"A Bold and Ambitious Enterprise " Topic

You simply haven't understood what Moore – and indeed Napoleon – were actually trying to do.

Perhaps then you can explain it simply and plainly. You obviously believe that you understand it. Perhaps you can begin with a usable definition of strategy, the operational art, and tactics.

If not, then the point is moot. You have not shown any expertise in the above or how to analyze a military campaign, so maybe its time to at least attempt to do so.

The distinction between Ireland and the Vendee is simply that the Irish were a separate people (and indeed a separate kingdom); English, and later British, rule in Ireland had been contested on and off for centuries beforehand.

The Irish certainly believed that they were, but they were both owned and occupied by the British during the period, hence the revolt. The British also severely mistreated the Irish, which is another inconvenient fact you have now overlooked.

The British were engaged in a war to expand their colonial empire during the period. They took advantage of the international situation and were determined to once again fight the French no matter how long it took. And they were expert at getting the other European major powers to do most of the heavy lifting on the continent. The British army was not very large in comparison to their allies, and it should also be noted that Wellington would not have been successful in Spain and Portugal with the Portuguese Army, allied contingents in Spain, such as the Brunswickers, and the King's German Legion, while composed of foreigners, was an integral part of the British Army, not to mention the Spanish guerillas. Without the guerillas, Wellington would have lost, as the French would not have had to fight two wars in Spain-one against Wellington and one against the guerillas.

The British also severely mistreated the Irish, which is another inconvenient fact you have now overlooked.

I'm sorry, in what way did I "overlook" this? I actually mentioned that the Irish had been fighting British rule for several centuries. You really are becoming rather desperate now, aren't you?

And actually, you are some way off. By the 1790s (and for some time before), it was the Protestant Ascendancy which was causing the problems – the same Ascendancy that had threatened to cause a rebellion during the AWI until it got what it wanted from London. The union of the two islands in 1801 was broadly welcomed by the Catholic majority – and certainly the growing middle class, which had rallied round and raised a large part of the 100th to 105th Foot regiments during the AWI following the repeal of the land-related elements of the Penal Laws (leading to the Gordon Riots in London).

If you read Pakenham's book "The Year of Liberty" you will find that many Rebels were shocked at being accused of treason when captured and claimed they were fighting against unjust landlords, not the King. The atrocities committed against them, post-capture, were almost entirely by the Yeomanry, which was formed around the landlords and their servants – with two exceptions (both Celtic, not English) no British regular or fencible troops did this, and with the exception of Lake (a French Huguenot by birth), British generals were broadly sympathetic to Irish complaints and Cornwallis later resigned as Governor-General because his plans for reform and Catholic emancipation were voted down by the government.

As for the Spanish thing, your arguments are redundant since Wellington and a British army would not have been in Spain if there had been no other resistance to French occupation.

Brechtel

Really?

And where is the citation that I actually said that or 'believe' it?

So why did you 'flag' them up under colours captured in on your posts on more than one occasion? I'll tell you why! It's because you believe rubbish that has no basis in fact and you have been shown the errors of your ways on countless occasions by many people.

Gazzola:

Napoleon and the French captured Spain quite quickly, but the British, even though they were aided by the Spanish and Portuguese, took six years to take it back.

By the way, which of Napoleon's 'hordes' were employed in the British attack against the capital of Denmark in 1807?

I will make an exception and answer your last post to me.

Have a good read and find out if Nappy captured Spain. He never ever captured Spain. both before or after the British first landed in the 1808 intervention.

As for your Denmark diatribe. What part of "And of course, associated actions and raids like Copenhagen" do you not understand.

"associated
əˈsəʊʃieɪtɪd/
adjective
adjective: associated

(of a person or thing) connected with something else.
"two associated events"
synonyms: related, connected, linked, correlated, analogous, similar, alike, kindred, corresponding;"

Paul :)

So why did you 'flag' them up under colours captured in on your posts on more than one occasion? I'll tell you why! It's because you believe rubbish that has no basis in fact and you have been shown the errors of your ways on countless occasions by many people.

Absolute nonsense, which is why I refrain from 'discussing' any Napoleonic topic with you on any forum.

So, if you actually believe I made this statement in the past, please provide a reference to it.

If you cannot, then all I can assume is that you either made it up or you are misrepresenting something that was said long ago.

I am not surprised at either. You have a very bad habit of accusing people of saying things that were never stated or implied when the British Army is criticized in any way.

Everyone makes errors, but unless you can support this false accusation I suggest you stop with your petulant nonsense.

I assume your last sentence is as close to admitting that your initial statement was demonstrably wrong as we're likely to get, Kevin?

