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

…and when he accused me of "intellectual dishonesty" for disagreeing with him, recently…

Perhaps you would actually state why I said that of you. It certainly was not because you disagreed with me. That is incorrect…

"Perhaps you would actually state why I said that of you. It certainly was not because you disagreed with me. That is incorrect…"

Only you can say why you were so egregiously insulting, Kevin, but it is not confined to me, but appears to be extended to anyone who strongly questions, to paraphrase your mentor, your Napoleonic hero worship.

Of itself, it would be simply irritating, but coupled with your admonitions to others on how they should conduct themselves in a gentlemanly fashion on this and other forums, it is a genuine source of fun.

I don't have to tell you to keep up the good work, sunshine, I'm sure that you will! :)

I'm just back from a rather nice party, and don't feel like destroying the mood, but tomorrow, I shall look at your latest charge that a recent post of mine contains "egregious errors"; so until then, try to enjoy your hobby.

Cheers,
Phil

Brechtel

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

Nah' It's your Nappy and his little pixies doing what they did infinitely more of than any other, and that's cause misery to innocent others. The responsibility of the 30,000 plus in one siege alone is that of Nappy and his pixie. Seeing as you have published a book on sieges, I'm sure that you know which one I'm on about.

"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 :)

dibble

It is very interesting that you are attempting to divert the fact the British committed a war crime at Copenhagen in 1807, with your pathetic mutterings about the context of the crime compared to other events. It just won't work. Just accept what the British did, that it is a fact you can't change, no matter how much you whine and how many emotional outbursts you throw out, and move on.

But what a pair you and Phil make, eh. You rambling about contexts and Phil in the other topic talking about stamped and addressed envelopes. I guess you are both made for each other. LOL

Gazzola, context is everything.

Clearly you think the British attack on Copenhagen was morally reprehensible. Fair enough.

But if you are going to use an anachronistic term like "war crime" in such a cavalier way then you are going to have to accept that the Napoleonic Wars were littered with "war crimes":

The calling up of the Marie-Louises (child soldiers) – war crime.

Living off the land (unlawful destruction or appropriation of property) – war crime.

Murat and Lannes claiming there was an armistice to capture a bridge across the Danube in 1805 (misusing a flag of truce) – war crime.

If you insist on misapplying such an emotive term to judge the actions of the past then you just make the words meaningless.

Interesting that your only 'examples' are French. I wonder why?

Everyone 'lived off the land' which does not necessarily mean 'destruction or appropriation of property.' The Marie-Louises' were not young children but were boys of 17 who were conscripted before their usual class of conscripts. Drummers and fifers were sometimes young boys also. I would also submit that a seventeen year-old in 1814 was something entirely different from a 17 year-old today. In short, your use of the term 'child soldiers' is inaccurate and somewhat misleading.

I would suggest that the taking of the bridge by Murat and Lannes was a ruse-which is a legitimate tactic in warfare.

Full Definition of ANACHRONISM

1: an error in chronology; especially : a chronological misplacing of persons, events, objects, or customs in regard to each other.

2: a person or a thing that is chronologically out of place; especially : one from a former age that is incongruous in the present.

3: the state or condition of being chronologically out of place.

How is the term 'war crime' being used out of place?

"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."

I haven't written a book about sieges.

If you are referring to Saragossa, then the Spanish losses exceeded 54,000, while the French lost over 10,000. when the civilians of a besieged city take an active part in the defense then they are subject to getting wounded and killed just like the defending troops. And a very large number of Spanish civilians took up arms to defend their city.

You pay your money and you take your chance.

The comparison of the siege of Saragossa with the siege of Copenhagen is a false analogy. The British deliberately targeted the civilian population, just as they did at Flushing in 1809. That is a very large difference, no matter what the casualty count was. The Danes capitulated in three days, the Spanish somewhat longer. Their defense was bitter and prolonged as well as being savage and merciless both to the French and their own people.

Heinrich von Brandt, who was an infantry junior officer in the Legion of the Vistula, was present at Saragossa and left a valuable memoir-In the Legions of Napoleon. I highly recommend it.

SJDonovan

I suggest you direct your posts to the Brit lovers who will not accept what the British did in 1807. That is the whole point. They won't accept it because THEY DON'T WANT to accept it.

Instead, you and others are trying to divert attention away from that fact with wasteful attempts to bring in other events and campaigns. Sorry, won't work.

