Talk:Pyrrhic victory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pyrrhic victory article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] Ill-defined

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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:

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 arguement for a Frecnh pyrrhic victory could be made. The Battle of Crete is absolutely one. Falphin 8 July 2005 13:33 (UTC)

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)