"Are standards changing on the Napoleonic Boards?" Topic

Gazzola:

And you are certainly 'assuming' that what the British soldier stated is incorrect. You can't prove it is wrong just as I can't prove it is correct, as yet anyway. LOL

I suggest you read what I posted again. How you can come to the conclusion that I thought Parker was 'wrong' is beyond me!

Civilian deaths were 195, which is the number that is the official count, not the 2,000 as has been stated by you and Brechtel.

The Danish Military casualties have never been cited in the number and you and Brechtel well know this.

I'll leave you to the rest of this thread, as all I see is straw clutching.

Paul:)

dibble

Are you admitting that it might be true then? LOL

I have stated what others who have done extensive research, concerning the casualty count. But you seem to have ignored the latest link I gave you, from a 2014 publication, which suggests the figures were higher because a full account could not be made due to missing registers.

And it is not clutching at straws at all. It is merely discussing a British atrocity of the period and the deaths, misery and follow on effects caused by it. As you know, as well as the deaths and unknown number of wounded and maimed, including women, children and the elderly, and the property destroyed and material stolen, it also pushed a would be ally to side with the French and provide them with thousands of troops and, despite the loss of the fleet, caused problems to any British shipping, especially merchant shipping, near the Danish coast.

But never mind. I am sure this topic will reappear again in the not too distant future.

It was not an atrocity. It was the bombardment of a fortified city. Look up how all the others of that ilk went.

The bombardment of Vienna, perhaps, in 1809. That sort of thing?

That is incorrect. The civilian population of the city was specifically targeted by the British commander, General Cathcart.

He had adopted the plan put forth by Lieutenant Colonel Murray, his quartermaster-general, who wrote:

'If it is found by experience that the destruction of the fleet is actually not within the power of our mortar batteries, we must then of necessity resort to the harsh measure of forcing the town into our terms, by the sufferings of the inhabitants themselves. But to give this mode of attack its fullest effect, it is necessary to completely invest the place, and oblige by that means, all persons of whatever description, to undergo the same hardships and dangers.'

In other words, the British would conduct an indiscriminate bombardment of a neutral city with the civilian population as the primary target of the bombardment. The long guns were used to fire against the fortifications of the city, but the mortars, howitzers, and rockets would target civilian targets inside the city.

General Cathcart himself talked about 'the horror of knocking down the houses and of the chance of a shell falling upon a girls' boarding school.' This comment was noted in Francis Jackson's private journal.

The bombardment itself began at 1930 on 2 September, and ceased at about daylight, beginning again around 1800 on 3 September, stopping again between 0700 and 0800 on 4 September resuming at 1900 on 4 September and continuing until about 1200 on 5 September.

Fires in the city went out of control much of the fire corps' equipment being damaged and the fire corps itself suffering heavy casualties.

Twenty percent of the city's population (20,000) had fled from their homes to either Christianhaven or Amager. Two percent of the population had been killed (about 2,000) and many of the British 'bombs and shells' had penetrated into the cellars where people were taking shelter, killing those in hiding.

About one-twelfth of the city center was destroyed, burned to the ground and many other buildings had sustained damage. The Frue Kirke, the Church of Our Lady, was used as an aiming point by the British and was destroyed.

The British had fired 6,000 rounds into the city, 300 of those being rockets.

Was it an atrocity? As the British deliberately targeted the civilian population of 100,000 souls, yes it was.

References for the Bombardment:

-Danmarks Krigs-og Politiske Historie by J von Raeder.
-Studies til Kobenhavns og Eanmarks Historie by Marcus Ruben.
-Storhandelens by. Kobenhavns historie by S Cedergren Bech.
-The Bombardment of Copenhagen by Roger Norman Buckley, editor.
-The Napoleonic War Journal of Captain Thomas Browne 1807-1816.

By the way, have you actually read Munch-Peterson's book?

Look up how all the others of that ilk went.

Wellington did not target the civilian populations of Ciudad Rodrigo, Badajoz, and San Sebastien-the atrocities against the civilian populations came after the British stormed and took those cities.

