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

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

After the unprovoked attack by the British and the terror bombing of Copenhagen the Danes became firm allies of the French and provided excellent service during the siege of Hamburg in 1813-1814.

The French didn't have to do anything. The British did it for them…

'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.

Exactly.

I've never heard of a three week raid before. Absolutely incredible.

IT WAS A 'R-A-I-D'.

So you think that Raids only consist of a quick in-out strategy without a siege, or lasting for any length of time do you?

As I said before, do a bit of research and stop being silly.

Paul :)

No, it was not. And no amount of shouting, sulking, or throwing personal insults is going to change that fact.

You've been jumping up and down and screaming about the subject but have not supported your contention at all.

I've done the research, and just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it wrong.

The person that is incorrect here is you. Unfortunately, you usually are. And if anyone disagrees with you, you throw a hissy fit.

Undoubtledly if I agreed with you on anything, you would disagree with that just to be contrary.

You should actually do some research, read the references tendered, and at least attempt to be civil. You used to be an excellent poster, but all I see now is a marplot who thrives on insulting those with whom he does not agree.

Grow up.

Brechtel:
No need for shouting or screaming or insulting our Dibs:
Here is a scholarly paper by a member of the Danish Navy on the Raid on Copenhagen

PDF link

Notice that in his un-grownup way, he calls it a "raid".
To be sure, an entry in Wiki under "Sieges" lists it as such, but you don't trust Wiki. do you?

And please don't apologize to me; a short note to Paul should do the trick.

The bottom line is that whether you call it a "siege" or a "raid" or "another vicious English attack on a neutral country", the final score was England 1: France/Denmark 0, which sounds good enough for me.

Cheers,
Phil

I'm neither screaming nor shouting. I'm merely pointing out that there is a double standard used by some of the forum members.

I'll leave the 'screaming and shouting' to you and Dibble as both of you are so good at it.

And France wasn't involved in the Copenhagen attack and siege…

And if apologies are in order, they should come from both you and dibble.

Was that a concession post Kevin? :p
An of course, you're quite right about the French not being involved (did anyone say that they were?); too slow off the mark, I guess.
What interested me about the article I linked was that it explains why the Danes didn't just scupper the fleet to keep it out of the hands of both the Brits and the French. I trust that you did read the article?
Berg does agree with you, though, that the raid drove the poor Danes "into the arms of the French", but they were alreaxdy puckered up, I think, under the threat of losing Norway. It is a sad irony that with the inevitable defeat of Napoleon, they lost Norway, anyway.
Cheers,
Phil

I shouldn't worry about him Phil, he is just smarting over all the other times that he has been shown to be wrong by me (and others) and is trying 'without much success' to get a little bit back.

Oh! and Kevin! You forgot p!ssant again. Perhaps you meant Puissant?

Take care

Paul :)

Philin Yuma & dibble

Been busy decorating the dawghouse for a few days so was unable to reply to your recent post. The walls are covered with bee symbols now. LOL

As for the so called raid-I can well understand why British and Allied apologists want to keep the war crime low key by describing it as such, in order not to attract attention to what the British actually did. But it was far more than a raid. For a start, as described in the linked Raymond account, it involved 25,000 regular troops (page 60) and 90 guns, including 40 SIEGE mortars, 10 Howitzers and 30 24 pdr cannons (p76). Also used were Congreves' fire rockets and (according to Digby Smith) there were British and KGL Horse and Foot artillery batteries. And they stayed in Denmark from 16th August to October 21st. That's 66 days. Some raid, eh?

But also mentioned in Raymond's account was the following-
'The consensus among the army commanders that with 25,000 men, the British were not strong enough to sustain a prolonged siege against Copenhagen…(page 75) Note the word SIEGE. It goes on to say 'The conclusion therefore was to set aside traditional siege tactics and instead turn the heavy artillery on the city itself, subjecting it to a 'terror bombardment' and force the inhabitants into submission.'

In the Thomas Munch-Petersen linked article, we find the following, which supports the above view and which supplies the evidence that the British used the death of neutral Danes and 'terror bombardment' of the citizens of Copenhagen, purely for political means-
'Canning-To stun Russia into her senses' (page 8)
'Canning-'we need not disguise the fact from ourselves-we are hated throughout Europe, and that hate must be cured by fear.' (page 8) The gracious peace loving British hated-surely not-but he should know. LOL

'More effective and dangerous were the Danes. Almost as soon as the British fleet departed Danish waters, the Danes, taking advantage of their large pool of maritime manpower began converting merchantmen into privateers and although the first of them did not sail until November 1807, they managed to capture or sink 42 merchantmen by the end of the year.' (page 81)

Add to this the galley guerrilla warfare the Danes waged which troubled the British who had to leave warships in the area, and the fact the Danes sided with Napoleon and increased his manpower, this so called 'raid', in my opinion, was a more of a flop on top of a war crime. Yes, they captured the dreaded Danish fleet, but the event created an enemy of a neutral nation and possible ally and it changed very little else. As Raymond points out-'Although tactically successful, the 1807 Battle of Copenhagen (NOTE BATTLE NOT RAID)proved to be a lesson that complex strategic problems could not always be solved with a sudden decisive blow. Rather Copenhagen demonstrated that a hastily-conceived and planned operation often raised more issues than it resolved.' (p214)

link

PDF link

Good thread my friend!.

