"“To Copenhagen a Fleet” The British Pre-emptive Seizure..." Topic

… of the Danish-Norwegian Navy, 1807.

"On 21 October 1807 the citizens of Copenhagen both from the harbour and from the shore along the coast of the Sound watched the departure of a huge fleet of over 150 ships going northward. The citizens gathered were very quiet and shocked. The scenario they observed was a British fleet leaving the capital of the Danish-Norwegian Twin-Monarchy, taking with them as spoils of war the whole Danish-Norwegian Sailing Navy together with all merchant ships which were found in the harbour. That wasn't all. The ships were loaded with all kinds of goods and equipment from the Arsenal and the stores of the Naval Base of Copenhagen. We are talking about the British seizure of the Danish fleet, in the Danish history known as "the British Naval Robbery" or "the Rape of the Navy." The event is one of the most comprehensive seizures in history and at the same time one of the most striking examples of pre-emptive or preventive warfare.

You will see the verb "to copenhagen " used when talk is about preventive or pre-emptive attack in warfare. For instance, you may use the verb in connection with the British attack on the French Navy in 1940 and the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. To the Germans in the days of Kaiser Wilhelm II, during the efforts to raise and arm a navy in the 1900s, the word "Kopenhagen" meant more than the Danish capital. For the Germans, the mentioned word represented not only a past event but also a present fear, the fear that some day, perhaps on a day as in 1807 off Copenhagen, a British fleet would suddenly appear off Wilhelmshafen or Kiel and without warning attack and carry
off the German warships before the Kaiser's fleet had reached a considerable size. For the Germans, the British pre-emptive attack on the Danish Navy in 1807 and the bombardment of Copenhagen had for a moment uncovered the true and grim features of British sea power. What happened in 1807 could happen again, and seems to be a real fear of the Germans in the formative period of their naval power. The historian Jonathan Steinberg who had dealt with these matters had described the phenomenon as "the Copenhagen Complex."1 He underlines that the Copenhagen Complex was one of the main reasons why the Germans and Admiral Tirpitz formulated the so called "risk theory." The well-known naval historian A.J.Marder cited Sir Jack Fisher for saying about 1904 that it was really a good thing "to copenhagen the growing German fleet before it became too strong…"

PDF Free to read here…
PDF link

Hope you enjoy!

Amicalement
Armand

The British attack on Copenhagen and firing on the city and helpless civilians represents the nadir of British foreign policy during the Napoleonic Wars to me. Right down there with Mers el-Kebir in 1940.

To some extent, the British were tricked into it by Napoleon's intelligence services spreading dis-information about how close he was to securing the Danish navy for his own purposes. That said, there was some evidence that the British government did not intend to honour their negotiated position with the Danes and were going to maintain a semi-permanent (ie the duration of the war) base on Zealand.

That said, far too much is made of the bombardment, the results of which had everything to do with mis-placed faith in a weapon that was far from being perfected, and nothing at all – certainly from the lack of paper evidence – to do with "firing on helpless civilians". The British bombarded a fortified city in the same way that such things had always been done.

Given that both incidents took place in the context of a very real fear of invasion – which would have been greatly facilitated by enemy possession of the two fleets involved -I would suggest we cut our forefathers some slack and not second-guess them from the comfortable distance of 200 years and 75 years respectively. There is no evidence that either decision was taken with a light heart.

The British were more than capable of a terror bombardment of Copenhagen and I would strongly recommend Munch-Peterson's book on the campaign and siege of Copenhagen in 1807, which was an unprovoked attack upon a neutral nation.

Here is some material that supports the idea that the British investment, siege, and bombardment of Copenhagen was aimed exactly at the Danish population of the city.

Further, as the British engineer arm was not proficient at sieges, which would definitely be demonstrated in Portugal and Spain between 1808-1814, the commanders of the operation deemed it better to subject the citizens of Copenhagen to a destructive bombardment using siege long guns, mortars, howitzers, and rockets (and the rocket was not the primary weapon employed, only 300 of them being fired into Copenhagen, with over 5,000 conventional rounds from tube artillery being fired).

'Cathcart's siege of Copenhagen is best remembered for the indiscriminate bombardment of civilian targets within the city…'-Munch-Peterson, 193.

'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.'-Lietuenant Colonel George Murray, deputy quartermaster-general of the Copenhagen expedition, cited by Munch-Peterson, 195.

Murray's plan was adopted by General Cathcart, the commander of the land componest of the expedition. See Munch-Peterson, 195-196: 'Cathcart acted on Murray's plan-and that included the idea of a terror bombardment of the city.'-Munch-Peterson, 196.

…as early as 22 August, in his first report to Castlereagh after landing on Zealand, he had already accepted Murray's argument that an indiscriminate bombardment of the city might be the most effective way forward.'-Munch-Peterson, 197.

If the British demands for the surrender of the Danish fleet were refused, '…the city, when taken, must share the fate of conquered places.' Cathcart and Gambier [the British army and navy commanders of the combined expedition, respectively] to Peymann, the Danish commander on 1 September 1807 as cited in Munch-Peterson, 199.

When the bombardment opened at 1930 2 September 1807 'The British concentrated their fire on the northern part of Copenhagen, using the spires or towers of several prominent churches or public buildings as their targets. Fires broke out in thirty-eight places…'-Munch-Peterson, 199.

'[The bombardment which began at 1900 on 4 September 1807] was heavy and unrelenting until around noon on 5 September, and this time the defenders proved unable to contain its effects. Much of the fire corps' equipment was damaged by now and many of its men were dead or injured. fire caught hold in several places and raged out of control…The destruction reached it most dramatic point when the venerable Frue Kirke (the Church of Our Lady), which had been a target throughout the two preceding nights, was finally brought down. Captain Bowles, watching from his warship out to sea, described the bombardment as 'the most tremendous sight that can well be conceived.' and noted that the third night 'surpassed all the rest, particularly when the largest church caught fire, and the spire (which was a remarkably beautiful one) fell in.'

'When the British artillery fell silent at noon on 5 September, the inhabitants of Copenhagen were stunned and terrified, and the city bore witness, as Cathcart and Gambier had warned in the proclamation they issued when British troops landed on Zealand, to 'the horrors of a besieged and bombarded capital'. One-fifth of Copenhagen's population-20,000 people-had fled their homes to
Christianshavan or Amager and two thousand of them (2 percent of the total population) had been killed. Many of the British bombs and shells had penetrated right to the cellars of houses, the natural place of refuge, and this had increased the numbers of fatalities. It took several more days to bring the fires under control, and the flames of the ruined Frue Kirke were not entirely extinguished until the end of September. About one-twelfth of central Copenhaged was burnt to the ground and buildings over a much larger area of the city had sustained lesser or greater degress of damage.'-Munch-Peterson, 200.

The British had kept some ordnance in reserve, but employed forty mortars of various size and caliber, ten howitzers of different size and caliber as well as thirty 24-pounder siege guns. The 24-pounders were engaged the Danish artillery defending the city and would have been used to create a breach for the infantry assault if the latter had been deemed necessary. The mortars and howitzers were employed on firing within the city along with Congreve rocket fire. 6,000 artillery rounds were fired into the city, including 300 rockets.

I found the following quotation from a British engineer officer who made two interesting remarks about the British attack on Copenhagen in 1807. First, he definitely states that it was a siege, and second, that he considered an 'incendiary bombardment' and that it was a 'barbarous measure.'

