"A Bold and Ambitious Enterprise " Topic

Actually Gazzola – I've been thinking about how to explain it – let's use some algebra. When I say ships in this example, assume ships of the line as they're most important in fleet on fleet actions.

British ships – B
French ships – F
Danish ships – D
Portuguese ships – P
Russian ships – R

Possible combats after Trafalgar and the Continental system could be:

B vs F + D + P – Britain needs x + y + z ships ( a lot, probably more than she's got).

B vs F + D OR B vs B vs F + R – Britain needs x + y ships

Assume that after Tilsit, Russia might be a factor to consider, but she's too big a land power to defeat and force to become an ally.

We've got D and P to consider. Both are neutral countries who are unable to fight an independent land war against France.

For the moment, Britain probably has x + y ships and hopes for the best.

There is an alliance with Portugal and a long-standing friendship. Plus, it's a bit of trek to get an army there.

Denmark moans about the blockade more than the Continental system, but still indulges in smuggling and says it will go with Britain if France invades, but won't sign anything, even a secret agreement and is vulnerable to an invading French army, with Russia no longer a block to French ambition. Hmmmm.

B vs F OR B vs D OR B vs P – Britain needs x ships and will win, securing it's trade routes.

After Copenhagen, Britain has x + y + z ships (the Danish ones added in now). At worst, it's got to face F + P.

In 1808 France tells the Portuguese to hand over their fleet (the very nerve) and in response, it disappears into the sunset.

Now, the likely option is B vs F. Britain needs x + y in a worst case scenario.

Britain has an ongoing campaign against Danish gunboats, that requires frigates and brigs more than ships of the line. Britain doesn't have enough manpower for x + y + z plus the smaller ships. Think back to what you know about British quarrels with the Americans.

Take the best Danish ships and retire the rest, as well as some older British ships.

Now you have enough of the right ships for the job you need.

Simple enough Gazzola?

Ben Avery

Please read the description of the Copenhagen attack. It does not record a vary favourable account. It also mentions, page 295, that the British attack against the Danish ship Frederickscoarn, when two ships were ordered to attack it but only one caught up with it on the 14th, was 'illegal and unexpected'

link

Discussing the British sly act of arrogance at Copenhagen does not mean it is fine or not okay for other nations to do whatever they did. I did not say that so it is plain stupid of you to bring it up.

Unlike you, I have actually seen and read the Thesis before because, unlike you again, I was debating this topic in several threads months ago, when this thesis and other sources were introduced. In fact, the main Thesis I used, may have been written by the same person but at an earlier date, although my one concentrates solely on Copenhagen 1807.

I don't like to assume anything if it can be helped. I would prefer evidence to support whatever was said. So, since you claim so strongly that other ships were employed, I am assuming that you have the evidence and sources to hand that will provide the information regarding what captured ships were used and how they were used. This will surely be a benefit to everyone. I look forward to seeing it.

In terms of the British wanting to stay in Denmark, you should have spotted the letters quoted in the previous threads, had you taken the opportunity as requested to do so. In the Map of Copenhagen thread, 12 October 2015, 4.22 am PST, you would have seen parts of letters quoted, relating to the British government wanting the military to find excuses to reject the surrender terms.

Hammond to Canning, 2 Sept, 1807..'A sufficient cause of declaring the capitulation to be void.'

Mulgarve to Canning, 20th Sept 1808 'have the country with us in any specious grounds to take for retaining Zealand.'

So I am so glad you admit Canning was considering staying in Denmark, because he was the British Foreign Secretary. And 'investigating options' LOL. You know full well that the British government do not go into 'investigating options' without reason. They had plans to stay there. Just grow some and admit it. It won't change the end result. As I said before, it was only the arguments of the military against it that prevented it from happening.

I did not quote what was written, word for word, and neither did you. Those interested can read the Thesis freely and other sources linked in the various threads and can make their own minds up. Talking of which, why would an observer of the time find it difficult to consider that the Danish fleet was a threat at the time? Could it be because it was not a threat, as the British found out themselves? Which bit of that don't you understand?

The British military were not expecting to HAVE to stay there for such a long time but HAD to get the unseaworthy ships seaworthy. You do know the difference between seaworthy and unseaworthy?

Anyway, I look forward to you presenting the evidence and sources you have on what stolen ships were employed and how they were employed, other than the undetailed few lines given in the thesis.

The British Navy link also describes the British failure to capture the Turkish fleet in 1807. I guess their sly attack on Copenhagen must have gone to their heads, but like the brave Danes the Turks also refused to roll over, resulting in an embarrassing failure, as the account records. There is more to it than that, of course, as there is in any action. But who knows, like the sly attack on Copenhagen, the British flop might make it to another thread.

Ben Avery

Yes, I can see why things must appear simple to you. Simple answers are probably far more attractive than reality, hence the blinkers.

The reality is that there was no real threat at the time. The ships were not seaworthy. The reality is that the British attacked a neutral country, starting with their attack against Danish ships before war was declared by either side. The reality is that they deliberately, despite disagreement by some, including Wellesley, bombarded civilians to force the military to surrender. The reality is that the military discovered they would have to stay for a long time, in order to make the ships seaworthy. The reality is that only FOUR ships of the line (in case you don't know what that means-that's 1st and 4th rate, 2 and 3 deckers, 48-120 gunned ships) were employed by the Navy afterwards. The reality is that they turned a neutral country into an enemy.

I don't like repeating the above, but judging by your frantic posts your head seems unable to cope with reality and also can't seem to accept people have different viewpoints to your new Union Jack blinkered viewpoint. You should try taking them off now and again, you really should. But lets' be fair, perhaps you are attending too many lectures and writing too many essays, and it is all getting a bit too much? Is that the problem Ben? And as for your wasteful algebra post, I think I would prefer Phil's poems. LOL But it is really disturbing when someone wants to bring, of all things, algebra, into a Napoleonic debate. It is just hilarious bordering on the absurd and that post was certainly absurd.

Anyway, I do hope you take a break from all that school/college work. After all, it is half-term.

Gazzola – I'm surprised you say you had read the thesis before. Surely then, when you were repeating the four ships nonsense, it was an informed lie, rather than simple ignorance? How on earth did I know about it, if I hadn't read the topics in question?

As for the ships – the first five on the list you linked:

Perlen link

Rota link

Freya link

Iris link

Nyaden link

Enough to be going on with? :)

As for you continually conflating individuals and 'the government'. Britain was a parliamentary democracy, rather than being ruled by imperial dictat. If the government had an actual plan, why let the military commanders do the negotiating rather than simply changing their orders? All these letters (not commands) are after the fleet has been sent with specific orders. If the government was of one mind then surely there would be no need to try and find fault with the Danes as the terms would have specified alternative options?

I don't expect you to quote word for word, but when you miss out a crucial qualifier that changes the meaning considerably, all to try and prove a point, it shows a lack of integrity in your posting. The author is most definitely not saying that the Danish fleet was 'no threat' as you keep trying to state.

The issue with so much of what you state (and a number of the articles), is that you focus on the event itself, outside of context and assume that subsequent issues for Britain were entirely avoidable, therefore it is a 'defeat' for Britain. Yet you're unable to come up with a helpful alternative, that would meet Britain's needs.

From the examples of Portugal, Spain and Russia, it would seem reasonable to assume that Denmark would not be able to maintain its policy of breaking the Continental system without consequence. As long as Russia and France are at peace, the occupation of Denmark by French forces appears to be a matter of when, not if and I find it hard to accept that Britain would be able to render effective aid, regardless of what Canning and others may have thought.

