Any wars with battles, but no or little losses?

Factual Questions
1

There is the “Kettle war” where the only loss was a soup kettle and there is the Emu war with humans vs Emus (which the emus won), however, was there a real war, with at least one real battle, where either no one was killed or the total death total was really, really small, both sides combined?

Small terrorist attacks/counter-terrorist ops and few hour long wars don’t count, also wars that were just declared, but without any actual fighting don’t count, only real wars with at least one real battle count.

2

Well, they didn’t exactly have “battles”, but there’s the Pig War and the Aroostook War. Both involved mobilization of troops, but no actual fighting between the troops.

3

Here’s a list of bloodless wars.The question would be which of them had battles.

Conflicts without casualties are usually called “wars” only jocularly.

4

For sure. The list has the Three Hundred and Thirty Five Years’ War, where nobody died. I’m not sure why they don’t call it the 335 Years Peace instead.

5

The man with the biggest set of balls in the history of the world:

Consul Gaius Popillius Laenas

6

The Six Days War was a real war, with real battles, but I imagine the casualty count was unusually low.

7

Wikipedia puts the death toll north of 18,500 on the Arab side, with 776–983 Israeli deaths. That’s more than the combined losses in the Mexican-American War.

8

A good but dry recap here.
Scroll down to **A Battle Ground Without a Battle
**TLDR Some hysterical (and quite possibly drunk) townsfolk and militia chased after some local natives who decided to skip out on the local hospitality. They parlayed and the runaways decided to return peacefully. In the ensuing celebration the Chief was accidentally killed. 60 years later, the area was named for the non-existent battle.

====
Sitting out a rainy day.