Amicalement
Armand

Agree completely, Armand.

It is very well done, well-reasoned and complete.

It was still a raid and the article gives the wrong casualties

The Danes themselves have come up with the correct casualty and property destroyed list which I have posted as a link above, and as for screaming 'WAR CRIME!' Nappy and his hoards practiced and were professional in ' (notice the plural) 'WAR CRIMES' way above and beyond any of his/their enemies.

Funny how the title is both 'CHAPTER 5
THE ATTACK ON COPENHAGEN' which isn't in doubt, and the Table of Contents, which it is listed as 'THE BATTLE OF COPENHAGEN' again, which isn't in doubt. Even 'Campaign' isn't in doubt, but then overall, it was a RAID and the word raid belittles nothing unless that is, when interpretation is taken upon by you and your like-minded brethren.

Still no word on Portugal and Spain I see.

"Decorating the dawghouse" More like trawling the web for an age to find a kennel that fits the agenda!

I'm finished here I'm tired of this prevaricating, nappy worshiping, bat and ball game.

Take care, enjoy your dream about peace under Napoleonic terms, just the same way your hero enjoyed watching his sister dream

:D

dibble

I had been looking up the subject before my spell in the dawghouse because I thought it was an interesting subject and could not believe it was fobbed off as a mere raid. And you can check with Bill when I was able to post.

But yes, I can see why you want to run away, it is not so nice or as much fun talking about British Napoleonic war atrocities and crimes, is it?

But as for still considering it a raid, the siege of Copenhagen involved using more guns than those used in two other British Napoleonic atrocities, namely the siege of Badajoz 1812 and the siege of San Sebastian 1813. They may have even used more troops.

The only Napoleonic dream I have, concerning TMP and other Napoleonic websites, is of people accepting and respecting each others points of view.

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

"The only Napoleonic dream I have, concerning TMP and other Napoleonic websites, is of people accepting and respecting each others points of view."

I do not see, Gazzola, why, with your steadfast example and leadership, your dream should not become a reality. When you gonna start?

Cheers,
Phil

I do not see, Gazzola, why, with your steadfast example and leadership, your dream should not become a reality. When you gonna start?

I would think that it would begin after derogatory comments such as yours that you keep posting here and elsewhere cease and you actually attempt to contribute to the forum instead of continuously making ad hominem attacks with those whom you disagree.

Does that about sum up the situation for you?

Philin Yuma

Disagreeing with someone's point of view or having a completely different opinion of something Napoleonic or a Napoleonic personality, does not mean I disrespect their viewpoints and opinions. It just means I disagree with them.

But in terms of Copenhagen, I felt the description and acceptance of the attack as a raid, defies the evidence. I still think dibble, and probably others, who believe the same, are in denial and obviously want to fob it off as a mere raid to hide the reality of the war crime. But, at the same time, I respect that is what they believe (or want to believe), so there it is. To me it was more like an invasion considering the number of troops, guns and the time the British stayed there.

As for the dream statement, until posts stop involving personal insults, then I guess it will stay a dream.

Gazzola:
"Your really are a hypocritical comic."
"Disagreeing with someone's point of view or having a completely different opinion of something Napoleonic or a Napoleonic personality, does not mean I disrespect their viewpoints and opinions. It just means I disagree with them."

O.K., Gazzola. Let us assume that the remark directed at me was merely "larking about", or possibly a phrase meaning "I really do respect your contrary opinion" in some dialect with which I am not familiar.

Let us look at the entirely spurious issue of whether the preemptive British strike on Copenhagen was a "siege" or a "raid". You yourself provided us a link by a historian at the RDN Naval Academy in which he refers to the attack four times as a "raid". Certainly he is not a British propagandist, but he may be mistaken, though neither you nor Brechtel provides any persuasive evidence to the contrary.

Let us say then, for the sake of a rather weak argument, that the attack was indeed a "siege"; how does this effect the moral culpability of England one way or the other?

I notice that neither you nor your ally mention the fact that Copenhagen was invested at the time by 50,000 Danish soldiers and that the civilian population was given ample warning to leave the city. Further, the Crown Prince or his deputy could have avoided the bombardment by either scuttling their fleet or agreeing to the British terms but chose to withstand a four-day bombardment before coming to the same terms that were demanded of them in the first place.

