How is the winner determined?

[NedBaldwin]

In many battles it seems obvious, but I find that there are a number of battles where it is not clear why one side is declared the winner. How do we determine who won when the outcome is ambiguous?

There are a number of battles in the war where the following happens: ForceA attacks Force B; ForceB successfully holds off ForceA, even counterattacks; but then, after the fighting stops, Force B withdraws.
Who won?

 

[rob63]

I have always thought that the winner was whichever side held the ground that was being contested once the fighting ended. I think Pyrrhic victories were not uncommon in the Civil War.

 

[CW3O]

I use a simple formula, who achieved their objective. In your scenario Force A attacked with a certain objective in mind, Force B defended with the objective of preventing Force A from obtaining their objective or delaying Force A in obtaining their objective. If the sides ended up where they started I would say, in the absence of additional data,
that the defense won this fictional battle.

 

[Stony]

Good question. I used to think it was whom occupied the desired ground after the battle. There's got to be more to it than that though.

 

[Elennsar]

I use a simple formula, who achieved their objective. In your scenario Force A attacked with a certain objective in mind, Force B defended with the objective of preventing Force A from obtaining their objective or delaying Force A in obtaining their objective. If the sides ended up where they started I would say, in the absence of additional data,
that the defense won this fictional battle.

I tend to agree with this.

So for Ned's example, if force B is trying to hold on 'until nightfall", and it managed to do so, it won - even if the ground would ultimately be in A's hands.

The ground had no meaning to force B, except in being where it chose to make the fight.

 

[NedBaldwin]

I have always thought that the winner was whichever side held the ground that was being contested once the fighting ended.

That seems like a good criteria to me.

But let me ask another question -- how long does a side have to hold the ground for it to count? Until night? The next day?

Elennsar seems to be getting to a deeper answer.

 

[brass napoleon]

That seems like a good criteria to me.

But let me ask another question -- how long does a side have to hold the ground for it to count? Until night? The next day?

Elennsar seems to be getting to a deeper answer.

One of the problems with going with the side that held the ground, is suppose the other side didn't want to hold the ground in the first place? Like Schofield at Franklin. By that definition, Hood won.

I'll also cast my vote for the side that acheived its objective.

 

[CW3O]

Delaying actions by the defense tend to confuse the winner-loser equation. How long did they hold, was it long enough? What was the overall objective of the defense, to establish a new line of defense?, gain time to organize a counterattack? The answer to some of these questions is not always clear and require a wider view of the defensive strategy.

 

[Elennsar]

One of the problems with going with the side that held the ground, is suppose that side didn't want to hold the ground in the first place? Like Schofield at Franklin. By that definition, Hood won.

I think in that context, "did Hood achieve his goal there?" is the question. Holding the ground at Franklin didn't achieve Hood's goal of breaking Schofield's forces.

 

[chellers]

Where ground is neither gained nor lost, the victor would seem to be the side with fewer casualties.

 

[CW3O]

Where ground is neither gained nor lost, the victor would seem to be the side with fewer casualties.

Can't say that I agree, somebody wanted to gain something, they either did or did not achieve it. IMHO counting casualties is never the way to determine success or failure.

 

[bankerpapaw]

Who ever "controlled" the battlefield when the fighting was over.

 

[rob63]

What if both sides achieved their objectives? How do you decide which side achieved its objectives more than the other?

The original question was why is one side considered the winner when the outcome is ambiguous? In that case, I stand by my answer that it is the side that holds the ground that was being contested. If the side that was holding the ground at the end of the fighting later decides to withdraw it does not change anything. The armies always withdraw sooner or later, so what does it matter?

 

[Elennsar]

What if both sides achieved their objectives? How do you decide which side achieved its objectives more than the other?

Do you have an example (hypothetical would do)? Trying to think of a situation where both sides achieved their objectives.

 

[rob63]

Do you have an example (hypothetical would do)? Trying to think of a situation where both sides achieved their objectives.

Who won the 1st day at Gettysburg?

 

[NedBaldwin]

Do you have an example (hypothetical would do)? Trying to think of a situation where both sides achieved their objectives.

Hypothetical example: ForceA could be trying to capture the location while ForceB could be trying to escape intact.
If ForceB repels ForceA's attack until night then slips away, leaving the location to Force A, who won?

 

[NedBaldwin]

The original question was why is one side considered the winner when the outcome is ambiguous? In that case, I stand by my answer that it is the side that holds the ground that was being contested. If the side that was holding the ground at the end of the fighting later decides to withdraw it does not change anything. The armies always withdraw sooner or later, so what does it matter?

Consider Antietam. My gut tells me that the Union won. Yet at the end of the fighting on the 17th Lee was still holding the ground and he waited a full day until withdrawing across the Potomac.

Contrast that with Cross Keyes. My gut tells me that the Confederates won -- at the end of the fighting Ewell held his position. But he withdrew the next morning, abandoning the ground quicker than Lee did at Antietam.

 

[Elennsar]

Hypothetical example: ForceA could be trying to capture the location while ForceB could be trying to escape intact.
If ForceB repels ForceA's attack until night then slips away, leaving the location to Force A, who won?

Is Force A trying to capture the location because Force B holds it, or for some other reason?

Who won the 1st day at Gettysburg?

Neither side was wholly successful.

I think that was a draw - though if you want to score it on which side met its objectives better, I might say it was a minor (1st and 11th Corps are badly broken but not dispersed or destroyed) Confederate victory.

Consider Antietam. My gut tells me that the Union won, yet at the end of the fighting on the 17th Lee was still holding his position and it wasnt until a day later he withdrew across the Potomac.

Strategic victory, tactical defeat (for the AotP) - or draw, if you prefer.

 

[NedBaldwin]

draw, if you prefer.

I hate the idea of a draw.

[sorry - I edited my post after you responded to it].

 

[rob63]

Consider Antietam. My gut tells me that the Union won, yet at the end of the fighting on the 17th Lee was still holding his position and it wasnt until a day later he withdrew across the Potomac.

Good point, and I don't think I have a good answer! Antietam is generally considered a draw that later became a strategic Union victory because Lee's offensive was ended and Lincoln was able to seize the opportunity to announce his proclamation. It is truly about as ambiguous as it gets.