It really is a shame that some people just can't accept it and move on, instead of constantly throwing out feeble excuses that simply won't alter the truth and certainly won't change history.

Brechtel 198, you appear to have missed my point entirely. I don't believe any of the actions I listed were "war crimes" at the time they occurred.

I was suggesting that it is futile to judge past events using modern day legal definitions.

Brechtel198

Great posts but I fear they are falling on deaf ears. And it is slightly interesting how people seem to suddenly want to discuss other events rather than Copenhagen. Anyway, it might be somewhat amusing to see what they manage to conjure up next. It won't alter anything but I guess they will still try.

Only you can say why you were so egregiously insulting, Kevin, but it is not confined to me, but appears to be extended to anyone who strongly questions, to paraphrase your mentor, your Napoleonic hero worship.

Of itself, it would be simply irritating, but coupled with your admonitions to others on how they should conduct themselves in a gentlemanly fashion on this and other forums, it is a genuine source of fun.

You do have a very bad habit of not answering the question. And I do reiterate that you also have a very bad habit of being intellectually dishonest when you post with those you disagree. I have pointed out to you your repeated inaccuracies and backed it up with supporting material, which you continually ignore. That is intellectual dishonesty. Your usual response is insult and ad hominem comments.

Typical.

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?

This is an excellent example of your repeated nonsense. I was asked if Munch-Peterson supported his numbers of Danish civilian dead and I posted the references, some of them were in English by the way. That they some are in Danish because they are Danish references. And it should be noted that the 'statistical' material that was offered to counter Munch-Peterson was in Danish.

Is this yet another example of intellectual dishonesty, or are you merely playing the marplot?

Marplot! Pissant! The same old silly guff entering the the quotes of Brechtel.

How many deaths would there have been in Saragossa had there not been an invading foreign army led by Nappy's pixies, sieging it for a few months?

"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."

Brechtel to SJDonovan:

This is an excellent example of your repeated nonsense.

And what of your 'many' excellent examples of nonsense?

Brechtel

I haven't written a book about sieges.

I must have been thinking of someone else (there's a relief)

Paul :)

Brechtel to SJDonovan:
This is an excellent example of your repeated nonsense.

I posted nothing of the kind to SJ Donovan. I posted it in response to the repeated nonsense of Phil.

Too bad that you cannot get it right-repeatedly.

My apologies for not giving you an unmarplotian answer sooner, Kevin, but I was designated baby sitter today, chasing the two little kids, Samaya and Samira (Sam Uno y Sam Dos) with the "help" of Ariana and Amanda, but I did have time to go over my Peninsular siege list, and found that my numbers, except for the British successes, differs from yours somewhat, though I use a simpler scoring system which may account for the difference

What interest me much more, though, are your comments on the British engineering arm. I have never read a single historian who would disagree with you, so your points are hardly new, but you miss the chance to explain why they were deficient, so we can run through that and its historical perspective (Dillingen would be a good case in point) and perhaps a few case histories, like Christoval -- Jones and Napier sound good? -- and Sir Howard Douglas's curious explanation of the British failure at Burgos.

Perhaps we can even chat like real, grownup, amateur historians.

Cheers,
Phil

That is correct regarding the Royal Engineers-they had some teething problems.

I would highly recommend the new book Wellington's Engineers by Mark Thompson. It is an outstanding work and one that is essential to understand the British problems with sieges during the period, beginning with Copenhagen.

dibble

Are you sure you want to blame Napoleon and the French for the deaths at the second siege of Zaragoza (or Saragossa if you prefer)? That would go against your buddy Phil's point of view. He blamed the Danes themselves for the death of the Danish civilians at Copenhagen, not those firing at them. (See his post 3rd Dec 9.46am) So surely, on that absurd basis, you should be blaming the Spanish for not giving up the town and for not evacuating it?

I believe they suffered over 50,000 casualties, military and civilian, but more from disease than actual combat. And in this case, the civilians, unlike those at Copenhagen, openly chose to fight against the attackers alongside their troops.

But, as Phil pointed out, if you agree with him, that is their own fault for daring to stand up to the French, in the same way he blames the Danes for standing up to the British.

…you appear to have missed my point entirely. I don't believe any of the actions I listed were "war crimes" at the time they occurred.

I was suggesting that it is futile to judge past events using modern day legal definitions.

