Most Pointless Battle

[Seamus Fermanagh]

What is your nominee for the most pointless battle?

NOT what battle should not have been fought because of the great risk of defeat or that was lost despite holding the advantage, but the battle that -- regardless of outcome -- could not/did not change the course of events, but was fought anyway.

Please provide a brief rationale for your nomination.

[Kagemusha]

Quote from Samurai-archives.com:

NAGASHINO
28 June 1575 / Mikawa / Siege and Battle

Takeda Katsuyori (12,000)
VS
Oda Nobunaga (30,000)/Tokugawa Ieyasu (8,000)

In the summer of 1575, Takeda Katsuyori led his army into the Tokugawa domain and laid siege to Nagashino Castle, a locally important strongpoint that had changed hands a number of times in the past few years. The castle's defenders managed to resist the initial Takeda attacks and, thanks to the heroic efforts of a certain Torii Sune'emon, managed to alert Tokugawa Ieyasu of their plight, and the latter convinced Oda Nobunaga to commit to an all-out battle with the Takeda. When faced with the appearance of a numerically superior enemy force, Katsuyori, over the objections of his veteran commanders, opted to attack. Thanks to superior firepower (as many as 3,000 arquebuses were used in the battle) and good positon, Oda Nobunaga and Tokugawa Ieyasu crushed the Takeda attack and relieved Nagashino Castle. Most of the famous Takeda generals present were killed in the battle and the offensive power of the Takeda was severly crippled (having lost around 10,000 men). Oda was now free to fully turn his attentions elsewhere, leaving Ieyasu to contain the battered Takeda. /Quote

I think this battle that lead in the downfall of the Takeda Clan was complete foolishness from Takeda Katsuyori.He could never fit in his great fathers Takeda Shingens shoes and in the end that resulted into destruction of the Takeda clan.

[Rosacrux redux]

Almost all battles during WWI in the estern front, after the stabilization of the front in 1914. Pointless bloodbaths for virtually no gain (tactical, strategical or at least considerable land gains).

I would definitely not call Nagashino "pointless" at all... on the contrary, it was a battle of incredibly high stakes and the outcome pretty much determined the future of not only the Taked clan, but also a significant part of the subsequent events in Japan.

Also, I wouldn't call any of the "last stand" battles as 'pointless', as they are valuable for strategical reasons (boost of morale, delay of enemy force, political reasons, motivation etc. etc.).

[matteus the inbred]

Almost all battles during WWI in the estern front, after the stabilization of the front in 1914. Pointless bloodbaths for virtually no gain (tactical, strategical or at least considerable land gains).

I would definitely not call Nagashino "pointless" at all... on the contrary, it was a battle of incredibly high stakes and the outcome pretty much determined the future of not only the Taked clan, but also a significant part of the subsequent events in Japan.

Also, I wouldn't call any of the "last stand" battles as 'pointless', as they are valuable for strategical reasons (boost of morale, delay of enemy force, political reasons, motivation etc. etc.).

I agree, Nagashino, while a battle that the Takeda needn't have fought, was probably one of the more significant battles of the period, strategically and technologically.

I nominate Fredericksburg, ACW 1862. Gen. Burnside is put under pressure to pursue the retreating Confederates following Antietam, and attacks them in entrenched positions while getting his army across the Rappahannock. His troops are duly slaughtered in large numbers (some 12,000 casualties, compared to only around 5,000 Confederates) in a futile series of assaults. End result, Lee's army kept the field and Burnside withdrew to his former position and was replaced by the equally disastrous Joe Hooker. It basically achieved nothing except bloodshed.

(A similar example of this would be New Orleans 1812, fought after the peace treaty was signed!)

[Kagemusha]

Almost all battles during WWI in the estern front, after the stabilization of the front in 1914. Pointless bloodbaths for virtually no gain (tactical, strategical or at least considerable land gains).

I would definitely not call Nagashino "pointless" at all... on the contrary, it was a battle of incredibly high stakes and the outcome pretty much determined the future of not only the Taked clan, but also a significant part of the subsequent events in Japan.

Also, I wouldn't call any of the "last stand" battles as 'pointless', as they are valuable for strategical reasons (boost of morale, delay of enemy force, political reasons, motivation etc. etc.).

