"The Russian Campaign 1812: Ultimate Chance for Peace?" Topic

"War having been declared on him, in fact if not in law, could Napoleon have avoided the invasion of Russia? Briefly, he considered waiting in Poland for Alexander to attack him. He quickly perceived that the tsar had no such intention. Alexander feared a new Friedland that would not, this time, lead to a new Tilsit. Time was on Alexander's side. He had a sufficient period to complete the mobilization of the most powerful army ever possessed by Russia. He had all the time he needed.

From Napoleon's perspective, the situation was completely different. It was obviously not in his interest to await the completion of Russian military preparations. He could only maintain for a short time the enforced allied mobilization that provided his new Grand Armeé. Above all, he needed to act prior to the opening of a British front in Western Europe. The war in Spain gave him enough concerns by itself! He regretted even having waited until summer. A spring offensive would probably have permitted him to avoid the coming catastrophe.

Napoleon issued his traditional order of the day to the Grand Armeé on June 21:.."
Full text here
link

Amicalement
Armand

Rather stunned by the opening lines.

Napoleon had annexed various states including the one which the Tsar's brother in law would have inherited. He armed the Duchy of Warsaw and sent troops into areas which he shouldn't have. He was far more provocative than Alexander.

There were not "inocents" in that game my friend. (smile)

Alexander was prepared years before the invasion of Napoleon…and if this had not taken place … probably the Russians had invaded Poland…Napoleon acted under the premise: "He who hits first, hits twice." (smile)

Amicalement
Armand

Napoleon never settled anything peacefully that he could not win by war.

Glengarry5

In the same way, and certainly as 1815 proved, the Allies, funded by Britain, never settled anything they could not obtain by waging constant war against Napoleon.

Agree.

No inocent people on both sides.

Amicalement
Armand

Napoleon never settled anything peacefully that he could not win by war

1803: Britain declares war on France.
1805: Britain forms and subsidizes the 3rd coalition with Austria, Russia, and Sweden.
1806-07: Britain forms and subsidizes the 4th coalition with Prussia, Russia, Saxony, and Sweden.
1809: Britain forms and subsidizes the 5th coalition with Austria.
1812-14: Britain forms and subsidizes the 6th coalition with Russia, Prussia, and eventually Austria.
1815: Britain forms and subsidizes the 7th coalition with Russia, Prussia, Austria, Spain, and many other minor states.

I do sense a pattern here. Clearly, Napoleon didn't get the message.

Britain seems to have been mightily persuasive that it could induce these powers to fight Napoleon even after they had previously been defeated. Perhaps Austria, Russia etc. felt they needed to and British gold provided the ability to do so.

"Britain seems to have been mightily persuasive that it could induce these powers to fight Napoleon even after they had previously been defeated. Perhaps Austria, Russia etc. felt they needed to and British gold provided the ability to do so."
This neatly summarizes one of Prof. Paul Schroeder's central arguments in what is still seen as one of the standard texts on the period, "The Transformation of European Politics 1763-1848", where he argues that all of the coalitions were formed after extensive efforts to find peace and conciliation with Napoleon, along the accepted policy of the "balance of Powers" doctrine.

England alone of the Powers did not suffer defeat by Napoleon, but they signed the Treaty of Amiens with him, which was very favorable to France, in the hope of restoring peace and enhancing trade. But they saw that treaty as an extension of Luneville, which guaranteed the independence of The Helvetian Republic, Holland and Italy, and when Napoleon broke that treaty and told the British government that his actions in Europe were no affair of theirs, they broke the treaty in 1803, thus, by a fortunate chance, depriving Napoleon of a lull in hostilities in which to prepare for his next defensive campaign.
In the case of the countries he ha defeated, the case is even stronger. Talleyrand was well aware that the Austrian Empire needed some secure place, even in a Napoleon dominated Europe (the Strasbourg memorandum), but not only would N. not listen, he gave no intelligence to Austria, until 1808, certainly, just how he wished them to behave.

