobile edit, 174.90.223.3 wrote:

• Edit summary: Disputed Battle of Vukovar as a valid example of Pyrhic Victory, as the author who added it appears to know very little of this specific battle.
• Article text: DISPUTED: Battle of Vukovar is not a good example of Pyrrhic Victory, as it was a decisive victory for JNA, which did not suffer losses as initially reported by the media. Also, the town was of strategic importance to JNA as it controlled rail road in that section of Yugoslavia, and by taking it JNA achieved a major military goal, which Pyrrhic victories do not, by definition. [ed.: subsequent rant removed]

The edit was reverted the next day by Charlesdrakew, with the comment "Rv editorial, discuss at talk". I am documenting the claim here – where it belongs – in case someone wants to actually address it instead of just doing a fingerpointing hit-and-run. — Molly-in-md (talk) 12:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Original research

Most of list of battles seems to be original research.--MiguelMadeira (talk) 15:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

The list has traditionally been those whose own Wikipedia pages describe them as such, so it's down to whether those pages are well cited etc. Pinkbeast (talk) 17:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

 Resolved Just finished a pass-through of the battles. All items now have at least one good citation, and those citations also appear in the battles' articles. Items without good citations are no longer on the list. — Molly-in-md (talk) 18:53, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

The Alamo

Re recent edits, I'd like to see a reliable cite that says Mexican losses at the Alamo were a significant factor in the loss of the campaign. Texas Revolution says, cited, that the battle was "militarily insignificant".

Absent such a cite I propose to remove it again. Pinkbeast (talk) 17:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Agree SATXeditor obviously feels otherwise, since he added it three times this month, but the facts just do not support that claim. Mexican losses at the Alamo did not seem to slow Santa Anna's offensive. The "with another such victory as this, we'll go to the devil" would have come from a shocked officer who saw 1/3 of his men dead or wounded, but that was only a small portion of the Mexican army... making this a horrible, bloody encounter but not a PV. — Molly-in-md (talk) 23:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I still disagree for several reasons in addition to the quote from the Mexican officer that is almost identical to the Ancient Greek quotes on the Phyrric victory page itself. Among these: (1) the definition of a Pyrrhic victory does not require that the battle by itself decided the entire war, just that it was more like a loss than a victory; (2) the main page for battle of the Alamo also indicates "Most Alamo historians place the number of Mexican casualties at 400–600. This would represent about one-third of the Mexican soldiers involved in the final assault, which Todish remarks is "a tremendous casualty rate by any standards.""; and (3) the losses relative to the size of the war actually were significant, considering that at the Battle of San Jacinto, the final, decisive battle of the revolution, only marginally more Mexican casualties were suffered--about 850. If we think about this revolution relative to the size of the armies involved, it meets whatever definition you want for Phyrric Victory. SATXeditor

The quote means very little. Anyone looking at a battlefield strewn with corpses might wonder how their side could go on.

The definition of a pyrrhic victory requires no such thing. It is a victory whose losses make it tantamount to defeat. The Alamo may have represented significant Mexican losses, but since they could continue the campaign - since they might have won the campaign - their losses were not the cause of their defeat. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:27, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Pinkbeast. This is stretching the term too far, and without multiple sources calling it pyrrhic is original research anyway.Charles (talk) 11:06, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Analysis of "several reasons"

At the risk of being long-winded, I’m going to address SATXeditor’s points. He feels strongly, and I’m a teacher at heart.

SATXeditor says: I still disagree for several reasons in addition to the quote from the Mexican officer that is almost identical to the Ancient Greek quotes on the Phyrric victory page itself.
Reply: An utterance like "with another such victory as this, we'll go to the devil" is completely believable after a terrible siege/assault like the Alamo. However, one quotation from one combatant does not meet Wikipedia standards for reliability (see WP:RELIABLE). A PV claim requires third-party analyses, which have not been provided.

SATXeditor says: Among these: (1) the definition of a Pyrrhic victory does not require that the battle by itself decided the entire war, just that it was more like a loss than a victory;
Reply: Not quite. A PV battle must take a terrible toll on the victor; think of words like “irreplaceable” and “devastating” and “ruined”. A PV battle affects the victor’s ability to continue fighting afterward, not just be costly. In contrast, the Alamo hardly made Santa Anna pause in his spring offensive – read the opening summary of the Texas Revolution article to see what I mean. Then compare with the Battle of Chosin Reservoir, which severely curtailed the Chinese army for four months and kept the UN in Korea.

