"A Bold and Ambitious Enterprise " Topic

Brechtel-Massena-Kiley

I notice that you are ignoring my request to you that I posted in my last.

So I'll ask again by beseeching you Kevin to please, please show us what those 22 colours captured in the Peninsula alluded to. Perhaps you could post the relevant text on page 125 of Jean Tranie and JC Carmigniani's (you seem to have overlooked Henry Lachouque) book. By the way! I actually remember reading that book many years ago. It was a library book and even back then, it was 'I recall' blatantly bias (excusable at the time when almost all other tomes on the subject were penned by Anglo Saxons) but god knows how blatant it is after the passage of time and what we know nowadays.

I await your reply (if I get one) with anticipation.

Be aware that I am not all 'nemesis' towards you

link

Paul :)

Ben Avery

I apologise for the term amateur, but the I'm afraid the impression you give in your comical posts fits the bill so well. You do need to read up on a topic before making such, well, amateur posts.

Anyway, I'm so glad you think it is fun. It should be and you are certainly making me laugh, just as Napoleon must have laughed at the British falling for his deliberate rumours. And er, you seem to have fallen for it to, 200 years later. LOL The power of that man, eh?

And I can well understand you getting confused when you thought I had posted something that someone else had. Never mind, when you learn to read better you might grow out of that habit. No one stays a novice for ever.

And your idea of a threat that being removed in a few days is just the funniest novice statement I have ever read. The ships were NOT sea worthy, therefore NOT a threat. I do hope you can understand that. That is why they HAD to stay there for almost two months, NOT a few days. I do hope that is clear now and I'm sure if you go to the various links, read as much as you can, it will all come clear to.

Before I researched the action I too was under the impression that it was a successful and quick grab and run raid by the British navy. It was quite revealing to discover that it took such a long time, involved such a massive force on land and sea, involved a deliberate terror bombardment on civilians, they never attempted to breach the walls, attacked a Danish ship and killed some of its crew before war had even been declared by either side, that the British Government had intentions of staying in Denmark which meant it was actually an invasion, and only a handful of ships stolen were FIT ENOUGH to actually be employed by the British. A handful. Hardly a threat, eh? I mean, if the glorious British navy could not make the rest of the ships seaworthy and employ them, what chance would the French have, eh? LOL

Anyway, here's a little link for you. Hopefully it will start you off on an enjoyable journey into research and you will find the 1807 affair as interesting and revealing as I found it. You enjoy yourself now. You deserve it.

link

Ben Avery

If you can bear to take off your Union Jack blinkers, you might want to research and read up the following. I'm sure you will find them equally interesting and revealing:

Buenos Aires 1806-07 (in which British troops were defeated by the Spanish and I believe some African slaves)

Burgos 1812 (The British failure to take the Spanish fortress, which resulted in Wellington having to flee all the way back to Portugal)

Bergen up Zoom 1814 (Another British flop which can be found in the title of this thread)

There are so many areas of the Revolutionary and Napoleonic period yet to be examined in detail, so it makes for refreshing reading to see such delights in print. It all adds to our knowledge of the period we love.

Hello, John. Correct me if I am wrong, but while you profess to love the period in which Napoleon rose to -- and precipitately fell from -- virtually supreme power in Europe, you seem to hate the British and their rather successful military exploits during that time.

I say this because you view the British expedition to Denmark in 1807 as a "crime" and an "atrocity", terms which no historian, including Munch Peterson, whose country had a rather lame and outclassed dog in the fight, has ever used to my knowledge.

You speak of a British ship "attacking a neutral", Danish ship on the high seas, unaware of or deliberately concealing the fact that the British Navy by international law reserved to stop and search neutral ships for contraband, which some Danish ships, with or without their government's knowledge, were doing and that on several occasions (you can guess which) the Danish captain refused to heave to and be boarded, and "got himself sunk".

By the same token, you discuss the failure of the 1812 British siege on Burgos which was certainly one but not the only reason that Wellington retreated to his lines.
"Running away" after his "defeat", you say with some satisfaction, though again, I have never heard any historian use these terms.You do not -- ever -- however, mention that Wellington returned to Burgos eight months later and took it in two days.

So I wonder if you would explain to us the root of your moral condemnation of the British Napoleonic armed forces, provided that it doesn't involve some deep psychological issue that you would rather not discuss.

My love of my country, my now defunct regiment and a childhood of reading about our Daring Exploits (some slightly exaggerated, perhaps) and a long family tradition,are my reasons for being a Wellingtonista. Your experience must have been different.

I have wondered if your ancestors, despite your typically English name, were not the residents of some country that may have bad memories of the Brits, or perhaps you are the disciple of some noted pro French/anti British historian, as Kevin is the avowed disciple of Elting, who weaned him from the Dark Side of Britain to the Losing Side of Napoleonic France.

And of course, since you tell us that you volunteered in the British Army, you must believe that at some time in our history, the British must have become Good Chaps, I doubt that you believe that we were Beastly to the Boche or Horrid to the Hun; did your regiment fight Napoleon's forces?

Forgive my curiosity, John, but it is a subject that has puzzled me for some time.

Cheers,
Phil

Ah, Gazzola. I'm not sure how to respond to a supposed ‘apology' when you go on to repeat the insult immediately afterwards, in the process still using the word incorrectly in the context of these message boards. Personally, I'm not paid as a full-time historian, so I'm quite happy to be labelled an amateur (a person taking part in an activity for pleasure, not profit) . You apparently are not a professional historian (I'd never have guessed) and so you're in the same boat.

Perhaps the word you should have tried using in the context of these boards is ‘amateurish'? Although, now I've had to tell you, that wouldn't reflect too well on your efforts, would it? You might want to consider that just because someone hasn't been posting in a thread, it doesn't mean they're not actually reading threads. I was busy with my masters at the time of all the original Copenhagen fun, but I did stop by occasionally.

So, back to this thread. First up, it's a pretty bad habit you've got there (and one you share with Kevin) of repeating misinformation from one thread as fact in other. For instance, I didn't see any evidence in the other threads for your current statement that ‘that the British Government had intentions of staying in Denmark which meant it was actually an invasion'. Some politicians were keen on the idea, but fleet was sent to seize the Danish fleet. The questions to the commanders about the practicability of staying on came after the quick success, but the British didn't stay on after the fleet was removed. Some politicians is not the same as ‘the government', as I'm sure you're aware really. If this is a period you really love, I'm not sure why you keep repeating false assertions.