'I should have suggested several improvements that appeared to me from my own experience and reflection to be essential…I considered the British Army…to be incapable of succeeding in a siege…without either having recourse to the barbarous measure of incendiary bombardment, or without an enormous sacrifice of the lives…in sanguinary assaults…which might be rendered unnecessary by a more efficient organization of the Royal Engineer department, and especially by forming a well-instructed and well-disciplined body of engineer soldiers…The better instruction of the junior officers of the Royal Engineers appeared no less essential, for at that time they were not even taught the theory of the attack of fortresses…and the examination for commissions were merely a matter of form, and no genuine test for proficiency. As for practical instruction, they had none, for they were sent on service without ever having seen a fascine or gabion, without the smallest knowledge of the military passage of rivers, of military mining, or any other operation of a siege, excepting what they may pick up from French writers, of which a striking proof occurred in Sir John Moore's retreat, when all attempts to blow up stone bridges…made by officers of the Corps, myself amongst others, failed…with the exception of only one, which Lieutenant Davy, a very promising young officer, succeeded in completely destroying, but at the expense of his own life, which he lost from not understanding the very simple precautions necessary to insure the safety of the person who fires the train of the mine. For my part, I should not have even known how to make a battery in the attack on Copenhagen, the first siege in which I was employed, but from the information I derived from a French book on the subject.'-Charles William Pasley RE, 1811.

Great thread Kevin!.

Amicalement
Armand

@ Brechtel,

Thank you for the quotes; however, what the British did was (a) consistent with the rules of war at the time, and (b) communicated in advance to the Danes, allowing them time to evacuate civilians. If the bombardment was aimed at causing death to civilians, why warn the Danes in advance and give them what – 2-3 days? – to get out? It was the prospect of damage to the city, not the deaths of civilians, that was designed to put pressure on the mentally unstable Danish monarch, surely?

Nothing the British did was inconsistent with siege warfare up to that period in time, however brutal some may have considered it. I was under the impression that 10-12,000 rockets were used, not the 300 you cite. That said, your points about the inferiority of the British engineer corps of this era are well made, and almost certainly would have played a part in deciding the tactics to be used.

You are wrong about the number of deaths; I have seen figures citing 2-300, and some less than 200, not 2,000. Rory Muir's critique of Much-Petersen's book suggests the figure is wrong based on overall casualties. He also cites French siege tactics of the previous century that were comparable.

link

I also find it interesting that someone who consistently rails against retrospectively applying modern terminology/standards of morality to men or acts from the past (a view that I fully support), should persist in using the term "terror bombing/bombardment" for this event.

There is no dispute that this was an attack on a neutral nation, but hardly unprovoked (albeit the provocation came from a third party). Nobody at the time thought the Danes had the ability to maintain their neutrality, or protect their fleet, against the forces of France. Had the British not acted, Napoleon could easily have obtained the Danish fleet; this was the genuine belief of the British government and military commanders of the day. And bear in mind he also had the Spanish and Russian fleets in his pocket at this time – the crippling of Britain's economy was a distinct probability, an invasion a distinct possibility.

Whether Napoleon intended to violate Danish neutrality by seizing their ships himself, or not, is moot: he certainly encouraged the British intelligence services to think so, aware that they might try to pre-empt him (as they almost had to do with the Portuguese fleet). Possibly he saw this as a simpler/quicker/cheaper/cleverer way of driving the Danes (and their valuable ships) into his camp than by strong-arming them himself. Munch-Petersen himself:

link

As a military man, what would you have wanted the US to do if faced with a similar situation – "play by the rules" or prevent an enemy from seizing neutral assets that could assist them in invading/seriously damaging your country? How do you feel this compares with the attack on the Vichy French fleet in WW2 – un-necessary arrogance, or essential precaution?

Supercilious Maximus

I am surprised you have posted about this topic, since there have been two heated debates on this British war crime, in this very board. Indeed, you made a post in one of them – A Prelude to the British Bombardment of Copenhagen topic. Started 18th Sept

This topic is also included in the other, more detailed thread – The Russian Campaign 1812 topic, started on 5th August. The 1812 topic veered off, as they often do, into the event at Copenhagen and offered quite a bit of evidence and links.

Indeed, two very interesting points were raised. Firstly, the bombardment of the civilian targets, rather than Military ones, was a deliberate and planned attempt intended to scare the civilians into persuading the Danish military into surrendering, who, despite being surrounded on land and sea, up to that point, had no intention of doing so. And it was only on the third day of bombardment by a mass of guns and rockets, with hundreds of civilians killed and a considerable amount of civilian property destroyed, did they do so. So to use the term terror bombardment is correct, in this case. That was the British intention, to create terror and force the Danes to surrender, which worked. The Duke, or Arthur Wellesley as he was then, was against the bombardment.

The other aspect concerned letters by British politicians in which it is disclosed they were considering permanently occupying Denmark.

British apologists tend to fob it off as a raid but had Napoleon done the same thing, he would have been damned and the action would have certainly been considered a war crime.

I suggest you read through the posts attached to these two threads, including reading the various links offered. They make for some very interesting reading. Indeed, before I started researching the event, I always considered it as a daring and successful raid, but I soon came to realise it was far more than that.

As sieges and terror bombings go, there can be no doubt that the Brits blundered badly. I don't usually quote dictionaries for the meanings of simple words but for lovers of Merriam Webster, here is theirs: "a military blockade of a city or fortified place to compel it to surrender".

Well it didn't surrender and the Brits didn't even try to gain an entrance. One down for them.

I must admit, though, that when it came to terror, they did remarkably well if we are to believe the claim that they killed 2,000 citizens. In February of 1945, Anglo- American bombers dropped 3,900 tons of H-E bombs on Dresden over a similar period of time to that of the Copenhagen bombardment, causing a firestorm that only killed 22-27,000 people, and that despite the fact that no one was given warning of the impending raid and a chance to evacuate the city, surely a counter productive move on the part of the Copenhagen terror bombers.

And they made at least one other obvious mistake if their plan was to terrorize the Danes into giving up their ships. Of course the Danes could not win against the British on whom they had declared war, but they could not easily give up their ships, the historical pride of the Danish nation. It is curious, therefore , that the British gave them plenty of time to scuttle their ships as they lay in harbor, but the Danes made no attempt to do so.

So why were the civilians not evacuated in time to avoid the bombardment, and why did General Peymann not order Bille to scuttle the ships? He was 70 at the time of the British attack and had never commanded troops in action, hardly the best choice for such a pivotal role.

But lest it be thought that this is another perfidious British attempt to shift the blame, it was cast by the Crown Prince himself, who particularly demanded why the ships had not been scuttled, and unsatisfied with Peymann's defense, ordered his execution, later rescinded.

And when it was all over, what did the Brits do? Instead of finishing a good start on Copenhagen, they just sailed off with Demark's pathetic fleet, many ships of which, unsurprisingly, never reached England.

It took the French to make the grand gesture in such a situation. Having failed to take the unfortified town of Saragosa after a two month siege in 1810, the French, learning of the surrender of Dupont to the Spanish at Baylon, decided that it was time to move on. Palafox, no doubt looking for a peaceful withdrawal, suspended all of his defensive operations, but General Vernier, decided, instead of blowing up the ordnance that he could not carry when he blew his strong points, to use it up in a massive bombardment on a city that he knew that he could not overwhelm. Quel eclat! Quel honneur! Quel vous la mettre au cul!

Cheers,
Phil

Cheers,
Phil

As sieges and terror bombings go, there can be no doubt that the Brits blundered badly. I don't usually quote dictionaries for the meanings of simple words but for lovers of Merriam Webster, here is theirs: "a military blockade of a city or fortified place to compel it to surrender".

Well it didn't surrender and the Brits didn't even try to gain an entrance. One down for them.

Really.

Copenhagen did surrender to the British because of the bombardment and the British certainly gained entrance to the city. If they didn't, then how did the British take possession of the Danish fleet?