The civilian mortality is usually reported at about 200, cf
link written by an American schoolteacher and so almost certainly true. Another 800 were injured, though how severely, we are not told. Perhaps I am prejudiced, but this does not sound much like an immoral "terror bombing" particularly since it could have been avoided before it even began.

No historian, reputable or otherwise, has used Brechtel's term "terror bombing" to describe the raid; do you agree with him? The term, of course was used to describe the American commander Curtis LeMay's bombing of German cities like Dresden, of no military value, to demoralize the German population in WWII. I have no issue with his decision, though the famous American author Kurt Vonnegut, who was there, certainly had. My question, then, is do you regard the attack on Copenhagen as a peculiarly British act of terrorism or do you find the US equally guilty?

Before you point out the obvious, that we (the Allies) were at war with Germany and Britain was not at war with Denmark, bear in mind that LeMay's targets did not contain military or industrial assets of any significance and that the inhabitants were given neither the opportunity to leave nor to determine when the fire bombing would cease. Also, of course, the mortality rate was substantially higher (400,000?).

So was Nelson's action moral? In times of peace, certainly not, but war imposes necessity on morality (and you probably know the irritating Latin tag that justifies such actions without giving any justification for the justification!). I am no more interested in the "morality' of the bombing of Copenhagen than I am in the bombing of Dresden or Hiroshima.

What say you?

Cheers,
Phil

Your figures are disputed by the historian Munch-Peterson, who states 2,000 dead, as well as the 20,000 Danish refugees from the city. And the center of the city was burned out.

The city was deliberately targeted by the British, one of the aiming points being a tall church steeple. If that is an example of terror bombing, please explain what it was.

The British deliberately attacked and laid siege to Copenhagen. It was high-handed treatment of a neutral to obtain what the British believed to be a strategic goal. And the result was the bombardment of an innocent civilian population, causing extensive property damage, over 2,000 deaths, and forcing 20,000 to leave the city.

This was as ruthless an action by any of the belligerents and coupled with the over 40,000 Portuguese civilian deaths from starvation and disease caused by the forced evacuation of the civilian population inside the lines of Torres Vedras and the devastation of the Portuguese countryside demonstrates the ruthlessness of the British policies of the period.

Now, would you like to talk about the British looting, pillaging, and burning against the American civilian population along Chesapeake Bay in 1813-1814 during the War of 1812? We can do that too. Seems to me there is a pattern here.

And just for information and definition purposes, the two British plundering expeditions to Buenos Aires which ended in complete failures can be added as examples of what amounts to raids.

Compare those two operations with the siege of Copenhagen and the differences between a raid and a siege are quite apparent.

As a matter of fact, the first British expedition against Copenhagen in 1801 could be classed as a raid and that operation should be compared/contrasted with the 1807 siege for the significant differences.

'No historian, reputable or otherwise, has used Brechtel's term "terror bombing" to describe the raid…'

Once again you are wrong. Munch-Peterson refers to the shelling of Copenhagen as a 'terror bombardment' on page 197 of his book. And whether or not you believe him to be a 'reputable historian' is merely a matter of opinion, and in your case an uninformed one. Perhaps you should set your kin to investigate him also for your own gratification?

And Munch-Peterson also calls the operation a siege multiple times in his narrative. He also mentions that George Murray argued for an 'indiscriminate bombardment' of the city as being 'the most effective way forward.' And the footnote for that discussion refers to correspondence between Cathcart, the commander of the land forces at Copenhagen' with Castlereagh.

Here's the bottom line for the operations against Copenhagen in 1807, from an issued British proclamation, that warned the Danes against any resistance:

'But if these offers are rejected…the innocent blood that will be shed, and the horrors of a besieged and bombarded capital, must fall on your heads.'

It says nothing of a 'raid.'

And from Munch-Peterson on page 195, the parameters of a siege against Copenhagen are outlined:

'The navy could not remain at sea in these northern waters much beyond October, and the 'lateness of the season' meant that there was insufficient time to conduct 'a regular siege' of Copenhagen. That was the traditional method of capturing a city, a laborious process of digging trenches parallel to the walls that would creep closer and closer to the fortress by means of zigzag trenches. Murray's conclusion was clear-cut: 'that our principal reliance must be upon the effect of a bombardment, and that we must either endeavor by that means to destroy the Danish fleet, or force the government to surrender it into our hands.'

Murray's conclusion for the success of the operation was:

'If it is found by experience that the destruction of the fleet is actually not within the power of our mortar batteries, we must then of necessity resort to the harsh measure of forcing the town into our terms, by the sufferings of the inhabitants themselves. But to give this mode of attack its fullest effect, it is necessary to completely invest the place, and oblige by that means, all persons of whatever description, to undergo the same hardships and dangers.'