SATXeditor says: (2) the main page for battle of the Alamo also indicates "Most Alamo historians place the number of Mexican casualties at 400–600. This would represent about one-third of the Mexican soldiers involved in the final assault, which Todish remarks is "a tremendous casualty rate by any standards."";
Reply: Yes, that casualty rate is dreadful. However, casualty rate does not make a PV. Look at Iwo Jima: the invading U.S. forces sustained 26,000 casualties out of 70,000 combatants (numbers from http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,NI_Iwo_Jima2,00.html), which is almost 40% loss, yet that battle is not called a PV. Bloody does not equal Pyrrhic.

SATXeditor says: (3) the losses relative to the size of the war actually were significant, considering that at the Battle of San Jacinto, the final, decisive battle of the revolution, only marginally more Mexican casualties were suffered--about 850.
Reply: Again, you have to look at the overall picture. Iwo Jima applies here, too, actually. Those casualties accounted for a third of American Marines lost in the war. Awful. Still not a PV.

SATXeditor says: If we think about this revolution relative to the size of the armies involved,
Reply: Size is immaterial. See the Battle of Bunker Hill for a PV example on the small level. The “victorious” British lost enormous numbers of experienced officers, failed to press their advantage, had to rethink their battle plans (to their detriment), were forced to hire mercenaries, and so on. It’s all relative – did the victor lose too much by the win?

SATXeditor says: …it meets whatever definition you want for Phyrric Victory.
Reply: No, it doesn’t. To sum up, we must ask the following questions to determine if the Battle of the Alamo – or any battle – should be included in the list of Pyrrhic victories:
* Did the victor have unsustainable losses? No.
* Did the action hinder the victor’s ability to subsequently act? No.
* Are there reliable, published citations for the claim? No.

Was the Alamo an important battle in history? Absolutely. It stands as an example of bravery in the face of overwhelming odds, a rallying cry for a forming nation, and a continuing point of pride for Texans. It is not, however, a Pyrrhic victory.

— Molly-in-md (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Examples - short explanations

I think each listed example could do with a very brief (1-2 sentence) description of the forces, size, casualties, impact etc. A bare list isn't very helpful. (Hohum ^@) 20:35, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done Added a short summary to each entry. Kept them short, so for details like size and casualties readers will have to access the main articles. There just isn't room here, and that level isn't appropriate IMO. — Molly-in-md (talk) 14:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you (albeit, I admit, I wasn't really convinced of the necessity). Pinkbeast (talk) 14:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

The context and explanation makes them actual examples, rather than a bare list which the average reader will know nothing about. Sure, they could click through, but they would possibly need to read the entire article to find the nuggets of context to this article. Not including strengths and casualties was probably a good idea. Thank you. (Hohum ^@) 19:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

CE

Did a quickie, please feel free to revert as desired. Keith-264 (talk) 18:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I think the lead should point out that a Pyrrhic victory must be a victory. Too many people forget that in their stampede to stamp "PV!!" on an occurrence. The original wording made that clearer. — Molly-in-md (talk) 18:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm torn between asking how you'd change it and saying just go ahead... Pinkbeast (talk) 01:22, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

B-class review

Just did a quick review and think it's now clearly B-class (quite a strong one as well). I would suggest that if you want to take it further (e.g. GA or A-class) then you might want to find more coverage/references that discusses the concept as a whole, rather than specific examples. Anyway, well done all involved! :) The Land (talk) 20:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Definition

At this moment, the definition is, "A Pyrrhic victory (English pronunciation: /ˌpɪɹ.ɪk ˈvɪk.t(ə)ɹ.i/ ( listen) or peer-ik vik-tree) is a victory that inflicts such a devastating toll on the victor that it is tantamount to defeat. Someone who wins a Pyrrhic victory has been victorious in some way. However, the heavy toll negates any sense of achievement or profit."

The problem with this definition is that Googling "pyrrhic victory" has Google giving the above definition minus the last sentence.

I also dispute that a Pyrrhic victory lacks any sense of achievement or profit, so I am adjusting that, too.