You are not making much sense here, or, do you have proof to back up your idea?

From the article referenced in the OP:

'On a council of the military authorities of Copenhagen held on 6 September it was decided to surrender the city and deliver the fleet as a deposit to the British.'

and

'The British troops did not occupy the city but only the Citadel and the Holmen, the naval base of Copenhagen.'

So it does appear that Copenhagen was surrendered after an investment, siege, and bombardment by the British and the city was entered by the British and the citadel and naval base were occupied by the British.

"Does appear" Brechtel? Where do you have evidence of that? Not in the Munch Petersen book that you are so fond of quoting, which talks of a cease fire (p.212), but not an occupation. What was there to occupy? The combatants would have met under a flag of truce, and unlike your imaginary Frenchman who fired at and "unfortunately missed" Bernadotte under a flag of truce -- do you really condone the murder of a man whom you consider a "traitor"? -- they would have honored the truce, just as they did with Nelson six years earlier.

"Surrendering the city" merely meant that Copenhagen stopped opposing the British in their plan. The British would have gained nothing, given their tight schedule to avoid a freeze over, by occupying the city.

But what if they had surrendered the city and the Brits had occupied it? How does that affect my argument, that poor old (well, not so old by my standards) Peymann screwed up by not evacuating the civilian population and not scuttling the fleet, although he was given ample opportunity to do so?

You seem more concerned with trivial details than with the major facts, that Peymann failed to evacuate his own people and to scuttle the fleet, that undermine your usual attempt to portray the British as villains.

Do you deny that Peymann failed on both accounts?

Cheers,
Phil

You made the statement that

Well it didn't surrender and the Brits didn't even try to gain an entrance. One down for them.

And that statement is wrong. And you have been shown to be wrong merely by reading the article referenced in the OP. That is the point of the reply you were given and the other statements that you are making appear mainly to be either obfuscation, changing the subject, or a strawman argument.

Copenhagen was surrendered and the British definitely entered the city. So, if you can provide evidence that those two events did not happen then please provide it. Since you cannot, then the discussion is over.

By the way, what has Bernadotte to do with the discussion?

And why did you add Peymann to the discussion?

the article is a downer, just mixing 20th century policy and attitudes with early 19th century ones.

some of the contributions here are just into politics but not history.

It is also worthwhile to note the outcry of those who find thousands of excuses of the slaughtering on Bonapartes order of POWs at Jaffa – on the other hand they are indignated about the poor Brits at Copenhagen – now what is the right word for this?

von Winterfeldt

I guess you are not aware that at Jaffa the prisoners were enemies captured after a fierce fight to take the city, which took place after the beheading of two French officers sent to the enemy with surrender terms, while at Copenhagen the British invaded a neutral country who were not at war with them and demanded they give up their navy, and later, after deliberately bombarding the civilians, took all the ships, not just the warships, and all the stores, worth a considerable amount.

Ah, Kevin, when you marshal your strawman army, it is usually a sign that you are making a retrograde advance.

The OP that you cite, by Bjerg, whom we have discussed before, says much the same as Munch Peterson ( p.-208ff ) , that the rotunda and arsenal were occupied, obviously, but that the city as a whole was not and that the British presence was limited to six weeks. Hardly an impressive or usual outcome for a Napoleonic siege, don't you agree?

I'm not sure why you ask about Peymann, unless it was to avoid answering my question. Let me reiterate. The civilian deaths would not have occurred if Peymann, as Commander of Copenhagen, had not failed to evacuate the civilian population in the two days given him. It is not that he did not have enough time, since there is no record of his asking for an extension of the deadline.

Worse, in the eyes of Frederick, he failed to scuttle the Danish fleet, even though, as Munch Peterson points out, holes had been drilled in the ships but left plugged. This is why, and surely you read this, Peymann was condemned to death.

With the fleet sunk and in no danger of being used by the French, the need for an attack on Copenhagen would have been obviated.

My reference to Bernadotte was, of course, to show the difference between how the Danes respected a flag of truce apparently in contrast with you personal view that the murder of an emissary under such a flag is OK. You will find the timeworn joke in your most recent book ( pp.193-4 ) under the odd heading, The Second Siege of San Sebastian, since the "incident" reportedly occurred in "a French Fortress in Germany, late 1813". I only mentioned it in passing, thinking that you would be familiar with it.

The issue here is simple, and it is unfortunate that an interesting event with many important political implications involving Denmark, Sweden, Britain and Russia, with the shadow of Napoleon in the background, should have degenerated into so much persiflage over whether or not Denmark was besieged or "terror bombarded". Certainly the attack does not very closely follow your own description of a siege, ( op. cit. p.88ff ) but I do not see why the name should have any place in a discussion of whether the British perpetuated a moral crime by launching the bombardment, and that, surely, was your initial claim.

I argue that while certainly a "dark deed", it was no worse than many other acts of the period, and Jaffa always comes to mind though it is not a point of discussion here, and neither is the attack on a neutral country, such as Portugal.

Further, I suggest that Peymann must take a major responsibility for his failure to organize an adequate evacuation of civilians, and for the fear and wishful-thinking that persuaded the Danish negotiating council under his direction, to disobey Frederick's orders and sink the fleet.

Finally, let me add that in the four major accounts of the affair that I have read, by Ryan, Bjerg, Munch Petersen, and Raymond ( link ) , I have discovered none of the moral censure that you see fit to exercise. Do you have any thoughts on why this is so?

Cheers,
Phil

Phil

You are aware, are you not, that the British king called it a 'very immoral affair'?

And if the British were not intending to harm civilians, there would be no need for them to be evacuated. The Danes probably believed the British would be aiming their fire on the walls and military targets, not the civilians ones. How wrong they were, eh?

The British did so to speed the siege up, not for any other reason. And to do that they had to terrorize the civilians into forcing their military to surrender, which they did eventually.

To not think it was a terror attack is an attempt to whitewash the event.

I am indeed aware, John, of His Majesty King George III by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland King, Defender of the Faith's utterance, but I don't particularly regard him, or his successors, as the lodestone of my moral compass. He also said, "a traitor is anyone who disagrees with me", and more importantly, in the book that you are so fond of (Defying Napoleon, p. 232) he is quoted as telling Tzar Alexander that "His Majesty feels himself under no obligation to offer any atonement or apology for the expedition against Copenhagen."

"And if the British were not intending to harm civilians, there would be no need for them to be evacuated."

It was the British who gave Peymann two days to evacuate the city to AVOID civilian casualties. If you do not understand this, I am not sure what else I can tell you.

"The Danes probably believed the British would be aiming their fire on the walls and military targets, not the civilians ones."

Do you have a jot of evidence to back this odd surmise? Their plan, substantiated by the facts, was to destroy the town until the Danes gave up their ships. In a typical siege, howitzers attacked the fortified city, killing the civilians and soldiers alike, while siege canon and the engineers attempted to make a breach in the walls in preparation for an infantry assault..

As you know, this was not the case here. The Brits could have scaled the crumbling walls of Copenhagen when they were deserted by the Danish defenders on the third day, without any danger to themselves, but did not, as they had no intention of permanently occupying the city, again, the usual practice after a successful siege.

It is not my practice to "lay blame" for acts committed nearly 200 years ago, though I do tend to go after lame excuses for what the leaders of the time were accused of committing. Canning's defense that he had acted against Denmark on the basis of "secret" information from Tilsit seems to be a case in point, but this is not an issue that you have addressed.

Apparently you are always as ready to blame the British as you are to forgive Napoleon. It is the way with true believers.

Cheers,
Phil

Phil

'It is the way with true believers' LOL. You really are funny.

