Talk:The Battle of Rimmington/@comment-4547854-20150418040256

After that whole mess of two pf trying to edit the same time, I officially give up trying to fix that image. I'll try it another time.

Meanwhile, even though now I know what a pyrrhic victory really is, my statement still stands. You cannot have a dual victory. At that point it would be a draw.

To say the Kinshra had a pyrrhic victory means that they had gained victory at a cost too great, losing several of their forces. However, you also list that the White Knights gained a strategic victory, which would be impossible if they were defeated by the Kinshra. You could say that at this point in the war, the Kinshra had lost so many men that the war was eventually lost, but as far as the battle goes, only one can win. From what I've gathered here on the comments and even on the battle write-up, the White Knights came out on top.

Because Rimmington was partly destroyed doesn't make anything pyrrhic, except maybe on the White Knights end if they lost many forces. Rimmington being partly destroyed is just a cost of war in general, not as a result as to who wins.

But still. The statement stands. Both sides can't win one battle. You can only have one winner or a draw. But a draw would denote that both sides literally retreated, which is clear in the battle write-up that only the Kinshra did. So the White Knights win. Nothing pyrrhic about this battle.