Many Napoleon admirers like to claim that Napoleon had no choice but to defensively attack Russia, but Caulaincourt [my Spell Check insists that I should call him "Cartilaginous!] under N's orders, had worked out at least the basis for a treaty with the Russian Foreign Minister, Rumiantsev which N. proceeded to ignore, and he proceed to plan his invasion, totally inadequately, as it turned out, without any plan except the "certainty" that Alexander would meet with him, to agree to what remains unclear. And as usual, he did this with total disregard for his advisers who warned him against the adventure.

Finally, before everyone nods off, his treatment of his conquered ally Prussia on the march into Russia was so appalling, due apparently to N's total disregard of the plight of the country people and small towns that he passed through, rather than any malice, that many Prussian officers deserted as a consequence, before any military engagement, and the seeds were sown for York's damaging alliance with Russia on December 31st.

Cheers,
Phil

I cannot understand the talk about innocents, N enforced the continental blockade onto Russia. The Russian emperor could not watch to see his country ruined by Napoleons political game.

Also, analysing Napoleons past, it was clear, that all those who dared to make an independent politics in contrast to the will of N – risked to be eliminated from the land scape.

A chance of peace – no, unless N would change his character and became a dove of peace, which seemingly was very unlikely.

So unless Napoleon drops the continental system and grants Russia to act as sovereign state, I see no way for peace.

Then of course there is the Polish question.

Russia under Paul I and Alexander was just as aggressive an Revolutionary France and ready for war if necessary as Napoleon was, if not more so.

Russia began fighting against France in 1797 before Napoleon came to power over the French taking of Malta.

The Russians were active in the eastern Mediterranean and the Adriatic, taking Ionian islands from the French and Suvorov was sent into Italy and ended up being defeated, along with his colleague Korsakov, in Switzerland and they were withdrawn by Paul. Russians also lost, along with their English allies, in Holland the same year.

Alexander came to the wars in 1805 sending armies into central and western Europe (Austria, Hanover, and Italy) all of which were defeated. After Austerlitz he did not conclude peace with Napoleon and sided with the Prussians in 1806 and ended up losing badly again at Friedland.

Alexander also conducted wars againt the Ottomans and in northern Europe during the period and they were anything but defensive. All of this was done before the French invasion of 1812.

Russian foreign policy, since Ivan the Great, has always been of expansion, at whatever cost to the Russian people, Russian rulers being more or less careless of Russian lives in the pursuit of their aggressive foreign policy.

After Tilsit, Alexander proved a chancy ally, interfering with Polish operations against the Austrians in 1809 instead of acting the loyal ally, which he was by the Treaty of Tilsit. Alexander wanted Poland, and attempted to 'convince' the Poles to come under his rule, which they refused. He went so far as to mass troops on their border which infuriated the Poles and Napoleon. Alexander decided on war against his ally as early as 1810, and that being the case it was inevitable and Napoleon struck first which was his normal practice.

It was a mistake to invade, as Russia is just too large. He probably should have waited for Alexander to become overtly hostile and then fight him in eastern Europe instead of in Russia. But Alexander wanted the war and the idea that it was all Napoleon's doing is incorrect.

So as usual, the same old apologist, Nappy sanctifying diatribe hits the net.

Nappy! The great dictator who threatened any country under his influence that wished to trade with Britain or even opened up Diplomatic contact. little old Portugal, who had the temerity be friendly with Britain but then agree to almost all Nappy's demands up-to and including declaring war on Britain, didn't escape his dictatorial will, was invaded by the French who promised to carve her up with Spain (with a stiletto behind her back ready to plunge it deep in Spain's back).

Russia deciding that she needed to trade with Britain, was up to her, not some fried onion chewing, black cherry pip spitting foriegner.

Paul :)

Russia needed the British money more than their stuff.

Amicalement
Armand

dibble

Yes, your expert logic is so clear now. Napoleon should have said to his allies like Russia, you go ahead and trade with my enemy. You make money and sell them all the material they want so they can carry on the war against France. Hey, they will then be so pleased they will fund you to wage further wars and everyone will be happy.

By the way, I think you may not have realised that, to the black pudding eating, beer swilling British, the Russians were foreigners as well, and vica versa of course.

Russia needed the British money more than their stuff.