I disagree.It was pointless and stupid from Katsuyori he wasted Takedas army on an insignificant battle.Over an castle that wasnt even necessary to take to move further in the Togukawa domain.Also all of Senior Takeda retainers were against attacking the prepared and outnumbering Oda/Togukawa forces. Ofcourse it wasnt pointless for Oda or Tokugawa becouse it allowed To Oda to launch their forces on fully to Take over The Central Kinai region of the Country and also for Togukawa to take most of the Takedas eastern Domains. But as a last stand it wasnt Takedas last stand.The last stand of Takeda was at Temmokuzan 1581.Where Katsyori finally took his own life.

[Scurvy]

the somme? huge losses on both sides and changed very little

[matteus the inbred]

the somme? huge losses on both sides and changed very little

maybe, but had it worked, the Allies would have broken through decisively? actually, I withdraw that comment, had Burnside won at Fredericksburg (however impossible it was for him to do so) the ACW might have ended!
So yeah, I agree with Scurvy, the Somme is a good example. One eminent German WWII tactician called WWI trench warfare an 'tactical and strategic aberration from warfare theory' or something similar...

I think Nagashino is disputed here because it had consequences that changed the balance of power in a fairly short-term way and brought about the downfall (albeit delayed) of a major clan. Perhaps 4th Kawanakajima, for all its interest as a tactical battle, might be a good choice? I don't recall that it had any significant consequences for either side, despite massive casualties. What do you think, Kagemusha?

[Rosacrux redux]

Kagemusha

My take on the significance of a battle - as matteus' - considers also the consequences. And Nagashino, although a battle Katsuyori didn't have to fight at that point of time and space (he had to eventually confront Tokugawa and Oda at some point though, that was pretty inevitable) had major consequences for the history of Japan. So, it cannot be called "pointless". Had Takeda clan won, the gain would be enormous (as was the loss in the defeat).

[Kagemusha]

Kagemusha

My take on the significance of a battle - as matteus' - considers also the consequences. And Nagashino, although a battle Katsuyori didn't have to fight at that point of time and space (he had to eventually confront Tokugawa and Oda at some point though, that was pretty inevitable) had major consequences for the history of Japan. So, it cannot be called "pointless". Had Takeda clan won, the gain would be enormous (as was the loss in the defeat).

Rosacrux,I believe we only have a different wiev point,when you have taken the strategig point of wiev i took more of the tactical approach.From different wiews good conversations tend to start.

Matteus about the 5 Battles of Kawakanajima.(The 4th was the biggest one).I believe that the battles were not pointless but the opposing armies and Daimyos were so even matched in their capabilities that neither Kenshin or Shingen could gain the upper hand.The Shinano province as a major crossroad between the Northern, Eastern and Western provinces was strategically so important that the war was almost constant in that province.
Now that i think more i think infact its pretty hard to find totally pointless battles becouse when one looks deeper on the reasons that provoked those battles things start to show up.
WWI is not the strongest point of my knowledge but wasnt the battle of Gallipol a pretty useless slaughtering of commonwealth troops?

[matteus the inbred]

Matteus about the 5 Battles of Kawakanajima.(The 4th was the biggest one).I believe that the battles were not pointless but the opposing armies and Daimyos were so even matched in their capabilities that neither Kenshin or Shingen could gain the upper hand.The Shinano province as a major crossroad between the Northern, Eastern and Western provinces was strategically so important that the war was almost constant in that province. Now that i think more i think infact its pretty hard to find totally pointless battles becouse when one looks deeper on the reasons that provoked those battles things start to show up.

yes, that's fair enough. It is very hard to find a pointless battle because the potential total annihilation of one side's army could always have had consequences.

WWI is not the strongest point of my knowledge but wasnt the battle of Gallipol a pretty useless slaughtering of commonwealth troops?

True, it was a massive failure of command, but had it succeeded it would have knocked Turkey out of the war and enabled the Allies to strike at Germany and Austro-Hungary from the south by gaining help from Greece and Bulgaria. Particularly, it was aimed at freeing up Russia's Black Sea fleet to operate better supply lines.

It's a difficult question really; it has to be an operation that would have been useless to both sides even if it had totally succeeded. Even the apparently good example of New Orleans defies this, because had the British crushed Jackson's army and taken the city they could have re-opened negotiations with America (the treay had been signed but the war did not officially end until after the battle)

Incidentally, I originally stated this battle to have occurred in 1812...in fact it occurred on 8th Jan 1815 but was part of the war which started in 1812!

[King Henry V]

New Orleans and Toulouse were both pointless battles, as they were fought after the peace treaties had been signed.