It should also be taken under consideration that the British engineer arm of this period was not up to conducting regular siege operations which would become bloodily evident in the Peninsula at Ciudad Rodrigo, Badajoz, and San Sebastien.

Now, let us take a look at your posting on the subject with the subjects varying into air operations in War II:

Let us look at the entirely spurious issue of whether the preemptive British strike on Copenhagen was a "siege" or a "raid". You yourself provided us a link by a historian at the RDN Naval Academy in which he refers to the attack four times as a "raid". Certainly he is not a British propagandist, but he may be mistaken, though neither you nor Brechtel provides any persuasive evidence to the contrary.

See the postings above. The British themselves considered the 1807 Copenhagen operation a siege.

Let us say then, for the sake of a rather weak argument, that the attack was indeed a "siege"; how does this effect the moral culpability of England one way or the other?

It doesn't. It merely points out that both you and dibble are wrong yet again and your trail of historical error is quite extensive.

I notice that neither you nor your ally mention the fact that Copenhagen was invested at the time by 50,000 Danish soldiers and that the civilian population was given ample warning to leave the city. Further, the Crown Prince or his deputy could have avoided the bombardment by either scuttling their fleet or agreeing to the British terms but chose to withstand a four-day bombardment before coming to the same terms that were demanded of them in the first place.

Blaming the Danes for British hostile actions against a neutral country is quite rich and also completely illogical. Please explain why the Danes should capitulate to a completely unreasonable foreign demand?

Further, when did '50,000 Danes' invest their own capital?

The civilian mortality is usually reported at about 200, cf link written by an American schoolteacher and so almost certainly true. Another 800 were injured, though how severely, we are not told. Perhaps I am prejudiced, but this does not sound much like an immoral "terror bombing" particularly since it could have been avoided before it even began.

I agree with you-you are prejudiced as well as being unreasonable and historically incorrect.

No historian, reputable or otherwise, has used Brechtel's term "terror bombing" to describe the raid; do you agree with him? The term, of course was used to describe the American commander Curtis LeMay's bombing of German cities like Dresden, of no military value, to demoralize the German population in WWII. I have no issue with his decision, though the famous American author Kurt Vonnegut, who was there, certainly had. My question, then, is do you regard the attack on Copenhagen as a peculiarly British act of terrorism or do you find the US equally guilty?

The term 'terror bombing' was indeed used by Munch-Peterson as previously stated and demonstrated. Using Vonnegut as an historical reference is quite amazing and not a credible historical source.

Further, Lemay was not the commander for the Dresden operation, British General Harris was, though the US did participate in the operation. The bombing of Dresden took place in February 1945 and Lemay had been transferred to the China-Burma-India Theater in August 1944. And it should be noted that the US and Great Britain were at war with Germany when Dresden was bombed. Denmark in 1807 was at war with no one. Your analogy is illogical and way off the mark.

Philin Yuma

Call it raid or siege-'how does this effect the moral culpability of England?'

I think you answer this, and also dismiss it, in your own post. The Danes were a neutral nation that may have even sided with England, but for the attack against Copenhagen.

And how kind of England to offer 'give us your fleet or else' Any self respecting country would have told England where to go.

Raymond also gives far higher casualties than you offer, and I would be interested in knowing where you obtained the figures of 50,000 Danish troops at Copenhagen?

I think you should read Raymond's article which I linked, especially page 79, which expresses what Europe thought of the British assault and stealing the fleet of another country.

Interesting that you are not interested in the morality of the war crime, yet seem very interested in the morality of anything concerning Napoleon. I think that says it all.

Kevin, my dear chap! I am never sure which motivates you more, devotion to Napoleon or Anglophobia. But, following Deadhead's definition of a Francophobe, you cannot be an Anglophobe, as you have visited London. Did you find your way to Trafalgar Square via Waterloo Station? Did you gaze up, past the pigeons, to that heroic figure on his column? Did he stare into your eyes with a look of surprised disapprobation? Did you detect a hint of phosphorus in the air?

But, by God (as his Grace was wont to say), though your facts may be a bit off from time to time, and though your prose may be a little stiff and repetitive (how many times have you reminded us that Napoleon "almost" won at Waterloo?) the sincerity of your zeal is an inspiration to us all. Had you been a gunner at Quatre Bras when the Emperor of the French and King of Italy cried, "Fire! They are English", you would have loaded your gun, rammed down the charge and fired it all by yourself!

In your pursuit of your forefathers' perfidy, you have left Russia, the subject of this thread, remember (I had almost forgotten), and the Napoleonic forum and propelled us across the ocean (either the Atlantic or Pacific, depending on your preference) to Buenos Aires in search of more Albionic perfidy!