Do you have any suggestions to look up?

Gazzola

Are you admitting that it might be true then? LOL

Read what I posted pertaining Parker. If you don't like it you can always 'assume'

I refer you to my: 19 Feb 2018 1:11 p.m.post above.

I have stated what others who have done extensive research, concerning the casualty count. But you seem to have ignored the latest link I gave you, from a 2014 publication, which suggests the figures were higher because a full account could not be made due to missing registers.

I have not ignored it, but you are trying a slight of hand with your merging of military deaths with that the civilian

186 civilians and 183 military recorded. Combined, that is a figure of 369.

Which is a lower figure of civilian deaths (195) than I and others have posted.

You should be arguing with Brechtel about the Civilian deaths as he reckons there were 2,000, while you give the number at 186….

That you suddenly lump the military deaths in the number and post '369' does not make your argument correct. I and others have stated c.i.v.i.l.i.a.n deaths. Brechtel keeps banging on about 2,000 c.i.v.i.l.a.n deaths every time Copenhagen comes up, which is an incorrect figure but seeing as he only has time for his fellow historians 'old' evidence, it's the 'same old' by the 'same old' and you have suddenly decided to include the military in that number which still comes far short of 2,000 with the Military included.

The civilian deaths were 195 by official 1807 reports done by people who were there.

Brechtel is being his usual self with his 2,000 dead civilian claim. It is similar tactics to his 'British ordered the assassination of Napoleon' and 'agent training camps' on the south coast of England, which has no basis in fact either.

Paul :)

Have you read Munch-Peterson or any of the other source material listed?

Sorry, but firing 6,000 rounds which were either exploding bombs or incindiary rockets over a period of 40 hours only causing 200 dead is ludicrous.

Or, perhaps, British ammunition was of an inferior quality?

And you do know that most of the people left the city don't you?

You do know that the bombardment was targeting buildings don't you? That people were killed (Those who didn't leave) were not deliberately targeted.

But the British knew that civilians would probably be casualties among the civilians who stayed behind, sheltered in cellars don't you?

You do know that no-one knew or knows how many civilians stayed behind during the bombardment don't you?

You do know that Danish historians today run with about 190 deaths don't you?

You do know that there were:

"Fire and bomb damage on property was calculated to 1071.
1795: Properties burned 900, damaged 75.
1728: 1670 properties destroyed, which corresponded to 2/5 of the total 4087 houses."

Compare:

"In one night, more than 4,300 homes in Coventry were destroyed and around two-thirds of the city's buildings were damaged

An estimated 568 people were killed in the raid (the exact figure was never precisely confirmed), with another 863 badly injured and 393 sustaining lesser injuries. Given the intensity of the raid, casualties were limited by the fact that a large number of Covanterians "trekked" out of the city at night to sleep in nearby towns or villages following the earlier raids.

Makes you wonder how many died at Copenhagen doesn't it?

Paul :)

I visited Copenhagen a few years ago. There is one part – Kristianshavn – which was completely flattened either in 1801 or in 1807. It was a military zone in the recent past and now has the nice district alongside the canal (good coffee) and a hippy/traveller colony bit (edgy-atmosphere).

It is entirely possible that in 1807 most of the naval bombardment ended up in this area – which was an outer works. The armanents of the time had quite short ranges – especially mortars.

---

Having failed at military diplomacy to achieve the aim, it meant using other means to influence the civil government.

100,000 inhabitants less 20,000 leaves 80,000. 200 deaths is
0.25%; 2000 deaths is 2.5%. (Obviously even one death is too many in a perfect world.) But to capture an entire navy, with its naval stores and keep a passage open for your own
maritime operations at a cost of 0.25-2.5% civilian death rate is an incredible achievement.

And you do know that most of the people left the city don't you?

No, they didn't. If you read the posting, 20,000 left, which was twenty percent of the population.

An estimated 568 people were killed in the raid…

It wasn't a raid, it was a siege which the British acknowledged. You don't build siegeworks during a raid…

The main target was the city center. Christianhaven was one of the two main places where the refugees went to escape the artillery fire.