[Kommodus]

Right, the dispute over Nagashino stems from a certain someone's *ahem*Kag*ahem* failure to read or understand the following part of the initial post:

NOT what battle should not have been fought because of the great risk of defeat or that was lost despite holding the advantage, but the battle that -- regardless of outcome -- could not/did not change the course of events, but was fought anyway.

Anyway, I also nominate the battle of New Orleans - although its outcome did put the Americans in a slightly better position. It's true that no truly pointless battle will be found - only some battles that are more pointless than others.

[matteus the inbred]

New Orleans and Toulouse were both pointless battles, as they were fought after the peace treaties had been signed.

yes, Toulouse, that's a good one! forgotten that one.

Perhaps Grouchy's pointlessly successful engagement on 19th June 1815 with the Prussian rearguard at Wavre (the day after Waterloo had been lost) would be appropriate too; the 'last battle' of the Napoleonic wars.

[Kagemusha]

Right, the dispute over Nagashino stems from a certain someone's *ahem*Kag*ahem* failure to read or understand the following part of the initial post:



Anyway, I also nominate the battle of New Orleans - although its outcome did put the Americans in a slightly better position. It's true that no truly pointless battle will be found - only some battles that are more pointless than others.

Dont blame poor old Kage.Seamus just asks too damn hard questions always.

[yesdachi]

I think the battle for the Nagashino Castle was stupid on Takeda’s side but it was not pointless, it had serious repercussions as it took Takeda out of the “major player” lineup.

I’d say the most pointless battles I can think of were the take a hill, give up a hill battles in Viet Nam.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Sorry about the Q's, but I am a recovering professor....

My vote is -- Brits hold on to your spats -- the Battle of Britain.

Aside from the valor displayed by both sides, what was the point?

Germany launches an air assault on an island nation that ends up decimating their experienced air crews PRIOR to what Hitler had always intended -- an invasion of Russia.

The Germans were quite aware that "Sea Lion" was impossible. Even with air SUPREMACY, the weapons of the era would not have inflicted enough damage on the British battleships etc. to keep them from sinking any invasion barges. The Royal Navy would, quite literally, have paid any price necessary to stop it. Moreover, the Germans had specifically chosen NOT to develop a strategic role for their luftwaffe, and -- despite some stupid orders from der Fuhrer -- were aware that no bombing campaign they could launch would make the British quit.

So why in heavens did they bother? Some scrapping over the channel, mining harbors etc., making the Brits (and the Russkis) THINK they were building an invasion fleet -- sure. But they sent the most experienced fliers in their luftwaffe on high casualty sorties pursuing inconsequential missions in support of a strategic operation that was impossible. Lunacy. Even The Somme -- for all its limitations and cock-ups -- had a better chance of strategic success.

On the British side, things were more understandable -- its pretty hard not to fight back when someone is bombing your homeland -- but what was the strategic value of risking their entire fighter force on forward bases PRIOR to a direct invasion effort by the Germans (they certainly hadn't pulle out all the stops to defend France). Defend those areas out of range of the BF 109s and hammer any unescorted bombers sure, but the portion of Britain being threatened by single-engine fighters and bombers operating together was relatively small and held limited strategic value compared to the indutrialized North and West. Moreover, without the Navy, the RAF had little chance of stopping an invasion anyway (as their performance against the Eugen Scharnhorst & Gneisnau suggests). Why didn't they do the rational thing and hang back, buld experience hunting the weaker targets, and preserve their force to smash any German ground effort that did reach Blighty?

Since 1585, the answer to beating England was always the same. Develop a force capable of exterminating the Royal Navy as they defend the Channel. If you can't or don't, then any other plan for conquest is moot. The only value the Battle of Britain held was the propaganda value Winnie milked it for.

[matteus the inbred]

Sorry about the Q's, but I am a recovering professor....
My vote is -- Brits hold on to your spats -- the Battle of Britain.

woo, hello Mr Controversy! Actually, you make many very good points, most of them sustainable in my view. I suppose the Luftwaffe had to be doing something, and the RAF weren't going to sit tight in Yorkshire and drink tea while they did it.
One could argue that if the Luftwaffe established complete bombing superiority over southern and mid-England the morale and industrial effect would have been catastrophic after a year of unopposed bombing. And it might render any Fleet operations impossible south of Tyneside, including anti U-Boat and commerce raider operations...after all, the Royal Navy (as the Prince of Wales/Repulse incident shows) needed some air cover to do their job. They couldn't have opposed a landing whilst being bombed to bits.
But all this supposes no RAF activity at all, rather than no RAF activity against German bombing of land targets and needlessly exposed foward airbases.