Since you're back to giving out advice, perhaps you should consider some yourself. As a published author, who certainly considers himself a serious author, you're really not doing your reputation any favours here, or indeed over the last few months. In the many years I've browsed these forums, off and on, you at least seemed to have access to a good range of sources and whilst I would take your opinions with a pinch of salt, I gave you the benefit of the doubt when it came to evidence.

Increasingly though, you seem to throw out obviously incorrect statements in threads. When challenged, you claim to provide evidence, although often this doesn't support your statement at all and when this is pointed out you just start shifting the goalposts. Of late, this included the numerous Copenhagen threads, where the debate about the raid's status precluded what could have been a useful comparison between its effectiveness versus, say, the invasion of neutral Portugal or allied Spain by the French. You then disappeared from the threads in question, only to claim 'victory' in others. We then had the debacle of the British engineers discussions, where my initial post (which congratulated you on providing a range of evidence) was described as excellent, but when I differed on how to interpret it, was dismissed.

Added to this you often start presenting your opinions as facts and introduce arbitrary and contradictory proofs, consistently adopting double standards. When even basic statements are fundamentally incorrect, this really brings into question your objectivity and methodology when it comes to your writing. As someone with a large Napoleonic collection, your books may be of use to me, but I no longer feel confident in actually purchasing one.

Even if your statement were a half truth, I fail to see the point of it. You might as well say the same of the French and Bonaparte in this era and I venture there may well have been a much bigger impact on Europe has Bonaparte not been leading the French (I suspect a lot more people would have lived through the era, for a start).

Might I suggest that the next time you're hoist on your own petard you either admit that you've used hyperbole or perhaps even just point out what you meant to say, rather than pretending you didn't type the words that are plain for all to see, whilst making up a new argument to 'prove' others wrong? It might not hurt to admit you're wrong on occasion and you'd get far more respect for it.

p.s. When talking about spin, you might want to consider that focusing on British casualties at Bladensburg, "the greatest disgrace ever dealt to American arms" according to Howe, is certainly a fantastic example of spin. Perhaps if the American troops had hung around a bit longer, the casualties would have been more equitable.

Brechtel-Massena-Kiley

Absolute nonsense, which is why I refrain from 'discussing' any Napoleonic topic with you on any forum.

No it's not, It's because I refute your arguments with first hand accounts so you don't get away with the type of rubbish that you trot out. From our first encounters, all you have done is prevaricate and ignore then when you realise that you are on a hiding to nothing, you disappear, then at a later date, you cough up the same old tripe on another thread or site.

I would have thought that by now you would have realised that I will cross swords with people who I think are wrong, that I am very knowledgable of the topic under discussion and that I, on almost every occasion, will bring huge amounts of evidence the debate.

Unlike you, I don't pretend to know all there is to know about what happened during Nappy's time of prominence. I will not post anything if 1) I agree with the general gist of a debate. 2) I can not help with data, whether it be on occurrences or Uniform information. 3) I don't tread on dodgy ground because (unlike you, who has dug many holes for himself) I don't get involved in things that I have little knowledge of. You think that you are the Nappy wars know it all but on many, many occasions, you have been shown that in fact you aren't!

Your worse mistake was ever picking on me in the first place. My memory is long and your slight over the size of my library, using insulting words and questioning my honesty was the small but accumulative significant catalysts in my differences with you .

If you cannot, then all I can assume is that you either made it up or you are misrepresenting something that was said long ago.

I am not surprised at either. You have a very bad habit of accusing people of saying things that were never stated or implied when the British Army is criticized in any way.

link

link

Paul

The two links you have posted that refer to two of my postings on ACG are quite correct.

However, they do not say anything close to what you stated in this thread that I said.

You posted this above:

I would just like to add that Kiley believes that The British lost 10 colours at Cacabelos (Prietos) Yup! that very place where Plunket shot dead Colbert & Co. with two shots.

I posted this on another site

The so called '10 colours at Prietos' alluded to as 'captured' by the French would have been at the battle of Cacabelos (Prietos) 3rd January 1809, the only significant engagement that happened on this day involving the British. which was a rear-guard action during the retreat to Corunna. (Thomas Plunket killed General Colbert during this engagement)

The British rearguard contingent at this time was commanded by Maj Gen the Hon Edward Paget and consisted of the following:

15th hussars*
20th
28th
52nd
95th*
91st
1x Horse Artillery battery*

Seeing that those units that I have starred definitely never carried colours at this time, it means that those regiments that did (or may have) carry colours must have been wiped out, that one battalion must have had two stands (four flags) of colours or two battalions must have had three colours each. This must also mean that Colbert's death at the hand and eye of Plunkett, was totally and utterly avenged and overshadowed in history by the total destruction of Paget's division …Err NOT!"

I originally asked 'M' for evidence about these 10 colours but he has none and will not find any. But it seems he will post this rubbish because he thinks that it did happen but that the dastardly 'Eeenglish' have buried the truth.

