Talk:Battle of Copenhagen (1801)

An event in this article is a April 2 selected anniversary (may be in HTML comment)

---

Why were the names of the ships removed? Peregrine981 03:45, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

Garden-variety vandalism, I reverted. Unsummarized deletion by anons is almost always malicious. Stan 05:56, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Huh?

Why does this article suggest that the Danish-Norwegian army lost ships? When Nelsons terms of peace reached the Danish King not a single Danish-Norwegian ship had been sunk and not a single Danish-Norwegian ship had been captured.

Not to mention that three of Nelsons line ships had just gotten into the firing range of the fortress of Trekroner. Had the Danish king only consulted with his admirals before agreing to the peace treaty Nelsons ships would have been devestrated seriously damaging the naval poweress of the English.

Parker's Signal

See this for reference to Parker's motives http://www.aboutnelson.co.uk/copenhagen.htm

"Judging from what he could see, and the fact that the wind and current prevented his bringing his own division into the action, Parker told his flag captain: "I will make the signal of recall for Nelson's sake. If he is in condition to continue the action, he will disregard it; if he is not, it will be an excuse for his retreat . . . . "

It is claimed that Parker was aware of the consequences to his own personal reputation; but it would be cowardly in him to leave Nel;son to bear the whole shame of the failure, if shame it should be deemed." Dabbler 20:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Nelson turned to Captain Foley and said ‘You know…I have only one eye. I have a right to be blind sometimes’ and raising a spyglass to his right eye added ‘I really do not see the signal’ (Hibbert, page 261). From the National Archives seen March 2006. Midgley 14:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Danish casualties?

This is written rather overmuch with the British in mind. It says that 350 men died and 850 were wounded on the British ships but I'm pretty sure there were Danish casualties as well considering they lost the war... Does anyone know how many died? I'd be grateful :)

About 2000, killed and wounded, I couldn't find a more exact figure or breakdown. Dabbler 16:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

More precisely, 1135 killed and wounded. The British figures are also debatable. The figures given for British casualties in this article was according to Admiral Nelson himself — a notorious lier. Admiral Parker, who was a larger admirer of the truth, gave the figure 2237 dead and wounded on the British side. Boreanesia 15:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

As all the British ships maintained crew logs 2,000+ killed would show up clearly, but they don't reflect this figure.Alci12 11:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Dudley Pope, in "The Great Gamble" has British casualties at 256 killed, 688 wounded, with a detailed breaksdown between officers, seamen and marines, soldiers. His figures for the Danes are: 370 killed, 106 died of wounds, 559 wounded (total 1,035), with abreakdown between officers, 'officials', seamen, warrant & petty officers, army NCOs & soldiers, volunteers & pressed men.Cliff 14:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Aftermath

I had edited it to read:

After the cease-fire, formal negotiations for peace ensued. These talks lasted for more than a week focusing on the British demand that Denmark-Norway leave the League of Armed Neutrality. The negotiations were difficult and at times almost called for the resumption of hostilities. When it was learned that the Russian Emperor Paul, who was the driving force behind the League of Armed Neutrality, had just died, the British demands suddenly became irrelevant. A 14-week armistice was signed on April 9, 1801, as a beginning of peace between the two parties. The final peace agreement was then signed on October 23, 1801.

This was not to be the end of Danish-Norwegian difficulties with the British. In 1807 similar circumstances led to another British attack, in the Second Battle of Copenhagen.

Back in England, nobody was decorated for the battle. Nelson's conduct during the battle, wherein he disobeyed Parker's orders and thereafter sent a deceptive note to the Danish-Norwegian Crown Prince, was seen as an unworthy conduct.

But most of this was deleted on the grounds that it was POV. Why? I see nothing POV about it. Boreanesia 17:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I think there was an edit conflict and your edits and mine clashed. However there is a factual inaccuracy in one of your edits. I would point out that Nelson was created Viscount Nelson of the Nile as a result of the battle, hardly a sign of disapproval. I have reinstated the comment about the 2nd battle and will also put in the part about the Tsar's death and the peace negotiations.Dabbler 18:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

We need to consider the background when considering the viscountcy. See Horatio_Nelson for an explanation of his anger over his barony. It was generally accepted at the time that Copenhagen would probably not of itself have gained him that distinction had it not been for the feeling that perhaps an error had been made previously.Alci12 12:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I concede that Nelson was indeed decorated. As for the British casualty figures, all of my Danish sources say the same thing: i.e., 2237 killed and wounded according to Parker. Danish casualty figures range from 1135 to 2215 depending on which source you look at. Fischer's report, which you have so kindly shown me, does indeed show that nobody really knows the exact figures. In fact, the Danish ships were hastily manned by volunteers from the streets of Copenhagen, not many of whom had any naval experience. Boreanesia 18:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Bomb vessels: Range cf shorebased cannon

"Supporting the British line were smaller British bomb vessels, which were positioned where they could bombard the city without fear of retaliation."