Therefore I am combining the last sentence with the previous sentence, in hopes that Google will (eventually) display the whole definition. A Pyrrhic victory (English pronunciation: /ˌpɪɹ.ɪk ˈvɪk.t(ə)ɹ.i/ ( listen) or peer-ik vik-tree) is a victory that inflicts such a devastating toll on the victor that it is tantamount to defeat. Someone who wins a Pyrrhic victory has been victorious in some way, though the heavy toll negates a true sense of achievement or profit. DavidForthoffer (talk) 13:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm leaving it alone because your change seems harmless enough, but I think we should write the page for the reader of the page, not to try and fiddle with what Google displays. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:57, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Thermopylae

Thermopylae has been added with the edit summary: "Thermopylae should still be mentioned, if only as an explicit non-example."

I don't think it should. There are many battles where the victorious side suffered heavy losses which have been misdescribed as pyrrhic. It is not necessary to put any or all of them in here. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:12, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the article should not include non-examples. It doesn't need another layer of complication, contention, and confusion. — Molly-in-md (talk) 14:11, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Battle of Chancellorsville

The Battle of Chancellorsville was added, then the comment encouraging editors not to add battles without checking the talk page and adding a cite was expanded by another editor, whose efforts I commend.

Not that anyone _reads_ that comment, but might I suggest we add an encouragement not to add a battle whose Wikipedia page does not itself describe it as pyrrhic? (Yeah, I know, Wikipedia is not a RS but we've applied this rule of thumb in the past - and if someone's got good sources they can change the battle's page...) Pinkbeast (talk) 03:35, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I expanded that comment. Although I have my doubts on what proportion of editors will read it, we can't tell how many do, and then don't edit. ;)

However I don't think insisting that the main page of any example uses the term really helps. I'd rather keep the focus for inclusion on this page on reliable sources, and limiting the number, as this is not a list article. :If someone wants to make a list article, fine with me, I'm sure there are dozens of examples that could have reliable examples. (Hohum ^@) 14:25, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Torgau, 1760

This would be a good addition to the list. The Battle of Torgau was fought during the Seven Years' War, between the Prussians commanded by King Frederick the Great and the Austrians commanded by Marshal Daun. Frederick decided that enfilading and swamping Daun's fortified camp outside of Torgau would enable him to capture Dresden and force Austria to surrender. It didn't work out that way. The first Prussian attack suffered massive losses to Austrian cannon fire and the Prussians teetered on the brink of major defeat. Frederick turned the battle around and forced the Austrians to retreat, and Daun himself was severely wounded. But the Prussians suffered some 17,000 casualties, over 1/3 of their entire army, and Frederick achieved none of his long-term goals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FCC8:AD0B:B100:9D91:C866:A9A5:267 (talk) 04:26, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Disagree. The WP article says "Prussians won a costly victory in one of the bloodiest battles of the Third Silesian War (part of the Seven Years' War)" but no mention of a PV. It also doesn't seem any better than the existing examples, even if someone spent the time to investigate further. No thanks. — Molly-in-md (talk) 16:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Eylau, 1807

Editor, I think that this battle should be added. It was an inconclusive battle between Napoleon's French army and the Russian army commanded by Levin August Benningsen. Early in the fight, part of the French army was routed with heavy losses, and Napoleon himself was nearly captured. Napoleon launched a massive cavalry charge which saved the day and forced the Benningsen's army to withdraw. However, the French suffered such heavy casualties (around 25,000 men) that they couldn't pursue the retreating Russians and the battle shook the image of French military might.

The Battle of Eylau, being indecisive, wasn't a Pyrrhic victory. (Hohum ^@) 18:49, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Battle of Jutland, 1916

Editor, how about listing this battle? The World War I naval battle is a good example of a Pyrrhic victory for the Germans. The German fleet inflicted twice as many casualties on the British, both in tonnage of ships sunk and number of men killed, and the British naval command suffered criticism for the remainder of the war. But the British navy recovered and the much smaller German navy could ill afford the losses it did suffer and its goal of ending the British blockade failed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FCC8:AD08:EC00:346F:8017:60CD:DA07 (talk) 03:49, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I think it's a terrible example for three reasons.