I am not always ready to blame the British at all. It is more like you are far too quick to make up excuses for when they commit a war crime, such as the one at Copenhagen. And equally quick to attack Napoleon for anything you can.

Anyway, back to Copenhagen. You actually admit the crime by stating 'their plan was to destroy the town until the Danes gave up their ships'. That is an out and out act of terror. It is beyond belief that you can't understand that, or perhaps, don't want to?

And In sieges you don't intentionally aim to destroy the town or the civilian areas. The aim, if the defenders refused to surrender, is to weaken or destroy the defences and/or breach the walls, followed by infantry storming the breached areas to enter the town. I am sure you have heard of term 'forlorn hope' etc. I would suggest you read up on the sieges and capture of Badajoz and Ciudad Rodrigo, since you seem lacking in knowledge of siege matters.

The so called 'secret' information is not supportive for the excuse to attack Copenhagen. It was a fear based on British paranoia, along with the incorrect information that the Danish ships were ready to sail, which of course, they weren't. But why let the truth get in the way, eh?

And you really should stop thinking you know how people think. You don't. Far from it. If I felt Napoleon did something wrong, I would not say it was okay because he did it. I would look at the facts and try to find out the reasoning behind whatever happened at the time. A shame you can't do the same when it comes to the British committing a war crime. They are human, you know, just like Napoleon and the French.

Well that didn't advance the discussion much, did it, beyond your claim that "committing a war crime" is "human"!

Are you claiming that Peymann was blameless in his failure to evacuate the population of Copenhagen when given time to do so. A simple yes or no will suffice, though I should be interested to hear any amplification of your answer.

Do you claim that Peymann did not deliberately disobey orders in failing to scuttle the Danish fleet, which would have eliminated the need for a bombardment? A simple yes or no will suffice, though I should be interested to hear any amplification of your answer, and without such answers, I do not see how we can continue.

It may not be tenable to link moral turpitude to crime. Remember that the Nuremberg trials did not list the bombing of civilian centers as a terror device among German crimes, because, however morally reprehensible, because they were also carried out by the Allies, a fact that you and our Kevin steadfastly ignore. Kevin has said that the bombing of Dresden (we never got round to Tokyo or Hiroshima and Nagasaki) is not in the same class because the allies were at war with Germany, but Denmark had declared war on England before the bombardment started.

I look forward to your reply.

Cheers,
Phil

Phil

I'm not claiming anything. It is quite foolish of you to do so. As for a yes not reply to your questions – when did you ever do that? Perhaps you will now?

But you seem quite happily to distract the blame for a British war crime by fobbing off the deaths of civilians as the fault of the Danes. The Danes did not aim their guns at the civilians, the British did. The British could have aimed at the defences and military targets, the usual target in a siege, but they didn't. Perhaps, to use your own terms, you could tell me if they were right to do so?
A simple yes or no will suffice, and without such answers, I do no see how we can continue.

In terms of who declared war first. I suggest you read up the facts again. The Danes did not declare war until 16th August. This was made after two events. Firstly, the arrival of a massive WAR fleet, along with a massive LAND ARMY with field artillery and a whole mass of siege guns and mortars. Perhaps you don't think that should be considered as an act of war? Again, a simple yes or no will suffice.

Secondly, and more importantly, on the 13th August (you will note that is three days before the Danes declared war) the British ordered their warships to chase and capture the Danish ship the Frederiksvaern, which was doing nothing more than trying to sail away. One of the British ships, (the Comus?) caught up with and attacked it on the 15th (again, before war had been declared) and captured it after causing the Danish ship damage and killing some of her crew (that is, the crew of a neutral ship at the time).

In your infinite wisdom, do you not agree that the British unprovoked attack against and capture of a Danish ship could be considered as an out and out act of war and possibly another war crime? A simple yes or no answer will suffice, otherwise I just can't see the point of discussing anything further with you.

As for your last piece, just what would you call sending a massive war fleet, army and siege guns to a neutral country and surrounding one of its cities? I don't think the Danes thought the British wanted to play a wargame, do you? I also think the sending of an ultimatum of hand over your ships or else cannot be considering as anything other than an act of war? Do you? Again, yes or no answers will suffice.

Ah John!
It was a little cheeky of you to cop out on answering my questions and then ask your own, but since I have the strength of my own convictions, I shall be happy to answer yours and end this discussion, if you don't have what it takes to comer up with an honest answer to mine.

The British raid on Copenhagen was certainly an armed threat of a war that the Danes had little hope of winning.But two nations are not at war until one or both declare it. You will remember that Napoleon did the same with neutral ports like Hamburg, who wisely capitulated before N's overwhelming force, though their bank was looted by the French as a consequence. He did the same to Portugal in the year before the Copenhagen affair, so Britain was hardly setting a precedent. In 1812, N invade Russia without declaring war, so far as I can determine, so the British action was hardly something new in the period. So no, the ultimatum was most certainly not an act of war.

Harking back to the "siege", you suggest that I should read about the Peninsular sieges. Not surprisingly, I have, most recently in our Kevin's second artillery book, which from an earlier post, I believe that you have purchased. To be sure, he manages to mention "rape, pillage and murder" by the Brits on several occasions, but surely you understand the difference between these sieges and that of Copenhagen where the defenders abandoned the walls and the Brits could have simply scaled them but did not?

Ah yes, I remember the LAND ARMY from WWII, those gallant women who helped the war effort by manning (womanning) the farms while the menfolk were away, but I am surprised that you are old enough to remember them, and even more surprised that you would mention them here, unless you are trying to distinguish them from the SEA ARMY which was probably not very strong.

"Secondly, and more importantly, on the 13th August (you will note that is three days before the Danes declared war) the British ordered their warships to chase and capture the Danish ship the Frederiksvaern".

I would suggest that you read Munch Peterson's account of this battled in which the outgunned Comus (just one British warship) still managed to capture the Danish watch-ship, since he explains that the Frederiksvaen's captain, like Peymann, disobeyed his King's orders and, instead of firing the boat or heading for Copenhagen, he made a futile run for Norway (Defying Napoleon pp.171-2). Another case of a stupid Dane bringing the righteous wrath of Britain on his head.

You appear to think that this was a singular act directly connected with the Copenhagen raid. It was not. I have referred you to Raymond's Royal Navy in the Baltic from 1807-1812 link It will give you a broader understanding of the Baltic theatre than you appear to have and is worth reading through, but first look at p.52.

No. An ultimatum is not an act of war, since the recipient, fairly or not, has the option of accepting it and obviating the need for war.

Finally, you call the British attack "possibly a war crime". Isn't that a step down from your earlier assertion that it most certainly was?

And the answer here, again, is absolutely clear. No, it was not a war crime, any more than the American bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were, or the slaughter of the troops at Jaffa. Whether an act is a war crime or not is decided by a tribunal on war crimes, usually called by the victors or an international body. None of the immoral acts just cited was ever examined to determine whether or not it was a war crime, so no, it was not one, whatever your opinion which is so anxious to excuse Napoleon for Jaffa and a host of other incidents, may persuade you to the contrary. At least Copenhagen was given a choice; Hamburg and Portugal were not.

We often hear from "pro-life" advocates that abortion is "murder", but of course it is not, however much it my outrage them, because it is not defined as murder in British or American law. The same reasoning applies here.

There is no doubt that you are an enthusiastic supporter of Napoleon and a detractor of the British during the period of N's rise to power and his second defeat and second surrender. As such, I am happy to debate with you, but I would appreciate your hewing a little closer to the facts. I do not believe that you try to distort them,m rather you appear to misunderstand them as is clear from your most recent post

So here are your "yes" "no" answers. Are you sure that you are unable to return the compliment?