With the removal of the Danish fleet from the equation, it did provide security for Britain from invasion and enabled them to focus on building more useful alliances to take the fight back to Napoleon.

I've just seen your post. I must admit, whilst throwing some letters your way apparently appeared absurd to you (I apologise, but you seemed to be having problems with numbers), you don't seem to have argued with any of the points in it, so I suppose it seems to have served a purpose.

EDIT: unseaworthy doesn't always mean what you seem to think Gazzola.

P.81 'Offsetting this was Gambier's assessment that few of the prizes were in operable condition and that, "it will take some time to prepare them for sea, but not a moment will be lost in bringing the whole of them to England." It took nine days of feverish labor to equip and rig fourteen of the seventeen Danish sail-of-the-line for sea and which point the emphasis was shifted to the smaller warships.'

So, 14 ships of the line were ready for sea within 9 days? As I said, the Crown Prince thought having ships not ready for sea might reduce the perceived threat towards Britain. It doesn't mean they were in danger of sinking the moment they came out of the harbour. I suppose the question is, could they crew and provision them before a French army reached Copenhagen, if necessary and what happens if Russia is involved?

You're welcome :) Thank you for your concern, but no half term for me. Saturday schools for the masters, but this does make an entertaining change and contrast.

Ben Avery

It is not four ships nonsense, unless you can provide sources and details of more than FOUR MAJOR ships of the line being employed by the British Navy. I am quite happy to be proven wrong.

But thanks for the information on the, shall we say, lesser threat ships. But by what you have provided, it appears the five Danish frigates saw very little action, apart from the odd capture of a small schooner or privateer and seemed to be employed mainly as troop carries and were involved in the British flop at Walcheren. So no threat there then.

I think my Hammond to Canning letter quote should have the date 20 Sept, not the 2nd. But why are you so defensive about the British government of the period and their plans for Copenhagen and Denmark. The British military were still there robbing the Danes (which the Danes call rape by the way) when the letters were written. Of course they could not issue orders to occupy and make a permanent base before the attack. They did now know how it would go. After all, it was an ally and they may have just handed over the fleet. They did not of course, as we know and so they tried to find reasons to break the capitulation agreement, so they could stay. What other possible reason could they have wanted to find the capitulation void, had they ONLY wanted the ships, which they had already captured?

I did not miss anything out. Anyone can read everything on that Thesis via the link provided and see what was written, word for word. They can see that everything I mentioned was true. The author stated it would be difficult for anyone to find the Danish fleet a threat at the time. What is hard to understand about that? Of course, he may not have included the British government, who we know reacted in a hostile way based on false intelligence and seemed to have believed there was a seaworthy fleet waiting for Napoleon to pounce on.

It will always be viewed by blinkered Union Jack (new or old) waving Brit lovers as a victory. That is because they managed to steal all the ships and supplies. As I have said before, many accounts fob it off as a quick raid and capture of an enemy fleet. I even thought that myself, until research showed otherwise. But the truth, again as I have often stated, was that they attacked a neutral country, attacked their ships even though no one had declared war, employed a terror bombardment against Danish civilians and stole everything they could lay their hands on. Of the ships taken and eventually made seaworthy after a very long stay there, only four major ships of the line were employed by the British Navy. The rest became hospital or prison hulks, while the other smaller ships were given scouting, troop carrying, prison and hospital duties. Had all the major ships been seaworthy, then yes, they may have been a real threat, should Napoleon have got hold of them. But again, it took a considerable amount of time to make four major warships fit enough to be employed and I don't think the smaller ships, the frigates, sloops and other ships taken, including I believe many merchant ships, could be considered as a threat to anyone.

You want an alternative. Well first, the British should have got their facts right before sending a large military land and sea force to a neutral country. Second, as we know, apart from the smaller ships, they only ended up with four major warships, so instead of bombarding the Danish civilians, they could have bombarded and destroyed the Danish fleet. Or, since Russia and everyone else was at peace, the British could have made peace. They did it before, so why not again? Think of all the lives it would have saved and they would not have turned Denmark into an enemy. And think of all the money they could have saved which they kept paying the various nations to go to war with the French. But as we know, the British were just as greedy as anyone else during the period, so peace was not an option for them. In fact, in one of the threads I think I quoted a letter which shows they dreaded peace being made. Obviously, more money in war then as it was now, and as their crime at Copenhagen proved.

And please try to get it right. The British did not make alliances, they PAID for them.

Ben Avery

I don't argue with the contents of a post that shows an obvious sign of someone under stress. But I do suggest you leave your Algebra in the classroom in future, otherwise people might not take you seriously.

You suggest they made ships seaworthy very quickly, yet they stayed there for nearly two months? So it wasn't just the ships they were after then?

And you state the British made seventeen Sail of the line seaworthy but as we know, they only employed FOUR afterwards? Hmm, sounds very much like what I have been saying all along. Thanks for the support. Much appreciated.

Blimey, the only place they move the goalposts faster is Wembley. You do recall a page ago, when I told you that the ‘four ships' was a reference to ships of the line, right? You continued to ignore this and insist it was four ships in total until I told you exactly where to look in the thesis, at which point, you seem to be claiming that you meant ‘ships of the line' and 'major' ships' all along. Correct me if I'm wrong in this thinking, but that's the way it looks.

Then in the same post you seem to be getting muddled and perhaps need to rephrase your statement. I would suggest 'Of the 39 warships (excluding gunboats) made seaworthy after the agreed six weeks, approximately 26 were used on station and in action by the Royal Navy. Four of these were ships of the line.'

Anyway, it seems that my lesson seems to have faded from your memory very quickly. It's very tempting to blame the reader, but I have obviously failed to differentiate for your specific needs Gazzola and it appears that the learning needs to be reinforced to make it stick (otherwise known as ‘I told you this already').

Let's try something known as a cloze procedure (otherwise known as fill in the blanks with the words in the brackets).

There are _____-of-the-line and lesser ships known as _______ and brigs. (ships, frigates)

Ships-of the line are necessary for securing naval __________ as they provide the main firepower in ______ actions. (supremacy, fleet) They are a __________ threat to other ships-of-the-line. (significant)

Frigates and brigs are less ________ but useful in tasks such as _______ and escort duties. (powerful, scouting).

They are more of a _______ to other lesser warships and _________ ships. (threat, merchant).

Bonaparte needed more ships-of-the-line if he were to challenge ________ naval ________ (British, supremacy).

Britain had already defeated his _______ whilst it was allied to the _______. (fleet, Spanish).

This meant he could not _______ Britain. (invade)

The Danes would not _____ with Britain and British politicians thought Bonaparte might try to _____ their fleet. (ally, steal)

They sent a fleet of their own and spoke more with the _____. (Danes) This happened _____ times (several).

After attacking _________ the Danes surrendered. (Copenhagen) The British claimed the ships and the ____. (stores)

This was not ______ as rejecting terms meant the ______ should not have expected the same offer once an ______ had begun during a siege. (unusual, Danes, attack)

Most of the _____ ships-of-the-line were made ready for sea in just over a _____ (Danish, week).

The British still had to ______ the remaining three and all the other _____, brigs, merchant ships and gunboats, as well as empty the _____. (prepare , frigates, brigs, stores).