As for your link (a press release), you seem insistent on posting things that don't really support your contention (another habit of Kevin's – perhaps you should compare notes). Firstly, let's put to one side the current need for academics with books to sell to demonstrate completely new thinking (as though there haven't been other thoughts on the subject of French disinformation) and relevance (his comparison with the second gulf war is ridiculous – but I know that you prefer to stick to the era at hand).Plenty of ‘sexing up' though in press releases these days.

Anyway, your link finishes with ‘It provided the British with confirmation that their decision to attack Copenhagen was right.' The British government were making a decision made on the intelligence they had at that point, correct or otherwise. In the context of conflict with Napoleon, French domination of Europe, the Continental system and the relatively recent victory at Trafalgar, it's entirely reasonable to assume that Napoleon may have been looking for alternative sources for ships (which are some of the reasons why the 2nd Gulf War ‘relevance' are tenuous at best).

Now, it's true that Napoleon may have left Denmark completely unmolested whilst they continued to flout the Continental system and carry contraband. Fortunately we have the examples of Portugal, Spain and Russia to see what is far more likely to have happened. If it's wrong for Britain to attack Denmark, how is it right for France to attack those countries Gazzola (with far greater loss of life)? Surely they're either all justified, or they're not? Time to get off the fence Gazzola. Morality aside, I can see they might all be justified, based on the then-current situations (although the Continental system was a self-imposed burden and Bonaparte seems to have made his catastrophic decisions unclouded by 'dodgy dossiers'). What say you?

Finally, the issue of why didn't the British use more Danish ships? You need me to explain? Okay, then. Firstly, before using captured weapons, you have to consider several questions:

Do we need these extra resources (The RN was the largest in the world already)

Can we use them? (Do you have the manpower and funding to keep them all at sea?)

Are they better than what we already have? (Which of course doesn't mean that most of the Danish ships were bad, just maybe not good enough for Britain's needs).

It also appears that the government didn't want to pay out for prize money for all of them and declared some unfit. This caused some upset amongst the sailors, who I suspect would have burned completely unusable ships, rather than bring them back to Britain. The fact that an early British suggestion to the Danes had been to hand over the ships for ‘safe keeping' does rather suggest that they didn't need the ships desperately themselves, but they did need them out of the reach of Napoleon.

Phil Yuma

Unlike you, just because I am British, does not mean I have to ignore British war crimes and atrocities or their military failures. And it does not mean I hate the British, then or now. But mention of them does seem to hurt some people. I wonder why?

And it is so sad when people like you fail to understand reality or rather, ignore it because it does not fit in with their rosy viewpoint of the British during the Napoleonic period.

Volunteer? I joined the Regular Army when I was a teenager and I would join again. My posts about British military failures during an historical period have nothing to do with my views on Britain today or the British Army today, and it unbelievably silly to think so.

And how sad you have to look for a hidden agenda or some other pathetic reason for my discussing or debating British failures. Do you ask those discussing French failures if they have they any family connections to something the French did? I doubt it. And you would have to ask what sort of brainless bias person does that, certainly not one who looks at both sides of any historical matter.

The British did great during the Napoleonic period and I see them as the best troops after 1809. Before that I consider the French the best. And most of my books cover the Peninsular War and the Waterloo Campaign.

I do hope that is clear to you now and perhaps you should review your own bias opinions and what they are based on.

When I have time, I will search out the British attacks against Danish ships before war was declared. There was more than one. And no, they did not have the right to sink them.

Wellington's flop at Burgos was about Wellington's failure to take Burgos in 1812 and the fact his army had to retreat all the way back to Portugal. If you don't like the terms I use, tough, that's your problem. Get over it. And if you particularly want to talk about the later attack against Burgos, make another post. But please don't exp4ect anyone to discuss or debate anything with you, just because you want to talk about it. That's not how it works, here or away from the website.

Ben Avery

If you want to see yourself as an amateur, that is your choice. But don't beat yourself up about it. Life is too short. Sadly, your posts indicate you do know what you are talking about, so I guess that term could be seen to fit. But I am sure there is hope for you yet.

There was quite a big pay out for what the British stole from Copenhagen. I will try to find the list for you. Even Wellington received payment.

'Sadly, your posts indicate you do know what you are talking about.'

Thank you for finally accepting it. Why so sad though, Gazzola? Is it because you can't refute my statements or because you can't answer a simple question?

If Britain shouldn't have sent its fleet to Denmark, shouldn't France also not have sent its armies into Portugal, Spain and Russia?

I'm not sure why you think I'd be beating myself up over being an amateur though. I thought my post was quite clear enough, even for you. Are you beating yourself up that you're also an amateur? If so, it might explain some things.

Whilst you're finding prize money figures (did I say that there wasn't a lot given out? I don't think so), you might want to look at what use was made of the whole fleet. Only four ships of the line were used (although they all went into the fleet), but the frigates and brigs were very useful, being cheaper to maintain and easier to man. Ships of the line are the opposite and the number of ships of the line that could have faced Britain after Copenhagen had been reduced somewhat…

Ben Avery

I think you've started to read up a little on the Copenhagen topic, so well done you. But you have come when other threads have basically worn the topic out.

Unfortunately, I no longer have the detailed accounts of Copenhagen and the aftermath. I returned them after the other threads on the same topic were ended. But if you are interested, the following link has some details on some of the payments-skip down to Copenhagen prizes. Alternatively, I may have linked more detailed information somewhere in the various threads on the topic.

link

It is interesting to note that the article states that only 4 ships were added to the Royal navy, due to most ships being condemned as unseaworthy, which, as you mention yourself in your own post, would not have gone down well with the sailors who were probably expecting a bigger payout. Such is war, eh?

Also interesting is Wellesley's rejection of the British wanting to retain Zealand, which as I have mentioned before, along with some letters from high ranking GOVERNMENT politicians, suggests it wasn't just the ships they wanted.

And so called statements are basically those offered and thrown out in the other debates on the same topic, usually by those who gave the impression that they had not really studied the event or were just annoyed that someone had dared to find fault with the glorious peace loving Brits.

I also wonder if you were aware that the Danes stated in 1806 that if France demanded the closing of Danish ports to British ships, it would regard Great Britain as an ally. And look what they got in return. You just can't trust anyone, can you?