And that posting and the information in it is incorrect. I have never claimed that the British lost ten colors at one time and I don't believe that I ever discussed the skirmish in which French General Colbert was killed regarding lost colors.

Your posting is wrong, your information is both incorrect and misleading and you have misrepresented, I'm guessing deliberately, what I have stated.

If you want to pick a fight, go somewhere else. What you habitually do when you disagree with someone, especially regarding the British army, are actions which can be construed to be intellectually dishonest.

That is why I usually refrain from discussing anything with you because you cloud some good information with vindictiveness over imagined slights, blatant nationalism that gets in the way of historical discussion, and intended personal insult which is nothing but a logical fallacy, the ad hominem attack. You attack who you perceive to be your opponent personally, instead of discussing the information presented.

You would get much further if you just discussed the information itself, and not the person posting it. You would certainly get much further with that approach and that would benefit the forums as a whole. As it is, you do nothing but accuse, disrupt, and antagonize.

If the latter is your intent, you are succeeding brilliantly.

And in this case with the subject quotation and accusation, it is a false one which is abhorrent.

…you might want to consider that focusing on British casualties at Bladensburg, "the greatest disgrace ever dealt to American arms" according to Howe, is certainly a fantastic example of spin. Perhaps if the American troops had hung around a bit longer, the casualties would have been more equitable.

If you want to take a look at the action, you'll find that the Marines and Flotillamen under Joshua Barney, fighting as infantry and artillery, inflicted the most casualties on the attacking British and were 'congratulated' for their stand by the British, who captured the wounded Barney.

A little research goes a long way…

Perhaps then you can explain it simply and plainly.

I did, in the previous posts. Did you not understand it?

You obviously believe that you understand it. Perhaps you can begin with a usable definition of strategy, the operational art, and tactics.

You were saying something before about condescension…

If not, then the point is moot….You have not shown any expertise in the above or how to analyze a military campaign

Or, rather you haven't shown any expertise. However, I took the simple step of reading and posting what the generals involved were trying to do. You haven't done that, which is why advise you to study the campaign and then we can discuss.

But you then wrote:

You would get much further if you just discussed the information itself, and not the person posting it. You would certainly get much further with that approach and that would benefit the forums as a whole. As it is, you do nothing but accuse, disrupt, and antagonize.

So again, I presume that you mean this ironically, as self-criticism?

so maybe its time to at least attempt to do so.

Yes, if you did a little research, that would go a long way and we could probably have a useful discussion.

You are at it again aren't you? You know where that information came from, You also knew what the source alluded to. So 'as usual' I expect the wriggling prevarication from you.

Brechtel-Massena-Kiley

especially regarding the British army, are actions which can be construed to be intellectually dishonest.

Like your spin in the above posts to others and like your take (and these are just a few of your 'contributions')on the Guards at Quatre Bras. The action at Jenappe. The Grenadiers A Cheval and Grenadiers a Pied at Waterloo. No Royal Horse Artillery in the Peninsula until 1810. The number of guns captured by the allies at Waterloo. and that the French captured Papelotte….

blatant nationalism

Yupadoodie! But all backed up with lots and lots sources. And I don't run away from a discussion or ignore people, including the obnoxious, unless that is, they are too ignorant ever to edit (as I do) their conversation with me in the appropriate manner.

Paul :)

Brechtel,

Reviewing this thread I notice that you have avoided two question I have posed repeatedly:-

1) Why are we discounting attacks on colonies of the Dutch, when we are counting attacks on colonies of the Spanish, when both were allies of the French, were at war with the UK at the time, and – in one case at least – are closer to Europe?

2) Why are we discounting major campaigns in India which, again, is closer to (eastern) Europe than the east coast of North America is to (western) Europe, yet we are including much smaller campaigns in North America?

I am sure you are as eager to answer these questions as I am to hear those answers. If nothing else, it would avoid any accusations of operating double standards now, wouldn't it?

You are at it again aren't you? You know where that information came from, You also knew what the source alluded to. So 'as usual' I expect the wriggling prevarication from you.

Thank you very much for proving my point. It is greatly appreciated.

Whirlwind

If you are suggesting that the French did not capture Spain and were therefore not an occupying army, please explain why the British needed to go there or why the Spanish army and guerrillas kept trying to win it back? You cannot attempt to regain something if you have not already lost it. Simples!

dibble

Please don't reply to my posts if it you don't really want to. They won't be missed, certainly not by me anyway.

But should you feel the need again to reply to one of my posts, here is the same question. By stating that the Spanish did not lose Spain to the French, do you not realise you, like whirlwind, are implying that the French were not an occupying force. If that was the case, there would be no need for the British to be involved or the continued and failed Spanish attempts to win their country back. Simples.

As to your views on the British atrocity at Copenhagen, your biased opinion is well known and there is no real need for me to comment further on that matter.

