umm, that’s Egyptian, not Egyptina . sorry…
The Arc de Triomph lists Bailén as one of Nappy’s victories.
His troops got the kind of ass-wiping that makes the flag itself grow knees so it can fall on them and surrender, but hey, that doesn’t mean they should admit it.
It may be worth mentioning the related battles of Isandhlwana and Rorke’s Drift at the start of the Anglo-Zulu War in 1879. The British lost 1,700 men at Isandhlwana on January 22, one of the worst defeats in any colonial war. The celebrated defense of Rorke’s Drift against the Zulus over the next two days was a British “victory” mainly in that they were able to hold out against being annihilated and salvage some pride in the face of overwhelming defeat.
The Nez Perce war. Many people immortalize Chief Joseph and “I Will Fight No More Forever”. Few could name the US Cavalry commander without looking it up (Gen. Oliver Howard).
War of 1812? When the enemy burns your capitol and then goes home, its hard to call it a victory. Well, nonsensical, not difficult.
Does not contradict what I said: he was the only Englishman there by the time of the battle and quite clearly stayed there so he might die gloriously.
I’ll go for the Long-Sault battle, fought by Dollard des Ormeaux against the Iroquois.
You claimed that he “commanded no troops,” which of course he did - he had at least 8,000 men at one point. He was sent to the Sudan under the auspices of the British government, and British troops were dispatched to attempt to relieve him after the seige began. The fact that he was the only Englishman there at the end was because his companions, such as Col. Stewart or Powers, had been killed or escaped. Gordon undertook an energetic defense of Khartoum against the Mahdi’s forces, using troops and gunboats. Regardless of Gordon’s personal motives for going to Khartoum and staying there, the taking of the city by the Mahdi and Gordon’s death were certainly a military defeat in which the loser was far more celebrated than the winner.
I think we can also call the Patriotes Rebellion a much celebrated defeat in Quebec history.
My first year living in Mississippi I was informed that Martin Luther King, Jr. Day is really Robert E. Lee Day.
No, I’m not joking.
-Joe
I reckon that the Battle of Karbala is perhaps one of the best examples here.
How about the Battle of Kosovo Field ? It’s still tragically relevant and its the justification for Serbian Nationalism
Hmmm. I don’t think anyone glorifies the burning of Washington, DC. Note that in those days, Washington, DC didn’t offer much to burn! It was basically a village with a bunch of stone buildings sitting about.
We do glorify the bombardment of Ft. McHenry, but that was a victory. The British failed to take the fort and had to give up the invasion of Baltimore.
This quote from the War of 1812 does glorify a naval defeat in a heavily ironic way. We remember a stirring phrase even though the captain’s own command couldn’t seem to remember it. Or maybe they didn’t hear it?
I think the War of 1812 was a draw. Forget the military results; most of that was both sides getting away from the whole point of the war. The US got the British to stop acting like arses when it came to international waters. On the other hand, the British weren’t really fighting all out; they were much more concerned about France.
That’s not “quite clear”. He stayed there because he was governor-general of the Sudan, and it was his duty to defend Khartoum. And the entire time, he was waiting for relief (which actually got there two days after the city fell). It makes no sense to say that he “stayed there so he might die gloriously”. He stayed there because he thought that he could resist the seige. It just happened to be a miscalculation on his part (in part because of treachery) that resulted in the garrison being wiped out.
And what’s the significance of his being the only Englishman there?
Well, we burned York, which was the capital of Canada at the time, during the same war.
Cynical Gabe, you’re aware that the troops involved with burning the US capitol were the same troops who got thier heads handed to them at New Orleans, right?
How’s about the battle between the HMS Serapis and Bonhomme Richard? Yes, it was a victory for the US forces, but it was a victory of the sort that horror stories are told about: The Bonhomme Richard sank shortly after the battle - one reason John Paul Jones had to take the Serapis was that if he didn’t, he and his crew were all dead men.
Likewise, while the battle between the USS Kearsarge and the CSS Alabama was a Union victory, there were a number of songs glorifying the battle and fight that the Alabama put up.
For that matter, the Battle of Hampton Roads, aka the Monitor vs. the Merrimac - was a Union defeat. The CSS Virginia was driven off, but only after sinking three (or was it four) Union vessels. The Monitor saved one vessel. And couldn’t persue the Virginia to a conclusion, so the ironclad remained a threat until circumstances forced Semmes to scuttle her.
Personally, I tend to view the battle of the USS Nevada at Pearl Harbor to be one of the great examples of something I call “glorious failures.” (If you really want to know, search on the Dope for my name and Nevada.)
I’d also like to point out that while the two set-piece battles at Concord and Lexington were victories for the British, the overall mission that the British troops had been sent to accomplish was a failure: They didn’t confiscate the powder stores. And that doesn’t even begin to mention the casualties that the British troops took from skirmishers on the march back. I don’t think that it’s quite accurate to claim Concord or Lexington for pure victories for the British.
Two (not three or four) Union ships were destroyed, the Cumberland being sunk and the Congress blowing up after running aground. The *Monitor * was able to rescue the Minnesota, which had also run aground, when it arrived the next day. Two other Union ships escaped without help from the Monitor.
The battle was inconclusive, in that neither side achieved its objectives (and that is the determinant of defeat or victory, not the number of ships destroyed). The *Virginia * did not destroy the Union fleet or break the blockade, while the Union was unable to destroy the Virginia and it remained a threat. But the battle was certainly a Union strategic victory, since the Union fleet was able to stay at Hampton Roads. The Virginia failed in its mission, even though it won the initial engagement.
And who is still around? Romans or Jews?
Of Upper Canada (now Ontario), actually.
Well… er… you see… they’re BOTH still around. 