The ______ were possibly the most ______ as they could be used to maintain existing Royal Navy ships. (stores, useful)

The frigates and brigs were also ______ as the Royal Navy had ______ and supply lines to _____. (useful, trade, protect). They were ideal for this as they were _______ and easier to _____ than ships-of-the-line. (cheaper, man)

The Royal Navy did not need all the ________ ships-of-the-line as there were no big ______ to easily oppose them or support an _______. (Danish, fleets, invasion) They were glad ___________ did not have them though. (Bonaparte)

After all this __________ tried to ________ the Portuguese fleet but it sailed away. (Bonaparte, claim).

This made him ____. (sad)

As for the ‘government' plan, what does the Prime Minister have to say on all this Gazzola? Hammond and Mulgarve aren't even in the cabinet. Canning and Castlereagh are important, but why do we not have something from the Prime Minister instructing them, or indicating a cabinet decision? The ideal was an alliance, but various options were being explored.

Ultimately though, the fleet was sent to destroy or return with the Danish fleet and did so. That is the reality.

They were not given different orders to stay on by the government and seem to have had a lot of discretion in how to complete their task. If the ‘government's' plan was to stay on, why not tell the commanders to prepare for it from the start? It happened with other operations. This would avoid them doing things like setting a date to leave and allowing the Danes to keep control of most of the city.

Canning and Castlereagh are undoubtedly ‘hawks', to use a current term, but they are looking for evidence to build a case to stay on. This suggests that the ‘government' did not have a secret plan and they need something to take to cabinet and get a consensus and a change in orders.

It's an interesting suggestion that Britain should have just made peace on Bonaparte's terms and capitulated when he threatened its livelihood with the Continental system, particularly when they had the means to continue fighting and had already won at Trafalgar. I'm not sure why that suited their needs though? A hostile power held dominion over Europe and had put in place a system that was defined specifically to harm Britain's trade and could be imposed at will.

Given Britain had to introduce income tax to pay for the war, I'm not sure they preferred it to peace. The ideal was a balance of power and something which Europe enjoyed for a lengthy period after the Napoleonic wars.

If you think Britain should have just given up though, then fair enough, I will respect your opinion.

I fail to see why paying people in cash is in some way not ‘making' an alliance though. Could you explain more? Various countries had the men to fight Bonaparte, but not the money. Britain had money, but not the men. Other alliances were made on the basis of mutual defence, or territory, or titles for leaders. Cold, hard, cash seems as honest as any.

The ideal was a balance of power and something which Europe enjoyed for a lengthy period after the Napoleonic wars.

Basic English foreign policy going back to the League of Augsberg.

Except for the unseemly revolution or two (which were the direct results of Napoleon's fall and the Congress of Vienna), the Wars of German Unification that led directly to Wars I and II…

Ben Avery

You are debating with adults now and you are NOT at school, so please try to write your posts with that in mind, there's a good chap.

But you are certainly in denial. The British government could not order an invasion because Denmark was a NEUTRAL country at the time. I've put it in capitals because you seem unable to understand what NEUTRAL means. One country does not usually INVADE another country that is neutral, because, guess why, that would be seen as an act of war. GET IT?

'Looking for evidence to build a case on' YOU SAID IT.

And come on, the continental system was there BECAUSE BRITAIN AND FRANCE WERE AT WAR – Had you forgotten that? No war, no need for any trade blockages by any nation.

And if Britain agreed to make peace again, as they had before, it did not have to be on Napoleon's terms. Britain would not have been doing so as a defeated nation as Russia had to do in 1807.

Ah yes, the Income Tax, to pay for the war. It was removed when peace was made and then brought back when war was declared again, and then dropped again in 1816. So if Britain had made peace in 1807, there would have been no need for Income Tax, would there?

Your take on Britain paying other countries to go to war with France is hilarious. Had Britain not paid them they would not have gone to war. There would have been peace. Surely even you can see that? They even refused to go against Napoleon in 1815 unless Britain paid them to do so. And paying someone to fight usually refers to mercenaries, not allies, which basically, is what they became. There was no love lost between Britain and the other nations during the period and we have seen that the British have admitted they were hated in Europe.

By the way, I loved the way you stated 'enough to be going on with', when you linked the history of the captured frigates. But I can see why you STOPPED at five ships. Apart from two other frigates, Nymphen and Fylla, which saw combat with one French privateer each, the rest appeared to have done very little from 1807 until the end of the war. Of course, I did not undertake extensive research on this, Naval history is not my general area of interest, so if you are aware of anything that shows otherwise, it would be nice if you could share it for those who may be interested.

I did look for information on how the British Navy employed the major ships of the line, which yes, I was silly enough to refer to as warships in other posts. I did not realise you would not understand what I meant. Had I known that, I would have stated the size of the ships I referred to, the number of guns and decks etc. At the time, I was not referring to the smaller ships stolen like frigates, brigs and gunboats etc.

Anyway, of the stolen ships of the line (I am referring to the big warships here), some became prison ships or were burnt, which itself indicates how much of a threat they were. Only four seemed to have been employed by the British Navy. If you have information or details that show more were employed and in what way, please let me know. I'm only going on what I have managed to find, so far.

Here is what I found concerning their service until the end of the war: the numbers in brackets refer to their guns when in British hands)
The Christian VII (80) destroyed one Brig, one schooner, the ships boats attacked French chass-marees (a sort of small fishing boat used for smuggling), in 1811 the Christian carried livestock
Dannemark (74) a troop carrier in 1809, also carried French prisoners, was involved in the British failure at Walcheren, attacked one French privateer which escaped, sailed to India and China
Norge (74) troop carrier, was at Walcheren, and either carried troops or escorted other ships carrying troops to America in 1814
Princess Carolina (or Caroline) (74) ships boats attacked Russian gunboats and a brig in 1809, escorted East Indiamen in 1812, ordered to blockade Cherbourg 1812 but the wind seemed to have prevented it from doing so effectively and it was blown it off course and returned to Britain

From that we can all see what a THREAT these four ships would have been had they fallen into Napoleon's hands. LOL

If I was in the mood, I could search further, but as I say, naval history is not really my area of interest, and the Copenhagen topic is becoming quite boring now, especially after going over all the same material done in the other threads not so long ago. And not having my main sources to hand makes it all the more difficult. And I much prefer to read up and research the land campaigns, plus I have a lot of book reading to catch up on. But I have enjoyed what I have discovered and what has been revealed.

The naval website you linked to the stolen Danish frigates was okay but limited. However, I have made two links which may be of use to you or anyone else who may be interested in the naval side of the period.

link

link

It's probably as well that naval history is not an area of interest for you really Gazzola, as you seem to have a real lack of understanding.

You wanted evidence of whether the frigates and brigs were used and it was provided, demonstrating them being used for the purpose they were designed for. They were a helpful addition, as was common practice. You've already linked the incomplete copy of the Wikipedia article and your second is far less complete than the database I showed you.

The larger ships were of far less use to Britain but they didn't want them in hostile hands. That's the reality.

It's probably best that you stick to land warfare and try and get your head around that.

Of course the British government could order the invasion of a neutral country. It happened in this era, even to allies.

Of course, the Danes weren't even neutral by the time the British had arrived were they, having declared war? That declaration would have been an ideal opportunity for the government to issue direct orders to occupy Zealand, whatever happens to the ships.

Kevin – unseemly or not, the revolutions are not a significant threat to Britain, nor the balance of power, compared to French hegemony.