Yes they did. And so did the Prussians and Austrians. Without British subsidies in 1813-1814 the allies could not have taken the field, as all three countries were bankrupt.

Gazzola,

It is too bad, a shame really, that a minority of posters believe that they have to personally attack those with whom they disagree instead of actually posting material to counter what they either don't agree with or what they believe to be accurate.

If that would happen then the forum would be much richer for the experience.

The use of ad hominem attacks, condescension, and mockery have to place in a historical discussion. And it reflects badly on those that do that type of behavior. and it isn't only on this forum that it happens.

Agree with you Kevin… but also remember that in the near past… it was much worst…!

Amicalement
Armand

A Sovereign nation should decide for itself who they wish to trade or have diplomatic relations with. Russia withdrew from the System which she as a Sovereign nation had the right to do.

What about France itself? Which sucked up smuggled British goods like a Dyson cordless, Nappy's pixies and family who made a killing doing the same in their king and dukedoms and in the main, the continental customs men were just as obliging by turning a blind eye (for a price of course).

You all also conveniently skip (as usual) the unprovoked invasion of Portugal, a country that wasn't a member of the continental system or hostile to any country, let alone the most powerful.

So Nappy tried to dictate to the Iberian nations by invasion, treachery, kidnap, and usurpation and got his ar$e handed to him on a Wedgewood plate. Tried the same with Russia, and again got his ar$e served back to him but this time on a elaborately decorated IPM Porcelain plate.

Paul :)

"Russia needed the British money more than their stuff."

Are you joking? England couldn't give away money for nothing, and the best was to trade.

Other unprovoked invasion – Northern Germany.

Russia made a stand – and the Russian Emperor did not fall to N's knees to beg for mercy (as N anticipated)

dibble

'A sovereign nation should decide for itself'

Yes, quite true, except Russia did not seem to know what to decide or rather, perhaps slyly pretended to decide. Firstly, they 'decided' to agree to the terms of the Treaty of Tilsit in 1807, in which they became Napoleon's ally and Britain's enemy. Then, they 'decided' to invade and take Finland in 1808, which was a Swedish province and Sweden was an ally of Britain. Then, of course, they later
'decided' to ignore the treaty they had 'decided' to agree to.

Meanwhile, even though Denmark had almost 'decided' to ally itself to Britain, Britain 'decided' to capture its fleet at Copenhagen, even though Denmark was neutral, and also bombarded the city. Denmark then 'decided' to ally herself to France.

It is this sort of 'deciding' that causes wars and mistrust.

England couldn't give away money for nothing, and the best was to trade.

It wasn't 'for nothing' and it certainly was 'to trade.' The British subsidies were used to keep the allied armies in the field. That was not trade.

See Guineas and Gunpowder by Sherwig.

Gazzola,

Excellent posting and right on topic.

You beat me Kevin. (smile)

Good point my friend Gazzola.

Amicalement
Armand

Nappy apologists above now liken a raid to the unprovoked invasion, occupation and subjugation of a sovereign country and the infamous stab in the back of an allied nation, and again, with occupation, subjugation, misery and death of countless Iberians. Lets not forget that all that above included extortion and kidnap, especially Portugal, 'who did not resist' had to pay Nappy for the privilege of being invaded.

Nappy Worshipers! They do so love to reassure each other. As can be seen above…..Ahh bless!

dibble

Raid? If you are actually referring to what happened to Copenhagen in 1807, you are talking about the war crime of attacking and bombarding a city in a country that was neutral! Even George the 3rd called it 'a very immoral act'.(see the linked naval article which even relates it to the actions of the Germans in World War Two who used the same excuses)

I think you are the real 'apologist', terming a war crime as a mere raid.

PDF link

To whom it may concern.

Please could you show where I apologised for the Denmark tragedy.

Copenhagen was still a raid. That the raid was bad is not argued, it nevertheless was as nothing compared to the utter evil occupation and misery handed out to the populace of the Iberian Peninsula and the rout of the French hoards (temporarily) infesting the environs of Russia

Paul :)

Apology:

1a. a formal justification : defense
b. excuse
2. an admission of error or discourtesy accompanied by an expression of regret.