The high trajectory of a bomb vessel's weapon was useful and intended for attack on fortifications. It didn't provie long range compared to a cannon. If the designer of the shore defences had built forts which commanded the roads, except for positions convenient to shell the defences and the city at short range, then perhaps he didn't do it very well? In that cae something to that effect might go in the article there. Midgley 14:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I think during the battle, the bomb vessels will have been there to fire at the Danish shipd, not the city. They were positioned hard up against the Middle Ground, as far from the city as possible. MAG1 11:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Bomb vessels were usually used to fire on cities and forts rather than other ships. They were not very accurate and hitting another ship would be difficult (though easier if they were moored in lines), for examples of their use and their threat see the Second Battle of Copenhagen, the threatened bombardment of Cadiz. Basically they were there to intimidate the political leadership with the fear of mass civilian casualties and to encourage surrender. Dabbler 11:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

But they were sited far away from the shore, so it is unlikely that they would have been intimidating to the city itself, see the map here. The Danish ships and forts were fixed, and so they might have been effective against them. Incidentally, the map was published in 1899- anyone know whether that means it is out of copyright? MAG1 14:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

This link gives ranges of up to 4200 yards for mortars fired from ships and although its hard to see from the map above, the bombs would be in range of the city from the edge of the Middle Ground. However, once the Danish ships had been subdued, there would be nothing to stop the bombs from approaching closer to bombard the city. The web site also suggests that it was this threat (later carried out in 1807) which prompted the agreement for a ceasefire once the Danish ships started surrendering. Dabbler 15:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

You're completely right- it's what it says in the DNB as well, though the idea was for the bomb vessels to move towards the city once the Danish ships had been silenced, hence their little huddle out of harm's way. I've changed the article. MAG1 21:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The 6 bombardier ships were completely irrelevant other than a nuiceance. The british intention undoubtably was to use them to attack the city IN THE CASE that the danes didn't give battle. And the use of the bombardiers was only to make "a show", a demonstration (to avoid the situation that the RN would just sail around outside the reach of the costal fortresses, allowing the danes to claim that nothing really happened).

It's like the historical geniuses writting this article havn't really understood what the attack on Copenhagen and the operation against the armed neutrality leaque was about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.82.169.61 (talk) 22:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Revision

I've added quite alot that explains much of the contoversies. I can find no support for the assertion that Parker reported 2237 casualties- perhaps he was referring to Danish casualties? In any case, this is a thing that would have been known exactly from ships' records. I am afraid I have taken out the paragraph suggesting that 'Danish historians' stating that somehow the battle was not a British victory, partly because of the weasel 'Danish historians', partly because it was not at all clear what was being asserted. MAG1 11:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

William Bligh

I notice that the text here about the flag incident is inconsisteny with that in the article William Bligh which says "When Nelson feigned not to notice the signal 43 of Admiral Parker to stop the battle and kept the signal 16 hoisted to continue the engagement, Bligh on the Glatton was the only captain who could see the conflicting two signals." whereas this article says "Seeing that Nelson had not repeated the signal, nearly all the Captains also ignored it." Which is true? --Richard Clegg 12:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Search me- what's your article? I gleaned this from the Dictionary of National Biography, which is pretty authoritative, and included the story about Graves. It seems a bit unlikely that Bligh would be the only one, but it's possible: all accounts from battle participants are amazingly confused. I've made the wording in the article cagier. MAG1 21:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Afraid I know nothing which would help. I was browsing Wikipedia and I happened to notice the inconsistency. --Richard Clegg 23:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments (moved from article space)