I was delighted to see you quote the one source that I know of that puts the number of civilian deaths at 20,000. A mistake, surely; does that make the British ten times more perfidious? ;> Still a typo of this kind is an easy mistake to make. If I remember, didn't you accidentally kill off ten times the number of sailors lost on the Victory at Trafalgar by the same order of magnitude on another forum years ago?

Of course, I do not think for a moment that either instance was anything but a mistake, but I am reminded of a verse in that great post ACW song the Unreconstructed Rebel. Sadly it has been purged from some modern, PC versions, so here it is again:

Three hundred thousand Yankees lie dead in Southern dust.
We killed three hundred thousand before they conquered us.
They died of Southern fever and Southern shell and shot,
And I wish we'd a got ten million, instead of what we got.

I can imagine a grizzled old Imperial Guardsman, patiently waiting for Napoleon's return, expressing the same sentiments

You are certainly not alone in your moral condemnation of the raid. One Englishwoman of the time exclaimed "Those poor Danes! I am sure that they will never forgive us" and mine is the argument from expediency rather than morality. In war, happens.

I notice, though, that your sole target for moral condemnation is the British. Do you find the French blameless during the course of the war? Surely not, but you remain silent on the topic. Also, I note that you make no reply to my mention of Curtis Le May's fire bombing, with British approval of course, of Dresden.

I was old enough at the time to remember the delight that we all experienced at getting pay back for what Jerry did to England, but of course, it was not "pay back" at all, but a planned strategy of demoralization or "terror" if you will. As I have mentioned, it was an act of war, but it was civilians who were targeted and killed without ultimatum or warning. Would you call that an immoral act or a "satisfying massacre"? I would call it a successful strategy.

Well, I think that about covers the points that I wanted to make and my strawberry ice cream (ten times better than store bought!) is churned and needs to go into the freezer if we're going to eat it tonight.

Cheers,
Phil

Gazzola,

According to Munch-Peterson, there were 5,500 regular Danish troops in Copenhagen in August 1807.

Additionally, there were 2,300 militia, 4,000 Burgher militia plus volunteers (which included about 800 students) for a total of about 13,000 to defend the city.

which really doesn't answer my questions, does it? !! ;>

I was delighted to see you quote the one source that I know of that puts the number of civilian deaths at 20,000. A mistake, surely…

The numbers I quoted from Munch-Peterson were 2,000 dead and 20,000 homeless/refugees.

So, once again you have either egregriously erred, misquoted, or misrepresented what was posted and quoted.

I would suggest that you abandon your usual condescension, sarcasm, mocking manner, etc., in your postings and at least attempt to get your information correct. Or is it merely part of your attempt to evade the issues and just cause confusion?

The numbers I quoted from Munch-Peterson were 2,000 dead and 20,000 homeless/refugees.

So, once again you have either egregriously erred, misquoted, or misrepresented what was posted and quoted.

I would suggest that you abandon your usual condescension, sarcasm, mocking manner, etc., in your postings and at least attempt to get your information correct. Or is it merely part of your attempt to evade the issues and just cause confusion?

And you ignore the losses from the horses mouth that the deaths were under 200. The link I posted above tells it all!

Nevermind though, that that chubby little ** Nappy, spread terror all over Europe, Russia, North Africa and Caribbean, incessantly for 20 years.

Paul :)

My apology, Kevin. I misread your figure having seen it used elsewhere.

Are you as confident in calling the strike a "siege" after a Danish scholar called it a raid four times? But as I said, I think that the dispute over terminology is beside the point and neither suggestion sounds as useful as "preemptive strike", which our Danish historian also uses. Don't you agree?

But since this has been raised as a moral issue, and moral censure over the deliberate killing of civilians has not changed much over recent centuries, your objection to Nelson's's preemptive strike seems to be, surely, that it was not amoral but immoral.

So let's take baby steps. Surely the issue on your part is that Britain committed an immoral act and should theretofore be condemned. This is not an issue about the morality or otherwise of Napoleon's actions but simply about British morality. Do you believe, then, that Britain should be condemned for this apparently immoral act? This is not a difficult question. A simple "yes" or"no should suffice.

Do bear in mind though, that if your answer is in the affirmative, I shall ask for your opinion on the morality of similar acts committed by your country and mine, based on the assumption that morality is an absolute.

Let's hear from you, Kevin! I am sure that you have the moral fortitude to make a reply, even if it my redound to your discredit.

Cheers,
Phil

It's really too bad that all you seem to be able to do is post inaccurate information and then to bait in order to get into a senseless argument.

That is both pathetic and intellectually dishonest.

So, unless you have something to offer that supports the issues concerned, I see no point in continuing with you.

When you have something of historical substance to offer, please let me know.

The issue concerned, Kevin, is whether or not you believe that the British preemmptive strike on Copenhagen was an immoral act.

