• Hi Guest!

    The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress

When being Right is Wrong

Without going into that specific battle, it is possible, in general terms, for both sides to win a battle if both sides have objectives that they fulfil. If, for example, Side A wishes to buy time for defences to be built further inside, and Side B wishes to push Side A back to allow it to loot the border region (a fairly common situation in unruly border regions), it's possible for Side A and Side B to both win a battle against each other.

True indeed.
 
One of those very important skills you learn as a historian.

The classic example, of course, is both the Egyptians and the Hittites claiming to have won the Battle of Kadesh.
Or the abundance of battles where both sides thought they lost and retreated and then in embarrassment realized that the other side was also running away. Though I struggle to name any of the top of my head.
 
One of those very important skills you learn as a historian.

The classic example, of course, is both the Egyptians and the Hittites claiming to have won the Battle of Kadesh.

You can see it, sometimes between switching French and English version of battles on Wikipedia (and I assume other languages). Sometimes it's a matter of different historiography, sometimes a clear-cut result in one language will have separate outcomes in tactical and strategical terms in the other language, and sometimes you can be pretty sure one side is lying to preserve its own feelings.
 
Back
Top