What I was objecting to was your use of examples and the misrepresentation of claiming that the Marie-Louises of 1814 were 'child soldiers.'

Context is very important as are naming items for what they are or were, and not what they were not.

…I did have time to go over my Peninsular siege list, and found that my numbers, except for the British successes, differs from yours somewhat, though I use a simpler scoring system which may account for the difference…

Here's what I have found, naming the places besieged and the dates:

British and French Sieges in Portugal and Spain 1808-1814:

French Successes:

Roses: 6 November-5 December 1808.
Saragossa: 20 December 1808-20 February 1809.
Gerona: 6 May-12 December 1809.
Lerida: 23 April-14 May 1810.
Astorga: 21 March-22 April 1810.
Ciudad Rodrigo: 26 April-10 July 1810.
Almeida: 25 July-27 August 1810.
Tortosa: 16 December 1810-2 January 1811.
Olivenza: 19-22 January 1811.
Badajoz: January-March 1811.
Campo Mayor: 14-21 March 1811.
Tarragona: 5 May-21 June 1811.
Saguntum: 23 september-26 October 1811.
Valencia: 28 December 1811-9 January 1812.
Burgos: 19 September-21 October 1812.

French Failures:

Gerona: 24 July-16 August 1808.
Saragossa: 15 June-14 August 1808.
Cadiz: 5 February 1810-24 August 1812.

British Successes:

Tarifa: 23 December 1811-4 January 1812.
Ciudad Rodrigo: 8-19 January 1812.
Badajoz: 16 March-6 April 1812.
San Sebastien: 6 August-8 September 1813.

British Failures:

Badajoz: 8-15 May 1811.
Badajoz: 19 May-10 June 1811.
Tarragona: 3-11 June 1813.
San Sebastien: 11-25 July 1813.

So, based on this list the French had a success rate of 83% and the British one of 50%.

Context is very important as are naming items for what they are or were, and not what they were not.

That is precisely the point I was making. When Napoleon conscripted them the Marie-Louises they would not have been regarded as children but if today a state were to conscript school-age young people into its armies they would be considered child soldiers and it would be a war crime.

I you want a specifically British example, then the use of impressment would today be considered a war crime.

I am not arguing that the French were bad and the British were good, I am arguing that to judge events that took place in the 18th and 19th centuries using 21st century legal definitions is an utterly pointless and misleading thing to do.

As the Marie-Louise's were 17, they cannot be counted as children.

I do agree that you cannot apply norms of today to the Napoleonic period.

As impressment was a form of conscription, I don't see how that is a war crime. It may be a bad method, and unfair in the extreme, but a crime? I don't think so.

Now if you're talking about impressment by stopping neutral ships and forcibly taking sailors from those ships for the Royal Navy, that practice helped start a war between the US and Great Britain in 1812.

However, the deliberate targeting of civilians in a neutral city by the use of an artillery bombardment is criminal, any way you look at it.

And you may wish to comment on the 40,000-50,000 Portuguese civilians who died of starvation and disease in and around Lisbon after being forcibly evacuated, under pain of death, in the path of Massena's Army of Portugal in 1810. This was done by the Portuguese government and Wellington with the country laid waste.

I do agree that you cannot apply norms of today to the Napoleonic period.

Which is the only point I was trying to make.

And you may wish to comment on the 40,000-50,000 Portuguese civilians who died of starvation and disease in and around Lisbon after being forcibly evacuated, under pain of death, in the path of Massena's Army of Portugal in 1810.

Why would I want to comment on it? It has got absolutely nothing to do with the point I was making.

"But, as Phil pointed out, if you agree with him, that is their own fault for daring to stand up to the French, in the same way he blames the Danes for standing up to the British."

How you chunter on, John!

You have the two teens who helped me baby-sit yesterday, convinced that you are a 14-year-old Troll. They argued that no one older that that would take Dibble's and my statements and pretend that we had said the opposite in the belief that it was funny. Definitely lower school they claimed.

I don't buy it, but I've told them that if you admit to it, I'll take them on an Xmas shopping spree this weekend.

Don't let that influence your answer, though; I take them every year, anyway.

Cheers,
Phil

Phil

How disturbing that your shared your posts with teenage babysitters? Did you see how they would react before you paid them? That suggests you did not have any adult wargamers or Napoleonic enthusiasts to share them with. Ah bless.

