The Boston Massacre might qualify for the OP. The townspeople were driven off, leaving their dead behind in the snow, and the British troops stood their ground. But it radicalized the colony and was a huge propaganda coup for the Sons of Liberty.
Colibri has correctly recalled the 1862 Battle of Hampton Roads. I would differ slightly on his conclusion. The Virginia’s mission was to break the blockade; she failed. The Monitor’s mission was to protect the *Minnesota * and, more broadly, to preserve the blockade; she succeeded (despite having two guns to the Virginia’s ten, and about 60 men to the Virginia’s 300).
Chapultepec - one of the battles fought during Winfield Scott’s march from Veracruz to Mexico city during the Mexican-American war was at the Mexican military academy. The Americans won but IIRC the cadets are remembered as heroes in a glorious defeat.
(Sorry, had tried posting a response to this earlier - computer problems, then I just forgot about it.)
You’re right, Colibri, about the tally of ships lost. (And I knew that before Elendil’s Heir spoke up.) I always think of it as one lost to the Virginia’s ram, and the rest destroyed by gunfire. Not a very accurate record.
Well, to describe it as a fleet action, where the fate of individual ships is immaterial to a decision about victory or defeat, is also a bit of a mistake. AIUI first the Cumberland was on her own against the Virginia, then the Congress alone against the Virginia. Of course, part of that had been because Virginia deliberately got up close with her targets - making fire from other vessels difficult.
Making things even more problematical is that the battle took place over two days. While not unusual for a land battle, it’s rare in a naval engagement - esp. since the Virginia departed the battleground as evening came on, and then planned to come back to destroy the Minnesota, which had grounded itself trying to run from the threat.
I believe that it’s more accurate to state the goals of the two ships on the second day of the battle as: the Virginia was to break the blockade - I don’t know whether it was a plan for the Confederate Navy to send her up the Potomac to shell Washington, but that was one of the fears at the end of the first day; the Monitor was to destroy the Virginia. As you say, both sides failed in their goals. Upthread we’ve had a victory defined as preventing the opponent from achieving his goals. I’m not sure I agree with that - by that standard, both the Union and Confederates won this battle.
As you say, though, maintaining the blockade was a Union strategic victory. But by failing to destroy the Virginia the Confederates also achieved a strategic victory: They had proven that nothing short of an ironclad would survive against the Virginia, so the Monitor was required in the area to keep the Virginia in check. But because of the flaws in the Monitor’s design, she was far from being an all-weather vessel. So other vessels were needed to actually maintain the blockade. Tying up resources that could have been used for other missions. Not a dramatic strategic victory, but still worth doing.
This Battle of Camaron doesnt seem to have been a defeat as such though, in that the objective was accomplished, ie the caravan made it to the city?
Ie: “Thanks to the heroic stand of the Foreign Legion, the French supply convoy made it safely to Puebla. The Mexicans failed to relieve the siege and the city fell on May 17.”