German unification was seen as far less of a threat to the balance of power than French hegemony.

When German hegemony becomes a possibility, Britain gets involved.

@ Brechtel – I'll take your persistent (and extremely rude) refusal to answer my questions as to why we are ignoring many British victories, whilst counting (double in some cases) other similar campaigns as defeats, as tacit admission that you were completely wrong in stating that the "overwhelming majority" of British operations outside of the Peninsula War were defeats.

Glad we got that sorted.

Gazzola, I am aware we're not in school, but given your repeated use of capitals (which online signifies shouting) and lack of basic comprehension (whether wilful ignorance or worse), You'll have to forgive me for not assuming I'm dealing with an adult and must differentiate for your needs.

By the way, trying to patronise people only really works when they haven't just proved you wrong or lying, or you're not avoiding an issue.

did brech come up with any quote on the supposedly 22 captured british colours?

Ben Avery

Wikipedia? The very thought! I'll take that as a silly joke. But as you know, neither of the websites I linked are Wikipedia. I mean, I am assuming you have viewed them and it was a joke? I do hope you are not trying to belittle them because they offer something you don't want to see and you haven't even viewed them? That would not be very professional, would it?

And some of the information I obtained and posted about the ships came from the same website you linked. Did you not realise that? LOL

Wow! At last! It was so nice to see you admit that the larger ships were not of much use to Britain, as I kept saying. Again, it raises the question of why did they steal them in the first place? After all, if they were not of use for the British I doubt they would have been of much use to the French.

Yes, quite right, I don't know a lot about the naval side of the period, that is true, I don't mind admitting it. But neither do you judging by your posts. And that is why I went off and researched the sly attack on Copenhagen in 1807, to find out what really happened, and did not just base my opinion on the biased flag waving propaganda people like you want everyone to believe. You should try it sometime. You might learn something. But be warned, you will have to take your Union Jack blinkers off and it might hurt a bit. LOL

And did it annoy you because I proved your info on 5 frigates was a smokescreen because there was little else to add? Naughty me. But that was obviously why you stopped offering any more. I'm still laughing at your phrase 'enough to go on for now' What a joker you are! You little rascal you!

The Danish fleet was supposed to be a threat. A threat that would enable Napoleon to carry out the invasion of Britain. Yet the 'service' record of the stolen Danish ships undertook under British command, shows few ships were useful for anything. Some were so useless they were burnt or sunk on the way to Britain. And the 'useful service' of the ships of the line and frigates that were employed, appeared to consist mainly of the odd attack against a much smaller vessel, or carrying troops and livestock, or use as prison hulks. This suggests that none of them were that useful, let alone your sudden admittance that the big ships were not useful.

I suggest you read about the event again.(I almost went to capitals then) Please take note-the British arrived with their massive land and sea force when Denmark was still neutral. Which bit of that fact do you not understand or do not want to accept? The British also attacked Danish ships before either side had declared war. Which bit of that fact do you not understand or do not want to accept? Overall, it suggests you have not studied or researched the event at all. Perhaps your head was full of too much algebra? Write a hundred times, I must do research before posting, I must do research before posting.

Anyway, if you don't want to accept the reality, that is entirely up to you. It is your choice, as my viewpoint is my choice. But it seems that your (and others) rosy view of a goody goody Napoleonic Britain, never doing anything wrong has been blown out of the water has really rattled you. The events at Copenhagen 1807 was a stain on British naval history and always will be. Get over it. Grow some and move on.

link

link

As I said an incomplete copy of Wikipedia, lacking notes, citations and references. Don't worry about apologising, but it might be worth checking what I've stated in future, before you look foolish. Similarly, all bar four of the frigates and brigs taken back by the British have service histories on the website (and that Wikipedia page your site copied has a couple linked too). I think that qualifies as most. I'm sorry convoy duty, carrying messages, picking up smugglers and scouting isn't exciting enough for you, but that's their job. Now you know a tiny bit more about naval history. :) (Yet) again though, the usage the British made of the Danish ships was unlikely to be the same as the French.

This is an interesting find though.

link

Rather pricey, but plenty of it is readable online.

As for the rest, ('sudden admittance', 'not useful', indeed), I'll just say, re-read the first post at the top of this page. :)

As a client postponed I had time to spell things out for you and also fill in some gaps :) Operational security seems to have been less of an issue at that time, given how much info the London Gazette has…

Hasfruen – link (a older version of your linked site, but sadly broken links. Kept for seven years but not put into commission).
Nymphen – link
Venus – link
Frederickstein – link
Little Belt – link link – interesting story
Fylla – link
Eyderen – link
link
Elven – link
link
Gluckstadt – link
Nid elven – link
Sarpen – link
link
link
Glommen – link
Mercurious – link
Delphinen – link
Allart – link link
Brev Drageren – link
Flying Fish (at the bottom it seems) – link
link
Ornen – link

Gluckstadt – link

very interesting – maybe Glückstadt – a town in Northern Germany where still the Danish king owns a very interesting castle – in 1807 this part of Germany belonged to Denmark

Even more interesting it would be how the English sailors would pronounce it -

also Glück – would be luck
Gluck – a sound described when a ship goes down – like

gluck, gluck gluck ;-))

I'm pretty they'd have come up with some rhyming slang for it…

von Winterfeldt

did brech come up with any quote on the supposedly 22 captured british colours?

No not yet! I will give him a little more time.

Could someone who reads French, please translate this French quote that was in the original post that was put up by John Cook pertaining the 22 colours.

"Ecartons immediatement le dix drapeaux anglais qu'il donne comme pris au combat de Prietos, le 3 janvier
1809, erreur manifeste and incomprehensible."

Paul :)

Ben Avery

Your attempt to dismiss the sources as incomplete Wikipedia is both insulting and novice. And even though you have done so, YOU ACTUALLY PUT A WIKIPEDIA LINK to the Frigate Little Belt. DO YOU ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING? It is called being a hypocrite! You do know that you can't mock or dismiss someone or, in this case, some websites, because they used Wikipedia as part of their sources, then use Wikipedia yourself to try and prove a point. That is just plain HYSTERICAL! Obviously, it does not matter if it supports your viewpoint. LOL And you marked it as interesting-really? It seemed pretty boring to me, although mention of the British impressing American sailors was interesting. Another Anti-Brit topic, eh?

As far as I can see, the Threedecks is a naval website and employs several sources, as do most sites. And if you had checked it out properly you will see that yes, the Explained website does indeed use some material found on Wikipedia, namely the article on Copenhagen 1807, which in itself, if you care to view it, I was surprised to find had some very creditable sources (as does the Little Belt article you linked), including Danish history and naval sources and, wait for it, also by A.N. RYAN, you know, the author of the Thesis you APPROVED of. Have you gone off him all of a sudden because I found his Thesis very helpful and supportive to my views?

'Convoy duties, smuggling -not exciting for you' Oh dear, you are getting desperate, aren't you? And again, you have RUN AWAY from the fact that the major ships, you know, the important ones that were the supposed THREAT, of which only FOUR were put into service, did very little. (I am not shouting by the way, the words in capitals are for emphasis because you seem incapable of accepting or understanding reality)

And why you linked the smaller frigate info again is comical and totally unnecessary. I read their service record, which you SHOULD have been aware of by my posts. I do wonder if you really do read them. It made me wonder if your blinkers have been fitted with a device that blocks out anything you don't want to see or know? I would not write they did little, had I not discovered that they DID, IN FACT, DO VERY LITTLE. Get it?