Cheers,
Phil

Ah John!
It was a little cheeky of you to cop out on answering my questions and then ask your own, but since I have the strength of my own convictions, I shall be happy to answer yours and end this discussion, if you don't have what it takes to comer up with an honest answer to mine.

The British raid on Copenhagen was certainly an armed threat of a war that the Danes had little hope of winning.But two nations are not at war until one or both declare it. You will remember that Napoleon did the same with neutral ports like Hamburg, who wisely capitulated before N's overwhelming force, though their bank was looted by the French as a consequence. He did the same to Portugal in the year before the Copenhagen affair, so Britain was hardly setting a precedent. In 1812, N invade Russia without declaring war, so far as I can determine, so the British action was hardly something new in the period. So no, the ultimatum was most certainly not an act of war.

Harking back to the "siege", you suggest that I should read about the Peninsular sieges. Not surprisingly, I have, most recently in our Kevin's second artillery book, which from an earlier post, I believe that you have purchased. To be sure, he manages to mention "rape, pillage and murder" by the Brits on several occasions, but surely you understand the difference between these sieges and that of Copenhagen where the defenders abandoned the walls and the Brits could have simply scaled them but did not?

Ah yes, I remember the LAND ARMY from WWII, those gallant women who helped the war effort by manning (womanning) the farms while the menfolk were away, but I am surprised that you are old enough to remember them, and even more surprised that you would mention them here, unless you are trying to distinguish them from the SEA ARMY which was probably not very strong.

"Secondly, and more importantly, on the 13th August (you will note that is three days before the Danes declared war) the British ordered their warships to chase and capture the Danish ship the Frederiksvaern".

I would suggest that you read Munch Peterson's account of this battled in which the outgunned Comus (just one British warship) still managed to capture the Danish watch-ship, since he explains that the Frederiksvaen's captain, like Peymann, disobeyed his King's orders and, instead of firing the boat or heading for Copenhagen, he made a futile run for Norway (Defying Napoleon pp.171-2). Another case of a stupid Dane bringing the righteous wrath of Britain on his head.

You appear to think that this was a singular act directly connected with the Copenhagen raid. It was not. I have referred you to Raymond's Royal Navy in the Baltic from 1807-1812 link It will give you a broader understanding of the Baltic theatre than you appear to have and is worth reading through, but first look at p.52.

No. An ultimatum is not an act of war, since the recipient, fairly or not, has the option of accepting it and obviating the need for war.

Finally, you call the British attack "possibly a war crime". Isn't that a step down from your earlier assertion that it most certainly was?

And the answer here, again, is absolutely clear. No, it was not a war crime, any more than the American bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were, or the slaughter of the troops at Jaffa. Whether an act is a war crime or not is decided by a tribunal on war crimes, usually called by the victors or an international body. None of the immoral acts just cited was ever examined to determine whether or not it was a war crime, so no, it was not one, whatever your opinion, which is so anxious to excuse Napoleon for Jaffa and a host of other incidents, may persuade you to the contrary. At least Copenhagen was given a choice; Hamburg and Portugal were not.

We often hear from "pro-life" advocates that abortion is "murder", but of course it is not, however much it may outrage them, because it is not defined as murder in British or American law. The same reasoning applies here.

There is no doubt that you are an enthusiastic supporter of Napoleon and a detractor of the British during the period of N's rise to power and his second defeat and second surrender. As such, I am happy to debate with you, but I would appreciate your hewing a little closer to the facts. I do not believe that you try to distort them, but clearly, you do not understand them

So here are your "yes" "no" answers. Are you sure that you are unable to return the compliment?

Cheers,
Phil

Once again, you are in error, multiple errors in fact.

I would suggest that you reread Munch-Peterson which has been quoted liberally on this forum on this subject. Further, Jones' Journal of Sieges is most helpful.

Finally, this might help:

Copenhagen and Bombardment

From Peninsular Preparation by Richard Glover, 100-101:

‘[Dunkirk in 1793] was the last occasion on which the British attempted a serious siege till Wellington broke ground before Badajoz in April 1811. In the intervening years a dangerous delusion took hold upon the nation. Many people came to argue that siege operations, with all the science, toil, and time they took, were needless; in the view of these people it was only necessary to make a general bombardment of a town in order to compel its surrender.'

‘That was never the view of competent professionals; to them the very notion was made repugnant by its futile cruelty. ‘To bombard a town', says Jones the besieger, ‘is merely to shower down upon it shells, caracasses, rockets, hotshot and other incendiary missiles.' Under bombardment shops, houses, schools, churches, places of work, and business were tumbled into ruin; fires grew widespread; the bedridden died miserably in burning homes, and children were slain by falling masonry as they played, or ran in panic through the streets; in a word, bombardment reproduced many of the horrors of a modern air raid. Civilians of every age and sex were mercilessly slaughtered while the investing army denied them that escape which evacuation offered in 1939-1945. It was simply an attempt to compel surrender by terror; ‘the cruelty of it is inconceivable to those who have not witnessed its effects, which fall chiefly on the aged, the infirm, and the helpless', wrote Jones. By this ‘frightfulness' the British indeed forced the surrender of Copenhagen in 1807, to gain possession of the fleet, and the hatred, of the Danes; that success unfortunately gave a false eclat to the method of bombardment. By the same means they tried to secure Flushing in 1809. But Flushing was commanded by aq conscientious French governor with high regard for his military duty and little sympathy for the agony of Dutch civilians. He would not surrender the post entrusted to him till a regular siege was undertaken, in the best manner that could be improvised, and breaching was imminent. Yet because Flushing was bombarded, and thereafter fell, Chatham's success there was deemed a vindication of bombardment by all men of that class to which post hoc is the same as propter hoc. What it really proved was the futility of the whole tragic business. The slaughter of civilians, amid the ruins of their homes, did no damage to curtain, bastion, or ditch; while women and children died, soldiers were safe in their casemates and behind their parapets; when the smoke cleared from the rubble of shattered streets, nearly everything that made the unhappy town a place of military strength was revealed as efficient and intact.'

‘Yet this faith in bombardment was important, even if it was a delusion. It gives the most nearly rational explanation possible of the extraordinary fact that Wellington, when sent to a peninsula where the French held most of the fortresses, was equipped with no efficient means of reducing them. It also goes far to explain the long neglect to make the Royal Engineers an efficient corps; in Jones' phrase, belief in bombardment ‘threatened to prevent the country from ever attaining due siege establishments.'

‘Wellington himself never considered bombarding Badajoz, Ciudad Rodrigo, or anywhere else. He had been at Copenhagen, and knew that the people who would suffer most would be his Spanish allies, not his French enemies; for this reason he even prevented his gunners from making proper use of the high-arcked fire of mortars lest it wander from purely military targets (a mistake undoubtedly, but one which his critics seem to have missed). Also, he can hardly have failed to realize one point which enthusiasts for bombardment overlooked; this was that to bombard a town required far more ammunition than to besiege it and would throw a still greater strain on his exiguous transport.'

Phil

Please try to stick to Napoleonic topics. Wasting time and space mentioning abortion is just typical of you. If you want to discuss your views on abortion, I am sure there is a site somewhere that would be willing to listen to your drivel. But here, using such a topic in a feeble attempt to prove your point, is totally unjustified and unwelcome.

As to the link you provide. That was one of the sources I used when I researched the event. I am not sure if you have read it correctly, but most of it concerns the post-Copenhagen effect, caused by the British attack. But it is interesting that within the article the author (page 62) pointed out the following 'Copenhagen turned Denmark from a wary neutral to a bitter enemy of Sweden.' I am sure the Swedes were really happy about that? Good old Brits, eh!

