1864: Denmark - you will never walk alone

The German regiments of the Danish army were rebellious in 1848.
In 1864 the Holstein conscripts didn't show up when called and the Lauenburg Regiments was dissolved. 2 of the Sleswig regiments were unreliable. The Danish officers had until 1848 had the right to use the German aristocratic "von". That war of course change the attitude towards German. Oh by the way von Moltke had been given leave from his service in the Danish army and then too up service in the Prussian one! His brother remained a loyal Danish civil servant in the Postal service. Higher level Danish officers had a wery realistic perception of Danish military capabilities. De Meza didn't want to sacrifice 1/3 of the army at Danneverk as the premier wanted. So he disobeyed orders and withdrew the army. Other officers held their troops in similar concern, knowing they only had a limited number and would have to preserve fighting capabilities. Thus the rotation policy regarding Dübbol so that almost every regiment had to spend some time in the field-works. But then on the other hand we also had colonel Blimps like the commander at Lundby.
The reason for the retreat from the fortress of Fredericia is not at all clear, and this could be the strong defensive point after Dübbol, if the will had been there. A build-up there during the siege at Dübbol would have the Danes ready for the second round and would be instrumental in keeping the Prussians from crossing over to Fyn. But that would have required extra troops, not available in 1864, but maybe a British contingent of 10000 could do the trick. And modern artillery!
2 things regarding the naval side.
Rolf Krake was vulnerable to plunging fire as she had a weak deck armour. The ship only showed up in Alssund after the initial Prussian landings of 5000 troops and the captain thought the battle lost and withdrew. Another reason for his not running berserk amid the Prussian boats could be his knowledge of the Danish minelaying in Alssund, primitive, nothing like sea-mines of 1914 or later, and his not wanting to plow through it in the middle of battle.
That late appearence of the Rolf Krake would be a bad omen for a later Prussian crossing to Fyn.
Foreing naval support would run the risk of cruising Danish shallow waters. Of course they would recieve pilots, but the British and, only slightly possible IMHO, Swedish ships were not designed for Danish waters. This and the needs of immediate response during battle would be detrimental to allied ships.
Another thing is the vulnerability of wooden ships to fire from entrenched guns, all too well demonstrated in 1849, when two Danish ships, a ship of the line and a frigate, were hit and set afire when attacking insurgent positions at Eckernförde in Sleswig. With the new Prussian artillery this would be much more the case.
 

Oddball

Monthly Donor
Military vs. diplomacy

Military Im not familiar with the possibiliteise or impossibilities of this periode of our history.

But I think many of you forgett the importance of diplomacy at this time. Without support from several major powers, it would not matter mutch how big a military victory the prussians could score. If GB stood up and defended the Danish, a eventual peace treaty would be MUTCH more beneficial to Denmark no matter the result of the military campaign.

Just look at Russian victories versus the Ottoman empire during this time. Military victories are definetly not reflected in their peace treaties.
 
Red said:
Military Im not familiar with the possibiliteise or impossibilities of this periode of our history.

But I think many of you forgett the importance of diplomacy at this time. Without support from several major powers, it would not matter mutch how big a military victory the prussians could score. If GB stood up and defended the Danish, a eventual peace treaty would be MUTCH more beneficial to Denmark no matter the result of the military campaign.

Just look at Russian victories versus the Ottoman empire during this time. Military victories are definetly not reflected in their peace treaties.

That's an interesting point.
Bismark was willing to partition Schlesvig with Denmark , but the Danes refused and eventually lost the whole area. With British diplomatic aid , Bismark might have agreed to leave Schlesvig to Denmark ( and maybe blame Austria for lack of commitment to draw the German states on Prussia's side )
 
I don't have anything to say about the POD, or whether or not Germany could have been dissauded by the British, but I would just say that this thread has been really useful as a "history teacher": I don't about anyone else, but I've learned a lot about the actual history from the discussion.
 
Schleswig partition

Good points Andrei and Red, perhaps it does work that way. One could see Palmerston pressing the Danes to accept that as well with Holstein and Lauenberg coming under Austro-Prussian rule, especially as partition on national lines was something that Napoleon III had advocated.

Bismarck had three main interests:
  1. Setting up the annexation of the German-speaking sections to Prussia (and the future construction of the Kiel Canal--not sure if Bismarck had that in mind)
  2. Setting up the conflict w/Austira (and the joint administration regime would still happen here)
  3. A victory for Prussian arms

Given British opposition, he'd probably be willing to give up Northern Schleswig. On the other hand, Danish prestige is hardly enhanced. My question would be on the effect on Scandanavian Union sentiments
 
Last edited:

Oddball

Monthly Donor
Agree

fenkmaster said:
... I don't about anyone else, but I've learned a lot about the actual history from the discussion.