And are you suggesting that the British went to all that effort, expense, killing of civilians, turning a friendly country into an enemy and stealing everything they could lay their greedy little hands on, to stop Napoleon and the French from having ships for smuggling, prison hulks and carrying livestock? Was that the real threat-Napoleon using the ships to carry cows, sheep and pigs? LOL

Personally, I don't think you can take off your Union Jack blinkers. It is obviously too painful for you. It also suggests that you will never view anything involving the British, other than from a British viewpoint. That's okay, there are a lot of people like you. They don't want the boat rocked or their cosy viewpoint challenged.

Anyway, there has been a considerable amount of time and threads on Napoleon's victories and defeats, and British victories, but hardly any in comparison concerning the British defeats and flops, almost giving the impression that the British never failed at anything or did anything wrong. But we know otherwise, don't we, as recent threads on Copenhagen and Burgos exposed? With this in mind, and for a refreshing change, when I get the time, I hope to be looking at some of the British flops, such as Buenos Ayres 1807, Walcheren 1809, and the Low Countries 1814, plus any others that I come across.

Perhaps you will be keen to join in any debates that pop up on these topics. But please try to catch them at the time and not suddenly pop up months later moaning and groaning and making everyone go over the same stuff again. You need to keep checking. Bit of a warning though, you might need an extra pair of blinkers. LOL

I'll take your persistent (and extremely rude) refusal to answer my questions as to why we are ignoring many British victories, whilst counting (double in some cases) other similar campaigns as defeats, as tacit admission that you were completely wrong in stating that the "overwhelming majority" of British operations outside of the Peninsula War were defeats. Glad we got that sorted.

The discussion was over as far as I was concerned. I'll not convince you and you certainly won't convince me, therefore we are at an impasse and continuing any discussion is counter-productive and somewhat silly.

And I have not admitted anything to your points. As far as I'm concerned you're incorrect as you are in quite a few topics on this forum and on the Revolutionary War forum as well.

As for any type of rudeness, I suggest that you reread your own postings in order to revise your hypocritical comments.

It's time to move on. If you want to continue beating dead horses, be my guest, but there are other topics to discuss and more information to exchange without your continued nonsense.

Calm down Gazzola and ponder for a moment, whether editing your post was the wisest choice.

You might have wanted to re-consider throwing the word 'hypocrite' around, for a start.

Of course I linked Wikipedia pages where appropriate – it's where the links to the original newspaper scans were found.

Please point out though, where I was dismissive of Wikipedia or people using it? I personally think it's an astounding social enterprise.

However, I do recall reading 'Wikipedia? The very thought! I'll take that as a silly joke.' (This seems rather dismissive to me).

They then followed it up by writing 'You do know that you can't mock or dismiss someone or, in this case, some websites, because they used Wikipedia as part of their sources.'

Pray tell, who wrote that? Inconsistent or hypocritical. Take your pick :)

I was indeed dismissive of a site that gave us nothing new, copied content wholesale from another without crediting it, but missed out all the really useful sources and references, which are what make good Wikipedia articles an excellent starting point.

Carry on.

As far as I'm concerned you're incorrect as you are in quite a few topics on this forum and on the Revolutionary War forum as well.

Care to offer any links? Or do you mean "incorrect" as you claimed I was when I pointed out all the faults in your AWI uniform "encyclopedia"? Funnily enough, having badgered me repeatedly to list those faults, you failed to respond when I did. Much like now.

And I'm still at a loss to understand why victories in India and South Africa don't count, but defeats in South America do. Why not explain?

Still, if you want to operate double standards, that's your choice…

@Supercilius Maximus

"As far as I'm concerned you're incorrect as you are in quite a few topics on this forum and on the Revolutionary War forum as well."

You should regard this as a praise, in real speak this means, you displayed superior knowledge to brech in almost any subjects you tried to discuss with him

Ben Avery

I'm very calm thank you. Apart from making me laugh now and again, your posts have had little effect, well, apart from an increase in boredom.

But I suggest you really examine the links before dismissing them. Both offer far more than the event we have been discussing. For a start, you tried to make out they offered no sources, yet had you taken the time to go to the bottom of the page you would see they gave their sources in both External Links and Notes and references, this includes Danish sources. Also, if you click onto the highlighted words or phrases, it will lead to further information and sources. And in the Naval database, had you taken the time to click onto the sources tab you would have seen a very extensive list of sources.

But I guess you will always have your view on the British atrocity at Copenhagen and I will have mine, or rather my new viewpoint based on research. Anyway, here are some Copenhagen trivia facts for you. Taken from Experience of War and Nationality in Denmark and Norway 1807-1815 by Rasmus Glenthos and Nordhagen Ottosen.

The terror bombardment used three times more gunpowder than that used at the Battle of Waterloo (page 42)
The military lost 183 lives, but the total civilian losses are not known, but they consisted mainly of women, children and the elderly. (p45)
The British not only stole Danish ships, but they also took doors, windows, stoves, furniture and a pair of office scissors. (page 51)

But I thought I'd leave you with a bit of Danish humour. As you know, the British handed out a comical proclamation before bombarding the city, stating that they had not come as enemies but as friends. (Who needs enemies when you have friends like this, eh?) The failed propaganda attempt resulted in the Danes describing the British attack on Copenhagen as 'the friendly English bombardment.' I think that says it all really.

Why do you insist on suggesting I compared your second link to Wikipedia Gazzola? I did no such thing. I pointed out it was missing some info, but that is all.

Your Wikipedia copy is missing notes, references and all the citations. If you don't believe me, just compare them. As I said, incomplete. Obviously it's some time since they copied the content. The hyperlinks within the text are common on Wikipedia, which is why I thought you might have recognised it.

As for your quoting a book I recommended to you. Well done on reading my links, if not always your own, before you start dismissing Wikipedia and making a hypocrite of yourself in the space of two posts…

Ben Avery

You keep calling the link a Wikipedia copy, when you know it is part of a website that offers quite a bit of information and not just on Copenhagen. And, as I have mentioned before, it also offers a variety of sources including Danish sources, not just Wikipedia. Which bit of that don't you understand? You really did not have to mention Wikipedia at all, but you somehow felt compelled to do so. As I say, I don't think you really know what you are saying or posting.

As to the book you linked, yes, well done on that. Nice to see yet another title that supports my viewpoint. However, the contents available are incomplete and I found your link contained no page numbers, while my link does, although that may be something to do with my computer?

It is a very interesting book that describes the Danes leaning more towards the British than the French, especially the merchants, well, before the sly attack, that is. Something I have been stating all along.

The book is interesting and I liked the way it also described how the British knew what the targets consisted of and what effect it could have on those it would fall on.

'General Cathcart was apprehensive about the consequences of a bombardment as the bombs could hit a girls' school. Arthur Wellesley was also said to be concerned about a bombardment. His alternative was more traditional but hardly more humane, namely a protracted siege to starve the city into submission. This would have almost certainly led to a far greater number of deaths from hunger of infectious diseases.' (page 42)
Luckily no one listened to Wellesley, eh? And sadly, despite the wonderful British knowing the danger, the bombs did fall on the girls school.