I suspect that you refusal to make a definite statement about what you have been implying, is that you know that I will then ask you to agree or deny that similar acts of "terror bombing",as at Dresden and Hiroshima were similarly immoral.

This is a public forum, my friend, and if you refuse to answer, whatever offensive excuse you make, everyone will know that you have backed down, why, I cannot tell.

Pity, I thought more highly of you than that.

Cheers,
Phil

Your 'question' is irrelevant, as is your flawed analogy with War II regarding the bombardment of Dresden.

The point and bottom line is Great Britain attacked a neutral nation and engaged in a terror bombing aimed at the civilian population of Copenhagen.

You and a few others are great at accusing Napoleon of various nefarious acts, but are quite coy when the British are guilty of what you continually accuse Napoleon of doing.

Whether or not it was 'immoral' has to be judged by the period, not today or events in War II. Not only are you illogical, but it seems to me that your positions are quite hypocritical.

And you continued attempts at baiting will not be answered.

Grow up.

Philin Yuma

The article you liked it first of three articles I linked. not very observant are you?

Yes, I think he mentions raid twice. But before that he describes how it is remembered in Danish history- 'the British Naval Robbery' and 'the Rape of the Navy'.

He also connects the verb 'to Copenhagen' to the attack on Pearl Harbour.

One of the raid words comes in the line 'British raid on the Baltic Sea and the ATTACK on Copenhagen.' so not used in the context you and dibble desire it to be.

He also mentions that the British INVADED Zealand north of Copenhagen.

He also describes the event as 'The robbery of the Danish-Norwegian Fleet in 1807' and concludes with the following-'The bombardment of Copenhagen and the following naval robbery….' Note he places the bombardment of the neutral city and innocent civilians before the seizing of the Danish ships. A short but very interesting article, which is why I linked it. Perhaps you should try reading the other two, longer articles I linked?

Philin Yuma

Really Philin, you should read the material you feel so confident in linking more carefully. I'm referring to the same article that both you and myself linked, which answers your immoral question-
'His Majesty the King, George III, who had tried to stop the campaign against Denmark, when hearing about the bombardment and the naval rape, characterized it as "a very immoral act! So immoral, that I will not ask who originated it!'

How about that eh? You posted the answer to your own question and did not even know about it. Careful reading is prescribed.

Napoleon once argued with an Englishman regarding the kidnapping, trial, and execution of d'Enghien, referencing Copenhagen:

'Did I do more than adopt the principle of your government, when it ordered the capture of the Danish fleet, which was thought to threaten mischief to your country?'

See Letters Written at St. Helena by W Warden, 148.

Gazola: Yes, of course it was the same link! That was tmy point! I also said, and still do, that calling it a raid or a siege, made no difference to the morality of the issue.

Of course it was immoral! My query was why you fixed on this one act by the British when war is full of such incidents. I invited you, but my invitation has still gone unanswered, to compare the morality of this act with Le May's fire bombing of the civilians at Dresden, surely a valid comparison, or the atomic bombs dropped on the civilian populations of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Would you like to answer that now, or do you prefer to remain silent, claiming the fifth?

And to be quite clear, it is still against international law to massacre civilian populations, even if you are at war with their country.

In the case of the American attacks, no warning was given and no evacuation possible. In the case of the Copenhagen attack, the Danes were first offered payment for their fleet, and when they refused were given time for civilians to evacuate and at least save their lives. The attack was also ended when the Danes surrendered their fleet. Hardly a "satisfying massacre".

There, now, does that make things clearer?

Cheers,
Phil

Oops, Kevin! :) :)

Didn't you recently argue that d'Enghien's execution was perfectly justified and legal? It looks as though Napoleon didn't read your post!!!

I don't feel any moral outrage at the attack on Copenhagen or the abduction and killing of d'Enghien, or the raids on civilians by the allies at the end of WWII, but I do sometimes have a problem with those of you who express outrage at British immorality while defending or choosing to ignore that of those whom you support. Play fair, chaps!

Merry cheers,
Phil

Philin Yuma

'claiming the fifth'. Hmm, it seems you are under the impression that I am an American? Another fact you have wrong. LOL

And you dare to say 'play fair' to another poster. What a joker you are.

But you are again trying to stick a modern day mindset on something that happened hundreds of years ago. In my opinion, that is a sign of a very poor method for anyone, especially so if you consider yourself a historian. So let's stick to Napoleonic matters shall we, after all, this is a NAPOLEONIC board!

And how quaint of you to describe how the good old peace loving Brits didn't want to harm the nasty neutral Danes, they just wanted their fleet. Give them their ships and then they wouldn't be harmed. So caring! And they even sent 25,000 troops, a warfleet, and 90 guns including siege mortars, and bombed the civilians, including using fire rockets, just to show how caring they really were. You will, of course, know about the rockets because they were described in the same article we both linked as 'a terror weapon against the citizens of Copenhagen'. Good old Brits eh, using terror to show how peace loving and caring they were. You'd think the Danes would have appreciated that.