Some comments to the above: Largely the above is correct, though the timing isn't. It's clear that around 1400 hours (the time of the dispatchment of Nelson's Cease fire proposal) the situation was that while both sides had taken heavy damage (The Danish-Norwegian had taken clearly most damage, due to the british superiority of guns and higher rate of fire due to it's well trained crew), the Danish-Norwegian line was not defeated and still offering stiff resistance. In the time span it takes to deliver the Cease fire proposal, and the stalling manouver by the danish crown prince (asking for more details/motivation) the battle swings in british favour by most of the southern DK-NO line falling out of the battle. In that situation the Crown prince accepts the ceace fire proposal, conversively Nelson is honorbound to accept the acceptance of his own proposal, eventhough the development in the situation between 1400 and 1500 would suggest "capitulation" and thus clear victory rather than a "cease fire" (in the form of a formal draw). So one can say that Nelson, formally, "looses" his victory, by allowing the danish command all the time in the world to accept a cease fire proposal - which they do when it's clear that they are loosing.

The reason behind Nelson's cease fire proposal at 1400 hours, can only be speculations, though having the danish side accept the cease fire proposal would mean that the royal navy had reached it's main political and strategical goals at Copenhagen (having DK-NO to drop out of the armed neutrality allience with Sweden, Preussia and Russia - that in a sense allready had shown to be a bluff). At the same time the Royal Navy had to continue to Landskrona, Sweden to make the same manouvre against the swedes, so Nelson could not afford a costly victory at Copenhagen. And at 1400 hours the situation is unclear and the british position was dangerous, particulary if it should be forced to break off contact, a situation which would be even more worring if the coastal fortresses would have to be engaged at some point to force the DK-NO units from the "kongedyb". Lastly (and this is a common misconception) it was not the RN's primary goal to destroy the danish-Norwegian navy, and the RN was not given the possibility to do so, since the (unmanned) main force of the danish navy (the newest and strongest units) was kept in the fortified port, while the battle line consisted mostly of smaller or older vessels and "floating batteries".

A reasonable secondary source to the battle is the newly published "Danmark i Krig" (H.C. Bjerg, O. L. Frantzen, Politikens Forlag).

(original post was made by User:85.82.169.61).

Valentinian ^{T / C} 21:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. Though I suggest that the comments are encorporated, since the confusion of time in the article is misleading and adds to the article's distinct "english bias".

Another issue is the article's "insitance" on the importance of the Bombardier ships. Not only do it overexaggerate their value and insist that somehow some few mortars would surely bring a strong fortress like Copenhagen was to it's knees, it adds to the tantrum; "This was surely a british victory", "This was surely a british victory", "This was surely a british victory" that is prevalient throughout the article. When infact the battle ends with a written "cease fire" porposal by Nelson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.82.169.61 (talk) 21:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, but one could call it a "house rule" on this project that we only add comments to the article discussion page and then work on issues from there. I'll move your latest comment here as well to avoid somebody else accidentally erasing it completely. I have no opinion for or against you edit, btw, this area is beyond my expertise. Regards. --Valentinian ^{T / C} 21:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments to the aftermath section

The section is misleading. The purpose of the british action was to so to speak to call the bluff of the armed neutrality leaque not to force terms on to the danish capital - which the avialiable forces would have been unable to (the writer seems to mix together the situation in 1801 and the bombardment of Copenhagen 1807 in which an army of 30000 soldiers and large siege artillery batteries were besieging Copenhagen). The brits did call the bluff, not only didn't the closest member of the neutrality leaque (sweden) send it's substancial navy to Denmark's aid, it didn't even participate in closing of it's side of the narrow straight between Helsingør and Helsingborg.

Further I find the nice and derogating story "At this point one of the Danes turned to another and said in French (perhaps thinking that he would not be understood) that disagreement might lead to a renewal of hostilities. (...)"

To be obviously wrong. First of all the lanquage spoken at the danish court would certainly not be English, since broadly speaking not a single dane would understand a word at that time. It would either have been French or German. Secondly should a dane want to communicating something that he didn't want the brits to understand he would not choose french, a major lanquage that any man of some education could speak, but ofcourse he would say it in danish - I hope this is so obvious that I don't need to find a reference?

Again a myth that displays Nelson and the english as trumphant victors and the danes as unintelligent and scared peasants, adding to the article's distinct bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.82.169.61 (talk) 22:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

(moved from article space), originally posted by User:85.82.169.61).