3. a poor substitute : makeshift

Apologist: one who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something.

There is a difference between the definition of 'apology' and the definition of 'apologist.'

The term used in Gazzola's posting was 'apologist' not 'apology.'

The British attack against Copenhagen in 1807 was not a raid. It was a siege with both land and sea forces that cut off the city and the British constructed siege works in order to conduct the bombardment of the city and to force the Danes to capitulate and give up their fleet, which prior to the attack and siege they had refused to do.

The siege lasted from the morning of 2 September 1807 to midday on 5 September 1807. Approximately 6,000 artillery rounds were fired into the city, of which 300 were rockets.

About ten percent of the city center was destroyed and there was heavy damage to the rest of the city. Over 2,000 civilians were killed and over 20,000 fled to get to safety from the indiscriminate bombardment.

This was an unprovoked attack upon a neutral nation and what amounted to a terror bombing of a city for the purpose of causing its surrender.

What should also be noted about British operations during the period was the forced evacuation of the Portuguese civilian population in order to lay waste to the route of march of the French Army of Portugal under Massena.

Because of the forced evacuation of the civilians, over 40,000 of them would perish from disease and starvation inside the Lines of Torres Vedras which was a result of not being able to feed them, a responsibiley of both the Portuguese government and that of Wellington, the allied army commander.

dibble

I think you have just proven yourself to be 100% an apologist, by unbelievably sticking to describing the war crime committed by the British as a raid. At least Napoleon attacked a country that broke a treaty and was helping his enemy by trading with them. And the arrogant British even felt they had the right to capture neutral ships from ports that they were not allowed to enter. That is being tyrannical.

But your language is quiet amusing – utter evil, infesting – clearly you are not biased against Napoleon and the French in any way. LOL

And it should be remembered that it was British high-handedness against neutrals on the high seas that led to the War of 1812 with the United States.

In the new book, The Challenge, the author, who is British, brought up the old false claim that the United States stabbed England in the back in 1812.

Incredible.

The Person in question is Nappy. Trying to deflect his wanton aggression is the norm for Nappy loving apologists.

Brechtel

About ten percent of the city center was destroyed and there was heavy damage to the rest of the city. Over 2,000 civilians were killed and over 20,000 fled to get to safety from the indiscriminate bombardment.

Rubbish information from you as usual!

Though still terrible, this from the horses mouth:

1807.dk/tabstal%20civile.htm

The text in the above link translates to:

"The civilian casualties have prev. Surgeon General and Chief of the Defence Health, Hans Michael Jelsdorf, stated in his article "Hospital Emergency and medical treatment during the siege in 1807" ( Military History Journal 2007).
The number of wounded was 768, died 195, ie considerably less than previously thought.

The number of destroyed properties from Politiken Dance Mark History, Vol. 10 p 292 Jens Vibæk (1964).
1807: Fire and bomb damage to property was estimated at 1071
1795: Properties burned 900, damaged the 75
1728: 1,670 buildings destroyed, representing 2/5 of total 4087 houses."

Brechtel

Apology:

1a. a formal justification : defense
b. excuse
2. an admission of error or discourtesy accompanied by an expression of regret.

3. a poor substitute : makeshift

Apologist: one who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something.

There is a difference between the definition of 'apology' and the definition of 'apologist.'

The term used in Gazzola's posting was 'apologist' not 'apology.'

Napoleon worshipers to a T!

For an excellent modern treatment of the Siege of Copenhagen in 1807 which includes the statistics of the Danish civilian casualties and the losses of property in the city from the bombardment, see:

Defying Napoleon: How Britain Bombarded Copenhagen and Seized the Danish Fleet in 1807 by Thomas Munch-Petersen, published in 2007.

dibble

You are doing the deflecting by trying to accuse people of being Napoleon worshippers. It is so funny because you are obviously upset that your rosy image of Britain during the period has been thoroughly dented once more. You just can't take it, can you?

And here you are, trying to make excuses for an act that even the British king thought was 'a very immoral act'. It was his troops that did it. He knows the truth. And this war crime was not only against a neutral nation, as the article I linked pointed out, it was also against a people Admiral Nelson referred to in 1801 as 'the brothers of the Englishman'.