SJDonovan

The problem is that the concept of war crimes is not a modern day norm. It has been around for some time.

If you go to my post 13 DEC 5.46am PST, in this thread, you will see two links, one to a war crime in 1474 and one related to a war crime during the English Civil War.

And you may wish to comment on the 40,000-50,000 Portuguese civilians who died of starvation and disease in and around Lisbon after being forcibly evacuated, under pain of death, in the path of Massena's Army of Portugal in 1810. This was done by the Portuguese government and Wellington with the country laid waste.

All down to Nappy, his pixies and the wanton invasion and ongoing aggression against Portugal and Spain. Those deaths are his fault no-one else's. No French in the Peninsula, no misery for the populace.

And as for your blather about the Royal Engineers! I think that we all know their 'short' comings, including building pontoon bridges that were umm! Too 'short'.

But as long as The Duke's Army didn't come up short but that of the French did, is all that mattered

I posted nothing of the kind to SJ Donovan. I posted it in response to the repeated nonsense of Phil.

Too bad that you cannot get it right-repeatedly.

A trivial matter is as nothing compared to the utter rubbish you shove up on these sites. Which is a habit that you consistently fail to divest yourself of

You show my "Too bad that you cannot get it right-repeatedly" and I'll show yours.

Paul :)

Thanks for the list, Kevin. Although your list does not completely match mine, which was constructed for a slightly different purpose (I list the Spanish victories, Gerona 1&2, Saragosa 1, Astorga 2, and Chaves 2 separately and list the 21/2 year "siege" of Cadiz as being a largely successful land blockade rather than a failed siege) but your analysis is almost identical to mine.

Given the French successes during the campaign, and Wellington's realization that siege warfare was an essential part of the campaign, it seems worthwhile to examine, Britain's and France's strengths and deficiencies in this kind of warfare. I shall look at the British issues, which I know best, and perhaps you would help us with your insights into why French siege warfare, which was so successful at least up to 1812, failed to stop the combined French armies from being driven from the Peninsula

Since this has nothing to do with Copenhagen, I shall take the liberty of copying your post and making it the O.P of a new thread.

Cheers,
Phil

I'll look forward to it.

I would also highly recommend getting and reading Wellington's Engineers by Mark Thompson…

That's more like it. Posts about something Napoleonic. Keep it up guys.

I don't believe that we've covered the sieges in the Peninsula as a separate topic before, so it might be an interesting study as well as being beneficial to the forum as a whole-an arrow in the quiver so to speak.

If it goes well, then perhaps we can cover other sieges of the period.

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

If it's all the same, I won't take any lessons on behaviour from someone who managed to start a fight on a Paris condolences thread.

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

1474
link

UK English Civil War war crime
link

Oh dear. Too much gloating and not enough reading, I think. OK, let's just remind ourselves what my original premise was: that neither the term, nor the concept, of "war crime" existed in 1807 (because you and your "colleague" are not averse to moving the goalposts when it suits you).

Let's deal with the "big one" first, shall we? Did you actually read it – I mean really, really read it? Did you notice that it mentions that modern legal historians actually disagree with the idea that this is the "first" war crimes trial because it doesn't occur during a war? Or because the trial itself doesn't mention the term? (And that's before we even get to the idea that this is a "trial" involving political corruption and witnesses being tortured……)

Now the second one. Once again, did you actually bother to read it? Did you notice how the author uses "war crimes" in inverted commas throughout the article? Why would she do this? Well, quite simple really. Because she knows it is an anachronism and is only using the term because it attracts an audience and gives them a modern term to relate to.

As for me knowing nothing – well, I have a 1st class honours degree in law, during the course of which I studied not only criminal law, but also international law. During my second and third years, I wrote an article on the use of the SAS during the Iranian Embassy siege, which was published in an international law review. I also assisted my lecturers with research on two other articles that covered the Gurkhas as mercenaries, and the concept of war crimes. As a result of these, I was contacted by David Chandler, and had lunch with him a couple of times.

And you……?

The problem is that the concept of war crimes is not a modern day norm. It has been around for some time.

Wrong. The concept is not known until the very end of the 19th Century, or the beginning of the 20th Century – see the first sentence of the second paragraph in the Wikipedia article on war crimes:-

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crime

If you go to my post 13 DEC 5.46am PST, in this thread, you will see two links, one to a war crime in 1474 and one related to a war crime during the English Civil War.