And please don't make the mistake of believing that because someone finds fault with the British during the period or highlights one of their failures or atrocities, that it means they don't accept similar mistakes and atrocities were made by the French. To do so would really be the sign of an amateur.

Gazzola, as I have already said, I read the earlier threads some time ago. I decided to step in here when you chose to make ridiculous statements and repeat inaccurate information. I'm not sure why you continue to suggest I didn't follow the course of them. Your link has already been posted, but thank you.

The 'four ships' refers to ships of the line that went to sea, rather than being taken on but used as barracks and prison hulks. It doesn't include the other ships I mentioned in the last post.

The problem for the Danes was that if the ships had been fully ready for sea, then they were a great danger to Britain, given their proximity. Ships that are unable to go to sea for some time are vulnerable to a seizure by French land forces, given the Danish army's performance at Koge. Perhaps they should have looked to Portugal's example and actually signed an alliance, rather than talking about it. They were riding their luck regarding the Continental System and it couldn't last.

Anyway, just to summarise this thread then, you've so far:

- posted inaccurate statements that you couldn't back up when challenged.
- used words like 'comical' and 'amateur' [sic] to avoid addressing issues raised. Here's a tip: ignoring statements you don't like is not the same as them being 'thrown out.' You should learn the difference.
- posted a link to a website that gave very useful information to support my statement that the Royal Navy no longer had to fear the Danish navy after Copenhagen (that victory word)
- posted a link to a press release that supported my statement on why Britain felt the need to send the fleet to Denmark.
- been unable to actually counter statements put forward by me and instead gone off on tangents, thus conceding the points made and finally stating I do know what I'm talking about.
- been unable to give a straight answer to a simple question that would clear up whether you are being obtuse, hypocritical, biased, or all three. I did not use the word 'mistake'. Were the French invasions of those neutral and allied countries WRONG, as you so obviously believe Copenhagen was?

And after all that, you apparently feel that you are in any sort of position to (attempt to) patronise me and deliver lectures on how to have a discussion, research suitable evidence or support statements?

The irony. Or, as Kevin might say, incredible.

I checked the Carmigniani / Tranie book – page 125 – nothing, but I have the French edition – Brech as usual will certainly rely on the translated the edition.

That he doesn't reply is no surprise, the usual evasive action.

@Tango01

I bought the book and will started to read it – so far – enjoyable and very interesting.

I bought the book as well. Caliver in the UK are selling it for just £10.00 GBP link

I've only just started it but it is a very enjoyable read.

von Winterfeldt

I checked the Carmigniani / Tranie book – page 125 – nothing, but I have the French edition – Brech as usual will certainly rely on the translated the edition.

That he doesn't reply is no surprise, the usual evasive action

Surely Kevin would check back to the original source before he made such a statement or used the claim of 22 captured British colours in the Peninsula….Wouldn't he? After all, he is a published author of books like 'Once there were Titans' and as such, an author would go to the source before putting up what he saw as fact would he not?

I wonder if he will post the extract from the original source(Les Aigles Imperiales et Le Drapeau Tricoloure 1804-1815)

I'll give him a week or so to hopefully reply.

I'm certain that an Officer of the U.S marines Artillery won't shy away from giving said answer to a Bombardier of the Royal Artillery.

Paul :)

I sometimes think that whenever a Napoleonic thread goes over one page everyone who is still commenting should be thrown into the doghouse because it really does descend into a lot of petty points-scoring nonsense.

SJDonovan

That should go for the silly ones who want to start debating something that had been discussed to death and ended in other threads and think people are still interested. I supposed they will learn, in time.

Ben Avery

'…if the ships had been fully ready for sea…'

Well done for admitting that the Danish ships were not ready for sea. Makes you wonder what all the fuss was about? Doesn't say much for British intelligence either, does it?

Gazzola, perhaps you should re-read your last two posts again, in order. Then look up irony, as you're obviously not aware of what the word means. In case you need reminding, it was you who decided to reopen discussion of Copenhagen in this thread.

By the way, any possibility of giving a straight answer to my question?

Thanks Von… I decided to buy it now…! (smile)

Amicalement
Armand

Ben Avery

Do try to get the facts right, for once! I know it must be hard for you but I'm sure you will get used to it, eventually. I mentioned Copenhagen in relation to a list of battles presented by someone else. I was pointing out that it could be viewed in a different way, considering the end result. I did not request debate from anyone and certainly not by you.

And the real irony is that you did not feel compelled to join in with the other previous and long running threads on Copenhagen 1807, the main two being, believe it or not, The Russian Campaign 1812-Aug-Oct 2015 and Map Battle of Copenhagen Sept-Oct 2015. Why is that? Did you not see them? If not, perhaps you really need to learn to keep your eyes open in future and you may be able to join in when people are interested. Sorry, but it is becoming a bit of bore now.

But researching the event was quite revealing. My initial opinion that it was a quick and courageous victory by the British soon disappeared. Firstly, the idea of going to Copenhagen was raised on 10th July in London. That is only 3 days after the Tilsit agreement was signed, which was, of course, the result of Napoleon beating the Russians at Friedland in June.

The evidence that pushed the British to attack Copenhagen was proven incorrect. A bit like the modern Weapons of Mass Destruction farce. You admit yourself in your posts that only 4 warships were seaworthy enough to be employed by the British Navy. So all that organising, all those men risking their lives, the deliberate atrocity and death of the Danish civilians, the turning of a neutral country into an enemy – for 4 ships. Unless, of course, you think those four ships would have been a real threat had the French managed to get hold of them? And, as far as I'm aware, the British Navy was the best Navy of the period, so if they could not get more ships ready, who could?

Also revealed was the fact that the British Government had plans to stay in Denmark, so it was not just the capture of an unseaworthy fleet they were after, as many would like and probably want to believe.

The British made no attempt to storm the city or breach the walls, despite their massive force of siege artillery and naval guns. Instead, they deliberately bombarded the civilians. And their stay certainly wasn't short, was it?

But, despite the massive force presented against them, the brave Danes did not lie down or roll over. Yes, in hindsight, you could say they should have simply given in and asked how high the British wanted them to jump. But they didn't and the result was a terror bombardment on civilians. The British way, eh? Where the Danes stupid not to roll over straight away? Or did they think, we are neutral and not an enemy, in fact, we were leaning more towards allying ourselves with Britain than France, so there was no reason for the British to attack them? They were obviously unaware of the British politicians statement that the British should make everyone fear them. Now how could the Brits do that, do you think?