1. Not a victory: the battle was inconclusive, and at the end of the battle the British were searching for the Germans in order to continue the fight, which is not a normal thing for a defeated enemy to be doing. As you say yourself the German goal of ending the British blockade failed; they did not win a victory.
2. German losses not heavy: in modern battleships, the Germans lost one battlecruiser and no dreadnoughts. Since their losses were not heavy, they cannot be so heavy as to be tantamount to defeat.
3. Strategic outcome was not a consequence of the German losses: the High Seas Fleet ended up in exactly the situation they would have been in if they had not come out to fight at all, with sufficient strength to oblige Grand Fleet to continue to be vigilant against them. Pinkbeast (talk) 09:43, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Winter War, 1939-40

Editor, can an entire war be a pyrrhic victory? The Russians picked this war with Finland, a much smaller nation, over a small amount of territory. It blew up in their faces. Finnish forces inflicted enormous casualties on the invading Russians, humiliating Joseph Stalin's image as a world power. The numerically superior Russians ultimately broke through the Finnish defenses, forcing them to sue for peace. The Russians won, but only gained a small patch of contested land. For this, they suffered some 350,000 casualties, five times what the Fins suffered. Their repeated defeats to the much smaller Fins caught the attention of Adolph Hitler, a factor in his decision to invade Russia. Russia would have been much better off if they had left Finland alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FCC8:AD08:EC00:B15F:60D3:E48C:9702 (talk) 00:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Battle of Molino del Rey, 1848

Editor, this small battle was fought near the end of the Mexican-American War. American Colonel Ethan A. Hitchcock later called it a Pyrrhic Victory. Responding to rumors of a cannon foundry at Molino Del Rey (The King's Mill), American troops marched to take over the foundry and encountered a well-armed Mexican force. The first American attacks were repulsed by heavy fire. Americans recovered and overran the Mill after a fierce fight. The Mexicans retreated in good order and suffered fewer killed and wounded than the Americans. More importantly, the rumors a major artillery factory were just that, empty rumors. The only thing this battle accomplished for the Americans was that the casualties briefly delayed the end of the war. Another American officer, Daniel Harvey Hill, remarked the whole effort had been for nothing.

If a small battle had little effect on the overall campaign it does not count as pyrrhic.Charles (talk) 07:38, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Battle of Gangwana

While the entry was badly written, I'm not convinced by this reversal. Fine re Battle of Sammel, which is an incoherent entry but I think is just the usual "heavy casualties" == "pyrrhic" confusion, but Gangwana is described as pyrrhic in the source and the Jaipur losses seem to have been instrumental in forcing the resultant peace. Pinkbeast (talk) 23:28, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

This is a list of examples, intended to help the reader understand the article subject, but this entry was badly explained, giving irrelevant details. If it was more along the lines of "1,000 cavalry routed an enemy army of 100,000 men, but only 70 of the cavalry survived, fatally weakening their side" - it would be better.

We're also trying to avoid making this a list article - I am sure there are very many examples of Pyrrhic victories, but this article only needs a few examples to illustrate the concept. If someone wants to create a separate list article, that's fine. (Hohum ^@) 12:56, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Siege of Ostend

Often overlooked by military historians and there are plenty of reasons to see why this was a pyrrhic victory. In the end the port town was in total ruins and was won at such great cost (human and financially). With the Spanish distracted with the Ostend siege, the Dutch frontiers in the East were expanded along with a succession of mutinies in the Spanish army notably at Hoogstraten. This exhausted the Spanish army to a point where they were unable to recapture them since they were so determined with the capture of Ostend. Towards the end of the siege the Dutch captured a replacement inland port town of Sluis (as well as Zeelandic Flanders) which was just as useful as Ostend. This led to the surrender of the latter since there was no point in holding it. After this the subsequent Spanish campaign over the next two years to try and recapture the Dutch territories achieved very little. This in turn forced Spain to declare a moratorium on its debts in 1607, and the resultant Twelve Year Truce effectively turned the Dutch Republic into a de facto recognized independent state. Eastfarthingan (talk) 15:21, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

For inclusion in this article, relevant requirements would seem to be:

• Do we have enough examples already? (what does this one add?)
• Do sources, rather than your opinion, specifically state the example as a Pyrrhic victory?

(Hohum ^@) 15:59, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I'd say in terms of the siege the longest and bloodiest - there are plenty of sources to state this too; here are a few:

• It was in many respects a Pyrrhic victory[1]
• A pyrrhic victory[2]
• was at best a pyrrhic victory [3]
• the Ostend campaign had been a pyrrhic victory [4]
• Albert and Isabella entered Ostend in triumph, but it was a Pyrrhic victory [5]
• For three years Ostend had occupied the entire Spanish army exhausting entirely the resources of Spain while leaving the Dutch free to increase their wealth and power by trade and commerce. It had paid to defend Ostend [6]

Non English written sources have noted it as such.