Yepp, I fully agree with you

Iv learned a lot of OTL history on this site. Best of all when you have good threads vere civil people defend oposite viewpoints. Not to talk about all those obscure events that tend to be discussed when someone needs a good POD :) Good stuff ;) :D

Even tough I have a low postcount, I spend a lot of time here. Generaly I try to just involve myself when I feel Iv actualy have something useful to say. Sadly quit a few people around here does not follow that rule...:(
 
Red: diplomacy is just the crux of the matter. Bismarck made a tremendous diplomatic coup by getting Russia onto his side, by being friendly during the Polish rebellion of 1863 when everybody else were on the back of the Zar. This made it possible for Bismarck to actually do what the Germans had wanted to do since 1850 and before - settle the Danish issue. Denmark of course contributed immensely by adopting a non negotiating attitude except on Danish terms. So Denmark ended up alienating itself from the major powers.
If cooler heads had prevailed in Denmark, the Prussian - British partion plan of 1862 might have been accepted by Denmark and the issue had been settled peacefullyl. And yes during the negotiations during May 1864 Bismarck did re-propose the partion plan, but again Denmark refused it.
But come to think of it, a state of affairs where Major power intervention on the behalf of Denmark took place might have done the trick, especially as Britain and France had just "mauled" Russia in Crimea. If only the Danes could have been controlled. There were cool heads in Denmark, but nobody wanted to listen to them until it was too late.
 

Oddball

Monthly Donor
I concour

arctic warrior said:
Red: diplomacy is just the crux of the matter. Bismarck made a tremendous diplomatic coup by getting Russia onto his side, by being friendly during the Polish rebellion of 1863 when everybody else were on the back of the Zar. This made it possible for Bismarck to actually do what the Germans had wanted to do since 1850 and before - settle the Danish issue. Denmark of course contributed immensely by adopting a non negotiating attitude except on Danish terms. So Denmark ended up alienating itself from the major powers.
If cooler heads had prevailed in Denmark, the Prussian - British partion plan of 1862 might have been accepted by Denmark and the issue had been settled peacefullyl. And yes during the negotiations during May 1864 Bismarck did re-propose the partion plan, but again Denmark refused it.
But come to think of it, a state of affairs where Major power intervention on the behalf of Denmark took place might have done the trick, especially as Britain and France had just "mauled" Russia in Crimea. If only the Danes could have been controlled. There were cool heads in Denmark, but nobody wanted to listen to them until it was too late.

IMHO this would apply regardless of the outcome of the military campaign, but ofcourse if GB had backed Denmark (or the Danes had listened to them)I suspect no war at all in the first place
 
Came to think of:
OTL, as far as I remember, the Austrians didn't want to cross into the Kingdom of Denmark, only Prussian forces ventured north into Jutland. So the majority of German forces would eventually stay in the Duchies and the Austrians would have a chance to point at Bismarck when things started pouring down over their heads. Prussian recklessness.
On the other hand the aim of von Moltke was the annihalation of the Danish army, so they might just anyway attemt the crossing of the Lillebealt to Fyn. That would of course involve a siege and storm of fortress Fredericia, probably prolonged due to the fact that it was a fortress, when Dübbol were just earthworks with concrete blockhouses.
How modern were British artillery in those days?
Would the British chance their new armourclad ship/s in shallow Danish waters?
Does anybody know of Swedish armourclad's of that day? I don't but I'll look it up.
British support might help Danish politicians and troops to keep up their spirits.
I just still don't believe in the Swedes.
Answering some of my own questions, but do correct me if i'm wrong, the RN had frigates with armour belt, but not monitortype ships until after 1870. The Swedes got their first "John Ericsson" appropriatly named in 1865.
 
Last edited:

Redbeard

Banned
arctic warrior said:
Came to think of:
OTL, as far as I remember, the Austrians didn't want to cross into the Kingdom of Denmark, only Prussian forces ventured north into Jutland. So the majority of German forces would eventually stay in the Duchies and the Austrians would have a chance to point at Bismarck when things started pouring down over their heads. Prussian recklessness.
On the other hand the aim of von Moltke was the annihalation of the Danish army, so they might just anyway attemt the crossing of the Lillebealt to Fyn. That would of course involve a siege and storm of fortress Fredericia, probably prolonged due to the fact that it was a fortress, when Dübbol were just earthworks with concrete blockhouses.
How modern were British artillery in those days?
Would the British chance their new armourclad ship/s in shallow Danish waters?
Does anybody know of Swedish armourclad's of that day? I don't but I'll look it up.
British support might help Danish politicians and troops to keep up their spirits.
I just still don't believe in the Swedes.
Answering some of my own questions, but do correct me if i'm wrong, the RN had frigates with armour belt, but not monitortype ships until after 1870. The Swedes got their first "John Ericsson" appropriatly named in 1865.

