Indecisive Battles of History

A battle thats tactically indecicive, may well have strategiclly decisive ramifications. Read Kursk. Chalons was also strategically decicive.

That was a tactical victory for the romans, because break the hun campaign into de Gaul, althought very expensive.

Land battles totally inconclusive are very very rare, we need specially that the two opponents leave the battlefield.

Contrary there are many naval battles inconclusives, at least in a tactical level, with the two fleets advancing, an example: the first three combats of the Armada Invencible campaign, with the english triying to sunk the spanish ships and the spanish triying to take the english fleet, the impass was broken only in Gravelines, where the spanish lost their strategical advantage.

The huns didnt have much cavalry at chalons and most of their troops were germanic, the loss of Face or Pride from the defeat did more to damage the allegiences of a Fragile political structure the huns had.

Trench war in WWI, battle of Somme for example, no winners.

Originally posted by Arb�r Z A battle can never be "undecisive". There always is somebody who wins, and since there is a winner, it is decisive. The "undecisive" battle, paradoxically talking, should be a battle where all the parts would loose, and in the same time, would retreat before being completely destroyed (the paradoxe is that this would be no batle, just a small clash)

if you got killed in one it wasn't indecisive at all................

I agree with Arber Z. In what way a battle can be indecisive? If the attacked and the defender are in a battle. And the battle is a draw, doesnt it mean that it was decisive, for the defender?

Originally posted by Hannibal the Great Well I think what the original poster meant was that it had no impact on the future of the world. Like I said Cannae though it was masterfully done did'nt lead to a Carthaginean victory in the war, simply a temporary high point.

Thats definitely an interesting way to think about it and true to a point. But then if you look at from that point, then wouldnt all his victories be indecisive? You could also look at what would of been the effects of if the romans slaughtered Hannibal at Cannae and its possible effects on history.

Battle of Bordino was considered indecissive as a battle. The two sides slugged it out and there was no clear victor. The Russians ended up withdrawing yet the effect of the battle could be considered a Russian victory as Napoleons army was mauled badly.


    

 Cannae is as tactically decisive a battle you are likely to find in the ancient world, it was however strategically indecisive, Hannibal gained ground as a result of Cannae, but nowhere near as much as he needed.

 Chalons was undoubtedly a Roman victory, although a narrow one, it was decisive strategically in regard to Attilas campaign into Gaul and tactically to an extent as it seriously depleted the Hunnic core to Attilas army.

Originally posted by mamikon I agree with Arber Z. In what way a battle can be indecisive? If the attacked and the defender are in a battle. And the battle is a draw, doesnt it mean that it was decisive, for the defender?

Not if the defender had damage done to him. Say, Pyrrhus for example. He won, but he lost a lot of guys. What if a similar thing happened to a defender and to an attacker, so that both "lost" ?