Gazzola,

Can I recommend you read any history of the Peninsular War and this will enlighten you about the basic facts of the campaign?

Supercilious Maximus

As shown in the previous debates on Copenhagen, the British attack and atrocity there showed they were just as bad as anyone else and did not care what they did or who to, or if they were attacking a neutral people or terrorizing civilians. It basically proved the British to be hypocrites and I suggest you read further into the whole affair.

Whirlwind

I see you have not answered the question.

Gazzola,

please explain why the British needed to go there …

Because Napoleon invaded Spain and the British were trying to help the Spanish

or why the Spanish army and guerrillas kept trying to win it back? You cannot attempt to regain something if you have not already lost it. Simples!

Becuase the French were occupying some of Spain. The Allies were trying to force the French out of the places that they invaded.

This is really simple stuff Gazzola, I can only advise you again to read a very basic history of the Peninsular War.

As shown in the previous debates on Copenhagen, the British attack and atrocity there showed they were just as bad as anyone else and did not care what they did or who to, or if they were attacking a neutral people or terrorizing civilians. It basically proved the British to be hypocrites and I suggest you read further into the whole affair.

Sorry, but how does this relate to my comment about you dismissing the importance of the Danish fleet? We weren't discussing whether it was a "war crime" or not, but whether the Danish fleet was seaworthy and/or whether it posed the level of threat that the British government thought it did.

You seem to have caught a nasty dose of Brechtelitis – answering the question(s) you would prefer to be asked, rather than the one you actually were.

whirlwind

You really are funny. Anyway, since you still failed to answer the question I have provide you with a little help. But if you still don't get it, please ask someone.

'In November-December 1807 General Andoche Junot led a French army through Spain and into Portugal; Lisbon was occupied (1 December) and the Portuguese royal family fled to their Brazilian colony, leaving the government in the hands of a Council of Regency which appealed to Britain for assistance. In March 1808 Murat led a massive French army into Spain; the ineffectual King Charles IV and his equally inept son Ferdinand were compelled to renounce the throne and were taken as virtual prisoners to France, and Napoleon's brother Joseph was 'elected' as the new king of Spain by the Bonapartist fraction. In May insurrections against the French occupation began, the genesis of the guerrilla war which was to be waged until 1814, characterised by the most hideous brutality on both sides but which restored the pride of the Spanish nation, their regular military forces being largely ineffective.'
(page 39: The Napoleonic Source Book by Philip Haythorthwaite)

'At the beginning of 1808 no one would have considered it possible. Spain was a docile ally of Napoleon and Portugal a country abandoned by its rulers and firmly occupied by a large French army. Yet by the end of the year the entire Iberian peninsula was in the grip of a great insurrection against the emperor and Lisbon was firmly in the hands of British troops.' (page 1: Peninsular Eyewitnesses by Charles Esdaile)

'Thus, not only was the Spanish king being held by the French but the country was effectively under French occupation' (page 10. Voices From the Peninsula by Ian Fletcher)

The words you need to consider are occupied, occupation and insurrections. You could look them up but here's a few links to help you.

link

link

Some more hints: Spain-occupied-who by-the French
Insurrection-who against-the French

No one claims that the French conquest of Spain ended once they occupied it, as the insurrections prove – but the insurrections were against the 'occupiers'-the French. The Spanish were aided by the British, who, as we know had to do a runner in 1809 and sailed away, and in 1812 the British had to do another runner back to Portugal after the failed siege at Burgos. Now why do you think that was? The French ruled Spain but they did not control it or its people and it took the combined efforts of the British, Portuguese and Spanish six years to finally force the 'occupiers' out.

Brechtel-Massena-Kiley

Thank you very much for proving my point. It is greatly appreciated.

What! That you posted the relevant references that allude to 10 colours at Prietos (Cacabelos). You probably lifted the information off the site below, a site that you 'contribute' to.

link

Paul :)

Supercilious Maximus

I'll try to be more simple for you. You see the attack on Copenhagen in 1807 as a British victory because they managed steal the Danish fleet. I see it as a failure because they turned a neutral country against Britain at a time when the French were dominant in Europe.

The attack was based on a fear of what might happen, rather than what was happening or had happened. But the Danish fleet was far from seaworthy which proved the intelligence they based their fear on was false. It also showed the true colours of the British, that they would do what they want with whoever they wanted, even if their actions were based on fear, along with the fact of course, they wanted everyone to fear them.

Had the French captured the Danish fleet in the same way and perhaps also employing the atrocity of bombarding the civilians, I hardly imagine people would have offered them the same praise of a job well done, yourself included.

What! That you posted the relevant references that allude to 10 colours at Prietos (Cacabelos). You probably lifted the information off the site below, a site that you 'contribute' to.