Interesting. I believe Lillebælt is deep enough to take most if not any 1860's warship. I think the most challenging factor would be the current, but with steam propulsion that would be minor.

Are you sure the redoubts at Dybbøl had concrete blockhouses? AFAIK it was only logs with earth around them.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard
 
Read a number of works on the subject. The blockhouses, at least a number of them were concrete, but not very strong. One at least was blasted to pieces when hit, but the troops were in the redoubt so almost none were injured. So they didn't rely on the blockhouses.
Well I think the Bealt is deep enough for the ships to pass through, but it won't give much room for manouver. Eckernförde Fiord isn't that narrow and You know what happened there.

Dear Jason, I know a number of very good people from Sweden. Alas they were not in power in 1864.
 

Redbeard

Banned
arctic warrior said:
Read a number of works on the subject. The blockhouses, at least a number of them were concrete, but not very strong. One at least was blasted to pieces when hit, but the troops were in the redoubt so almost none were injured. So they didn't rely on the blockhouses.
Well I think the Bealt is deep enough for the ships to pass through, but it won't give much room for manouver. Eckernförde Fiord isn't that narrow and You know what happened there.

Dear Jason, I know a number of very good people from Sweden. Alas they were not in power in 1864.

I recall too the story about blockhouses being blown to bits and the troops not relying on them - but apparently concrete doesn't need to be the almost indestructible thing we know from more present times.

Concerning ships I think exactly these years, after armour but before AP shells, represent a short period where (armoured) ships actually could operate faily safe from coastal batteries (or artillery at all). A lot had happened since Eckernförde in the 1st S-H War.

Anyway I think the most interesting aspect about Lillebælt is the Danish Army occupying Fredericia Fortress.

It took 7900 shells to batter the simple redoubts at Dybbøl but I doubt if would practically possible to transport enough shells over land to do the same vs. Fredericia - not with 1860's technology.

The Prussians really can't ignore Frederica (it is a formidable flank threat), but also difficult to storm (massive ramparts and 10m wide and 5m deep moat). Could Bismarck's reputation survive a failed storm on Fredericia?

Regards

Steffen Redbeard
 
Frederica

He wouldn't have to storm it. He has time to bring the artillery up once he has Frederica. Also, once the UK is backing Denmark, they're likely to pressure Copenhagen into a partition of Schleswig.
 
Redbeard said:
I recall too the story about blockhouses being blown to bits and the troops not relying on them - but apparently concrete doesn't need to be the almost indestructible thing we know from more present times.

Concerning ships I think exactly these years, after armour but before AP shells, represent a short period where (armoured) ships actually could operate faily safe from coastal batteries (or artillery at all). A lot had happened since Eckernförde in the 1st S-H War.

Anyway I think the most interesting aspect about Lillebælt is the Danish Army occupying Fredericia Fortress.

It took 7900 shells to batter the simple redoubts at Dybbøl but I doubt if would practically possible to transport enough shells over land to do the same vs. Fredericia - not with 1860's technology.

The Prussians really can't ignore Frederica (it is a formidable flank threat), but also difficult to storm (massive ramparts and 10m wide and 5m deep moat). Could Bismarck's reputation survive a failed storm on Fredericia?

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

Regarding ships - as far as I've been able to find out the RN ships only had an armoured side, not deck armour. The Swedes wouldn't have anything of the sort until 1865. Please correct me if i'm wrong.
I still think the ships would be bad off.
No concrete in those day's weren't our day concrete used for multistory buildings.
I concur with you on Fredericia. That would draw off Prussian resources.
 

Redbeard

Banned
arctic warrior said:
Regarding ships - as far as I've been able to find out the RN ships only had an armoured side, not deck armour. The Swedes wouldn't have anything of the sort until 1865. Please correct me if i'm wrong.
I still think the ships would be bad off.
No concrete in those day's weren't our day concrete used for multistory buildings.
I concur with you on Fredericia. That would draw off Prussian resources.


I doubt if plunging fire would be a threat against a moving target at that time, it simply would be too difficult to hit. From the Funen side I guess a battery at Røjle Klint would perhaps be funny, but I can't think of similar places on the Jutland side.