But the city only surrendered when the besieging Brits had 'terrorized' the civilians for days.

So I suggest you pull the other one, Philin. If this war crime had been carried out by Napoleon you'd have been calling him all sorts and not making up feeble excuses. Still, your posts are making me laugh.

Didn't you recently argue that d'Enghien's execution was perfectly justified and legal? It looks as though Napoleon didn't read your post!!!

Read it again, or, better yet, read the source which is on Google Books.

Napoleon was replying to an accusation regarding d'Enghien, not admitting it was wrong. Seems to me he was responding to hypocracy, nothing more nothing less.

Your misinterpretation is noteworthy.

Well, I'm glad that we give each other a chuckle, Gazzola, I don't get much in the way of Napoleonic debate out of you.

And yes, I am well aware that you are my countryman, but the American expression "claiming the fifth" should be no more impenetrable than "flippin heck" to the cosmopolitan membership of this forum.

I think that you have misread by views on the 1807, attack on Copenhagen. I do hope it was a deliberate misreading; I would hate to think that you would really show such a lack of comprehension of what I was saying..

I would like you to expand a little more on what you see as my "sticking a modern day mindset on things that happened hundreds of years ago", but first you might enjoy reading this article, linked this morning on another forum.

link

And no, I am not a historian; my PhD is in English literature, though my dissertation was on an English Romantic poet ("A Prophetic reading of Blake's Virgil Woodcuts". Iconography was the in thing at the time!) so I was expected to be thoroughly familiar with the political history of the period, and a demonstrated fluency in French was a requirement for candidacy, but that is as far as my academic training in the subject goes.

Meantime, keep on laughing, mate; moi je ris dans ma barbe.

Cheers,
Phil

Yes, it's helpful to have given the Archive site for Warden's book, Kevin. I have a reprint copy of it and find that it is very hard to turn the pages on the website, but it did save me time copying out the passage in question. It is on pp.147-148:

"Why, indeed, should 1 suffer a man residing on the very confines of my kingdom, to commit a crime which, within " the distance of a mile, by the ordinary course of law, Justice herself would condemn to the scaffold. And now^ answer me; —Did I do more than adopt the principle of your government, when it ordered the capture of the Danish fleet, which was thought to threaten mischief to your country ? It had been urged to me again and again, as a sound political opinion, that the new dynasty could not be secure, while the " Bourbons remained.

I don't know of any example of Napoleon ever explicitly denying that he was primarily responsible for d'Enghien's death,m but this comes about as close to it as he would allow, and I shall let the members of this forum draw their own conclusions.

Certainly the question was clear, what was Napoleon's response to the charge that he had kidnapped a civilian man from, a neutral country, confined him and had him tried in secret and executed without the right of appeal.

I find Napoleon's answer interesting since, by comparing the action with that of the British who were known to have been responsible for the attack on Copenhagen, he was tacitly admitting that he was responsible for d'Erlinghen's death.

But of course, Kevin, he was also using the comparison as a straw man argument to deflect the charge by comparing his secret action against an individual, and murder was the word that was used in Europe and famously by Talleyrand, with a well publicized amphibious attack by the British on a neutral town. Its morality may be questionable but the outcome for the British was of immeasurably greater benefit to Britain than Napoleon's private revenge was to him .

I haven't the faintest idea of what "Your misinterpretation is noteworthy" really means, but my interpretation, I think, covers the facts in a little more depth than yours.

But again, thanks for the reference, and now that I have pulled out that interesting book, I shall reread it with pleasure.

Cheers,
Phil

Napoleon ordered the D'Enghien to be executed after he was seized March 21 1804, outside of France.
This stopped further royalist plots to assassinate Napoleon.

Page 46 Napoleon Mag#17 Kevin Kiley was a contributing Editor for this magazine series.

20 march 1804 the french snatch squad seized the Bourbon prince and returned him to France. This was against every rudimentary International law that existed at this time. D'Enghien was not a prisoner of war, not a civil prisoner, nor was he wanted for any crime and no extradition was demanded.

Captain Dautancourt interrogated the prisoner at the chateau of Vincennes at night on the 20 of March under the watchful eyes of Fouche's Deputy, Pierre Real. The interrogation and trail by a military commission provide very scarce proof for the justification of the kidnapping of Enghien. The six counts he was indicted on were bearing arms against France; offering his services to the English; harbouring British agents and giving them a means to get into France; heading an Emigre corps on the borders; trying to start a revolt around Strasbourg area; being the ringleader in a plot against Napoleon.

