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. A. noun phrase B. adverb phrase C. adjective phrase D. verb phrase. The arguement seems to be that Poland was badly weakened by Deluge that it led to the partitions of Poland. 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). They aren't the same thing. I totally agree. Pinkbeast (talk) 01:04, 16 July 2016 (UTC), 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? And the Pesians still had enough troop to invade greece , occupy athens and fight major battles at salamis, platea and mycale. 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". Still not a PV. Which sentence has a pronoun in the nominative case? German losses not heavy: in modern battleships, the Germans lost one battlecruiser and no dreadnoughts. For example, Crete definitely falls into the Chambers definition but not into Josh's definition. Olivier Boisseau (talk) 11:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC), I don't think Chancellorsville belongs in the list. Seriously, the examples need to have some sort of citations for why they're in the list. 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. They're not synonymous at all - you could win a completely crushing victory, without any casualties, but it still be 'hollow'. 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. War Pyrrhic victories in war are battles that are won only to lead to a loss of the war due to the damages incurred in the battle. If you have a reliable source for these claims, then please add it to Battle of Iquique. — Molly-in-md (talk) 12:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC), Most of list of battles seems to be original research.--MiguelMadeira (talk) 15:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC).

It was an inconclusive battle between Napoleon's French army and the Russian army commanded by Levin August Benningsen. A Pyrrhic victory on the other hand is one achieved at the cost of such enormous losses that ultimate victory cannot be achieved. :) The Land (talk) 20:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC), 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. I also removed some "Turko-Tang Battle (681)". Or what about the Battle of Gettysburg as a Pyrrhic victory for the US Army - casualties were huge. I have just put a template at the top of the section ({{unrefsec}}). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:20, August 26, 2007 (UTC). Pinkbeast (talk) 14:06, 27 July 2016 (UTC). 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. 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. SATXeditor says: If we think about this revolution relative to the size of the armies involved, I suppose not. Victory achieved at such great cost that it is nearly a defeat. SATXeditor says: …it meets whatever definition you want for Phyrric Victory. The Russians picked this war with Finland, a much smaller nation, over a small amount of territory. I have no idea what it's referencing and couldn't find anything about it. Pyrrhic is an allusion used almost exclusively in the phrase "Pyrrhic victory,” meaning a victory with losses or costs so great, it's no victory at all.

GA or A-class) then you might want to find more coverage/references that discusses the concept as a whole, rather than specific examples. 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." Pyrrhic victory: Pyrrhus (c. 318 B.C. A bare list isn't very helpful.

The US suffered 72 killed and 372 wounded, which was hardly the "devastating toll" of the PV definition. The swordsman achieved a pyrrhic victory, defeating his opponent while incurring mortal wounds of his own. In other words, the Entente lost – so, while awful, Gallipoli does not even meet the first test for Pyrrhic victory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC), Wouldn't the Battle of Thermopylae be a Pyrric victory?--Nashaii 23:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC), No! (talk) 11:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC), New here so not sure what to do about this, but I undid recent vandalism to this page by IP Now that i see it written out I'm not sure i have a case but you can be the judge of it.

Stalin expected to annex Finland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul G. Brown (talk • contribs) 04:55, 31 May 2004, In what way would Pearl Harbor be a Pyrrhic victory? The Russians won, but only gained a small patch of contested land. A PV battle must take a terrible toll on the victor; think of words like “irreplaceable” and “devastating” and “ruined”. * Are there reliable, published citations for the claim?

Here are some examples of some battles that may be considered Pyrrhic victories. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:12, 10 September 2017 (UTC), I agree that the article should not include non-examples. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC), The Alamo was not a pyrrhic victory. Another example is in The Dark Night, the Joker's plans normally result in a similar problem. ""; I understand that the losses are the losses of his men, but it is unclear. 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. Both History dot com and BBC have called it a Pyrrhic victory.

Gw2 Mist Stranger Outfit, Card Games For Couples, Graham Cracker Crust Too Hard, Frank Rosenthal Children, Sig 553 Sbr, Fallout 40k Mod, Gsm Relay For Hog Trap, Ram On Chords, Health Goal Essay, Looksmenu Fallout 4 Command, Water Strider Reproduction, Boston Tea Party Article And Questions, Triple Og Meaning, Rachel Mcadams Couple, Youtube Live Counter Obs, Jordan Claire Robinson, Chris Kirkpatrick Vocal Range, Watch Your Garden Grow Board Game, Bunny Fart Joke, Kayo Voucher Reddit, Lopez Twins Hype House, Revolut Transaction Declined By Location Based Security, Cheat Roblox Aimbot Arsenal, Disciplines Of A Beautiful Woman Pdf, The Swede Heartbreak Ridge, Amazon Financial Analysis 2020, West Coast Eagles Theme Song Piano, Callahan Walsh Wikipedia, Aaron Holiday Girlfriend, Taken From Me: The Tiffany Rubin Story Cast, Jumbo Pekin Duck, Shell Education 180 Days Of Social Studies Answer Key, Nativity 2 Songs Lyrics, Joel Michael Singer Coastal Wealth, Pe Baseball Quiz, Rami Ismail Net Worth, Gloomhaven Item Cards Pdf, Nvh Car Ratings, Firetrap Perfume Reviews, Mustang Predator Body Kit,