In 1849, when all ships were wooden, some Insurgent batteries outside Fredericia were considered a threat to the communication between Fredericia and Funen (Strib) and this promted the succesful sortie which routed the sieging army. I guess similar batteries in 1864 would be a threat to daytime traffic with wooden transport ships, but on the other hand I'm confident that a ship protected as Rolf Krake could pretty safely go into effective firing range of the coastal batteries and have a good chance of silencing them (much heavier guns - 60pdr. vs. 6-12pdr). The Royal Danish Navy apart from Rolf Krake had three Ironclads in service in 1864, but some would not be ready until march.

I don't know to what degree the General staff had formulated the Fredericia strategy as an alternative to the Governments Dannevirke policy, but from what I understand the Government decided that no matter what it would politically be unacceptable to abandon Slesvig and anyway grossly underestimated the Prussians.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard
 
Redbeard said:
I doubt if plunging fire would be a threat against a moving target at that time, it simply would be too difficult to hit. From the Funen side I guess a battery at Røjle Klint would perhaps be funny, but I can't think of similar places on the Jutland side.

In 1849, when all ships were wooden, some Insurgent batteries outside Fredericia were considered a threat to the communication between Fredericia and Funen (Strib) and this promted the succesful sortie which routed the sieging army. I guess similar batteries in 1864 would be a threat to daytime traffic with wooden transport ships, but on the other hand I'm confident that a ship protected as Rolf Krake could pretty safely go into effective firing range of the coastal batteries and have a good chance of silencing them (much heavier guns - 60pdr. vs. 6-12pdr). The Royal Danish Navy apart from Rolf Krake had three Ironclads in service in 1864, but some would not be ready until march.

I don't know to what degree the General staff had formulated the Fredericia strategy as an alternative to the Governments Dannevirke policy, but from what I understand the Government decided that no matter what it would politically be unacceptable to abandon Slesvig and anyway grossly underestimated the Prussians.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

So we did have more Ironclads - thanks Steffen. That I think helps a lot in deterring a Prussian crossing.
By the way the info on the blockhouses at Dübbol was in "1864-da europa gik af lave", Odense University press, or the Generalstaff papers on the war. The latter has been re-issued around 1960-70 i think in a modern readable format. Both books contains lots of info also the naval aspect. I recall there was something about another Danish ironclad, though smaller than Rolf Krake, but that is as far as memory goes.
They also go into detail of the new unit organization implemented just prior to hostilities, battalions being split to create new regiments and the lack of rifled artillery. Especially in light of the longer range infantry weapons that almost made smoothbore cannon obsolete, in such a way that these were set up in the redoubts with just the loaded shot of canister, in the hope that this could be fired at the Prussians during the storm with no chance of re-load the pieces.

About the political side of it I concur with you and I think the loss of Slesvig, storm of Dübbol and later Als have made the politicians decide not to defend Fredericia, although I would think it possible. I think that in 1864 it was something of a mystery why Fredericia was abandoned. But then they would have had another perception of what happened and the possibilities of continued war. The generals however, were aware of the urgent need to keep the army in a fighting state, not letting it bleed as it was their only means of action. They must have realized what was going on in the head of von Moltke and that the annihalation of the army would mean Prussian dictate of the future.
 

Redbeard

Banned
arctic warrior said:
I recall there was something about another Danish ironclad, though smaller than Rolf Krake, but that is as far as memory goes.

Could it be the armoured schooners Esbern Snarre and Absalon? According to navalhistory.dk they were armed with a 60 pdr. smoothbore (8") and two 5 3/4" rifled (!) guns and were good for 11 knots. The site says nothing about how well they were protected.

The ironclads I referred to in an earlier post were the armoured frigates Peder Skram, Danmark and Dannebrog. They were quite big ships but from what i recall from sailing in Lillebælt they should not have any problems in crusing outside Fredericia, certainly not with a local pilot onboard. Some sources say they had rifled 8" guns in 1864. Having a couple of armoured frigates bombard the besiegers with fire from 8" rifles could be quite a show.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard
 
It was the Esbern Snare - a smaller ironclad scooner. And Absalon the same. The other 3 were armoured frigates. Peder Skram commissioned 1866 the 2 others Dannebrog in March and Danmark in October 1864. Danmark had 8-18 pdr.rifled guns and doing 11 knots after the refit - Dannebrog 14-60 pdr and 3-18 pdr rifled guns doing 8,7 knots. Just had to look it up. So you'd have your really mean back-up for the Rolf Krake! And we'd still have the naval muscle ourselves.
 
Top