Your mentioning the article certainly suggests you are in denial of the facts relating to the events at Copenhagen. Probably because the topic is not attacking Napoleon, your usual target. You don't seem to be able to post anything without bringing him in?

But it also good to hear you agree that the British were making an armed threat. And one towards a neutral country.

And nice of you to agree that the British committed a war crime, because, as you say, two sides were not at war until one of them declares war, and the British chased, attacked and captured a Danish ship, killing members of its crew, BEFORE war was declared by either side.

However, I think your insults to the Danes are not worthy. It reveals your ignorance and bias. Calling the captain a 'stupid Dane' because he tried to sail away instead of fighting the arrogant British is unbelievably pathetic. The Danes did not want a war or to cause a fight – the British did.

I apologise because I was under the false belief that you were intelligent enough to realise that when I mentioned LAND army, I was referring to large British land force of infantry, cavalry and field artillery. I'll make it more simple for you next time.

Yes, I am an admirer of Napoleon, but not of everything he did. No, I am not a detractor of Britain during the Napoleonic period. The British army and navy achieved great things and arguably, from 1810 onwards, they could be considered as the best troops during the period.

But if the British commit an unworthy act, or take part in a very immoral affair, as the king of England described it, I find it disturbing when people like you keep making petty, if not arrogant, excuses for them. To you it seems okay for the British to just strut up and demand whatever they want of a neutral people, under the threat and fear of death, but you are so quick to demonise Napoleon without question.

I suggest you ask yourself, if the British were in the right and not doing anything wrong, just why did Wellington (and others) argue against the bombardment of the civilian areas and why did the British parliament debate the matter for so long afterwards? I also suggest you take off your Union Jack blinkers and just accept the British were in the wrong on this occasion. It won't hurt, honest!

It's interesting that the British in 1809 tried to do the same thing at Flushing that they did to Copenhagen. The Journal of Sieges by MajGen John Jones is full of excellent information that is more than useful.

John.
Perhaps I was not clear. WHen I said that that the captain of the was 'another stupid Dane". He was, so far as I know, a Dane; he risked his ship by sailing north, where for all the Brits knew, he could be contacting other Danish ships, instead of heading for Copenhagen as the treaty allowed and as his King had commanded, and because he didn't heave to when intercepted, which cost him his ship. "Another", since I have argued that Preymann (another Dane) failed to evacuate the civilians or sink his ships and was found guilty by the king as a result.
You may chose to call them "criminally irresponsible" if you will.

You failed to answer my questions about your judgment of Peymann but instead demanded questions of me, which I answered as fully as I could. One of these questions was did I consider that the Brits committed a crime, to which I gave an emphatic "no".

In reply, you say, "And nice of you to agree that the British committed a war crime…"

Therefore, my side of this "discussion" is at an end.

Sincerely,
Phil

The Flushing operation in 1809 was another British bombardment aimed at the civilian population:

From Walcheren 1809 by Martin Howard, 122-123; 131-132:

‘Although bombardment was considered by many of his officers to be3 both an unprincipled and uncertain method of reducing the town, there was no alternative…Relieved that their labors in the trenches were finished, the British troops watched the bombardment with keen interest. William Keep was among them.'

"Our task was over, and the soldiers of the artillery took possession, leaving us little more to do than to observe the effect t hier fire produced upon the town, and singular and terrific it was! Especially at night when the shells, sent an immense height into the air, appeared like falling stars, producing in their descent into the town a distinct reverberation, and the Congreve Rockets with their trains of fire crossing each other, illuminated the heavens, the whole of which was reflected in the waters around us, then rapidly increasing in the ground we occupied, so that to keep our feet dry we climbed the trees, watching with anxiety the result of our operations."

‘Keep admitted that the scene eventually became ‘appalling to witness.' A soldier of the 71st was stunned and bewildered by the noise of the ‘bursting of bombs, of falling chimneys which added to the incessant roar of the artillery.' John Green was near a mortar battery which was throwing shells as fast as possible. He saw houses and churches on fire and could occasionally hear the screams of the inhabitants, a fact confirmed by the officer of the 81st Regiment: ‘when there was an interval in the noise, it was filled with the shrieks of the women from the city. Even the dogs howled, and several owls and bats flew frightened round the light.'-122-123.

‘At Flushing, the 3d Battalion of the Royals and the 14th Regiment were ordered to break into open column and lead the entry into the town. St Clair caught glimpses of pretty female faces through the few windows which had not been closed to keep out the shot. If this reminded him of his march through Chelmsford two months earlier, there was little else similar. Flushing was, according to Thomas Graham, ‘a complete ruin.' This was a slight exaggeration as some of the works on the land front remained in perfect state. On the other hand, the left bastion and the sea defenses were much damaged and most of the houses had been hit. Around 250 dwellings were uninhabitable and fifty completely destroyed. A dozen warehouses and two churches, the Oosterkirk and the Franschekerk, had been wrecked. The Town Hall with all its finery had been gutted, only the outer wall remaining. In parts of the town, the locals had succeeded in fighting the fire only to succumb to flooding from a breached dike. Captain Neil Douglas of the Cameron Highlanders was appalled by what he saw: ‘Some entire streets were destroyed and the Houses having fallen inwards and being blackened with the Smoak looked like a place that had long been in ruins.' William Dyott agreed: it was ‘utterly impossible' to describe the horros and dismay etched in the countenances of the wretched individuals left on the streets to lament the loss of family and friends. People of all ranks dug in the smoking rubble searching for survivors. The total civilian losses were uncertain, perhaps 300 killed and 500 wounded. Almost all British memoirists strike the same note of awestruck horror, one officer observing that ‘no one would become a soldier who saw war really as it is…131-132.

You are wrong about the number of deaths; I have seen figures citing 2-300, and some less than 200, not 2,000. Rory Muir's critique of Much-Petersen's book suggests the figure is wrong based on overall casualties. He also cites French siege tactics of the previous century that were comparable.

I disagree. I'll go with Munch-Peterson, which is recent scholarship, until proven incorrect. That has not been accomplished.

Thanks for the reading instructions, Kevin. I think that I have read Munch Peterson's book enough, and given paginated quotations from it often enough, not to bother reading it again.

I was interested in your claim that I made "multiple errors", rather a common claim with you, isn't it, but was sorry to see that you didn't have time to point out what they were.

Thanks, also, for the heads up on Glover's book. It came out when I had entered the US, and in those pre-Amazon days, I had to get me mum to send it from England. It occurs to me, though, that you were probably not even in HS (or perhaps a freshman?) when it came out; rather a deep topic for a schoolboy, or perhaps you discovered it in one of its reprints.

So, given your quotation, are you agreeing with Professor Glover that Copenhagen was not a "serious" siege? A frivolous or half hearted siege, perhaps?

I have read numerous accounts of the various French and British sieges in the Peninsular war, the latest being yours. What I have not seen is a comparison of the time that it took for the French army to successfully complete the sieges of Badajoz, Ciudad and Almeida against largely inexperienced Spanish troops, as opposed to the time that it took the British to defeat the French.

The only time that the Brits took longer to occupy the besieged city (by one day, I think) was at Almeida, where, apparently, Sharpe blew up the magazine so that he could conduct a "vital message" to Wellington.

The figures are undeniable, and seem to show a superiority of British siege tactics over the French, though I am sure that Napoleon's admirers will find a host of mitigating factors to challenge the facts.

Cheers,
Phil

Phil

'Your side of the discussion is at an end' LOL

It is obvious why you no longer wish to continue debating the matter. You just can't admit you are wrong and the British were in the wrong. Instead. you again make feeble excuses for British war crimes and even insult and blame their victims. You really are beyond belief!