If the Royal Navy had been destroyed stopping a landing, Germany could've then pulled out its own navy from the bases where quite a lot of it spent the war hiding (including the Tirpitz), and forced a landing, or completely destroyed any US aid convoys to the UK and Russia. I agree that the Battle of Britain itself was a waste of aircraft and bad strategy by both sides in many ways, but I don't belive Britain could have gotten away with surrendering air superiority over northern-western Europe...dunno, this one could run and run!!

[Kraxis]

The mentioned battles are indeed rather pointless, or at least can be considered a waste.

But one battle stands out as not only wasteful, but pointless and damaging to both factions.

Copenhagen 1801.
The Armed Neutrality Union of Denmark, Prussia, Russia and Sweden would protect their trade with arms if British or French forces interferred. Denmark in particular made great gains on this, and Britain couldn't just stand idly by.
But the union was lead by the Russian Czar who had strong anti-British feelings, and he was moving to get the Union to be more aggressive and more positive to Napoleon.
Of course the British couldn't allow that and sent Nelson to clean up the mess.
The first target was Copenhagen and the Danish fleet. And the battle was a horrible event of two lines pounding each other to smithereens. And the only linebattle ever where the loser suffer fewer human losses than the victor.

But at the time of the battle the Russian Czar had died and the Union was being dissolved. No need for the battle, but not only that but it also swayed the formerly pro-British Danes to be significantly more negative. Prior to 1801 English was commonly known and used in Copenhagen, afterwards it was basically gone.
In the extreme it resulted in the Robbery of the Fleet (as the Siege of Copenhagen is called), and a very expensive and needless war. Britain did not need another enemy at that time, and Denmark most certainly didn't need such a strong foe.

[Taurus]

Almost all battles during WWI in the estern front, after the stabilization of the front in 1914. Pointless bloodbaths for virtually no gain (tactical, strategical or at least considerable land gains).

Agreed. Thousands...Millions, of lives lost and for what? The gain of a few metres of land here and there.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

woo, hello Mr Controversy! Actually, you make many very good points, most of them sustainable in my view. I suppose the Luftwaffe had to be doing something, and the RAF weren't going to sit tight in Yorkshire and drink tea while they did it.
One could argue that if the Luftwaffe established complete bombing superiority over southern and mid-England the morale and industrial effect would have been catastrophic after a year of unopposed bombing. And it might render any Fleet operations impossible south of Tyneside, including anti U-Boat and commerce raider operations...after all, the Royal Navy (as the Prince of Wales/Repulse incident shows) needed some air cover to do their job. They couldn't have opposed a landing whilst being bombed to bits.
But all this supposes no RAF activity at all, rather than no RAF activity against German bombing of land targets and needlessly exposed foward airbases.

I agree with your first point whole-heartedly. It would have been a touch difficult (a little quasi-English understatement here) to keep the fighter-boys stood down whilst Canterbury was flattened.

On the other hand, the threat to mid-England would have been countered. No problems facing Bf-110's and the bombers, with the 109's having 5 min or less of fight time North of the Thames. This means that an air umbrella for the fleet would go as far south as the Thames Estuary and as far South as Bristol on the West (and Devon/Cornwall is at the extreme range of the 109 and there's no way the krauts could've established air superiority at that range). Even if the SE was conceded, only a very few industrial sites would have truly been at risk.

POW/Repulse incident not a good analogy. Zero aircover (couldn't resist ) is a far cry different from some fighter cover. The Japanese took numerous hits to sink both ships, even though they faced limited AAA (by Pacific theater standards at least) and a significant number of the Japanese air groups involved were specifically trained as ship hunters. The Germans had neither the doctrine nor the tools to hammer ships as well as the Japanese -- look at their generally sub-par record during the convoy attack phase of the Battle of Britain.

And yes, I do adore such debates.

Kraxis -- NICE nominee. Nelson's proof to history that a man who refuses to be beaten (even when he plainly was) won't be beaten. I've gamed that one using AH's old WS&IM game. Any realistic version of likely events is a bloodbath for both sides. A good pointless waste example.

[Brenus]

“La Suffel”, last battle of the Napoleonic Wars, won by the French General Rapp, the 10 days after Waterloo, 6 after Napoleon’s abdication...