And Russia and France were at peace so Britain might also make peace soon. But sadly for them, the Danes also did not take into account British paranoia and fear of what may have happened, had they not acted in the disgraceful way they did. Even the king of England called it an immoral act.

And the British even attacked Danish ships before any declarations of war were made. This was basic piracy and an act of war itself, because they believed it was okay to do so after the British government made a ruling (interestingly, they made several in 1807) giving them permission to do so, and we all know that the rest world must bow down and obey any rules made by the British.

There is no Napoleonic nation that did not commit atrocities or did things that could not be considered acceptable or right. But for people to moan and cry because someone had mentioned the British doing it, is basically pathetic. Sadly, but perhaps not unexpectedly, there are those who will keep their Union Jack blinkers tightly on and refuse to accept the British were just the same as everyone else. But they were certainly not angels or peace makers. Everything they did was for a profit and they continually paid others to break the peace. That is the reality, like it or not.

If people think I hate Britain because of my statements, that's their choice, as stupid as that would be. If it upsets them, tough, I suggest they grow a pair. Believe it or not I don't hate Britain but I do dislike it when people throw a wobbler when something negative is said about them and make constant excuses for them, while they are usually quite happy to say anything negative about Napoleon or the French and quickly dismiss any explanations offered in their defence. To consider that I must believe Napoleon and the French were goodies because I find fault with the British, is just too comical. But hypocrisy appears to be a way of life with some people.

Anyway, as I have mentioned several times but it does seem to be sinking into your head – the debate has been done to death and a shame you were not part of the previous threads. I don't know why you did not get involved, considering how rattled you appear to be but you may have had your reasons? Unfortunately, I do not have my research material at hand, and it would take time to obtain it again, should I wish to do so or go over the same aspects and revelations again. But I do not intend to do that, well, not for a while anyway. But I am sure the topic will pop again. I suggest you keep your eyes open.

But if you are still interested in the British sly attack and atrocity against Copenhagen, I suggest you read the numerous posts offered by both sides in the two threads mentioned above. That may solve any questions you may wish to ask. If not, I am afraid you will just have to wait until the topic becomes interesting again, well, to me, anyway.

I think that Ben Avery is a cheat, John. Rather than following your excellent advice to wait until you become interested in the subject of Britain's sneaky war crime when it besieged and terror bombed Copenhagen, again, I suspect that he actually reads books on the subject and therefore misses out on some of your more interesting and enlightening views on the topic.

You speak of people becoming upset at you in mock surprise and dismay, but consider the fact that if we were really upset, we would not bother to read you or answer your posts. And of course you have considered that. Whether your rebarbative ignorance is genuine, as I believe, or contrived, as poor Katrice believed, it gives you a sense of importance and lets us demonstrate our "superior" knowledge on the subject without going to any great effort and at the same time repudiate some of your more egregious nonsense that some poor HS sophomore might regurgitate after picking it up on Google.

You say that you object less to the behaviour of the British Army of the period than to the biased defense of their defeats or immoral behaviour by apologists on this forum, but everyone, I think, knows that this is not true.

It is you who come up with absurd accusations or characterizations of British behaviour and then accuse others of biased Anglophobia when they object to your inaccurate characterizations.

Britain conducted a raid on Copenhagen in 1807, but in your terminology, it was a "sneaky raid". Is there any other kind of raid? But I must say that it is this kind of silliness that I rather enjoy.

After failing to take Burgos for the second time, Wellington retreated to the Lines that he had built for just such a purpose before returning with a refreshed and equipped army eight months later to take Burgos from the French in two days, but according to0 you, a "defeated" Wellington was sent "running back" to Portugal after the failure of the siege. I can't say that that sounds like an admirer of the Brits or of Wellington, particularly since you avoid the final outcome of W's attempt to take that city.

With regard to your mention of the RN sinking Danish ships prior to the raid, I recommend this dissertation, which covers the subject quite well: file:///C:/Users/dauphinxox/Downloads/PDF%20datastream.pdf
Of course, it was not in the British captains' best interest to sink such ships if they could simply disable them and escort them back to England, where they would be awarded prize money.

So carry on with your entertaining and somewhat unconventional views of the Napoleonic Wars, but try not to overdo the righteous indignation.

Cheers,
Phil

Sorry Gazzola, tl;dr.

I will if it moves things forward at all.

Phil, I'm sorry for your loss.

Philin Yuma

I see you have not had your problem treated. You seem to think you know what people think or believe, based on some posts on a wargaming website. Wow! What a skill. What a joke more like. Please try to stop thinking you know what people think like or do not like, based on some wargaming posts you have read. That's the sign of a novice and not professional in any way at all.

The sad thing is that you probably believe it. But I guess you have to think that way otherwise you might have to question your own Napoleonic and historical viewpoints, and that would never do would it? The very thought!

And to throw out the insult that I do not read about the topic I am debating says everything about you. That's what you want to believe. It probably makes you feel better. But it must annoy people like you, quite happy to attack Napoleon and the French, to find someone doing the same against the good old Brits. Oh dear, we can't have that. Not the Brits. They were the goods guys, weren't they?

And very revealing that you have not asked why Ben did not join in with the other long running Copenhagen debates? Why do you think that was, I wonder? Do you think it could be because the other threads mention the various books and research areas that supported mine and other viewpoints? Do you think that it may also prove your post is a lot of rot, to use a polite term.

Have I dared again to mention the dark side of the British and shown them to be just like some of the other nations of the period, and you don't like it. Is that the real problem?

And I don't see you jumping up and defending Napoleon or the French if negative statements are made about them or their defeats revealed and discussed. But, like baby Ben, you are so quick to throw your dummy out of the pram when the same is done concerning the British. Why is that? Do you really believe that the Napoleonic British were incapable of doing wrong things or committing atrocities? Your defensive posts certainly seem to indicate that.

Perhaps you, like some others, have always been in denial, when it comes to the British, since all your whining and bleats of protest have come when British defeats have been discussed. Very revealing that, although, of course, perhaps not unexpected.