If you hadn't noticed, that isn't my posting. And I don't 'lift' material from others but do my own research.

You've made a false accusation and you should admit that.

What you are doing is monstrous.

And if you notice, genius, I did not contribute to the thread in question.

Gazzola

You really are funny.

I'm not, but you are totally hilarious.

Anyway, since you still failed to answer the question I have provide you with a little help. But if you still don't get it, please ask someone.

Oh, you failed to read two posts above did you? Try seeing if you can count to two and get there.

As anyone who has studied the period for the last two centuries has seen except you, Napoleon failed to conquer the Iberian peninsular in seven years of trying with huge numbers of troops, with the Allied armies defeating his massed legions.

No one claims that the French conquest of Spain ended once they occupied it, as the insurrections prove – but the insurrections were against the 'occupiers'-the French.

They occupied some Spanish territory, yes. They were trying to occupy it all…and failed, miserably and utterly.

The French ruled Spain but they did not control it or its people

So, no, they didn't rule it then.

Brechtel-Massena-Kiley

If you hadn't noticed, that isn't my posting. And I don't 'lift' material from others but do my own research.

Did I say that that post in my last link belonged to you?

You've made a false accusation and you should admit that.

No! You posted that the colours captured in Spain (Peninsula) was a grand total of 22. you also posted the authors of the claim which includes '10 captured at Prietos'

link

link

And this is the thread in question

link

What you are doing is monstrous.

Fee-fi-fo-fum; I smell the blood of a wriggling americun!

And if you notice, genius, I did not contribute to the thread in question.

And if you notice Einstein; I didn't say you did!

Paul

No, but you definitely 'inferred' that I was the author of the skirmish issue.

You have not proven that I did anything. I did quote from the Tranie book on Spain which is the reference I have.

I did not quote from Regnault directly.

Whatever point you're trying to prove failed.

And as you keep doing it and coming up with the same negative result, no matter what you're trying to do, that is a definition of insanity.

Give it up and move on.

And your lack of poetic sense is appalling.

'If you want to take a look at the action, you'll find that the Marines and Flotillamen under Joshua Barney, fighting as infantry and artillery, inflicted the most casualties on the attacking British and were 'congratulated' for their stand by the British, who captured the wounded Barney.

A little research goes a long way…'

I'm not sure what point you're making Kevin? You chose to start focusing on casualty figures. Outnumbered British troops lost around 4% killed and wounded, whilst attacking emplaced artillery and outgunned, in return for burning the American capital and seeing the opposing army routed. The American troops lost around 3%, mainly captured. Whilst the British troops might well have congratulated the 10% that fought on a bit longer and were captured, it will be in comparision to the rest of the army. Even if those ~20 killed were all from the artillery and marines, it is still a very low casualty rate and suggests that a longer resistance was possible.

I don't blame them for surrendering or retreating when the rest of the army departed, but it's hardly a heroic last stand and I would expect them to have been more motivated than that. I said that the American troops needed to stick around longer for more equitable casualties and given the battle was over in less than four hours, I stand by that.

'I'll try to be more simple for you. You see the attack on Copenhagen in 1807 as a British victory because they managed steal the Danish fleet. I see it as a failure because they turned a neutral country against Britain at a time when the French were dominant in Europe.'

What a curious way of seeing things Gazzola. There's simple and there's simplistic. If the British forces had been instructed to seize the Danish fleet without a declaration of war then you may have a point. They did try to form an alliance and offered terms several times, but ultimately the government sent them there with a large and well-equipped force, prepared for war if necessary. I can't see how Denmark declaring war is in any way unexpected, nor the main concern of Britain.

Even though the Danish fleet wasn't ready at that point to engage the Royal Navy, the fact was that Denmark would have to make a choice at some point regarding its neutrality. After all, look what happened to Portugal. The ships were a serious threat in British eyes and that threat was removed in a very short space of time. The Danish army was a very minor threat, as Koge demonstrated and when compared to the large French and allied forces already set against Britain. Several thousand extra troops are small beer. After Copenhagen, Danish sailors are only a threat to merchant shipping. Without Copenhagen they could have threatened the Royal Navy as well (and I wouldn't have blamed them for siding with Napoleon eventually – a French occupation would have been much easier to maintain than a British one).

I enjoyed reading parts of the threads in question and noted you found an interesting thesis. If I recall correctly, it finished by noting that is was appropriate that the Baltic fleet was led by the flagship HMS Victory…

I don't blame them for surrendering or retreating when the rest of the army departed, but it's hardly a heroic last stand and I would expect them to have been more motivated than that. I said that the American troops needed to stick around longer for more equitable casualties and given the battle was over in less than four hours, I stand by that.

Whatever you blame or not is not important and whatever you stand by, I suggest you actually take a look at what Barney and his Marines and Flotillamen actually accomplished. They weren't militia, as the overwhelming majority of the American troops were-they were regulars and clearly demonstrated a willingness to stand and fight.