In the case of the ship attacked and crew killed, you lay the blame on the captain of the ship, who you described as 'a stupid Dane' for not surrendering. And you seem quite happy to ignore the fact that Britain and Denmark were NOT at war with each other at the time. As a neutral he should have been able to sail wherever and whenever he wanted. Attacking him for nothing more than sailing away is at the very least a British ACT OF WAR. Accept it.

In terms of the commander of Copenhagen. I am sure I read when researching the event that many civilians did leave, the rest chose to remain. And why not? The two countries were not at war with each other and Napoleon was the evil one, right, so there should be nothing to fear from the peace loving Brits. They don't try to force people to do their bidding and give up their property or threaten them with death and destruction, no, not the British. Good chaps they are.

Any why should the commander sink the ships when many of them where not fit to sail at the time anyway?

But if you want to go on fooling yourself that, because it was the British, it wasn't a war crime and the deliberate bombardment of civilians wasn't an act of terror, that's your choice, although of course, it is a very blinkered and biased view.

As a matter of interest, I found the United States Criminal Code, Section 2331, very interesting concerning what should be considered as an act of terror. It states in Part B (i) 'to intimidate or coerce a civilian population'

Yep, I'd say that description certainly fits the deliberate terror attack at Copenhagen in 1807.

Nothing more to discuss, John, but I must say that your quotation from the US Criminal Code puts a totally different light on things.

Was that binding on Britain in 1807? Must have been or you wouldn't have mentioned it.

LMAO
Phil

Phil

LOL You really are a card, aren't you. But you were the one who liked to keep mentioning later period and non-Napoleonic aspects of war, so I thought you'd enjoy that. I guess it was a case of a taste of your own medicine, eh?

'Nothing more to discuss' LOL even louder. More like you've had enough, can't get away with feeble excuses for the British, can't admit your are wrong in this case and don't want to discuss anymore. That's understandable. People who seem to have no problem in attacking Napoleon all day for something he may have done, do tend to find it hard going when the shoe is on the other foot.

Anyway, you have a rest, put your feet up. Watch the film Waterloo or something. Only I suggest you turn away when Wellington is on the screen, especially if he is riding a horse. It is called Copenhagen and we don't want you having nightmares, do we. LOL.

But it has been nice talking with you. Look forward to the next topic.

I have read numerous accounts of the various French and British sieges in the Peninsular war, the latest being yours. What I have not seen is a comparison of the time that it took for the French army to successfully complete the sieges of Badajoz, Ciudad and Almeida against largely inexperienced Spanish troops, as opposed to the time that it took the British to defeat the French.

The only time that the Brits took longer to occupy the besieged city (by one day, I think) was at Almeida, where, apparently, Sharpe blew up the magazine so that he could conduct a "vital message" to Wellington.

The figures are undeniable, and seem to show a superiority of British siege tactics over the French, though I am sure that Napoleon's admirers will find a host of mitigating factors to challenge the facts.

Then again I would recommend that you reread what you think you read, because once again you have erred egregiously.

The French conducted about 16 sieges in the Peninsula and were successful in 13 of them.

The British conducted 10 and were successful in only four.

The main reason for this was that the British engineer arm was not skilled in siege operations and did not have a competent enlisted engineer arm or troops until 1813. Wellington's sieges were relatively short because he was sometimes hustled out of his attempted sieges, such as the first two tries at Badajoz, by French armies coming to the relief of the city.

He only took Ciudad Rodrigo and Badajoz because of costly infantry assaults because of the already-mentioned lack of a competent engineer arm. The first attempt at San Sebastien was also a failure.

The French undoubtedly had the most skilled and efficient engineer arm of the period, as the education, skill, and competence of the two French savant arms, engineers and artillery, was unmatched by anyone else during the period.

I would recommend Wellington's Engineers by Mark Thompson as well as Nick Lipscombe's Peninsular Atlas, as well as Oman's study of the Peninsular War and John Jones Journal of Sieges for more information. The Dickson Manuscripts are also helpful. He was the premier British artilleryman of the period-a skilled officer in a skilled arm.

This posting of yours is yet another example of your string of errors in the Copenhagen threads…and elsewhere.

The following is an assessment of the British Royal Engineer arm during the Napoleonic period by an officer of that arm, Charles William Pasley. It is taken from Wellington's Engineers by Mark Thompson and is prefaced by a short assessment by the author:

'In most (if not all) cases, the [Royal Engineer] officers themselves complained bitterly about their training and their experiences. One only has to look at the campaigns in which they fought in the period from 1793 to 1810 to realize that they had almost all had nothing but bad experiences at Alexandria, Buenos Ayres, Copenhagen and Walcheren. There was a constant theme of the lack of training engineer officers had received in the practical aspects of their work.'-246-247.

'I should have suggested several improvements that appeared to me from my own experience and reflection to be essential…I considered the British Army…to be incapable of succeeding in a siege…without either having recourse to the barbarous measure in incendiary bombardment, or without an enormous sacrifice of the lives…in sanguinary assaults…which might be rendered unnecessary by a more efficient organization of the Royal Engineer department, and especially by forming a well-instructed and well-disciplined body of engineer soldiers…The better instruction of junior officers of the Royal Engineers appeared no less essential, for at that time they were not even taught the theory of the attack of fortresses…and the examinations for commissions were merely a matter of form, and no genuine test for proficiency. As for practical instruction, they had none, for they were sent on service without ever having seen a fascine or gabion, without the smallest knowledge of the military passage of rivers, of military mining, or any other operation of a siege, excepting what they may pick up from French writers, of which a striking proof occurred in Sir John Moore's retreat, when all attempts to blow up stone bridges…made by officers of the Corps, myself amongst others, failed…with the exception of only one, which Lieutenant Davy, a very promising young officer, succeeded in completely destroying, but at the expense of his own life, which he lost from not understanding the very simple precautions necessary to insure the safety of the person who fires the train of the mine. For my part, I should not have even known how to make a battery in the attack on Copenhagen, the first siege in which I was employed, but from the information derived from a book on the subject.'-Pasley, 247.

It is also interesting to note that he describes the British operations against Copenhagen as a 'siege.'

All this drivel about "war crimes" is irrelevant, as there was no such concept (let alone use of the term) in international law until the Hague Convention of 1907. Since it is itself contrary to international law to apply such conventions retrospectively, the bombardment was simply an act of war – no more, no less – and really no different than many sieges previously conducted by other European armies and nations going back across several centuries.

All sieges of fortified cities were unpleasant and dangerous for the civilian population; one could equally argue that the use of the tactics employed reduced the length of the siege and therefore reduced the potential loss of civilian life (the politics behind the operation itself is another issue). Using anachronistic terminology is merely a sign of ignorance.

How many sieges deliberately targeted the civilian population of the city under siege?

I can think of two during the period-Copenhagen and Flushing. And that was mainly, as has been clearly demonstrated, because of the lack of skill in siege operations of the Royal Engineers.

And, yes, there were war crimes during the period and they were defined as crimes no matter what you want to call them. If that wasn't so, then why did Wellington have a gallows set up after Badajoz was taken and sacked, even though no one was punished using it?

Brechtel198

Good post. But it looks like the ignorance belongs to those who just don't want to see it as a war crime because it wasn't committed by the French or Napoleon. And of course, to those with such an hypocritical mindset, attaching modern day terminology and thinking is only allowed when the post is attacking Napoleon. You just have to laugh at these people. They never change. LOL

Gazzola – If you can break away for just a few seconds from beating up whichever straw man you are valiantly slaying at the moment, please tell me when I have ever accused Napoleon of committing a "war crime"? (Hint: don't bother checking, because I haven't.)