I suggest that you read about Coventry where that 568 number comes from.

It was a 'raid', an air raid and one of the most intense raids of the British Blitz, Not puny rockets, mortars etc, nah! More like 500 tons of high explosive, 30,000 incendiaries and 50 landmines. It was also trying out a new weapon, the exploding incendiary.

Which puts Your 2,000 dead in context

Paul :)

Have you read the Munch-Peterson book?

Makes you wonder how many died at Copenhagen doesn't it?

No-you're comparing two different types of operations with two different types of weapons which have no relationship to each other.

Yes, Coventry was a raid, but Copenhagen was not.

And Coventry is not germane to this discussion.

@Brechtel

The main target was the city center. Christianhaven was one of the two main places where the refugees went to escape the artillery fire.

Now that is very unfortunate.

Supercilius Maximus

In sieges the aim of fire is to make breaches in the walls in order for the troops to get into the city. Check out the siege for Badajoz (and others) for example. Gates are also targeted and the walls stormed. Can you tell me how many breaches were made or attempted by the British at Copenhagen or how many times they stormed the walls? I'll save you the bother – none. The bombardment was intended to terrify the Danish civilians into forcing their military to surrender, which of course worked. I fail to see why you just can't accept it as a British atrocity and move on. Sorry, but making excuses about it being a fortified city and the civilians should have left just won't wash!

dibble

You seem to be contradicting yourself! LOL

'And you do know that most of the people left the city don't you?'

'You do know that no one knew or knows how many civilians stayed behind during the bombardment don't you'

How can you state most of the people left but then claim that no one knew or knows how many stayed behind?

'slight of hand' LOL Give over dibble. You know full well that I am showing that there are different figures offered for the deaths, let alone the unknown number of wounded and maimed which my link suggests were mainly women, children and the elderly. And of course, many of those wounded during the bombardment may well have died from their wounds some time later.

Like SM, I think you just don't want to accept it was an atrocity and a deliberate terror bombardment. Even the king of England was disgusted with it!

If anyone studies the British engineer arm of the period, they were not trained well in siege operations. That was one of the main reasons for the choice of terror bombing at Copenhagen.

At the time of the siege of Copenhagen in 1807 the Royal Engineers was an organization of officers only. They did not receive actual engineer troops until 1813 at San Sebastien, and that was after years of calling for them by now experienced engineer officers and Wellington himself.

By comparison, the French first instituted engineer units in the early 1790s, after having miners for years, which until then were assigned to the artillery.

An excellent study is Wellington's Engineers by Mark Thompson.

De civile tab har tidl. generallæge og chef for Forsvarets Sundhedstjeneste, Hans Michael Jelsdorf, opgjort i sin artikel "Hospitalsberedskab og lægelig behandling under belejringen i 1807", ( Krigshistorisk Tidsskrift 2007 ) .
Antallet af sårede var 768, døde 195, altså væsentligt mindre end hidtil antaget.

Antallet af ødelagte ejendomme er fra Politiken Dansmarkshistorie, bd. 10 p 292 af Jens Vibæk ( 1964 ) .
1807: Brand- og bombeskaderne på ejendomme blev opgjort til 1071.
1795: Ejendomme nedbrændt 900, beskadiget 75.
1728: 1670 ejendomme ødelagte, hvilket svarede til 2/5 af de i alt 4087 huse.

( 1807.dk/tabstal%20civile.htm )

"I mange r har den udbredte opfattelse
været, at omkring 1.600 mennesker
blev dræbt under det britiske bombardement.
Nye historiske undersøgelser viser
imidlertid, at antallet af døde var begrænset.
Ifølge kirkebøger og hospitalslister
døde kun knap 200 civile som direkte årsag
af bombardementet.

( Historielabatoriet: Københavns bombardement 1807 )

A much more massive raid of 1940 killed about 600 people and seriously injured about 900 more. with 500 tons of HE bombs, 30,000 incendary bombs some a new design that included explosives.

A bombardment of about 300 rockets and 6'000? other ordenance would be 3 times more lethal (according to Brechtel) and cause nearly as many wounded casualties?