And they did very well against the British regulars. That is significant whether or not you recognize it.

And I wouldn't consider burning buildings in Washington to be something to be proud of.

Standing against the first British advance against them, Barney stated 'I reserved our fire. In a few minutes the British advanced, when I ordered an 18-pounder to be fired, which completely cleared the road. The British later gave credit to Barney and his troops by stating that the initial artillery fire from Barney's artillery blew an entire British company off the road upon which they advanced.

According to the US Secretary of the Navy, the Marines and Flotillamen, upon his inspection: '…whose appearance and preparations for battle promised all that could be expected from cool intrepidity and a high state of readiness.'

When the British advanced against Barney, they were thrown back three times, and the third repulse was followed by a counterattack by the Marines and sailors.

The stand of the Marines and sailors was described by a contemporary observer: 'The people of the flotilla, under the orders of Capt Barney, and the Marines, were justly applauded for their excellent conduct on this occasion. No troops could have stood better; and the fire of both artillery and musketry has been described as to the last degree severe. Capt Barney himself, and Captain Miller of the Marines in particular, gained much additional reputation.'

Ross stated in his after-action report that 'They have given us our only real fighting.'

See Soldiers of the Sea by Robert Heinl, 24-25.

'They have given us our only real fighting.'

I don't recall stating there was no fighting, but that quote chimes nicely with my first comment.

I didn't mention pride either, but I'm certainly sensing some lost pride and hurt. Keep searching for your crumbs of comfort Kevin.

Had the French captured the Danish fleet in the same way and perhaps also employing the atrocity of bombarding the civilians, I hardly imagine people would have offered them the same praise of a job well done, yourself included.

Mr Avery has already answered you more skillfully than I could.

Had Great Britain been about to invade France by seizing the Danish fleet, I would have expected the French to do exactly the same thing – as indeed they did in the 1790s when they seized the Dutch fleet.

Unless I have clearly stated it, please don't assume my disposition on anything in future.

…but I'm certainly sensing some lost pride and hurt. Keep searching for your crumbs of comfort Kevin.

Incredible.

You're 'sensing' incorrectly. It's amazing how you and some others read into something that just isn't there.

Your condescending tone is noteworthy, however.

Can't we just all agree that the British were the bad guys; the French were the good guys and the only reason the perfidious, warmongering British ended up on the winning side was because they cheated and paid other people to do the fighting for them.

And anyway, Napoleon didn't really lose: he was the moral victor because he believed in truth, liberty and the American way.

Can't we all just agree on that?

Ahhh, S J Donovan, if only there was a 'like' button on here. Supercilius Maximus, you're too kind. I have enjoyed your postings recently, along with dibble, Crumple, Whirlwind and PhilinYuma.

I am confused by those do think that paying other people to field the massive armies needed to defeat France actually was a form of cheating. They do seem to keep harping on about it and I just don't understand it. I mean, 'Come on Britain, It's not like you're a maritime nation, with the world's largest fleet, necessary to keep the trade lines you depend on open.' Oh, wait…

It seems eminently reasonable to get those with the capacity to field large armies that don't need shipping and maintaining overseas to do the heavy lifting on that front. It's not like Napoleon didn't have an awful lot of non-French troops fighting for him.

Brechtel-Massena-Kiley

No, but you definitely 'inferred' that I was the author of the skirmish issue.

The inference is all yours.

You have not proven that I did anything. I did quote from the Tranie book on Spain which is the reference I have.
I did not quote from Regnault directly.

Ok! You posted that the British lost 22 colours in the Peninsula (1808-1814) which are listed as? Perhaps you can tell not just me, but the rest of the readers on this site. Surely you must have checked the information contained within before posting

Whatever point you're trying to prove failed.

My link to the whole thread shows exactly what and where you got your information from. Putting up such spurious stuff then walking away from providing evidence is a trait you wrap yourself in.

And as you keep doing it and coming up with the same negative result, no matter what you're trying to do, that is a definition of insanity.

One thing about the internet is that the arguments are out there for all to see.

Give it up and move on.

Just as soon as you stop posting myth or you change a habit of a lifetime and come up with 'good' sources to back your claims.

And your lack of poetic sense is appalling.

There you have it folks! he is now a dyed in the wool poet laureate with a critique bent.

Please Mr Kiley, show us what those 22 colours captured in the Peninsula alluded to.

Paul :)

Gazzola,
I can only imagine you are filling your boots with stuff, I wonder,and many with me- is it salty?
Oh no here it is, no sorry dropped it, no got it now, Here you go Gazz I've got your dummy.

Ben Avery

It is not being simplistic, it is looking at things with an open mind and not with a Union Jack blindfold, as many seem to have.