Also interesting was the following: 'From a military point of view, the bombardment of Copenhagen, or to use the more neutral terms used in British historiography, the Copenhagen Expedition or the Second Battle of Copenhagen, was a brilliant strategic success brought about by an unprovoked attack by a great power on a weaker, unprepared and neutral state. It was common knowledge, however, that George III, had been opposed to the expedition, and at home in Great Britain it triggered a steady stream of criticism. The opposition accused the government of isolating Britain diplomatically by acting rashly and ruthlessly on the basis of unreliable rumours, and, in so doing, of throwing a neutral well disposed state into the arms of Napoleon instead of helping and supporting Denmark-Norway. The result of the British government's actions had, in fact, made thousands of well-trained Danish and Norwegian seamen available to Napoleon and on the continent had created a public relations catastrophe of undreamt dimensions. This last point was emphasised by the Danish-Norwegian government doing everything in its power to inflame public opinion in Europe by publishing newspaper articles and pamphlets in German, French and English and by distributing a host of prints illustrating the bombardment of Copenhagen and the seizure of the fleet. In Britain, the opposition's attack was supported by radical and humanitarian critics in intellectual circles, who stated that the expedition had been an infringement of international law, while the bombardment of the city and the seizure of the Danish-Norwegian fleet would be a lasting stain on the honour od the British nation. It also gave rise to the contemporary expression, 'as shameful as Copenhagen'. (pages 52-53)

So, the sly attack was not just disliked by the Danes. And indeed, it will forever remain a stain, apart of course, from those who don't research the reality of the sly attack and atrocity and can't take their Union Jack and anti-Nap blinkers off.

link

I really don't think you know what you are posting at times Gazzola. After searching for 'copenhagen a stain on british history,' The first quote you have gone for says that the bombardment would appear to be more humane than a traditional siege, resulting in far fewer deaths. Would you rather they'd laid siege now? Please just make up your mind.

As I have already said, alienating the Danes was an considered an acceptable price for security, particularly given that Portugal was receiving a French ultimatum (and shortly afterwards an invasion, for not fulfilling every single French demand) at the same time British forces were outside Copenhagen.

Given the only thing stopping the Danes receiving an ultimatum was Talleyrand not passing it on one wonders what all those Danish sailors would do if Bernadotte were to lead French forces over the border and occupy Denmark, as they did to Portugal.

Britain attacked a neutral country to seize a resource that threatened its interests, after diplomacy failed. Absolutely. And yet, somehow, Britain was able to continue making alliances, particularly with the big countries that helped it defeat Napoleon. As I said, acceptable consequences.

I would expect the leaders of any country to look after the interests of their people. Some win, some lose. I don't blame the Danes for their feelings on the matter, nor those in Britain and elsewhere who felt that indeed it 'wasn't British.' Given the nature of the conflict, I would expect people 200 years distant, to actually consider context. In your case, there is always an exception to the rule.

Yes, I remember this quote, Paul, and checked it on Google and found that you had cited it before, from a thread in the Napoleon Series: link "Ecartons immediatement
le dix drapeaux anglais qu'il donne comme pris au combat de Prietos, le 3 janvier
1809, erreur manifeste and incomprehensible".

In the temporary absence of a more competent translator, here goes:
It appears to be a sentence fragment. "Setting aside, right away, the ten English colours that he gave as battle trophies from Prietos, January 3rd, 1809, an obvious and incomprehensible error …."

I can only imagine that the author,Jean Regnault, ( Les Drapeaux Anglais d'Albuera et de Bergen op Zoom au Musee de l'Armee ) was calling into question the number of the other alleged trophies.

Does anyone have a copy of the original to help us explicate this?
Does anyone even know where Prietos is/was or who fought there?

Cheers,
Phil

Believe it or not Phil, I have a copy of said tome and have had it for some time, picking it up second hand. But I can't read French and even though I get the gist of what is being said in the book, for the life of me, can't find the appropriate section (I have been looking since the reference first came up on ACG). The book does not have an Index, just a list of sources (Bibliographie), Table des Illustrations and Table des Matieres (materials?) so I can't look up a key word

Paul :)

Ben Avery

I think bombardment of the military and defences would have been the better and more honourable choice, don't you? But, as you know, the Brits preferred to bombard the civilians. You give the impression, that to you, that was more humane?

Alienating the Danes. So, in other words, you are admitting that the British didn't give a damn about the Danes or the fact that their atrocity they committed could alienate other nations. That would fit in with their desire to be feared, as shown during the various debates.

Bringing up a what if, is just a waste of time and, at this stage, not worth a response.

Diplomacy my you know what! Turning up with a massive warfleet and land force and demanding the Danes give up their property or face hostilities, is nothing more than an act of war. Surely you can see that?

Seized a source that threatened its interests! Hardly, we have already established many times that they could only employ four major ships of the line, you know, those that would have been a real threat. The other smaller ships, those not burnt or sunk and ships used as prison hulks, were not a threat, unless you believe a few frigates can scare the hell out of the British Ships of the Line?

Context! That is the whole point. The image often given is of a glorious quick raid by the navy and the removal of a dangerous fleet. The reality is, most of the ships were not even seaworthy, the sly attack and atrocity was against a neutral nation who leaned towards the British and whose troops were actually positioned at the time to face a possible French threat. I'm assuming you are aware that the French were enemies of the British at the time, not the Danes. And the fact the British did not even attempt to storm the defences, but deliberately aimed at the civilians, stole everything they could lay their hands on, including door handles and a pair of officers scissors, and ended up turning a neutral country into an enemy, says it all. Added to this, of course, is the fact the British government had intentions to remain in Denmark.

Only someone completely biased and wearing Union Jack blinkers could see this in a positive way. Personally, I can't understand why people can't just accept it was a stain on British honour. And it wasn't the only bad thing the British did, as history shows. But it was 200 years ago and whatever we think today will not change anything, Napoleon still lost in the end.

But I do believe this topic has run its course now, several times in fact. It is obvious you will not change your mind on how to view the sly attack on Copenhagen in 1807, and it is obvious that my view, which changed to a negative one after researching the affair, will not change. So it is rather pointless saying any more, or rather, disagreeing any more. LOL. But it is has been very interesting debating with you and I am sure we will meet again in further debates and on other topics.

I'm confused yet again Gazzola. You say that bringing up a what if is a waste of time, yet you had posted a quote about a hypothetical siege? Napoleon's ultimatums and future actions are a matter of fact though.

Diplomatic attempts were made before the British arrived off Denmark, after they arrived at Copenhagen and right up to and including the siege and bombardment. I'm sure you know this. Obviously the British gave a damn or they wouldn't have tried diplomacy first? Alienating Denmark wasn't ruled out though. This is fairly basic stuff.

I think the neutrality of Denmark is more of an issue for people outside Denmark than the targets of the attack, particularly as Britain gave the Danes the opportunity to evacuate (and thus prolong the operation). Storming the city after bombarding the walls will still lead to casualties.

As for the Danish fleet, if it was so inconsequential, why on earth would they have over £300,000.00 GBP worth of stores for it? For the rest, see the top of the page.

I'm glad you're agreeing to differ, but note that most do it without throwing out tired old insults, otherwise it undermines any sincerity.

At least now that you don't have to spend time posting about Copenhagen, you can finally start on all those other topics you keep talking about. I was surprised that despite claiming to be bored two pages ago you found the energy to post so much. Perhaps you should consider whether it's worth raising a topic if you don't want to discuss it further.

Way to go, Paul! It's time we did another project. I've searched for this book on French, British and American sites without any luck; you are the only person I know who has a copy.