Yes, I can understand why it would be preferable for people like you to see off the British sly attack (and like it or not, it was sly) against Copenhagen as a mere raid. But, if you or Ben do some serious research into the affair, you will see that it wasn't a raid. I had no idea, and neither it appears did you and others, that the British government had plans to stay in Denmark. In other words, occupy it. But that is the beauty of research. You find out things that 'some' people probably don't want to be revealed. You and Ben should try it sometime.

The end result, other than four ships and the that fact the British paranoia could relax over the threat that never was, proves it was all basically a waste of time, apart, of course, of the money they made from all the material they stole of which, I read somewhere that they even took door handles. But I suppose they could be dangerous in the wrong hands. LOL. And, as I've stated before, it was all based on incorrect intelligence. But why let the truth and a neutral country get in the way of a sly attack, eh? Britain had to feared remember.

And look at when you quickly jumped in with when Wellington's failure at Burgos had dared to be mentioned. You charged right in there with the fact that the fortress fell later on, glossing over the fact that in 1812 the brave defenders had embarrassed Wellington into retreating right across Spain and it took the good part of a year before the British could get near it again. And mentioning it does not alter the reality of Wellington's miserable flop in 1812. I have not researched what happened in 1813, concerning Burgos, but I did note that Ian Fletcher states that the French abandoned Burgos on 13th June 1813 (Vittoria 1813, Osprey Campaign 59, page 16)

The problem for you and possibly Ben and others, is that knocking Napoleon and the French has been done to death. People are now looking for other areas, new topics and some areas that some obviously feel is taboo and should not be revealed. The book of this thread is one. Wellington's Worst Scrape is another, which covers Burgos 1812 very evenly. Hopefully, there will be more like this.

If people like you and Ben can't take it, tough. But don't worry, no one will force you to read them or make you take off your Union Jack blinkers. By the way, it was so nice of you to mention the British Navy attacking ships, not to save Britain, not to keep peace or save British citizens, but for the money they could make out of it. Like the attack and thefts at Copenhagen, that sums up Britain's Napoleonic mindset quite nicely, so thank you for admitting that. Much appreciated.

Anyway, I think it is time for everyone to move on. Don't worry, there will obviously be more attacks, accusations and insults made against Napoleon and the French for you to get your teeth into. But there will also be other areas and nations highlighted, including Britain, and it is about time things were equalled out. You Brit lovers have had it your way for far too long. LOL

But hang on to your blinkers lads, because here is another interesting title, which I'm hoping to get my hands on at some point and it might make me want to dig deeper. There is so much out there, so much not yet revealed or looked at or even researched to any degree. It suggests there could be some exciting reading ahead, well, for some of us anyway and especially those who don't wear Union jack blinkers and like to look at both sides of a topic.

link

Wow, now that's a wall of text. Your usual tactic when you're floundering and trying to claim 'victory' towards the end of a thread Gazzola. I did admire how you ended one talking to yourself.

There's a certain game of bingo that used to be popular during conferences, but I'm off out now and reckon I can predict and summarise the contents without reading it. Let's see…

- hypocrisy
- lies
- disinformation
- obtuseness
- a couple of tangential facts

Do I win a prize?

Keep going Gazzola, you might as well finish how you started.

Good morning John. Can I take it, then, that you are not a fan of your namesake and fellow countryman, John of Gaunt?

This royal throne of kings, this sceptred isle,
This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars,
This other Eden, demi-paradise,
This fortress built by Nature for herself
Against infection and the hand of war,
This happy breed of men, this little world,
This precious stone set in the silver sea,
Which serves it in the office of a wall,
Or as a moat defensive to a house,
Against the envy of less happier lands,
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm this England.

No, I suspect not. You do not appear to be a member of the "happy breed of men".

Cheers,
Phil

No dawghouse – wow

Phil Yuma

Hmm, how interesting that you have posted a piece of fiction. Very creative and patriotic, if you are English, but still a piece of fiction – a lie in other words.

I'm very happy, actually, although a little disappointed to see someone throwing out a poem again. It makes me wonder why someone would want to waste a Napoleonic post in such a way? Has the debate been too much for them? Can't they take the pace and fury of a Napoleonic discussion? Too many people daring to disagree with them and challenge their viewpoints and make them think? Still, never mind, it was slightly amusing.

But perhaps you should consider starting up a poetry board? That way everyone can just ignore your posts, not that there is anything wrong with poetry, mind you. It is just the ones you post-so boring.

And very revealing that you decided to post a poem about England, not Britain. Don't tell me you don't have the same self-inflicted blindness about the Scots, the Welsh and the Irish, who, as you know, Wellington would have been lost without? Er, you do know that the Scots, the Welsh and the Irish were in the BRITISH Napoleonic army? It wasn't just the English.

To be honest, I wasn't sure if I should have responded to your post, sorry, poem, in case, well, it made you feel compelled to post another one. You see, your choice of poems, so far, have been utterly boring. However, if you do feel compelled to do so, how about Tennyson's Charge of the Light Brigade. It was my favourite poem at school, much to my teachers despair. And, in my opinion, his poem, albeit it is not Napoleonic, is much better and far more suitable for this website, than the feeble boring poems you have offered.

Ben Avery

In your case, it looks like a slap in the face worked. I suppose the truth hurts. And funny how people tend to run away when that happens, or post poems. LOL

Marc the plastic fan

Be fair, you can't throw someone into the dawghouse just because they posted another boring poem, even though it appears to be becoming a bit of a weird habit for Phil and a bit of a waste of a Napoleonic post.

The same goes for Baby Ben throwing his dummy out of the pram again. You have to show a little sympathy for these people. They are just not used to their viewpoints being challenged. They can't take it and so react the way they do. Not very professional, I know, or even gown up, but there you go. And, I guess, to a certain degree, it is a bit amusing, isn't it? I know they make me laugh.

Dawghouse Marc? For what? I doubt Phil or I would bother reporting his name-calling and I thought criticising what people actually write was fair game?

Anyway, I did go back to check the posts in question and see if I had been unfair, but I think I can tick the boxes:

Hypocrisy – Gazzola 'diagnoses' Phil's 'problem' (presumably without the benefit of professional expertise in mental health) but then immediately goes on to lambast Phil for suggesting he knows how others might be thinking.

Lies – repeating this 4 warships nonsense, when he has already been told it was 4 ships of the line plus a lot of frigates and brigs that were used.