Lumping me in with the people you don't like on here doesn't actually refute my point that you are ignorant of international law. If it had been Napoleon bombarding Copenhagen in the same manner, I would not have called it a war crime in that case either. Do you know why? Because unlike you, I know that both the concept and the term did not exist at that time.

And what grown-up man uses "LOL"? Pathetic.

Brechtel – I don't know, why did Wellington set up a gallows? Might it have been because his men were disobeying orders from their officers and NCOs?

I've given you a link to the Rory Muir article citing two French sieges of the late 17th/early 18th centuries in which they did exactly the same (Genoa and Brussels).

Oh, and btw, here's the link showing that civilian deaths were under 200, not over 2,000, according to official Danish sources. No need to thank me.

1807.dk/tabstal%20civile.htm

Supercilius Maximus:

Oh, and btw, here's the link showing that civilian deaths were under 200, not over 2,000, according to official Danish sources. No need to thank me.

1807.dk/tabstal%20civile.htm

I don't kmow why you bother! I have posted that link to Brechtel and his hip-joint on other occasions. Where Brechtel is concerned, 'under Massena of A.C.G fame' I posted that link a couple of years ago. It is just ignored.

The 30,000+ civilians killed defending their homes, in their city, in their country puts into context the raid on Copenhagen.

Paul :)

Supercilious Maximus

Calm down! Calm down! Fancy getting upset because someone has used the term LOL. LOL

And it is not drivel anyway. The concept of a war crime is well known, but obviously not by you.

With that in mind, here are a few links for you to enjoy and hopefully learn by:

1474
link

link

UK English Civil War war crime
link

dibble

As with any action during the period, I discovered that different sources offered a different number of casualties, although it is not surprising that you would favour the smallest number given.

But the number is not the important aspect. The main point is that the British in this case, DELIBERATELY targeted civilians in order to 'terrify' them into forcing the Danish military into surrendering, which, after three days bombardment of the civilians, worked. The military did not want to surrender and may have defended to the end, had the British bombarded the defences and made a breach in the walls. Wellington (or Wellesley as he was then) had the decency to argue against such a bombardment.

The 30,000+ civilians killed defending their homes, in their city, in their country puts into context the raid on Copenhagen.

The invasion and occupation of friendly and neutral lands puts into context the raid on Copenhagen.

Paul :)

Is that a reference to those civilians murdered in Ciudad Rodrigo, Badajoz, and San Sebastien? Seems just a little high…

Munch-Peterson has the history academic credentials to have his researched understood and believed.

Again, for those who cannot or will not understand the issue, the following is from page 200 of Defying Napoleon by Thomas Munch-Peterson:

'[The bombardment which began at 1900 on 4 September 1807] was heavy and unrelenting until around noon on 5 September, and this time the defenders proved unable to contain its effects. Much of the fire corps' equipment was damaged by now and many of its men were dead or injured. fire caught hold in several places and raged out of control…The destruction reached it most dramatic point when the venerable Frue Kirke (the Church of Our Lady), which had been a target throughout the two preceding nights, was finally brought down. Captain Bowles, watching from his warship out to sea, described the bombardment as 'the most tremendous sight that can well be conceived.' and noted that the third night 'surpassed all the rest, particularly when the largest church caught fire, and the spire (which was a remarkably beautiful one) fell in.'
'When the British artillery fell silent at noon on 5 September, the inhabitants of Copenhagen were stunned and terrified, and the city bore witness, as Cathcart and Gambier had warned in the proclamation they issued when British troops landed on Zealand, to 'the horrors of a besieged and bombarded capital'. One-fifth of Copenhagen's population-20,000 people-had fled their homes to
Christianshavan or Amager and two thousand of them (2 percent of the total population) had been killed. Many of the British bombs and shells had penetrated right to the cellars of houses, the natural place of refuge, and this had increased the numbers of fatalities. It took several more days to bring the fires under control, and the flames of the ruined Frue Kirke were not entirely extinguished until the end of September. About one-twelfth of central Copenhagen was burnt to the ground and buildings over a much larger area of the city had sustained lesser or greater degress of damage.'-Munch-Peterson, 200.

His sources for his work are both comprehensive and far-reaching. There is no reason to doubt his work. He is a senior lecturer in Scandinavian History at University College, London and the book was published in 2007.

I was under the impression that 10-12,000 rockets were used, not the 300 you cite.

6,000 rounds total were fired against Copenhagen in the three days of the bombardment. Of those the most destructive were the mortar rounds. Many of the casualties in the city were caused by people taking shelter in their cellars and dying there.

Is that a reference to those civilians murdered in Ciudad Rodrigo, Badajoz, and San Sebastien? Seems just a little high…

Those places were sacked in accordance with the customs of war pertaining at the time – as you (and your little dawg) well know. The garrison commanders were summonsed and warned of the consequences of forcing the besiegers to storm the defences.

Does Munch-Petersen provide any sources for his guesstimate of 2,000? Because the link I provided – referencing an article also published in 2007 – quotes official sources and specifically mentions that it is well below the number usually quoted.

Those places were sacked in accordance with the customs of war pertaining at the time – as you (and your little dawg) well know. The garrison commanders were summonsed and warned of the consequences of forcing the besiegers to storm the defences.

That's a typical excuse for the outrageous behavior of the British troops in Spain after taking a besieged city. The only problem with the reasoning here is that the cities were populated with British allies.

I would submit that if the French did the exact same thing under the circumstances you would roundly condemn them.

Does Munch-Petersen provide any sources for his guesstimate of 2,000? Because the link I provided – referencing an article also published in 2007 – quotes official sources and specifically mentions that it is well below the number usually quoted.

It isn't a 'guesstimate.' Munch-Peterson's book is well-sourced and well-researched. That you haven't read it speaks volumes of the lack of historical inquiry and historical methodology in your response.

Munch-Peterson's sources for the two paragraphs quoted are:

-A Series of Letters of the First Earl of Malmesbury, Volume 2.
-Danmarks Krigs- og Politiske Historie, Volume I, by J Raeder.
-Studies til Kobenhavns og Danmarks Historie by Markus Rubin.
-Storhandelens by. Kobenhavns Historie, Volume 3 by S Cedergren Bech.
-The Bomnbardment of Copenhagen by Perrin (editor).
-The Napoleonic War Journal of Captain Thomas Henry Browne 1807-1816 edited by Roger Norman Buckley.

Additionally, the following Danish archival sources were used:

-Danish National Archives, Copenhagen.
-Archives of the Danish Foreign Ministry.
-Sokrigkancellet
-Tillaeg til sowtatens arkiv.
-Admiralitetet.
-Marineministeriet
-Generalkommiossariatet.
-Ingeniorkorpsets danske arkiv.

-And others listed in the book's bibliography.

…as you (and your little dawg) well know.

Comments of this type are as unnecessary as they are outside of the Pale. They have no place in a historical discussion.

dibble

Surprising but nice to see you biting the bullet and not disagreeing with the British War Crime at Copenhagen in 1807. Well done you, although I imagine it must have hurt.

"…as you (and your little dawg) well know.
Comments of this type are as unnecessary as they are outside of the Pale. They have no place in a historical discussion.

SuperMax: I have to agree with Kevin here. Surely a little dawg is a creature who yelps noisily and meaninglessly in impotent defense of his master. Who on this forum could that possibly apply to?

Oh….

But he is right about politeness and decorum on a historical forum such as this, and when he accused me of "intellectual dishonesty" for disagreeing with him, recently, I am sure that he meant it in a friendly and collegial manner.

And he sure fixed you when you asked for sources for the civilian death toll at Copenhagen in 1807

The bibliography that he copied from MP's book is in Danish, which neither he nor I and possibly you speak, but it might be in there somewhere. Surely it's your job to learn Danish?

Cheers,
Phil