Talk:Pyrrhic victory

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Borodino, 1812

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Pearl Harbor

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Battle of Kosovo

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Stalingrad

message: 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)
thread_title:  Little Bighorn

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ill-defined 

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Thermopylae 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Guliford Courthouse 

message: 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)
thread_title: Before any addition...

message: 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)
thread_title: Iwo Jima & Okinawa 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Recent Vandalism (2008) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removed Irrelevant American References 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Popular Culture 

message: 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)
thread_title: The Siege of Port Arthur as a Pyrrhic victory

message: 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)
thread_title:  Thermopylae 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Battle of iquique 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The Deluge or Post hoc ergo propter hoc

message: 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)
thread_title:  "No reason to celebrate" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Where are the examples??? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Just added in IPA and respelling, with an audio from Wiktionary. — Molly-in-md (talk) 18:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add pronunciation? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  not the same as a hollow victory 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  [[Battle of Vukovar]] 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Original research 

message: 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)
thread_title: Analysis of "several reasons"

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Thank you (albeit, I admit, I wasn't really convinced of the necessity). Pinkbeast (talk) 14:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Examples - short explanations 

message: Did a quickie, please feel free to revert as desired. Keith-264 (talk) 18:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I'm torn between asking how you'd change it and saying just go ahead... Pinkbeast (talk) 01:22, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  CE 

message: 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)
thread_title: B-class review

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Definition 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Thermopylae  

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Torgau, 1760

message: 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)
thread_title: Eylau, 1807

message: 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 Adolf 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)
thread_title: [[Winter War]],  1939-40

message: 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)
thread_title: [[Battle of Molino del Rey]], 1848

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Gallipoli 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  On Hamburger Hill 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Very American take 

message: 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)
replies: text: None of the sources provided link any of this to "Pyrrhic victory" so I have removed it. It is up to anyone supporting its inclusion to provide such sources. (Hohum @) 19:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Support removal per above. Large sections/lists on/of "Related concepts" is not how article development works. Ceoil (talk) 22:10, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related terms 

message: Why is this an example of a Pyrrhic victory? It may turn out to be, but doesn't seem like it cost Russia too much at the moment.
I don't want to discuss the politics of the Ukraine war, just question why it is an example of a PV.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:810D:700:3ED8:1C5B:DCCA:3916:6CB4 (talk) 16:03, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a 2nd citation for Mariupol pyrrhic victory. However it was surprisingly hard to find citations. This may not be a widely accepted fact yet. Interested in hearing what others think. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:27, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Siege of Mariupol 

message: Lützen: narrow tactical Swedish victory, but failing to destroy Wallenstein's army and losing their King in the process. Causing a large fall in Protestant morale 
Bunker Hill: British victory, but the heavy losses taking the hill, and the Minutemen contigent escaping mostly unscathed forced the British to evacuate Boston
Borodino: Victory for Napoleon, albeit failing to cripple the Russian army (which would later cause the downfall of the campaign) and suffering much heavier losses than expected.
Bakhmut: Russia storms mid sized city for 10 months, suffers a 1:3 casualty ratio, causing large infighting and a serious reduction of their short term offensive capacity. ArticleLurker (talk) 07:38, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: My mistake, Bunker Hill is already there. Other 3 are valid choices though. ArticleLurker (talk) 07:39, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add Lützen, Bunker Hill, Borodino and Bakhmut  

message: There are several RS sources, including The Atlantic () and Time magazine () which state it was a Hamas pyrrhic victory, with Time saying, "Hamas’ stunning military success on October 7 will prove to be a pyrrhic victory." I feel this should be added to the list since it would give a 21st century item for the list, which is backed by RS. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:35, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding the [[2023 Hamas attack on Israel]] 

message: Both Stalingrad battle (1943) and Battle of Britain (1939-1945) are examples of Pyrrhic, in which winning side lost arguably more then it gained. Britain lost its colonies and Ussr lost 1.6 million soulders in Stalingrad (27 milion total Soviet losses during WW2). Should we create a section regaring this to inform the reader about the use of the term apart from a few textbook examples as it is now? 188.170.80.52 (talk) 20:56, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The British  consider the Battle of Britain to have taken place from the Spring to the Autumn of 1940. The Germans extend it to the end of The Blitz in May 1941. Mcljlm (talk) 12:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stalingrad and Battle of Britain 

message: Another example of terrible military campaign, with losses over 2/3 of city population due to famine caused by the siege. Military losses of over 1.5 million, civilian losses of over 1 million. As an outcome, Prussia fell under Russian control, or was rather evacuated to the mainland Germany, while Köningsberg was renamed Kaliningrad. The Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania have also been occupied for nearly 40 years. The costs of the victory outweight the benefits of retreat or surrender, thus should we include this in the main article of Pyrrhic victory? 188.170.85.12 (talk) 14:57, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Siege of Leningrad 

message: Foreign Affairs' headline and its sub-head are for its July 2021 article https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/afghanistan/2021-07-22/pakistans-pyrrhic-victory-afghanistan are 
"Pakistan’s Pyrrhic Victory in Afghanistan
 
Islamabad Will Come to Regret Aiding the Taliban’s Resurgence" 
In view of https://www.voanews.com/a/surging-militancy-prompts-pakistan-to-review-support-for-afghanistan-s-taliban/7437518.html from January 12, 2024 maybe the subject is worth adding. See also https://apnews.com/article/taliban-pakistan-politician-prime-minister-c3dd49489d2f6d42db9f6ca8b87cacb6, https://thediplomat.com/2024/01/can-pakistans-maulana-fazlur-rehman-mend-ties-with-the-taliban/ as well as Pakistani Taliban. Mcljlm (talk) 15:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't a list article intended to include every time a journalist has used the word offhandedly. The entries in the article are to clearly and unambiguously represent seminal examples. As such, previous discussion has required a high quality source - i.e. a well regarded military historian clearly stating the subject as Pyrrhic. (Hohum @) 17:20, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pakistan aiding the Taliban