Not a good way to treat your brothers, is it, eh?

Gazzola,

If you would like to see an 'adverse reaction' akin to 'worship', though I really don't care for that term, just criticize Wellington or the British army.

Then the hysteria begins from our colleague along with the usual abuse.

It is absolute nonsense.

Brechtel

If you would like to see an 'adverse reaction' akin to 'worship', though I really don't care for that term, just criticize Wellington or the British army.

Then the hysteria begins from our colleague along with the usual abuse.

It is absolute nonsense.

As usual, Pot calling the kettle black. You have been spreading your Susie Seitz type version of history on this and other sites with the usual attacking stance as you have always done. It seems that Susie has a sibling.

Throwing a title to a book is no evidence at all!

The statistical link I posted References a booklet/magazine too and that is also a 2007 Aniversary edition.

You really should delve deeper into the site, you might learn something.

1807.dk/krigs-tidsskr.htm

Oh! By the way and just for the record, Arthur Wellesley was against the bombardment. He wasn't enamoured with the leadership either.

And so the Nappy deflection continues! The Seitz's, who see Spain, Portugal and Russia as nothing when compared to the dastardly raid on Copenhagen.

Paul :)

Fallacy ad hominem:

'The fallacy of argument ad hominem occurs is many different forms, all of which serve to shift attention from the argument to the arguer. Among its more common varieties are, first, the abusive ad hominem, which directly denounces an opponent.'-Historians' Fallacies, by David Hackett Fischer, 290-291.

Siege: A siege is a military blockade of a city or fortress with the intent of conquering by attrition or assault.

Raid: A military tactic or operational warfare mission which has a specific purpose and is not normally intended to capture and hold terrain, but instead finish with the raiding force quickly retreating to a previous defended position prior to enemy forces being able to respond in a co-ordinated manner or formulate a counter-attack.

So, it looks like the Copenhagen mission in 1807 was a siege…

Sus…. Oops! I mean Brechtel

Fallacy ad hominem:

'The fallacy of argument ad hominem occurs is many different forms, all of which serve to shift attention from the argument to the arguer. Among its more common varieties are, first, the abusive ad hominem, which directly denounces an opponent.'-Historians' Fallacies, by David Hackett Fischer, 290-291.

Which is exactly what you are doing and always do.

Paul :)

dibble

'dastardly' How quaint. A bit like your view on the British dastardly immoral war crime.

As for Wellington being against it-really? From what I can see (see link) he was only against certain aspects of the attack, nothing else. And did he refuse the £1,700.00 GBP (roughly £130,000.00 GBP present day) prize money (or should that be blood money?) for the captured ships-no, of course not. He was as greedy as everyone else.

link

Bechtel

Raid As it is called in Gazzola's own link: 15 Aug 2015 6:29 a.m. PST. Have a read of other accounts, you will see the word 'raid' is used pertaining to the 'raid' on Copenhagen.

Gazzola

As for Wellington being against it-really? From what I can see (see link) he was only against certain aspects of the attack, nothing else. And did he refuse the £1,700.00 GBP GBP (roughly £130,000.00 GBP GBP present day) prize money (or should that be blood money?) for the captured ships-no, of course not. He was as greedy as everyone else.

what part of….

"Oh! By the way and just for the record, Arthur Wellesley was against the bombardment. He wasn't enamoured with the leadership either."

….did you not understand. Smacks of the usual misquoting that you are so habitually inclined to do.

Just a reminder.

"The Person in question is Nappy. Trying to deflect his wanton aggression is the norm for Nappy loving apologists."

dibble

I think you need to do more research or reread the link I gave you again. Wellington was NOT against the bombardment at all. He only DISLIKED the idea of bombarding the city. The bombardment was all part of the British Napoleonic terror tactics to make the people suffer in order to force them to persuade the garrison to surrender. Admit it.

dibble

I forgot to mention, but I imagine, as a fan of Welly, you are aware of the name of his famous horse – COPENHAGEN

Says it all really, doesn't it.