The first link actually contains a statement that many modern legal historians disagree with this, not least because it does not occur during a war (the crimes are "against God and humanity", btw). The fact that modern lawyers have taken a case and re-named it, does not mean that the case itself was regarded as such at the time. There is no mention of the words "war crimes" in the trial itself, nor in any other trial prior to the Hague Conventions of the early 1900s, as I said.

The second link contains the words "war crimes" written that way – by a former legal advisor to the military – throughout the article because it is clearly an anachronism.

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

And you'd be wrong. (Why do you keep dragging this up?)

Next……

Supercilius Maximus

You do really need to at least try to get your facts right, for once!

There was no fight concerning the Paris Condolences. Some sad people objected to my offering my support and compassion to our French members. Others felt it was fine.

As to the 1474 link. You dare ask me if I read it when you obviously have NOT read it yourself. If you had, you would have read the following: 'Burgundy's occupation of the territory was hostile and so the charges against Hagenbach may well be considered war crimes.' Also mentioned is the court case brought up the idea of crimes against humanity and charging rape as a war crime.

And concerning The English Civil War article. It describes how Major Connaught was tried in a court for the murder of one of the villages massacred during the Civil War. I think the facts of a court, a massacre and a Civil War all add up to a war crime. It may not add up to you, of course, but that is your point of view and you are entitled to it.

You do really need to at least try to get your facts right, for once!

There was no fight concerning the Paris Condolences. Some sad people objected to my offering my support and compassion to our French members. Others felt it was fine.

Well, what's that if it isn't a fight then? Tell you what, why not let other people decide?

TMP link

As to the 1474 link. You dare ask me if I read it when you obviously have NOT read it yourself. If you had, you would have read the following: 'Burgundy's occupation of the territory was hostile and so the charges against Hagenbach may well be considered war crimes. Also mentioned is the court case brought up the idea of crimes against humanity and charging rape as a war crime.

Yes, charging it retrospectively. The original rapes were charged as a crime against God and humanity, NOT as a war crime. The term is never mentioned until the late 19th Century. The British at Copenhagen are not charged with rape. They fired on a fortified town, picking out some of the public places; that was not a "war crime" in 1807 – in fact, it wasn't a war crime in 1907 either.

And concerning The English Civil War article. It describes how Major Connaught was tried in a court for the murder of one of the villages massacred during the Civil War. I think the facts of a court, a massacre and a Civil War all add up to a war crime. It may not add up to you, of course, but that is your point of view and you are entitled to it.

Tried for murder. And I notice you make no reference to the use of " " around the term "war crime" throughout the article. Why not?

Supercilius Maximus

The original post of support and compassion was made in the Napoleonic boards, because that is where I post and was intended as a message of support for our French members. I did not post in the Ultra modern boards or even read the posts. The first version of my support post had a mass of fantasy posts attached to it, which is why I made a second version, with basically the same wording. But it was transferred by the editor to the Ultra modern board because some sad member said it offended them and claimed it broke house rules, even though the post did not ask for debate or discussion. It was just a post of support. How is that starting a fight? Were you threatened or challenged by it?

And come on, stop acting the legal man and get real. A crime committed during a war is a war crime, whatever or whenever a particular form of terminology is employed. I think you are trying to whitewash reality with legal jargon. But this is not a court, so I suggest you leave it out. And the deliberate bombardment of civilians by the British at Copenhagen in 1807 was a war crime. You don't want to accept that. Tough. I do. Get over it.

Have a Happy New Year.

To change the climb… (smile)

"The Battle of Copenhagen – April 2nd 1801.

Free to read here
PDF link

Hope you enjoy!

Amicalement
Armand

Well done, again, Armand.

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.

It is used by the author of Defying Napoleon, Thomas Munch-Peterson. And if you read the text you'll find that the appellation is appropriate as the target was the civilian population and the intent was to instill terror in order to force the surrender of the city.

Brechtel198

I guess the British commanders took what Canning said to heart, concerning Copenhagen 1807.

'For we must not disguise the fact from ourselves-we are hated throughout Europe-and that hatred must be cured by fear.' Letter-Canning to Gower, 2nd Oct, 1807.

Can't possibly think why the British would be hated though, lovely caring and peace loving nation that they were. LOL

Thanks Kevin! (smile)

Full of "Copenhagen" books these days…! (smile)

Amicalement
Armand