[econ21]

Perhaps Grouchy's pointlessly successful engagement on 19th June 1815 with the Prussian rearguard at Wavre (the day after Waterloo had been lost) would be appropriate too; the 'last battle' of the Napoleonic wars.

It was the same day as Waterloo. But may be that makes it more pointless (for the French). If Grouchy had marched hard to join Napoleon, as some French at Waterloo mistakenly believed was happening when they first saw the Prussians arriving, things might have been different.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Most battles in offensive wars were pointless, even when the wars were won, because most offensive wars have led to counter-wars where the expansionist culture has lost pretty much everything they conquered. There I find it more difficult to find battles that did have a point, tbh. But quite often the decision to fight in a war that begins defensively can have pretty good points. On the other hand, victories can create hybris, turning a peaceful nation that was attacked into an expansionist nation after it successfully held back and invader... No, I might be a pessimist but I think it's more difficult to find a battle that had a point that finding a battle that didn't. Sometimes not fighting at all until the conqueror overextends, then timing an own rebellion to when that happens, can be more effective. Maybe the least pointless battles that still give an impression of being pointless are the battles of rebels in rebellions, even if they get slaughtered while inflicting little casualties, they can teach us that fighting spirit and prudence never makes a man stop fighting no matter which losses he takes, while those who conquer for power and control eventually lose interest, and their dynasties let their military fall apart. Unfortunately, it's however the belief that your cause is prudence, not necessarily that it is so, that has this effect. It happens seldom that people can be convinced that their cause is unjust when it is just, but often that people convince themselves that their cause is just when it is unjust.

Anyway, choosing the most pointless battle also involves another complicated aspect, namely that the battles are differently pointless depending on from which side you look at it. If it's allowed to in this matter consider both sides of the battles as "different battles", then I would say that Thermopylae from the persian point of view, and Somme (and other major ww1 offensives seen from the attacker's perspective), count among the most pointless battles I can think of.

[Kraxis]

Guys... You are confusing wasteful and pointless. A battle can be very wasteful but still have a point. Perhaps not a good one, but most often there is a point to the battle.

The one I mentioned lost the point of the battle prior to it being fought, just Nelson and Hyde-Parker didn't know that.

Pointless = lack of reason, not wasteful.

It was pointless of Paraguay to go to war against Brazil and Argentina at the same time for instance. But it was not pointless to fight the battles of WWI, however wasteful they were. Those battles were just badly constructed, but had a point.

Of course some would argue that the loss of life made them pointless, but then it could also be argued that all battles are pointless as they include loss of life.
We have to be cynical when looking at this.

[Papewaio]

Or in short:

Wasteful = poor tactics.

Pointless = poor strategy.

[Csargo]

the somme? huge losses on both sides and changed very little

Well most of the battles in the WWI were pretty pointless huge loss of life with almost no ground taken horrible

[Papewaio]

Well most of the battles in the WWI were pretty pointless huge loss of life with almost no ground taken horrible

Except when Aussies where in charge!

[screwtype]

Verdun would have to be the one I think. A million casualties in total, distributed equally between the two sides, and hardly a yard of territory gained or lost either way. And all for the capture of a bunch of old forts which had little more than sentimental value.

[screwtype]

Stalingrad would have to be another. An entirely pointless battle at every stage but the last (when holding out ironically became vital to the escape of troops in the Caucasus), fought mainly to assuage Hitler's ego, which chewed up an entire army of 300,000 men which the Germans were never able to replace.

Some of Hitler's late war offensives would also fit the perfectly pointless category, since they were made against impossible odds and only managed to hasten the end for Germany.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Sorry about the Q's, but I am a recovering professor....

My vote is -- Brits hold on to your spats -- the Battle of Britain.

Aside from the valor displayed by both sides, what was the point?

Fascinating nominee, and you make some intriguing points.

I wonder, would it have been politically possible for Churchill to have sat back as you suggest and let the capital burn? After so many defeats, would the nation have been able to suffer without any sense of fighting back?

And my impression (possibly very wrongly) was that Hitler believed the British were ready for a deal at that time - he held back at Dunkirk partly through that belief. Was the air assault motivated by a desire to give them a hard push in the direction of the negotiating table? If so, to remove that front ready for an invasion of Russia might have been a good reason to launch the attack - underestimating Churchill's character and resolve would make the continuation of the attacks pointless?