Misinformation – now trying to suggest that Britain was really going to Copenhagen for the ships to use themselves, in defiance of the orders given and actions undertaken.

Tangential facts – err, Burgos being occupied in 1813? Britain had bad intelligence?

I did however, miss disingenuousness – that habit where Gazzola asks a question and it gets answered. Then he pretends he hasn't read it (despite referring to other parts of the post) and continues to state someone hasn't responded, in an attempt to make them look bad.

Four out of five isn't bad though? Union Jack blinkers was obviously a given.

I even waded through the first post to see if anything moved things on. Other than more of the same (tip; Gazzola, disputing accepted facts and telling people to 'look again' from a new perspective is opening up a discussion on a topic that had been done to death twice already).

The only statement that appears to move things forward is Gazzola finally stating that the French invasions of neutral and allied countries were wrong.

As already stated, I can see how all of the British and French invasions could be justified, given the context of those countries at the time, but fair play to him.

Hopefully this realisation will allow him to view the Napoleonic wars in context and begin to understand why things happened the way they did, without applying hindsight and one perspective too much. A discussion on which were the most significant victories/errors of the wars might be very illuminating, but that's for Napoleonic Discussion and unfortunately the First World War beckons tomorrow. Perhaps next week.

p.s. Marc. Sadly, I see the irony and hypocrisy in me also feeling the need to post a hefty chunk of text, but at least for the neutral observer, Gazzola appears to gone for brevity this time and cut straight to the insults. I am surprised as he said he was done with it. Maybe one day.

I think he does it for fun, best practice would be that as soon as he posts, whether it be the first fourteenth or fiftieth post, just stop and start another thread about the subject at hand. he thrives on his own idiocy. Don't let him.

Although thinking about it, he provides a lot of laughs.

Oh, undoubtedly Chortle, but as evidenced by Gazzola bringing it up again as an issue, I suspect he'd want to pick it up in any new thread. I've tended to skim over his posts in the past, but I did have some time on my hands and I'd found some useful info in other threads. Plus, I felt like challenging the untruths for a bit. The imagined violence was a new one.

The thesis Phil found was good and covered far more than the expedition. Very useful for looking at context. I find looking at why things may or may not have happened far more interesting than just looking at what happened. In the past few years I've been involved in far more operational games, with multiple teams of players and it's interesting to see how easily fog of war and friction develop. It certainly gets away from the 300-foot general effect and you tend to get a better understanding of historical errors (and successes) when looking at the past.

Hello, again, John. You say, "And very revealing that you decided to post a poem about England, not Britain."

You are quite right, of course.though what I quoted is known as a dramatic monologue rather than a poem, but that's a mere quibble.. Kipling recognized the same issue and explained it this way:

God gave all men all earth to love,
But, since our hearts are small
Ordained for each one spot should prove
Beloved over all;
That, as He watched Creation's birth,
So we, in godlike mood,
May of our love create our earth
And see that it is good.

Cheers,
Phil

Crumple

What Ben should have done is join in the other threads on Copenhagen. But he did not and you have to ask why not?

I did not request the sly Copenhagen attack to be discussed again in this thread. I mentioned that, considering the end result: after deliberately targeting and killing civilians, turning a neutral country into an enemy, hardly any of the ships found were seaworthy and, as far as I am aware, only FOUR were employed in combat modes afterwards, so perhaps, due to that, it should not be included in the victory list. But, of course, that is a matter on opinion.

And my posts try to address the reality and balance out the utter ignorant and arrogant bias thrown out by Phil, Ben and other Brit lovers. Look how rattled they become whenever I or anyone else dares to offer something negative about the British. Their response is always the same: no, it can't be true, you must hate British to dare to say such things. After all, the British never did anything wrong. Course not, only Napoleon and the French did bad things. It is so comical to see the way they react. Mind you, Phil did admit he posted when he wasn't interested in the topic being discussed. And now the poor man has resorted to throwing out poetry and more fictional nonsense. There must be a site rule against that? LOL

In terms of Copenhagen, of course the British stole more than four ships. That is easy to discover by anyone, as Ben has proved. Below are two of the many easily found links (plus Thesis and books) that discuss the affair and you can see very clearly they mention the number of ships captured. And virtually every source I researched (and I viewed a lot) mentioned more than four ships being captured. But the four I mentioned were warships, to be employed by the British Navy in combat, you know, the ones that were supposed to be a threat to Britain. I was obviously mistaken in thinking Ben would understand that. But as the sources will inform you, the other ships appeared to be used mainly for civilian duties and prison and hospital hulks, so I suppose they had their uses in the end, although I'm not sure risking the lives of all those soldiers and sailors was worth the effort for four combat ships and some prison hulks. But again, that is a matter of opinion.

Ben also seems unaware that the military orders were changed. At first they only wanted to capture the ships, with the promise of giving them back to Denmark if peace was made. Then, when the Danes dared to say no, they changed it (surprise, surprise) to taking everything they could lay their hands on. One source said they even took the door handles. Not sure what sort of threat to Britain a door handle would be, but there you go, that's British paranoia (or greed) for you.

To be honest, I don't believe Ben has really read my posts correctly. In his anger I think he skims over them, which is not very professional. We discussed Wellington's miserable failure at Burgos in 1812, which obviously upset him and he threw back Burgos was captured later on in two days. I posted that the French abandoned Burgos so hardly anything to boast about? But at least he did not deny Wellington's 1812 failure. LOL

But I am still puzzled why a concerned Ben did not join in the other threads and debates on the Copenhagen attack? But that may be because they offered titles and sources to go with the various arguments and quotes, which probably put him off. Personally, I do not think he actually read the various threads because he is making the same claims and statements others made in those threads, although that may suggest the naughty boy was actually lifting them straight from other threads, ignoring the replies. But I'm sure he wouldn't stoop so low.

Anyway, enjoy the links. Interestingly, in the Danish Naval history site you will see it mentioned that after 1807, the Danes took 10 British warships and a large number of trade ships. You keep on laughing now. LOL

PDF link

link

Help, I think it is catching. But when in Rome…here's one just for you Phil

link

And one for Ben who I believe has run off to WW1

link

And here's one for Crumple

link

Just to prove again I was aware of the number of ships stolen at Copenhagen 1807, here is a link to a Danish account which had been linked in one of the other threads.

