I’m thinking more of the smaller scale tactical rather than strategic level but any good example is fine.
Maybe the landings at Inchon during the Korean War? Though that war was a series of advances and reversals by both sides before settling down to a stalemate. Better examples would be coming back from the edge of defeat to outright victory.
This question came to mind because I’m currently reading War and Peace and was mulling over at what point in a conventional conflict is it pretty much impossible to bounce back from approaching defeat to victory.
The reversal and victory has to be by military skill and not quirks of fate like the Mongol retreat from Europe due to the death of the Khan, or one side just giving up and going home for political reasons ie: both sides have to be doing their best to fight to win, though obviously at some point one side of the other is going to admit defeat.
The Somali National Alliance conducted a planned operation against the typical raid tactics used by Task Force Ranger. They were initially highly successful and managed to isolate the raid forces in the middle of Mogadishu where they were surrounded and outnumbered. Then things got really ugly for the Somalis at the tactical level.
I’d say the evacuation at Dunkirk has to rank up there. For a long time it looked like Britain was going to lose most of its army, and they were just hoping to get as many out as they could. Instead, the Germans inexplicably let just about everyone escape back to England.
In 2001 the Taliban had conquered most of Afganistan and the Northern Alliance had been driven into a small section of the country and held less than 10% of its territory. Then 9/11 happened and, with U.S. troops now on their side, they were able, at least temporarily, to retake control of the country. Of course, now it may be the Taliban’s turn to rebound from “certain defeat”.
La Noche Triste, (The Sad Night), when Cortes’s army was almost destroyed trying to flee Tenochtitlan after the death of Moctezuma. Cortes’s forces had originally been invited into the city by Moctezuma, but became increasingly unwelcome. Cortes took Moctezuma hostage, but he was killed in a skirmish with attacking Aztecs.
Cortes decided to evacuate his forces at night over the narrow causeways that connected the island city to land, but they were attacked by the Aztecs and many were killed or captured and sacrificed. He had to battle his way with his remaining men to territory of his Indian allies, where he was able to regroup and return to conquer the city (and the empire).
I’m thinking Yom Kippur war, 1973 when Syria & Egypt attacked Israel and came within a whisker of pushing them into the sea. However Israel kicked the crap out of them instead. Land Israel has hung onto since iirc it’s the “west bank”
Israel took the Sinai Peninsula and Gaza from Egypt, the Golan Heights from Syria, and the West Bank from Jordan. (Gaza and the West Bank were being administered by those respective countries.) Israel returned the Sinai and has withdrawn from Gaza, but still retains/occupies the Golan Heights and much of the West Bank.
Fidel Castro’s disastrous attempted invasion of Cuba aboard the Granma from Mexico is also up there. After a delayed arrival, the boat ran aground in mangroves about 15 miles from the intended landing spot. The force of 82 men that struggled ashore was almost immediately attacked by Batista’s army and scattered. All but about 20 were killed or captured. But Castro and his key lieutenants were able to make it to the Sierra Maestra and begin the guerrilla campaign that eventually ousted Batista.
I’d also offer the Texans vs. the Mexicans in the 1836 Texas Revolution.
Texans get their asses handed to them at the Alamo and Goliad/Coleto Creek, engage in a long retreat, and manage a surprise attack against a Mexican army 1.5x the size of their own.
The Texans killed(650), wounded(208) or captured(300) 85% of the Mexicans facing them at a total loss of 11 killed and 30 wounded.
The results of the battle were equally spectacular- Gen. Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, the President of Mexico was captured, and in subsequent negotiations, granted Texas freedom, which eventually led to US annexation, the Mexican-American war, and a huge chunk of the West becoming American.
If we’re going for the strategic level, pretty much the Napoleonic wars. They do include some pretty impressive war actions of multiple types and might be considered WW0, based on the amount of land and people involved. I think at the largest and even restricting ourselves to the Old World, he controlled more land than the Roman Empire ever did.
Yes, after the Athenians and allies got pushed into it, as already stated. The victory allowed them to get back onto land and defeat the Persians. That was a more impressive comeback than any by armies that only got *nearly *pushed into the sea.
Oh, gotcha. I thought you meant that in the battle itself, the Greeks were nearly pushed into the sea, and was wondering how that was, since they started there.
I have the distinct impression that Harold the Saxon had fairly decisively defeated William at Hastings in 1066 until a lucky arrow fired nearly straight up came down and killed Harold whereupon his troops fled and William (now the Conqueror) took over England.
Battle of Breitenfeld (1631), part of the Thirty Years War. The Imperial Catholic forces, under Count Tilly, routed the Saxon left wing of the Protestant Army early in the battle, leaving the Swedish forces heavily outnumbered and outflanked. But the Swedes had Gustavus Adolphus and managed to swing around and meet the Imperials with better muskets and to capture their artillery, which was used against Tilly’s forces. The Catholic defeat may have changed the course of the war (albeit it continued the suffering for the population of Germany for many more years…)