I'm getting the "Milne Milne" book on British colours next month, so, unless you already have it, we can do another swap, and I'll find and translate the appropriate passage. Who knows what other good stuff might be in there?

"Table des Matieres", by the way, is "Table of Contents"; it may help or not.

If you've lost my Email addy, drop me a message on That Other Site, and we can get to work.

Cheers,
Phil

Ben Avery

Yes, I see that you are confused again. Seems to be a habit of yours. But don't worry, it often happens to people who find their viewpoints being challenged and when something negative is offered concerning the British. You are not the first and you certainly won't be the last. LOL

Firstly, I did not raise it as a topic of debate. I raised the question of it being included in the victory list, considering the results of the various debates on the topic, debates, of course, you did not take part in.

I was being polite continuing to post to you because you made posts concerning the Copenhagen attack and you obviously did not take part in the previous threads on the same topic. But are you suggesting I should have ignored you instead? That would not be very polite, would it?

But if you had taken part in the previous threads covering the same topic, you might also have become a little fed up with going over the same details and dismissing the same arguments. As I mentioned, I was also handicapped by my main sources not being to hand, because, after doing the topic to death fairly recently, I had no idea someone would suddenly want to go over it again and I sent them back. As I say, just a shame you did not take part in the other threads, although you have not yet explained why that was?

No, yours was a what-if, mine wasn't. The type of sieges, starvation or deliberate bombardment of the civilians, were ideas proposed by the British and mentioned in the book you linked, of which you know they chose the quickest and less honourable. And yes, firing at the walls and storming them would have resulted in casualties, but at least the British targets would have been military and more honourable, not civilian. You do accept that, don't you? And yes, no doubt, as in all sieges, civilians would have been injured or killed, even in an attack against the military and defences, but that would not have been by design, as in the terror bombardment.

As for you trying to defend the British atrocity because they tried 'diplomatic attempts', that is as hilarious as anything else you have stated in their defence. What they offered was basically – give us your fleet or face war, hence the massive sea and land force sent there at the same time. That is clearly described in the very book you linked.

'Foreign minister Christian Berns called the British offer ' most infernal' ever conceived as the pledge demanded for an alliance was the entire Danish-Norwegian fleet.' In his eyes this was not a question of alliance, but of Denmark-Norway's thraldom. Denmark stood firmly by its 80 years of neutrality. This meant that there were never negotiations proper in Kiel 1807.'
(page 33. Experiences of War and Nationality in Denmark and Norway 1807-1815, by Gienthoj and Ottosen)

And anyway, before the British sent their massive land force and war fleet to Denmark, they showed their lack of respect towards neutral nations when they made the Order of Council, 7th Jan 1807 'All merchant ships which sailed to and from a harbour where British ships were excluded would be taken as good prizes of the British.' Note the words taken and good prizes. They relate not to property of an enemy, but to anyone they wanted, neutral or not. That is nothing more than an arrogant warlike stance and action.

And come on, don't be silly, the stores were there because it was a naval base and that is where they usually keep naval stores! Which part of that don't you understand? Yes, the stores the British also decided to steal were quite considerable, but that did not make the Danish fleet considerable or even seaworthy, otherwise the British would have been able to employ far more than just four major ships of the line, which, as you now know by now, was all they did employ.

And really, I don't think you should complain about anything you consider as an insult, judging what you put into your own posts: 'I really don't think you know what you are posting at times Gazzola'. Again, that is a clear sign of a hypocrite. So I would recommend you reread your own posts before making silly hypocritical accusations. You even joked yourself about 'the new Union Jack blinkers'.

And so nice of you to consider what I can or can't concentrate on now. Yes, those topics I mentioned will be looked at, although I can't say when, but it will be at my choosing, and not just because this debate has just finished. In fact, it you were more observant you would have noticed that there has already been some discussion on Buenos Ayres in the Discussion board. So debating Copenhagen, had it continued, would have had no effect on researching other topics.

My reason for stopping is pure boredom. It has been done to death. Not by you, of course because, as we know, you did not take part in the other threads. Still don't know why not mind? But be assured, should the interest remain, this topic will pop up again.

Gazzola, I posted ‘you really do not seem to know what you are posting' based purely on repeated contradictions on your posts. This was based on examples such as:

-‘Wikipedia? The very thought! I'll take that as a silly joke!….'You do know that you can't dismiss someone or, in this case some websites [sic] because they used Wikipedia as part of their sources'.

-‘With this in mind, and for a refreshing change, when I get the time…so, debating Copenhagen, had it happened, would have had no effect on other topics'.

-‘I did not raise it as a topic of debate… I raised the *question* of it being included in the victory list'(in fact telling the poster that they should look again, to which the obvious answer is ‘why?').

-‘Apologising' for an attempted insult…and then promptly repeating it in the next sentence.

-Stating that you're bored by the topic four, five(?) times now, yet apparently being forced to put fingers to keys.

-Stating ‘my reason for stopping'…when you are doing anything but.

I'm not sure how pointing out contradictions in the words you're writing is an insult, but I do think repeatedly posting ‘British blinkers…British blinkers…British blinkers' because I don't agree with your interpretation of events, when I have gone out and found non-British texts is a little rich. You obviously have different standards.

That the Danes turned down a range of proposals by Britain (including the one you linked), doesn't stop them being diplomatic approaches.

Denmark chose to both flout the blockade and the Continental system. That was its decision and indeed right, as a neutral country, but one that would have consequences as neither Britain nor France were happy with the situation. Having made the decision that another peace was not in its best interests, Britain took action.

You've already stated that naval warfare is not your area of expertise and repeatedly demonstrated this.

p.s. I did tell you why I didn't post in the autumn, back on the 7 Feb and you responded to my post too. Please stop lying, thanks. :)

Ben Avery

I told you before, it is not really polite to not respond to someone who has made a post with either questions, challenges or, in your case, silly accusations.

IT IS YOU that seem incapable of moving on. (Capitals for stress, not shouting) And, as I keep saying, unlike you, I have debated this topic several times – YOU HAVE NOT. Which bit of that don't you understand?

Oh do get real. People have complained or mocked in the past about people using wikipedia. Perhaps you are not aware of that. The only problem with offering Wikipedia, is if only Wikipedia was employed as a source to support an argument. That indeed would be foolish. In debates it is best to try and offer a variety of sources, as was shown within the various threads. You say you have read them, so you should have been aware of what was offered by both sides.

And again another hilarious defence of the British 'they were still diplomatic approaches'. They decided to send a war fleet and army before any talks were underway. Why was that – answer- because they didn't care what the Danes would say-they wanted the fleet no matter what and would go to any lengths to obtain it, as the terror bombardment proved. But to you, it appears to be okay to offer a Mafia style of diplomacy. I'll make it more simple for you, since you have a habit of getting confused very easily. Imagine a large gang of men turning up on your doorstep and saying 'We want to be friends, and in order to prove that we want you to give us everything in your house. If you don't, we will take everything anyway and kick the hell out of you.' Then again, as you know, we are talking about a Britain at the time who wanted everyone to fear them.

Thank you for admitting that to the British that peace 'was not in their best interests'. I think that is very clear but so nice of you to make the confession.

No, I am not that knowledgeable on naval matters. That is why I did some research on the topic and on ships of the line etc. You obvious did not and your posts show clearly you know less than me, so it was a bit silly to make such a dumb statement, other than it being another feeble attempt at an insult, and I do mean feeble.