I don't intend to get bogged down in a Copenhagen debate again, since it was done to death in the other threads. But you seem to be ignoring the fact that in 1807 France was the dominant land power, so Britain should have been looking to attract allies, not make enemies.

And due to a fear of what might happen, the British went there with a massive war fleet and land force and then basically demanded, from the neutral Danes, give us your fleet or else. That, in anyone's mind is an act of war, so yes, the British were probably expecting them to refuse. And it must be noted that the British attacked and captured a Danish ship that was trying to sail away, killing some of its crew, before the Danes declared war in response to the arrogant demands of the British.

And the so called threat was not such a threat at all and it was not, as you put it, 'removed in a very short space of time'. It took them over six weeks to get them ready to sail away. And if the Danes were considered not that much of an opponent on land, they would not have need to send such a large force in the first place.

But, as I say, I don't intend to go on about Copenhagen again, but if I remember rightly, during my research into the event, I read that the Danes did quite a lot of damage to merchant ships after Copenhagen, that forced the British to employ ships there to protect them.

I don't have the thesis to hand, and I am assuming you are not referring to any of the links provided in the various threads, so, at the moment, I can't comment on the mention of the Victory.

Crumple

Please take your childish posts elsewhere. This site is for adults discussing something that is obviously way above your head.

Supercilious Maximus

Well, after admitting Ben Avery's post offers a more skilful answer than you could produce, perhaps you should consider leaving him to do the debating in future.

SM, you missed Fishguard from the list of victories.

Whirlwind

I will ignore some of your childish comments. I expected better from you.

Anyway, I am sure you must be aware that Napoleon removed the Spanish king and placed his brother on the throne, so how did he do that exactly, if he had not taken over or been a position to take over? (I disagree with him doing that, by the way, which might surprise some people)

And the Spanish people, to everyone's surprise, revolted against this and tried to take back their country and kick the French out. But, as we know, they were incapable of doing so alone, financially or militarily, so they asked the British to help them. If the French had not occupied Spain and removed their ruler, there would have been no need for their bitter struggle to WIN IT BACK, which as I keep saying, took them six years to do, even with the aid of Britain and Portugal.

And come on, the 'some parts' you admit to the French occupying must have been quite considerable for it to take such a long period to win them back, don't you agree? Plus, the French still ruled from Madrid throughout the period, apart from one or two brief gaps, until 1813.

Where to start, eh Gazzola? For someone who posts at such great length with such regularity you seem to learn very little.

Let's start with the open mind. Firstly, I would say that I and most posters on this thread (and all the others) tend to accept and believe that countries will act in their own best interests and in fact should generally do so for the benefit of their people. That's perfectly natural. You however, seem to think that in the Napoleonic era this applies to everyone but Britain, who must (for some unknown reason) be held to a different and contradictory standard.
Please stop with the blindfold nonsense and maybe you could say that the French invasions of neutral Portugal or allied Spain were objectively wrong. EDIT: I see you think the only thing Napoleon did wrong was put his brother on the throne. Of course.

Then you talk about me ignoring France as the dominant land power and Britain should focus on alliances. I suggest you look at my post before yours first, then recall all those threads where it was mentioned that Britain indeed had offered alliances to Denmark and been refused. I don't think it was in Denmark's best interests to ally with Britain and don't blame them for saying no, but you are the one ignoring what happened. Sending 30,000 men to seize the fleet was not Britain's first choice of action.

Then consider how many coalitions Britain helped form both before and after Copenhagen. Britain was well aware it needed alliances but Austria and Prussia in particular are worth far more than Denmark and Britain has to stay in the game.

As for Britain sending a large force to Denmark, of course they did. There were thousands of militia in Denmark, even if they weren't going to go on campaign. The British had limited time before autumn and sending for reinforcements could have cost them a victory. Also, they had to face the possibility of maintaining a siege whilst holding off land forces trying to relieve Copenhagen. Happily for the British, Koge confirmed this was less of an issue than feared. Finally, I suspect they hoped that when the Danes saw the large force outside, they would see that it was in the best interests of their people to surrender.

Hmm, let's see. Short space of time. Yup. Copenhagen fell within days. If the British had needed to they could have burned the Danish ships and stores. It was just an added bonus that they were able to spend those weeks preparing to take things away rather than destroying them in situ. I suspect that if the Danes had scuttled their fleet when the British had hoved into view, Britain would have been only slightly less disappointed, having to bear the whole cost of the expedition.

What's left? Oh, Danish raids on merchant ships (galleys, weren't they?). Obviously Britain considered it was something they could bear, because (as I and others have already told you) the Danes were no longer able to threaten the Royal Navy and/or help transport a French army anywhere.

Finally, the thesis. Yes, you posted it and it was by an American chap I think. I'll have a look for it tomorrow.