Not only does the account include a large list of ships at the end but it also includes the massive money making side, along with the horrible effects of the British terror bombardment. It also shows the brave resistance to the massive British land and sea force sent to scare them, which failed to have the effect the British wanted and is why they eventually had to undertake targeting the civilians.

It makes for some very interesting reading and their account of the land battle is also very revealing. They don't even consider it a real battle.

link

As I kept saying to the impatient Ben, this topic will pop up again, as it did last year. But perhaps he may actually take part when it does, instead of arriving when the various threads were well over. I'm sure he will learn in time.

You have to show a little sympathy for these people. They are just not used to their viewpoints being challenged. They can't take it and so react the way they do. Not very professional, I know, or even gown up, but there you go.

You mean like your mate Brechtel running away rather than answer a couple of simple questions about his double standards on what gets included in the "victories and defeats" debate?

Here is another link which has a good description of the event and following gunboat actions.

Those taking the time to read it will see the number of ships the British took into their fleet, but ONLY FOUR saw active service.

link

Supercilious Maximus

I know it must be hard for you to accept people may have different viewpoints, but what some people consider as a victory, by whatever nation, is sometimes viewed completely differently by others. Which is as it should be and makes life interesting rather than just reading posts from biased, flag waving head-nodders.

Take the sly attack on Copenhagen 1807 for example. Brit lovers and Napoleon haters WANT to see it as a quick raid and victory, spoiling Napoleon's chance of getting his hands on the Danish fleet. I did, until I researched it, which obviously annoyed some people. Now I see it as an act of pure arrogance, based on pure paranoia against a neutral country who previously had a great relationship with Britain.

The attack turned a potential ally into an enemy. And it was certainly not quick, as we all know by now from the various threads on the same topic. And the threat of a seaworthy fleet for Napoleon was also proven to be totally incorrect, which is why they had to stay there SO LONG to make them seaworthy.

Of the ships taken, it appears that only FOUR saw active service, the rest, being employed as harbour ships etc. But the Brits did make a lot of money out of their sly attack, so you could consider it a financial victory. Even I would accept that.

As I say, people's viewpoints differ, as they should, otherwise we would only get biased one sided accounts and viewpoints on any action or campaign. And what sort of person would want that, eh? People should really try to learn to respect and accept other people's viewpoints, as hard as it seems to be for some people.

'Quick! Someone tell the navies of the world that frigates aren't warships.'

Gazzola, why do you insist on doing this to yourself?

Your link, (which classes 1807 as a decisive British victory and gives civilian fatalities of fewer than 200 by the way), states quite clearly, 15 ships of the line, four of which were used. Which I told you. It also lists a lot of other captured warships though and page 82 of the thesis I re-linked (penultimate paragraph, btw) says that almost all of the frigates and brigs were used by the RN, often against the Danes. They were more appropriate for the required duties and also required fewer men (which I told you at the top of this page). :)

Are you sure you wish to keep going? Lecture 3 of 4 of the day just done now and a brief mention for Copenhagen when referencing naval planning for the First World War. What a coincidence. Onwards to gas warfare.

p.s. I'm happy to pack in discussion on how many ships, providing you stop ignoring the evidence and repeating this falsehood of yours. It's tangential to the initial discussion, after all. We know the the primary purpose of the raid was removing the threat of the ships from being used against Britain, don't we? It was agreed on the last page.

Gazzola,

Is there any chance you could actually stop relating everything to Copenhagen? My questions had nothing to do with Copenhagen (which, incidentally, not only did Brechtel not discount – but nor did you initially), they were as follows:-

1) Why are you discounting attacks on colonies of the Dutch, yet you 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 – were closer to Europe than the campaign you are including?

2) Why are you discounting major campaigns in India which, again, is closer to (eastern) Europe than the east coast of North America is to (western) Europe AND had the involvement of French officers sent by Napoleon, yet you are including much smaller campaigns in North America?

Nothing whatsoever to do with whether they were victories or not, simply Brechtel dismissing some (victories) because they "weren't in Europe", but then counting others (defeats) that also weren't in Europe, simply to justify his ludicrous claim that the "overwhelming majority" of British operations were failures.

Supercilious Maximus

I think that question should be addressed to Ben, since, for some reason he failed to turn up at the various threads on the Copenhagen attack, but wants everyone to talk about it now, even though the topic was dead and buried and is basically boring as hell now.

But you mentioned the theft of the Danish fleet, which the Danes call the 'rape', in your victory list. I questioned it being classed as a victory, due to the Danish fleet not being a threat in the first place, the ships not being seaworthy, the country attacked was a neutral country leaning towards Britain, not France, and the British had to undertake a terror bombardment against civilians. Plus the government had intentions of staying in Denmark. I did not ask anyone to start up a debate again.

You see the sly attack as a victory, I don't. End of.

Ben Avery

In the thesis you are fond of, linked below, it says 'nearly all the frigates and smaller warships were taken into service' (page 82) Unfortunately, although it states many were employed against the Danes, it does not go into great detail on what the actual 'service' consisted of, although, of course we could assume it was in combat. However, other sources suggest prison hulks, hospital and harbour ships. Interestingly, it says many, but not all?

However, it appears we are both right. Yes, you are quite right in stating that other warships were taken into service, I will hold my hands up and give you that, but the thesis also states, same page, ONLY FOUR MAJOR WARSHIPS were employed by the British Navy. And it is the major warships that would have been the supposed threat the Danish Navy turned out not to be. That was the FOUR ships I was referring to and which you did not seem to understand. perhaps the lectures clouded your mind?

But the thesis makes for some very interesting reading, as you probably know. It describes how the DANES WERE NOT A THREAT (page 78), and that, at the time, the Danish Army was deployed to counter – guess who – would you believe it, the FRENCH (page 79), which meant, while the sly attack was taking place the Danes were preparing for action against Britain's enemy. If only they knew what sneaky dogs the Brits were, eh?

Also mentioned is the land action which the thesis (and other sources) state was not against an all regular force but one consisting of a substantial number of half-trained militia. Also mentioned (page 81) is that the Danes still managed to sink 42 Merchantmen in 1807 after Copenhagen. 42 ships that could have been saved had the British not turned Demark into an enemy.

