Botched invasions

Naomasa298

Forum Staff
Apr 2010
33,174
T'Republic of Yorkshire
#32
Hideoyoshi's invasion of China (not Korea - that was just a stepping stone,which he never managed to step off on the way to China).

Nirmese imvasion of Siam during the 9 Armies War.
 
Mar 2012
4,354
#37
Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba.

China"s 1979 invasion of Vietnam, although China did get a small.piece of Vietnam.

Japan"s invasion of Korea in the Imjin war.
China's invasion of Vietnam in 1979 is not at all a botched invasion as China achieved just about all of its primary military objectives, which had long term political gains that lasted even until today. China managed to built closer ties with the US in an anti-Soviet alliance, destroyed Vietnamese military infrastructure on China's borders, won disputed territories, and gained control of the seas over Vietnamese waters. The most cited reason for its so called failure was that it didn't immediately force a Vietnamese withdrawal from Cambodia, yet no PRC internal documents show that was one of the objectives of the invasion. The Khmer Rouge only served as a buffer against a larger Soviet alliance marked by a hostile Vietnam in the South, the PRC managed to divert most of the Vietnamese forces north and ensured the survival of the Khmer Rouge resistance in Cambodia against the Vietnamese. When the Khmer Rouge finally surrendered in 1993, Vietnam already pulled out and the Soviet Union have collapsed, which means the PRC no longer needed the Khmer Rouge regime and already achieved its war objective (breaking the anti-Chinese alliance headed by the USSR).
 

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
6,053
#38
China's invasion of Vietnam in 1979 is not at all a botched invasion as China achieved just about all of its primary military objectives, which had long term political gains that lasted even until today. China managed to built closer ties with the US in an anti-Soviet alliance, destroyed Vietnamese military infrastructure on China's borders, won disputed territories, and gained control of the seas over Vietnamese waters. The most cited reason for its so called failure was that it didn't immediately force a Vietnamese withdrawal from Cambodia, yet no PRC internal documents show that was one of the objectives of the invasion. The Khmer Rouge only served as a buffer against a larger Soviet alliance marked by a hostile Vietnam in the South, the PRC managed to divert most of the Vietnamese forces north and ensured the survival of the Khmer Rouge resistance in Cambodia against the Vietnamese. When the Khmer Rouge finally surrendered in 1993, Vietnam already pulled out and the Soviet Union have collapsed, which means the PRC no longer needed the Khmer Rouge regime and already achieved its war objective (breaking the anti-Chinese alliance headed by the USSR).
I remember that. Viewing it from the US, we had been in that strange Vietnamese War supposedly fighting Communism, and it was obvious from this that Communism was not monolithic. It also seemed to indicate how strong the Soviet Union was that China was aligned against it, but at the same time that there was a lot of resistance to Soviet world dominance.

I remember commentary at the time, that from the Chinese point of view this was similar to what imperial China traditionally did when less powerful neighboring states got out of line.
 
Sep 2016
1,104
Georgia
#39
Pyrrhus' invasion of Italy didn't pan out.
His campaign on Sicily is more disappointing, in my opinion. Island was pretty much under his control, aside from Lilybaeum.

Pyrrhus managed to defeat Romans, Carthaginians, Mamertines and King of Macedon Antigonus II Gonatas. Shame that none of those victories brought long-lasting gains for Pyrrhus.
 
Sep 2016
1,104
Georgia
#40
Good grief, what??? Why not just write off ALL historical accounts as fiction? Caesar is one of our best and most accurate sources! Nothing in them is outlandish or implausible. It *is* likely that the section with the geographical description of Britain is a later addition by someone else, but otherwise, how many of us were there to contradict his word? Weird...

Matthew
Ummm... You do know that numbers which Caesar gives for Gauls and etc. are considerable questionable by many historians ? There were many works on Battle of Alesia, where numbers for his enemies were called ridiculous and unrealistic and as tool of propaganda. Even Napoleon analyzed Alesia and possible logistics. There are people who also question numbers that Caesar gives us at Pharsalus and etc. Ever heard of Delbruck ?

We should always be careful with Ancient sources. Especially if author had reason to be biased.
 

Similar History Discussions