My goodness! I was busily following some other threads and missed this curious segue from Napoleon in Russia to Nelson an Wellington at Copenhagen. A straw man argument by the Napoleonists, do you think, Paul? Denmark a "neutral" country? Well yes if you include "armed neutrality", in this case a collection of countries, Denmark and Norway, which it controlled, Sweden. Prussia and Russia, controlled by Napoleon in order to block British trade in the Baltic. Under one of the notorious secret clauses of Tilsit, it had been agreed that France could seize the Danish fleet of 18 ships, and they were on their way to do so when Nelson demanded of Crown Prince Frederick that he surrender the ships, he was given the choice of doing so or being bombarded.
He refused, knowing what would happen to his city --though perhaps hoping to be rescued by the French -- and sustained four days of bombardment before calling "feignites" an having his fleet towed out by the victorious British.

I have always considered that this was a jolly good job, and I am glad that David Chandler, that esteemed English historian of the period, agrees with me in his Dictionary of the Napoleonic wars: "This bold action -- without declaration of war -- was dictated by necessity and proved completely effective".

Says it all, really, doesn't it?

Cheers,
Phil

Still skipping the misery that Nappy caused in Portugal, Spain, Russia. And not forgetting the half hundred onslaughts in other countries too I see.

Gazzola

dibble

I think you need to do more research or reread the link I gave you again. Wellington was NOT against the bombardment at all. He only DISLIKED the idea of bombarding the city. The bombardment was all part of the British Napoleonic terror tactics to make the people suffer in order to force them to persuade the garrison to surrender. Admit it.

Err! I suggest you read Wellington: The Path to Victory 1769-1814 by Rory Muir instead of posting a link where Muir gives a brief overview. And Wellingtons private letters will also enlighten you too!

As for the horse Copenhagen, You had better do what you seem to fail to do consistently, and that is research.

You are intimating that the Duke named him, which of course he did not!

Start here:

link

As for siege warfare.

Britain did not have exclusive rights to carry them out you know? Re: Second Zaragosa comes to mind.

All sieges follow certain patterns.

link

Paul :)

dibble

You should stop trying to make out you know how other people think – you do not.

I was not intimating anything of the sort concerning who named the horse Copenhagen. You were just doing what you usually do, getting it wrong!

The horse and the man who named it is actually mentioned (page 52) in the Scum of the Earth by Colin Brown. You should try reading it. You might learn something.

I merely pointed out that Wellington had no worries about riding a horse named after a British war crime.

Raid and Siege

From Definitions and Doctrine of the Military Art by John Alger, 17:

‘Although raids also divert the enemy, they are primarily sudden attacks intended to destroy resources or disrupt lines of communications. In raids, there is no intention of holding the attacked position.'

From the American Artillerist's Companion, by Louis de Tousard, Volume II, 656:

‘Siege: the position which an army takes, or its encampment before fortified town or place, for the purpose of reducing it. To undertake the siege of a town, to invest it, to form lines of circumvallation, to open trenches, etc. To lay siege to a town, to draw your forces round a town, for the purpose of attacking it.'

The second definition fits the British operations against Copenhagen in 1807 which is covered excellently in Defying Napoleon by Thomas Munch-Peterson, 169-209, the British operations against Copenhagen describing the investment of Copenhagen, the construction of siege batteries on the land side of the city, and the bombardment. The British were also prepared to assault the city if the Danes did not surrender because of the bombardment.

Examples of raids are:
-The SEALS going after and killing Bin Laden.
-The Los Banos raid in War II.
-Zeebruge in War I.

-Sorties from besieged fortresses during the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, such as those carried out by the French ‘Infernal Company' during the almost year siege of Danzig in 1813.

-The British operations against Copenhagen in 1807 were not a raid, but a siege, and Cathcart referred to the British operations against Copenhagen as ‘the horrors of a besieged and bombarded capital.' And it appears that the city itself, along with its civilian population were the target of British operations. And this was without provocation by the Danes.

The British went through the procedures usually conducted in siege operations such as investment and establishing siege batteries employing siege guns in the operations against Copenhagen. British operations against Copenhagen lasted from 16 August-5 September 1807, just a little long for a raid.