Lying. I think you need to take that back. The feeble excuse you gave for not taking part in the other threads was that you were busy doing your Masters. Do you really think that is acceptable? Sorry, no way. Had you said you had NOT EVEN READ the previous threads because you were so busy, then yes, that would have been quite acceptable. But you were able to find the time to read the threads, and they were quite long, so no, that is just a sorry excuse. By the way, I have done an MA so don't try to say I would not have any idea of the work involved.

So, despite my saying I no longer have the interest in this topic, you keep making posts offering silly accusations, challenges and throwing out insults, feeble as they are. Sadly, you obvious have a problem with moving on, even though we both know each others viewpoints by now. And no doubt you will throw out another feeble post, but it is more than tiresome responding to them, especially when they are of such a poor quality as yours. I might respond to any further posts you make, then again, one can only take a certain amount of boredom.

So you had read what I wrote and continued lying to try and make a point?

Attack really is best when you have no defence.

Ben Avery

Right, let's get this clear, eh? You stated you were unable to read (LOL) but not post in the various debates on the sly attack on Copenhagen 1807 because you were too busy with your Masters.

Let's look at that closer. Too busy to post. Are you sure? Only it seems you were able to MAKE POSTS in the Siege Warfare During the Peninsular War thread while one of the Copenhagen threads was still running?

Making excuses for the British Napoleonic atrocity in 1807 is understandable. People like you just can't cope or accept the reality that they really did do bad things. But to LIE that you were too busy to make posts, only to read them, but could make posts in another thread, is just NOT ACCEPTABLE. Very poor show.

I almost feel gratified in your stalking me Gazzola. My, the attention. Perhaps you should actually look at when I posted?

You'll note that I posted about sieges because I wanted to spend the time I had talking about sieges. The third(?) Copenhagen thread had turned into a discussion about sieges and war crimes in mid-December and a new thread was spun off it. When I had time at new year I joined the most active thread as that is what I wanted to talk about. How hard is that to understand?

The two posts keeping the older thread active (for a few hours) after I started discussing sieges are yours (trying to have the last word as ever) and Tango. You'll note I've had no interest in debating the term 'war crime' in this whole thread, but responded to your suggestion that Copenhagen wasn't a victory in a thread about British victories and defeats. How hard is that to understand?

I don't really give a monkey's what you think is acceptable – you were told and pretended I hadn't and apparently it's my fault.

You really are desperate now. Carry on.

Ben Avery

YOU ARE SURELY THE KING OF EXCUSES! LOL

But despite your petty attempts to come up with even more feeble excuses, and you are certainly getting desperate in that area, you cannot, as much as you probably want to, change the fact that you claimed you did not post in the other threads on Copenhagen 1807 because YOU WERE TOO BUSY with your Masters. I've proven you DID HAVE TIME because you posted in at least one other topic. So please, no more porky pies, eh?

I can't understand why you just can't accept that people might have a different viewpoint to yours and move on. While you see the sly attack on Copenhagen, deliberate terror bombardment of civilians and turning a neutral country into an enemy, as a victory, I view it as a British atrocity and failure. So there we go.

Stalking. Really? Again, you are in denial. If anyone is doing the stalking it is clearly you. I have suggested more than once that the topic had run its course and we should move on, but you kept making posts and accusations. You do know you don't have to make a post or continue discussing a topic, don't you. There is no rule that states you must carry on forever.

Well, anyway, you've been found out. It happens. But don't worry, you will get over it, eventually. LOL

Well at least you've convinced yourself, eh, Gazzola? Well done, Columbo.

Carry on.

I have found, John, that when I am very busy, I will still post in reply to something that really interests me, but eschew some of the less interesting, informative.
or amusing threads

Much of the first thread, and no, I'm not going back to check it, was a "debate" on whether the 1803 expedition Copenhagen was a "raid" (it hadn't yet graduated to "sneaky raid" as opposed to "open and honestly promulgated raid", at that time. And repeated charges by you and that other guy that the civilian population were wantonly destroyed while refusing to acknowledge the fact, posted by several of us with documentation that the civilians were given two days to evacuate the city, and your appeal to the modern US Uniform Code of Civil Law (which referred, by the way to discrimination), and your constant blathering about blinkers and whether sensible comments by others, made you chuckle, laugh or giggle.

But enough on a subject that you say bores you and certainly bores me. If I may ask, though, did you not find your social life was somewhat cramped when you were finishing up your Masters?

Cheers,
Phil

There was no expedition against Copenhagen in 1803.

The first British expedition against Copenhagen was in 1801.

The second was in 1807 and was a siege, not a raid, as has already been definitely demonstrated, ad nauseum, and was called that by the British themselves.

And whether or not the British offered to let civilians evacuate the city, the fact remains that the civilian population was targeted deliberately as would also be the case with the attack on Flushing in 1809.

And one of the main reasons for that 'choice' was the inferiority of the British engineer arm in siege operations, and that fact has also already been clearly demonstrated, again with evidence by the British themselves.

Thank you Phil, but there's a way to go. Interesting looking at the parallels though, especially when considering the road to 1914. I did enjoy some of the posts on sieges though.

Obviously when I referred to original fun I wasn't talking about the two threads in the early autumn at all. It's ironic that neither of them were even about Copenhagen in 1807 until the topic was raised by Gazzola. No wonder he's bored.

Ben Avery

You don't need to be a detective to suss you out, mate. Everyone can see it for themselves. You made a claim that was not true, probably because you were trying so hard to insult me that you got carried away and made an obvious blunder. That was hilarious and certainly embarrassing for you.

As to your comment to Phil about my raising Copenhagen up in another topic, that sort of thing happens all the time. Odd that you were not aware of that? But in this instance, you really do need to try and read the various posts leading up to it again. In the Russia 1812 thread, the right of nations to 'decide' who they wanted to trade or ally themselves with was raised, which led to my mentioning that Denmark being attacked by Britain in 1807 was evidence that they were not allowed to make that decision. This led to whether the sly attack should be considered as a raid or not?

I suggest you read posts and threads more carefully in future, to prevent you making any further embarrassing statements. But don't fret, I bear no hard feelings to whatever has been said. Life is too short and life goes on. No doubt we will meet again in another thread. But, as I say, I would be careful in what statements you make in future. LOL

Phil Yuma

Still getting it wrong I see. As already pointed out to you by Kevin, it was 1807, not 1803. You really should check your facts and posts before making them. You are as embarrassing as Ben. Perhaps you both need new blinkers? LOL

Your view of the various debates is insulting to those who took part in them. I think anyone reading the various threads on the sly attack on Copenhagen 1807, will see for themselves that a substantial number of arguments, sources and links were offered from both sides. The fact many of them supported the negative view of the event, is probably what rattled you and Ben. Well, he did admit he found time to read them, didn't he? LOL

I know full well the time and effort an MA can involve, as with any form of research, study or qualifications, if taken seriously. But one should not claim and make the excuse that they were too busy to post in one topic, while apparently finding the time to post in another topic. Not very clever or honest that, is it?

Copenhagen 1807 as a topic, only bores me in that, unlike Ben, I have been debating it in several threads for several months. I think anyone researching the event will find it very interesting and very revealing. And, as I keep saying, it will pop up again.

For those interested in the Book of the original post, the author has another title supporting it coming out on the 28th February, which looks very interesting.

Triumphs and Disasters: Eyewitness Accounts of the Netherlands Campaigns 1813-1814 by Andrew Bamford.