I mean, lost more than usual.
The Battle of Nineveh (and the larger Persian-Byzantine war) has to be one of the prime examples:
Though on paper a Byzantine victory, the battle and (the almost three decade long) war that it concluded did nothing but return the respective borders to the pre-war status quo, and made sure that both empires would fall to the Arab conquests within a few years.
I’m pretty sure Coral Sea would have been seen as a both sides lost battle (The Japanese were forced to turn back but the Americans lost a fleet aircraft carrier when they didn’t have any to spare) if the battle didn’t then set-up Midway for an American victory.
Chancellorsville, which I may be misspelling, is a great example. It was a tactical loss for the North and a strategic disaster for the South.
Chosin Reservoir was a similar battle in Korea; while the Allies had no choice but to retreat, the casualties suffered by the Chinese-led Communist attackers were so devastating their their entire campaign was set back months.
The 20-years Iran-Iraq war was another. Both battles and the war entire.
Which saw a few battles that were unaffordably costly on both side while advancing their respective goals almost exactly bupkiss.
Plus of course the battle that give us the term for a battle that one side officially wins but the losing side of inflicts so many casualties it’s a, well, pyrrhic victory:
Battle of the Coral Sea was nominally won by the Japanese (1 fleet carrier sunk vs. 1 light carrier)-but it cost them the services of both the Shokaku and Zuikaku for the Midway battle, while the US got the Yorktown patched up in time. [Note one of the two was undamaged but the J. didn’t combine their decimated airgroups like the A. did because it went against doctrine]
The Battle of Coral Sea is often described as a victory for both sides. It was a tactical win for the IJN because of the loss of the fleet carrier, Lexington, against the light carrier Shoho and a strategic win for the Americans because it forced the Japanese from the field and made them abandon the seaborne invasion of Port Moresby.
If the strategic disaster for the Confederacy was the loss of Stonewall Jackson, I assume you mean the loss of Jackson of the Valley or Second Manassas, not Jackson of the Seven Days or Fredericksburg.
But also in the Civil War, I’d put Stones River as an example. The Union kept the field of battle, but the Army of Tennessee put them back on their heels so far as to keep them from advancing on the rest of middle Tennessee for half a year. Lincoln considered it a battle that saved the Union, which probably caused him to go easier on Rosecrans than he should have afterwards.
But also in the Civil War, I’d put Stones River as an example. The
Union kept the field of battle, but the Army of Tennessee put them back on their heels so far as to keep them from advancing on the rest of middle Tennessee for half a year. Lincoln considered it a battle that saved the Union, which probably caused him to go easier on Rosecrans than he should have afterwards.
I live in Murfreesboro, the site of Stones River, and have visited the battlefield myself.
Your post is mere bibble-babble.
The Union accomplished all of it’s strategic goals.
- It protected the railroad, used for resupply.
- It captured Murfreesboro.
- It established Fortress Rosencrans, a very large earthenworks fort, used a base for the rest of the War.
It was a Union victory.
Tet Offensive = the U.S. won the actual battle (the Viet Cong/North Vietnamese suffered terrible losses,) however, the media spun it into a U.S. defeat, so America lost the PR war, which ultimately proved to be more important.
Iran-Iraq War = this is a war, not a battle, so maybe it doesn’t fit the OP’s criteria, but 800,000 men died for nothing - to budge the Iran-Iraq border scarcely an inch.
Ongoing battle for Bakhmut = this current battle in Ukraine seems to be taking such a terrible toll on both sides that the eventual victory will be Pyrrhic (regardless of whose.)
The Battle of Stamford Bridge. King Harold defeated one set of rivals to his crown, but then lost enough of his army and time as to be unable to do the same to an army led by William, Duke of Normandy (soon to be the Conqueror, and King of England, the first of his name).
ETA: I just want to note that some of those “battles” listed as two-sided losses in the link from the OP are a real stretch. Like, by the end, it’s talking about subsets of a larger battle that went poorly for one side, but where the overall battle was a resounding and unambiguous victory for the very same. Keep at it, and you might as well claim any battle where a single soldier on the winning side died was a “both sides” defeat. I mean, did that one random centurion who stubbed his toe, tripped, and was trampled to death by his comrades as they routed the Carthaginians at Zama make it a “both sides” defeat because in that one incident the centurion clearly lost?
Yeah, there’s no way Waterloo was a “battle that both sides lost.”
World War One has a few examples of course. In modern warfare that is the war that is most synonymous with this
Mons definitely:
The Somme and Verdun possibly count. Though it’s arguable whether the defenders lost, when in both cases the attacking side both didn’t achieve their strategic objectives and lost more troops.
The Battle of Kadesh qualifies, I believe. Late May of 1274BCE The Egyptians looking to beat the Hittites on the field of battle and capture Kadesh. Things went really wrong for the Egyptians who came close to fleeing the battlefield. But they managed to keep it together and knock the Hittites back. They were now too weakened to capture Kadesh so they went home. I’m sure the families of the dead felt really great about this. A peace treaty later ensued and both sides claimed victory.
Lots of historical firsts regarding these events.
A few more.
I thought of Verdun. Falkenhayn’s attack was aimed to suck in massive French forces, and was supposed to bleed them dry or somesuch, only it resulted in enormous casualties on both sides with no meaningful outcome, other than the French held on at great cost.
I wouldn’t call Pearl Harbor a Prryhic victory as much as Fort Sumter or Operation Barbossa we’re Prryhic victories. Just because you ultimately lose the war you started doesn’t mean you can just label the first battle that.
You’re absolutely right. However, the definition of what it means to lose a battle has several interpretations. Maybe it’s too generous to include winning battles in conflicts that ultimately started as a result of poor decisions.
There are battles where important leaders became injured or incapacitated (Québec), where attrition decimated both sides (Somme), or when unforeseeable events rendered victories worthless. (Stamford Bridge is a good historical example, the timing so odd I sometimes wonder about its spontaneity.)