Well spotted Gaz'

I apologise for the contradiction to everyone who read that inaccuracy.

I posted:

And you do know that most of the people left the city don't you?

And I also posted:

You do know that no-one knew or knows how many civilians stayed behind during the bombardment don't you?

Again, Many apologies to all readers.

gazzola, Perhaps you can post how many civilians were killed in Copenhagen.

Cheers!

Paul :)

Back from being deleted AND dog-housed and this dogmatic drivel is still going on. The record's stuck – can somebody please give the gramaphone a kick? Probably see you again after another "holiday".

dibble

Thanks for the apology, I am sure it is much appreciated by all. LOL

But really, to make, well, contradicting statements, and then still ask me to tell you how many civilians were killed is unbelievable! Do you not really understand what I have been trying to point out to you? I thought it was clear enough?

Obviously not, so I will try again and you (and SM) might get it this time. As with many actions, sieges etc, if not all actions, differing amounts of people killed and wounded are often given, without anyone really knowing the exact figures, especially for those wounded, maimed and died some time after the event. I am sure you will agree with me on that?

And the source I linked also mentioned missing registers which could account for who knows how many killed during the actions or died later from their wounds.

But really, the point is not really how many men, women and children were killed, military and civilian, of which the actual figure may never be known, but that civilians were targeted in the first place! I don't think we have to have a set figure to say yes that was or was not an atrocity.

Wellesley, for one, argued for seeking "a more certain mode of forcing a capitulation than a bombardment" and noted that once invested the town could not long withstand a siege without supply of provisions and water.

Nonetheless, his 'Memoranda' of operations written after the operation (pp.30-34) summarised the British options as:

1. Investing the place, presenting the army and navy in a menacing attitude and cutting off provisions and water

2. If the first failed to proceed to bombardment.

3. Lastly to push forward and storm the place*

(*He noted " had this expedient been resorted to the slaughter of the enemy must have been very great from the circumstance of the number of inhabitants ho had arms in their hands."

At the time he recorded:

"In fact the Danes are only fighting for their credit It would be disgraceful to not bear a bombardment …
it behoves us to do as little mischief to the town as possible." (p.9)

His memo continues: "It being then understood that the place would not capitulate until there was a military reason to justify its surrender, every exertion was made to prepare the batteries for this purpose… to make the attack as vigorous as possible, in order that if a capitulation was to be obtained by that mode of attack, the necessity of surrendering might appear the more early and the more obviously."

'Supplementary despatches and memoranda of Field Marshal Arthur, duke of Wellington, K. G' (1858)

Gazzola

I do know what you are trying to say, and it's still full of assumption.

But then, it's not for you to sing from a different hymn sheet to Brechtel.

But the end result was:

There were approaching 200 civilian deaths at Copenhagen.

There is no evidence that Parker was ordered to slay men, women and children.

Paul :)

dibble

'it's not for you to sing from a different hymn sheet from Brechtel' LOL

Come on dibble, you can do better than that! You complain about my alleged assuming things and then make a statement like that! That's hilarious!

But I suppose you are in your usual and expected denial mode when it comes to something negative concerning the British.

Even so, I am surprised you do not agree with my point concerning different figures are given by different sources and there are missing registers, which suggests the true figures may never be known?

And again, the point is that civilians were deliberately targeted in the first place, not how many were killed.

And in terms of the 2000 killed figure offered by the late Dr. Thomas Munch-Petersen, in his excellent study, Defying Napoleon, page 200) I noticed he does not actually say 2000 civilians. He uses the terms beforehand about 'inhabitants' and 'Copenhagen's population', which might (or might not) mean he has included the deaths of the military within the total, since I imagine some may have lived within the city? Obviously, I cannot confirm that and unfortunately we cannot ask the author. But it is just a thought.

ps: There is no evidence that Parker was not ordered to slay men, women and children. LOL

Another Viewpoint on Copenhagen:

From Experiences of War and Nationality in Denmark and Norway, 1807-1815 by Rasmus Glenthoj and Morten Nordhagen Ottosen, 44-45:

‘Calculated statistically, there were fewer burnt-out buildings after the bombardment of 1807-a total of 305 houses-than after the two conflagrations that had ravaged the capital in 1728 and 1795. But several thousand houses in Copenhagen had been damaged to a greater or lesser extent. Naturally, there were many homeless people after the bombardment, and it has been calculated that about 7,000 people were forced to leave their homes. The most impoverished of them often had to resort to desperate measures and make their homes in tents or covered passageways. Ruins and piles of bricks remained part of the street scene for many years. Rebuilding was slow as the economy had been left in tatters by the expenses of the war, the state bankruptcy of 1813 and the crisis after the peace, and it took almost two decades to rebuild the city. The Church of Our Lady was only reconstructed in 1829, while the main building of the university was unable to admit students until 1836.'

‘Danish historiography has varied in its estimates of the number of deaths caused by the bombardment. In most accounts it has been set at 1,600, while some have put it as high as 2,000 to 3,000. These figures, which can be found in English-language publications, can for the most part be traced back to a historical work from 1845. The problem with the information in this book is that it stems in all probability from a highly polemical, anti-British propaganda pamphlet from the autumn of 1807. It was not until 2007 that a Danish and a Norwegian historian scrutinized the figures. We now know with reasonable certainty that at least 186 civilians lost their lives during the bombardment, but missing registers and doubts about the causes of some deaths in the available records mean that the figure was probably slightly higher. The loss of 183 lives in the military during the siege and the bombardment must be added to the civilian losses. Where the number of wounded is concerned, the figure remains unknown, but according to the director-general of the Royal Surgical Academy, those maimed by grenades, bombs, and collapsing buildings were chiefly women, children, and the elderly. British casualties during the siege were 56 dead and 145 wounded.'

From a Norwegian eyewitness of the bombardment on page 42 of the same volume:

‘It is difficult to think of anything more frightful and terrible than this bombardment, and nobody who was not there can have any real idea of the horror of it. Imagine the air filled with rapidly moving […] shooting stars […] imagine them flying along with a piercing scream and crashing down into a house and smashing roofs, ceilings, beams and floors and several storeys to pieces with a shocking din and exploding with a fearful bang, then flames breaking out through windows, ceilings, doors, etc…and this will give you a vague picture of the sight we have witnessed almost every second. To this must be added that with almost every bomb we saw people either killed or with injuries to arms and legs […].'

Brechtel198

It is a very interesting title. It also states the following:

'There were almost 14,000 men available to defend the city. Of these, however, only slightly more than 5500 were regular soldiers. The rest were made up of citizen corps, students, militia and gamekeepers. To these must be added between 3500 and 4000 seamen and marines, who were responsible for the seaward defences.' (page 36)

'The city had its own citizen corps and, in theory, every male civilian citizen between the ages of 20 and 50 had a duty to serve in them. These corps were not always popular, and civil servants in particular were exempted, but the First Battle of Copenhagen had aroused enthusiasm for them among students and younger citizens. The Crown Prince's Volunteer Lifeguard was founded in 1801 for these students, while more well-to-do citizens joined the King's Fusiliers. The student corps was voluntary in theory, but in reality serving in it was made obligatory by the university, by the general public and by social pressure. During the siege of Copenhagen 1807, many members of the general public who were not officially citizens and were not, therefore, part of the citizen corps were promised a cash reward if they joined the colours. This bought in more than enough willing hands, but many of those who volunteered had to be turned down because they were either suffering from consumption, scabies or other diseases. The military spirit seemed pervasive, and during the years after 1807 Denmark was described as a great military camp filled with soldiers on exercise and citizen corps.' (page 37)

One wonders in what way the students, gamekeepers or general members of the public, killed during the siege, would have been classed – military or civilian? And would those not officially citizens be registered at all?

'Historian Arnold D. Harvey has calculated that this was one of the most intensive bombardments before 1914, and that three times as much gunpowder was used as at the Battle of Waterloo.' (page 42)

Considering the length and intensity of the bombardment, if 2000 casualties seem too high for some to accept, then given the above, less than 200 certainly seems far too low. However, with missing registers, it is clear the full total may never be known.