Philin Yuma

Your really are a hypocritical comic. Had Napoleon committed this war crime you would have been condemning him outright – but no, it was the British, so that's okay.

Are you sure you are a historian because I think you should read the article I linked about the attack. For a start, concerning the first attack, the Danes HAD TO enter into a treaty of armed neutrality with Russia, Prussia and Sweden because the arrogant British demanded to control and search neutral merchant ships, so they needed protecting AGAINST the British. And after the first naval action in 1801 Denmark left the treaty.

In 1807, the second time the Brits attacked the Danes, the British demanded Denmark ally themselves to Britain or give them their fleet as proof they would not side with Napoleon, or face war. Such arrogance towards a neutral country.

When the brave and still neutral Danes told the Brits what they could do with their ultimatum they were attacked on land and on the sea, and the Brits even used fire rockets against the people of Copenhagen.

The warmongering British even handed out leaflets stating that 'the king of Great Britain was compelled to demand a temporary deposit of the Danish-ships-of-the line' and, wait for it, they have not come as enemies, but in self-defence! And people accuse Napoleon of lies and propaganda!LOL As the article describes, it was just the same as when the Germans occupied Denmark in 1940 when they dropped leaflets on Copenhagen saying they had come to save them from an invasion by the British. How ironic.

After a week of bombardment, in which fire rockets were used, the people forced the military to surrender. So, did the those wonderful peace loving Brits take away the ships-of-the-line which they were so frightened Napoleon would get his hands on-yes they certainly did-but not just the warships, they now broke their word (what a surprise), and took all the ships, not just the war ships, and all the stores and said possession of the fleet was no longer a deposit but a permanent possession.

Not surprisingly, the Danes dropped their neutrality and sided with Napoleon. In other words, their great plan ended up giving France another ally and made another enemy of Britain. As mentioned before, even the British king described it as 'a very immoral act'. I think that says it all.

raid

"An operation to temporarily seize an area in order to secure information, confuse an adversary, capture personnel or equipment, or to destroy a capability. It ends with a planned withdrawal upon completion of the assigned mission."

"A surprise attack with limited objectives and a planned withdrawal prior to effective intervention of opposing forces' higher level reserves."

"The offensive exploitation of a limited net advantage, avoiding entanglement (commitment) beyond the limit of this net advantage."

Bretchtel

Raid and Siege

From Definitions and Doctrine of the Military Art by John Alger, 17:

‘Although raids also divert the enemy, they are primarily sudden attacks intended to destroy resources or disrupt lines of communications. In raids, there is no intention of holding the attacked position.'

Which is exactly the mission of the British, including "no intention of holding the attacked position" Which as we know, the British sailed away without occupation.

There are lots more definitions, but most are raiding as in the modern term, where infil'and exfil' can be achieved much quicker. Your definition is also a more modern term too.

I have found no definition of the defences being overcome precluding the mission being defind as a raid or not….Have you? I have also not seen a 'rule' as to how long a raid should take….Have you?

Paul :)

The British objective was the surrender of the Danish fleet and to take it. That was permanent as they didn't give it back after the wars were over or at any other time.

Raids are characterized by sudden surprise, a limited objective, and being of short duration. A longer operation, such as at Copenhagen, is something else-in this case a siege. The operation took three weeks, siege emplacements were constructed, the city was bombarded by siege guns and rockets, and the British were prepared to storm the city to take it and the Danish fleet.

That's not a raid, that's a siege as it has been characterized and described.

I suggest you read the referenced book.

The British objective was the surrender of the Danish fleet and to take it. That was permanent as they didn't give it back after the wars were over or at any other time.

Yes. That was also the objective of the French; they just got there too late.

The Crown Prince was promised, in pre-strike negotiations, that if he agreed to abrogate the Armed Neutrality treaty, his ships would be returned after the war. He didn't, so they weren't.

Cheers,
Phil

dibble

'flippin heck' talk about denial. Read the link! It was not a raid it was a siege!

As for staying there, the British government had actually considered leaving a PERMANENT garrison at Zealand.