16 August - 5 September. 1807.
In 1807 Denmark was a neutral nation, already weakened by the British in the First Battle of Copenhagen and facing a possible French invasion to the south. This latter threat was taken seriously so that Denmark had deployed its military forces along its southern borders in anticipation of an attack by Napoleon.
Alas, when the attack came it was not the French but rather the British who were responsible. Without any decleration of war, the British launched a major assault on Copenhagen in order to seize (for a second time) the Danish fleet and prevent it from falling into the hands of the French. Obviously having decided that Denmark, in its weakened state would not be able to withstand Napoleon, the British felt justified in launching an attack from the rear against a neutral country and subjecting its civilian population to military assault. Due to the Danish army being deployed against the common enemy France, Copenhagen was relatively undefended, so when the famous British general; The Duke of Wellington, who was in those days known as Arthur Wellesley landed his forces at Køge, he met very little resistence and quickly surrounded the capital.
Some what indignant at being stabbed in the back the city refused to surrender so the British proceeded to bombard it, firing thousands of artilley rounds and Congreve rockets against the unarmed civilians, killing over 2,000 people and destroying 30% of the city in the ensuing firestorm. After this 'successful military campaign' the British sailed away with the entire Danish fleet in tow leaving Denmark weakened against the French once again. According to historians today, the British decision to pre-emptively attack Denmark was based on 'flawed intelligence'. It was apparently assumed Denmark would join France and Russian in alliance, but in fact no such alliance was being considered. If anything Denmark was a possible ally against Napoleon. Some how I think the prospect of acquiring a new fleet weighed heavier in England than having Denmark as an ally so the British did what they do best.
The Duke of Wellington is today considered one of Britains finest and most noble warriors, but like Lord Horatio Nelson, Danish history shows us these men were utterly ruthless in their pursuit of victory and completely without honour (hardly a surprise given the times in which they lived). In 1801 Nelson had threatened to burn hundreds of Danish prisoners alive if the Danish Crown Prince did not agree to a truce and in 1807 Wellington used terror tactics against a defenceless city. Nothing much changes on Planet Earth.
Today a Royal Navy ship is visiting Copenhagen and bringing back a 200 year old ships bell to 'commemorate the battle'. I guess an apology is out of the question.
6 comments:
Strange then that if capturing the fleet was the reason why the attack happened, only four of the surrended ships saw subsequent active service with the Royal Navy.
The Treaty of Tilsit between France & Russia was of more concern. Should that have held up where would the Royal Navy have gone then for its masts and spars? Most of these came from the Baltic region and would have been excluded from trade between Europe and England (assuming of course that there was any trade at all - prohibited under the Tilsit treaty).
Pennyman should have burnt the ships as ordered and then the action would not have occured at all.
Pennyman? You mean Ernst Peymann, the Danish general? There's no way now to know why he didn't do as ordered, but I think he must have been disobeying his orders because he could not stand to. It must have been terrible for the Danish commanders to see a second fleet being lost so soon after the first. Especially if they believed an attack by Napoleon was imminent. Either Peymann believed he could save the fleet or he was a traitor working for the British. Either way, there is no excuse to fire bomb a civilian city, not even in the morality of the times.
Many of the smaller vessels were lost to bad weather on their return to England, there is a sad irony in the fact that only four of the vessels would see action on behalf of the British. It proves that old adage that war is waste.
Denmark was a bigger nation back then, but it was never the colonial power that most European nations were. It was poor by comparison to Holland or Britain. Like so many other European nations in those days it was a victim to the ambitions of the larger countries. What happened in 1801 and 1807 was repeated in 1867 when the Germans took away Slevsig Holstein and 1914 when the Germans forcibly conscripted Danes into the German army. The invasion of 1940 was just the latest example of how the bigger countries in Europe treated the smaller countries. Today Denmark is one of the smallest countries in Europe and this is a direct result of being one of the least aggressive countries in 'enlightened Europe'.
Thats not to say the Danes were innocents as I'm sure the Icelanders and Norwegians can relate. Danes also fought as mercenaries during the period known as the enlightenment. I'm not throwing stones here, or at least not trying to point the finger at the British.
I grew up in the UK though and my childhood was full of tales of old glory. Nelson and Wellington were not, and are still not, portrayed in their true light. Not in my experience. These men were as ruthless as any SS commander, but they are not considered as such, and apparently because they won (history being dictated by the victors and all that). If history is to teach us anything it should teach us to be objective.
Sorry - yes Peymann.
I'm not sure you could paint Wellington & Nelson as black as SS officers though. You have to put history into context.
At the time humanitarian thoughts and needs were not considered in the same way they are today. The French saw it as the right of the army to live off the land and to treat defeated nations as second class citizens. The British, by contrast, paid their way as they entered foreign countires (usually).
The Russians and Prussians were worse than the French but we tend to ignore that since they helped defeat the monster.
Napoleon passed more reform laws in France than any French ruler before or since. Yet we still see him as a tyrant.
Humanitarian thoughts and needs were certainly not considered in the same way they are today, thats true, but they certainly had a developed sense of morality, they were children o the enlightenment just as we are.
But thats besides the point really. Wellington and Nelson are still regarded as hero's today despite the way they acted. Thats the rub. The only reason why they don't get compared to SS comanders is because the SS lost. Same with Napoleon.
Interesting that you quip about Britains need to apologise for the invasion. I wonder if the Danes will apologise for invading and viking all over Britain a few years before. What goes around comes around, but leave history where it belongs... In the past.
As for comparing Arthur Wellesley and co to SS officers, only the small and feeble minded who are jealous of a great nations history would stoop so low.
Well, fireboming neutral civilian targets is the sort of thing the SS used to do. I don't see whats so great about that.
As for the Vikings, they existed in the time before the enlightment had introduced the morality and ethics by which we live today, but I see nothing great nor glorious in their actions either. They were ruthless too.
Post a Comment