Also interestingly, the book also mentions one of dibbles 'out of character' episodes-
'The fear of violence and looting on Zealand were, in fact, justified in the wake of the 'Battle of the Clogs' at Koge, when the generally strict discipline among the British broke down during the hunt for militia-men through the town of Koge. In this case, it was not only the British soldiers, but also their wives and sweethearts accompanying them, who saw the occasion as an opportunity to fill their pockets and spread fear among the town's inhabitants.' (page 39)

I'm still waiting for the evidence of 1,600-2,000 civilian deaths in Copenhagen. Even a figure of civilian deaths above 200.

Any Civilian who signs up to do duty as a militia-man is a combatant.

The Koge incident was not an incident ordered by the British, it was rampant looting by some of it's soldiers and followers.
So I still await the evidence of any official command orders or condoning such acts of murder, rape and pillage by any British command.

I'm tired of this denial of both of you so I'll leave you to wallow in your version of 'history'.

*******************************************************

So! "Are standards changing on the Napoleonic Boards?"….Yes they are, because many myths are now being put to bed as can be found here on TMP.

There have been too many myths put up on this and many other sites that have been trotted out by certain individuals who can't back them up with facts whereas many who refute these myths do just that, they post all the evidence whilst the 'certain individuals' do no such thing or at most quote historians who quote other historians who quote hearsay, propaganda and rumor.

Apart from the diehard naysayers, afaiac, standards are changing and for the better.

Paul :)

The question is have you read either book referenced or both?

And Munch-Peterson's sources have been posted.

There have been too many myths put up on this and many other sites that have been trotted out by certain individuals who can't back them up with facts whereas many who refute these myths do just that, they post all the evidence whilst the 'certain individuals' do no such thing or at most quote historians who quote other historians who quote hearsay, propaganda and rumor.

So, that begs the question, why do you do it? ;-)

wives and sweethearts

Officers and their ladies will dine…
Sergeants and their wives will eat…
Soldiers and their women will feed…

As seen on an announcement board on a NATO reinforcement ferry to Denmark circa 1986. Probably put up in jest… but with a dark side of the actual undercurrent of understanding.

dibble

Yes, I agree, standards are changing, in that people can no longer stick to a rosy impression that the British did not also commit atrocities.

In terms of what I posted on Copenhagen, students, game keepers and members of the general public were 'inhabitants' and part of the 'population' of Copenhagen. In terms of obtaining and confirming accurate figures for civilians killed, please let me know when you locate the missing registers?

And I suggest it is you who are in denial because you don't like hearing about British atrocities. But they are part of history, just as the French atrocities and those caused by other nations are. To ignore it is to not accept the reality of history. And who knows what other 'incidents' and 'out of character' events may pop up in time to come, eh?

'wallow in your own version of history' Really?

That is a very revealing statement. You are now claiming that those who dare to offer a different viewpoint to your own, backed up with sources and accounts of events, is wallowing in their own version of history. LOL

I would called it good research and checking out what people have stated and not just automatically agreeing with everything they say and post.

Respectful disagreement is a good thing. Unfortunately, that doesn't always occur.

I haven't read beyond the first page;TMP threads such as this have a certain structure, so I've almost certainly seen it all before. I would offer Bill two thoughts.

If snarkiness is doghousable, then you might as well put all the Brits in there permanently.

If you want us to act like traditional gentlemen, there will never be anyone in the doghouse.

Last Hussar

I suggest you try reading beyond the first page. The thread is full of diversions, of course, which often happens, but some diversions can be very enjoyable to read and can also be very informative.

More importantly, you get to see different viewpoints and interpretations about historical events and characters, which thankfully shows that people can make up their own minds, they don't have to agree or disagree with anyone, and are open to their opinions and possible preconceived and sometimes biased viewpoints being challenged.

This thread is only spoilt, in my opinion, by the posts made by the Alice in Wonderland fans. LOL