• tras la victoria pirrica de Ostende [7]
• le siguió la pírrica victoria de la rendición de Ostende en 1604 [8]
• la pirrica victoria en el sitio de Ostende [9]
• gezeigt, dem Pyrrhussieg der spanischen [10]

Eastfarthingan (talk) 16:55, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Please endeavour to indent your talk page comments normally.

While there is an argument we have enough examples already, this does seem on reflection like a particularly good example; a long and bloody siege which contributed directly and obviously to strategic defeat for the victors. I would not oppose inclusion. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:31, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I'll go about adding it in soon but await to see if there are any further objections.Eastfarthingan (talk) 20:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

This has now been done. Eastfarthingan (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Gallipoli

Any reason not to include Gallipoli (Great War) in this. Both History dot com and BBC have called it a Pyrrhic victory. Much like Hamburger Hill (I haven’t read through yet completely, is that included? It should be!) Gallipoli was a meat grinder in the most literal sense. The pure volumes of wasted life was devastating to morale. Lostinlodos (talk) 05:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Rejected

Sorry, you seem to have confused "great bloodshed" with Pyrrhic victory. You aren't alone, with apparent company like your two writers at History dot com and BBC; it's a common mistake that this article is attempting to correct. Quoting from the lead of the Gallipoli campaign's own WP article: "The campaign was considered a great Ottoman victory." In other words, the Entente lost – so, while awful, Gallipoli does not even meet the first test for Pyrrhic victory. — Molly-in-md (talk) 13:09, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

On Hamburger Hill

If ever ther was a battle to fall under Pyrrhic victory this was it. After routing through platoon after platoon, the hill was abandoned. It’s legacy remains one of the most pointless battles in military history. Lostinlodos (talk) 05:57, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

 Disagree

While Hamburger Hill did help to swing public opinion in the United States against the war, that was really the battle's only effect. The US suffered 72 killed and 372 wounded, which was hardly the "devastating toll" of the PV definition. Per the battle's own WP article: the new commander "abandoned the hill on 5 June as the operations in the valley wrapped up", which hardly sounds as if it affected planning. Pointless probably, a cautionary tale of battle-induced tunnel vision definitely, but PV it is not. — Molly-in-md (talk) 13:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Very American take

I notice that ?half of the examples are from the USA. Can't we have more cosmopolitan examples? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.13.123 (talk) 15:45, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Although I think two American Revolutionary War examples is one too many, having one American Civil War, one Korean War, and one for World War Two example doesn't seem unreasonable. (Hohum ^@) 16:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

The 11 examples involved 18 countries/areas on 3 continents. The USA were in 5 of the 11 examples; the area of Great Britain was also involved in 5 of the 11 examples; the Dutch were in 2 examples, as was the area of Croatia; 14 other countries around the world each had 1 involvement. As an English-language wiki, it is unfortunate but understandable that the examples will skew to English-speaking history and publications. Yes, please expand/replace with "more cosmopolitan examples", if you know of battles that are definitely Pyrrhic victories, are backed up by multiple reliable published sources, and illustrate the concept better than the existing examples. I've had no luck with Africa, Oceania, or South America. — Molly-in-md (talk) 15:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Related terms

The section on "Related concepts" or "Related terms" has long been a part of this page, with increasing amounts of content and citations. However, User:Drmies has been slashing information recently, sometimes with thousands of words lost.

The essay on Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is so great points out that “Articles steadily become more polished as they develop”. This development is cut off when content is removed, because the concept cannot be grown by regular and irregular contributors to the subject.

Rather than deleting chunks of text, a better approach is tagging specific sections for improvement and/or discussing on the Talk page. As stated in the “Best practices in heavily monitored articles” section of WP:CLEANUPTAG, “cleanup templates are used to inform readers and editors of ongoing discussions and attempts to fix the problems on the page. Such templates can be used to attract uninvolved users to discussions and cleanup efforts, and they can also serve as a warning to casual readers that the article may have problems and be subject to noticeable changes.” Also, a review of Wikipedia:Editing policy is in order.

I have restored the removed information and edited with an eye to the objections. Please do not delete large amounts of this text without discussion.

Let’s continue to make this article better, all of us together. — Molly-in-md (talk) 14:39, 16 January 2021 (UTC)