Well, after admitting Ben Avery's post offers a more skilful answer than you could produce, perhaps you should consider leaving him to do the debating in future.

Indeed I shall – he certainly has you well and truly beaten!

If only others were not so self-absorbed and full of their own importance that they are unable to do the same, eh?

It's too bad that you don't take your own advice.

You shouldn't judge others by standards which you don't follow yourself.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

Oh sorry, was that not supposed to be funny?

Whilst you're here, how about an answer to my two questions above? I'll repeat them for you so you don't have to look for them:-

1) Why are we discounting attacks on colonies of the Dutch, when we are counting attacks on colonies of the Spanish, when both were allies of the French, were at war with the UK at the time, and – in one case at least – are closer to Europe?

2) Why are we discounting major campaigns in India which, again, is closer to (eastern) Europe than the east coast of North America is to (western) Europe, yet we are including much smaller campaigns in North America?

Ben Avery

You obviously are one of those sad and silly souls who assume they know everything the people they are posting to. You don't. And I suggest you stop trying to make out you know, because you have failed miserably. But you are not th4e first to make such errors. I've seen plenty of other silly souls who think they know it all.

What is clear is that you obviously need to do some serious research on the Copenhagen affair and the aftermath. The fact you try to make out the whole affair was ' a short space of time' is quite comical but sadly the signs of an amateur. The terror bombardment (one the British deliberately chose to employ) lasting three days was only part of the whole affair, and you should have known that. The British were there for months. Look it up.

It was the civilians who forced the military to surrender. The military would have continued to resist any attacks, had the British actually made any. But they did not make any, as you will find out, should you read further.

The main Thesis which I quoted from is not online and was not lined. It is only available via a University Library.

In terms of the aftermath and Danish response to the British and Copenhagen attack, here is a interesting link to get you going. Other than that, I don't find you or your posts based on assumptions, worth replying to.

link

Supercilious Maximus

Ben Avery has offered up the same lame arguments that arose on the other threads concerning the British attack and atrocity at Copenhagen in 1807. A shame he did not take part in them. He would have been shown to be incorrect and basically ignorant of the event, just like the others who eventually ran away from the various threads.

But it is nice and very sensible of you to do a runner and let someone else take up the debate, should it continue. It saves my wasting further time with someone who knows very little, as you have admitted by stating that Ben Avery, of all people, is more skilful than you. That is so comical but so true.

Oh, this is fun.

Let's see. First, you just need to understand that the threat was the Danish fleet (why Britain had sent the force in the first place). Got that? Good.

I said that the threat was removed in a short space of time. You said it wasn't. I pointed out the city capitulated in days and you agreed with me. Clear so far? Capital.

Finally, let light dawn and realise that with the capture of Copenhagen the fleet is no longer a threat. Ergo, the threat is gone in a few days. It doesn't matter how long British troops stay in Copenhagen, other than to turn a negated threat into a source of cash and some value to the RN. Simple enough for you?

I referred to 'Danes' and didn't distinguish between military and civilian, as my point was that those in authority should have seen sense. Nor did I mention British attacks. I would be confused as to why you injected more strawmen into the thread, but I realise and accept that this is a habit of yours, as you prefer to answer questions in your head, rather than on the page in front of you.

I will apologise for confusing you with Phil, who linked the thesis in question: link

In case you don't want to spend time reading that (make sure you do check out the final statement though), from the page you linked:

'The tactical advantages were that they were highly manoeuvrable, especially in still and shallow waters and presented small targets. On the other hand, the boats were vulnerable, likely to sink from a single hit, they could not be used in rough seas, and they were less effective against large warships.'

'In the first three years of the Gunboat War, these boats were on several occasions able to capture cargo ships from the convoys and to defeat British naval brigs, though they were not strong enough to overcome larger frigates and ships of the line. The British had control of Danish waters during the whole of the 1807–1814 war, and when the season was suited to navigation they were regularly able to escort large merchant convoys out through the Sound and the Great Belt.'

'Although the discussion below focuses on armed encounters involving an exchange of fire, one must keep in mind that the British also captured numerous Danish privateers without firing a shot, and conducted an economic war, regularly seizing merchant vessels as prizes. Further economic damage was done by raids on the smaller islands.'

'The Treaty of Kiel ended the war on 15 January 1814. Denmark-Norway had to cede Heligoland to Britain and all of Norway to the king of Sweden. Denmark did get back the island of Anholt.'

Your own link describes it as a decisive British victory. Yes, I would say that threat had been removed and Britain was justified in choosing to live with the consequences of the raid on Copenhagen.

p.s. Gazzola. You used 'amateur' as a derogatory term regarding me (we'll skip over the other personal terms you chose to use). I rather thought most people on these boards were amateurs. Are you a professional Napoleonic historian then? I missed that. Who pays you to comment on historical matters on a message board?