Also discussed is the British government's desire to occupy Denmark, and how they were desperately looking for ways in which the surrender treaty could be disregarded. They were not very happy with the agreement made by the British military or their counter-arguments against a permanent occupation. Lucky for the Danes the British military won the argument, eh, well, lucky if you can count your unseaworthy fleet and stores being stolen and civilians bombarded and killed by a nation you were leaning towards as an ally. And the thesis also mentions the terror bombardment aimed at civilian buildings, including a girls boarding school. (page 76)

Overall, a very interesting thesis, which basically supports my research on the British atrocity. If I can, I will, at some time, try to obtain the main sources and thesis I employed when researching the topic for the other threads. I can't say when that will be, but there may be more detailed information on exactly what 'service' the other stolen ships consisted of. Other than that, this topic is well overdone. Just a shame you did not take part in the previous threads. I do wonder why you never took part, considering how rattled you appear to be by the topic? Perhaps you had too many lectures to attend at the time or essays to write or something. LOL

link

Interesting turns of phrase – the British attack was 'pure paranoia', eh?

Paranoia: irrational fear, delusions of persecution, exaggerated self-importance

Had Britain imagined the French army parked at Boulogne? Was the victory over a Franco-Spanish fleet in 1805 a myth? If a French invasion of Denmark was so ridiculous (after France had made an alliance with Russia, Denmark¡¦s sometime enemy), why was so much of the Danish army defending the border? Why would Bonaparte institute the Continental System (which caused him so many problems), if Britain was unimportant? Would you like me to get you a dictionary for your birthday? Perhaps you could explain, Gazzola? :)

'arrogance'

If Britain telling sovereign nations their ships can be boarded in 1807 is arrogant, how is Bonaparte in 1806 telling sovereign nations who they can trade with any different? Some might say hypocrisy, I couldn't possibly comment.

Gazzola, I am however delighted that you have finally acquainted yourself with the thesis and at least read parts. I think it's a pretty even-handed account of what went on and provides some context, including the fears and worries of countries, not just Britain. A bit more on the broader picture would be nice, particularly regarding France, but there are other places for that. Now we can really get to looking at some of the issues. Undoubtedly there'll be a response.

I'm not sure how we can both be right though? You said (repeatedly) the British used only four warships (even when I told you this was a reference to ships of the line) and the article (and your link) say otherwise. You should, not could, assume the frigates were used in action:

P.82 'nearly all of the frigates and smaller warships were taken into service and ironically, many would see service against their original Danish owners.' How did you not read the second half of the sentence?

'The same could not be said for the sail-of-the-line however, thanks to the chronic shortage of trained sailors in the Royal Navy and the increasing emphasis on using smaller warships to accomplish the various missions.'

I told you this earlier. The prison hulk, barracks and hospital ship role was for the ships of the line. Britain could not and indeed did not need to use all those ships of the line. Assuming that the ships not being used means they are no good is illogical thinking. As you were told earlier. :) Unfortunately, this is not one of those times when we can both be right. Sorry :)

Now, as we might as well address why Britain decided not to go with a regular siege and use a 'terror bombardment':

'…the British, thanks to their dominance over land and sea, the primary challenge looming before British commanders Cathcart and Gambier was not the resistance of the Danish garrison, but time. The consensus among army commanders was that with 25,000 men, the British were not strong enough to sustain a prolonged siege against Copenhagen and also deal with possible counter-attacks from either the Danish or French armies on the mainland. As for the navy, only a few weeks remained before the onset of winter would render continued operations too hazardous to be risked. Furthermore, the tendency of the waters of Great Belt to freeze would make the continued isolation of Zealand impracticable and render British ground forces far more vulnerable to counter-attack.'

You kept saying that 'the government' had 'plans' for staying on but let's look at what the thesis says says:

P.82 'When originally planned, the Cabinet only envisioned a temporary occupation of Copenhagen, long enough to take possession of the Danish Fleet and see it safely away.'

'Castlereagh then sent a letter to Gambier and Cathcart inquiring on the possibility of retaining possession of Zealand under one of three situations: 1) With the willing consent and cooperation of the Danes, 2) with Swedish troops providing the occupying force or 3) with the British themselves holding the island, as a position commanding the entrance to the Baltic.'

'Inquiring on the possibility'. This doesn¡¦t sound like a 'government plan' but rather a minister investigating options.

After the Danish surrender – P.85 states 'For a brief moment, the original purpose of the expedition had been forgotten as government ministers, 'like hungry street urchins with their noses pressed against the panes of the bakery window.' tried to find a pretext by which they could ignore the treaty. For several weeks the commanders in the field were bedeviled with requests to report any signs of Danish sabotage of captured ships or any form of 'specious ground we may take for retaining Zealand.'

Indeed, Castlereagh and Canning in particular were keen (as has been mentioned in the past) but the references in the thesis tend to focus on them rather than cabinet decisions. They are not 'the government' and the cabinet as a whole does not instruct commanders, but instead certain ministers ask questions.

Given the time constraints above, if 'the government' actually had a plan to stay, why let the commanders negotiate the surrender and then get cross about the result? I presume a 'government plan' would have a cabinet consensus/majority and also specific orders for the military. I'm quite sure certain ministers (Canning especially) wished they had made a different plan from the start, when they realised how quick the victory was, but they hadn't and Castlereagh appears to have lost interest once wider issues came up.

I think the hope that the Danes would ally with Britain after this was foolish, but also staying on in Zealand a fool's errand. Fortunately, indeed, that decision was not made.

As for the Danes. You state that they 'WERE NOT A THREAT.' My eyesight's fine thanks, but as yours apparently needs some help, I'll put a word you missed from the quote in capitals too.

P.78 actually says 'Based on contemporary evidence, it is difficult for an objective observer to view the Danes as an IMMINENT threat to British naval supremacy.'

I would say the word you chose to omit is rather important. The issue of poor British intelligence, which has already been mentioned (including by me), doesn't change the fact that the Danes had a fleet that could be made ready in 6 weeks. It's actually been suggested in some sources that the Crown Prince made this decision to avoid a war-footing to assuage British concerns. His decision-making seems poor. However, if France and Russia are allies now and Danish troops are on the border to defend it from possible invasion, how confident should Britain be that the Danes will hold out long enough to make the ships ready to depart and join Britain in an alliance? Perhaps, in the event of a rapid invasion they would just destroy the ships, but then this didn't happen when Britain attacked…

Carry on Gazzola.

p.s. I told you this earlier/you were told this earlier – the new 'Union Jack blinkers'