The court was lead by General Hulin, five Colonels and a Captain, it was a Kangaroo court.

D'Enghien denied any plot against Napoleon and stated he never even new pichegru but did not deny hostility to the current regime. He also requested to peak to N, but was denied. After the brief hearing he was condemned to death and it must be stressed that the tribunal had no juridical credentials and was an ad hoc body which was bound by no rules.

D'Enghien was convicted under Article 2 of the Law of 6 October 1791 which states, in part, that 'Any conspiracy and plot aimed at disturbing the State by civil war, and arming the citizens against one another, or against lawful authority, will be punished by death.'

And though d'Enghien was living in Germany, he was a French citizen and subject to French law.

D'Enghien convicted himself by what he said after being taken and at the trial.

D'Enghien told his captors that 'he had sworn implacable hatred against Bonaparte as well as against the French; he would take every occasion to make war on them.'

D'Enghien told the court-martial that he was being paid 4,200 Guineas a year by the English government, and this in a time of war with England. That by any reasonable definition is treason. D'Enghien told the court that he took the money 'in order to combat not France but a government to which his birth had made him hostile.

D'Enghien was taken on the night of 14/15 March; he was executed on 21 March. Napoleon was asked to give him leniency, but he refused. That was the price the Bourbons paid for sponsoring the assassination attempts on Napoleon and murdering French citizens during those attempts.

For a source on this episode, see Les derniers annees du duc d'Enghien by A. Boulay de la Meurthe, the same author who successfully contradicted Bourrienne's alleged memoirs.

Page 46 Napoleon Mag#17 Kevin Kiley was a contributing Editor for this magazine series.

And…?

I'm curious; what exactly is a "Napoleon-Worshipper"? I've seen this and similar labels bandied about, but never a definition.

Hmmmm!!!

The link is a very interesting and detailed account of the D'Enghien affair. It records that he admitted to being a traitor in the pay of Britain.

And the French law of 1793: 25 Brumaire, an III, tit 5, Sect 1, Art 7, states that emigres who bear arms against France can be seized from countries outsides of France.

link

In terms of comparing to Britain's war crime against Copenhagen, D'Enghien admitted being a traitor and working against France, whereas the Danes had no crime to admit to.

I was interested in your citation of "1793: 25 Brumaire, an III, tit 5, Sect 1, Art 7" Gazzola, I think that Kevin recently cited it elsewhere.

He also cited the online version of William Warden's "Letters Written of Board His Majesty's Ship the Northumberland…". I was unable to read much of that online version for technical reasons, but have looked it up since on my hard copy, and Kevin is undoubtedly right both in the passage that he cited, p.148 and in the conversation in the preceding pages in which Napoleon says, "My Minister [Talleyrand, as we know, with support from Fouche] vehemently urged the seizure of the Duke though in a neutral territory".

I wondered, though, why he should need to justify his action, with the addendum about the abduction taking place in "neutral territory," if the action was legally justified by the clause that you both cite. Did this mean that French and International law were in conflict?

You both give a precise and detailed citation of the law without a reference, so I assume that you have both accessed the appropriate law manual, which I cannot find after a somewhat half-hearted search, but I did come up with the following:
link

On p.10, the author cites the same law as the one that you give, but adds that it also states that a qualified person can only be arrested "either in France or in any hostile or conquered country".

Now that puts an altogether different complexion on the case, since d'Enghien was abducted from the neighboring, neutral Electorate of Baden. The universal outcry in Europe (and I think that you will agree that there was a universal outcry) was that the abduction transgressed the international laws o neutrality, as stated by the King of Prussia at the time, but this extension of the law that you have cited, if accurate, made it specifically an illegal act within France itself.

I know something of H. Colburn, from my student days. He was no historian and a passionate defender of the monarchy against Napoleon, but this book which he published in London and which contains a translation of the Duke's memoirs, was written in 1823, so access to the appropriate laws should have been relatively easy.

Perhaps, then, you can clear up the question of whether his claim about the law is true or false by referring us to the original source, or if it is not available on line, giving the full text in French or English.

Thanks in advance,

Cheers,
Phil

Perhaps you can look up the information in the source I listed by de la Meurthe?

By the way, which 'law manual' would you recommend?

Philin Yuma

Yes, I had read the link you gave. But I dismissed, since it was not only extremely biased in that it disagreed with everything negative said about the D'Enghien. My main reason for dismissing it however, was the comical statement on page 15, where the book claims he was not in the pay of England, but 'received an allowance for his maintenance from that power.' How gracious and caring of the Brits eh. If you believe that you believe anything.

I suggest you read Tom Holmberg's account again and take point on where D'Enghien admitted to being a traitor and in the pay of Britain. If you want to challenge this account, I suggest you take it up with Tom Holmberg. I'm sure he will point you in the right direction.