Denmark-Norway anticipates a British attack in 1807

[Redbeard]

In 1807 Denmark-Norway had deployed her main army in Slesvig-Holsten and most of the navy lay inactive without masts or rigging in Copenhagen harbour (18 ships of the line in Copenhagen but AFAIK at least three were at sea). No matter what the intentions might have been it was a deployment which could only counter initiatives from the continent into S-H and Jutland (i.e. French) and not overseas action towards Zealand and Copenhagen (i.e British).

By 1807 D-N was relatively wealthy, having prospered from the years of neutrality and good trade, and with the large merchant navy still intact. That should open op for a number of alternative actions pre 180, the ruling principle being: If you can't hide the scandal you might as well lead it as a parade.

1. The navy is rigged and manned being ready for action from spring/summer of 1807. That would provide a fleet of 20-21 ships of the line and a number of frigates and smaller vessels as well as strong fortifications at Oeresund. The OTL British fleet at Copenhagen was 21 SotL plus a large number of smaller warships and transports.

2. The main army is deployed on Zealand instead of in Slesvig-Holstein. In S-H is left only a screening force of a few thousand men to show the flag and catch straglers and deserters crossing the border. That should make it possible to have a main army of at least 30.000 men. The regular D-N army of the time was well drilled and equipped, capable of fighting in line and using light troops incl. riflemen. The British army landed on Zealand was 18.000 men, but some sources mention that a total of 30.000 was onboard the fleet. The force was relatively weak in cavalry (only 3000 horses in total incl. draught horses, horses are tough/expensive to transport on ships) but had a heavy siege train, incl. numerous rocket batteries.

Such a deployment will of course make it relatively easy for France to occupy S-H and Jutland, but if they wanted to do that they could anyway. They would OTOH never be able to threaten Zealand and Copenhagen (which then even more was the centre of economical activity). Norway and the merchant navy would very much be jeopardised, but in OTL they quickly ended up being that anyway.

3. France is approached as soon as possible and (in secrecy) offered an alliance in case of British aggression. If the French will accept nothing but an open alliance here and now, accept that.

4. Wait for the British to take the next move.



British can hardly live with having not only a strong D-N fleet on potential enemy side, but added must also be the Russian Baltic navy, which after Tilsit had to be counted as a French semi-ally.

I guess the British would be able to deploy a larger fleet than the OTL one, but not without weakening presence in other places and what will the Swedes and Russians do.

I seriously doubt if a significantly larger army can be transported/deployed. Anyway the problem will be that it will take very long time to land such a large force (days) and with a regular D-N army on Zealand the landing force risk being defeated on the beach. An army centrally placed on Zealand ought to be able to reach any likely landing place inside 24 hours on foot. The transport fleet was also so big (380 ships) and cumbersome that the whereabout of a landing could be predicted days ahead. Anyway I doubt any navigator by 1807 would risk sending a major navy into the Great Belt which leaves eastern and northern Zealand as the only landing places. In OTL the force landed at Vedbæk some 15 miles north of Copenhagen.

IMO it would be most important to deploy the army to Zealand as the British can't use a naval victory for much if there is a 30.000 men stong D-N army on Zealand. Rigging the navy will however make it all much more difficult for the British and provide potential for decisively defeating the British. The big question of course is what the Russian will do, but by 1807 I doubt they will enter into any anti-French activities and a strong D-N navy might make it more tempting to join the French actively as there might be a realistic chance of actually beating the British and thus gaining access to the seas and British colonies.

If the British still succeed in taking Copenhagen we know what happens, but what if they either:

- do nothing?

or

- are defeated at land and/or at sea?


Regards

Steffen Redbeard

 

[arctic warrior]

In 1807 Denmark-Norway had deployed her main army in Slesvig-Holsten and most of the navy lay inactive without masts or rigging in Copenhagen harbour (18 ships of the line in Copenhagen but AFAIK at least three were at sea). No matter what the intentions might have been it was a deployment which could only counter initiatives from the continent into S-H and Jutland (i.e. French) and not overseas action towards Zealand and Copenhagen (i.e British).

By 1807 D-N was relatively wealthy, having prospered from the years of neutrality and good trade, and with the large merchant navy still intact. That should open op for a number of alternative actions pre 180, the ruling principle being: If you can't hide the scandal you might as well lead it as a parade.

1. The navy is rigged and manned being ready for action from spring/summer of 1807. That would provide a fleet of 20-21 ships of the line and a number of frigates and smaller vessels as well as strong fortifications at Oeresund. The OTL British fleet at Copenhagen was 21 SotL plus a large number of smaller warships and transports.

2. The main army is deployed on Zealand instead of in Slesvig-Holstein. In S-H is left only a screening force of a few thousand men to show the flag and catch straglers and deserters crossing the border. That should make it possible to have a main army of at least 30.000 men. The regular D-N army of the time was well drilled and equipped, capable of fighting in line and using light troops incl. riflemen. The British army landed on Zealand was 18.000 men, but some sources mention that a total of 30.000 was onboard the fleet. The force was relatively weak in cavalry (only 3000 horses in total incl. draught horses, horses are tough/expensive to transport on ships) but had a heavy siege train, incl. numerous rocket batteries.

Such a deployment will of course make it relatively easy for France to occupy S-H and Jutland, but if they wanted to do that they could anyway. They would OTOH never be able to threaten Zealand and Copenhagen (which then even more was the centre of economical activity). Norway and the merchant navy would very much be jeopardised, but in OTL they quickly ended up being that anyway.

3. France is approached as soon as possible and (in secrecy) offered an alliance in case of British aggression. If the French will accept nothing but an open alliance here and now, accept that.

4. Wait for the British to take the next move.



British can hardly live with having not only a strong D-N fleet on potential enemy side, but added must also be the Russian Baltic navy, which after Tilsit had to be counted as a French semi-ally.

I guess the British would be able to deploy a larger fleet than the OTL one, but not without weakening presence in other places and what will the Swedes and Russians do.

I seriously doubt if a significantly larger army can be transported/deployed. Anyway the problem will be that it will take very long time to land such a large force (days) and with a regular D-N army on Zealand the landing force risk being defeated on the beach. An army centrally placed on Zealand ought to be able to reach any likely landing place inside 24 hours on foot. The transport fleet was also so big (380 ships) and cumbersome that the whereabout of a landing could be predicted days ahead. Anyway I doubt any navigator by 1807 would risk sending a major navy into the Great Belt which leaves eastern and northern Zealand as the only landing places. In OTL the force landed at Vedbæk some 15 miles north of Copenhagen.

IMO it would be most important to deploy the army to Zealand as the British can't use a naval victory for much if there is a 30.000 men stong D-N army on Zealand. Rigging the navy will however make it all much more difficult for the British and provide potential for decisively defeating the British. The big question of course is what the Russian will do, but by 1807 I doubt they will enter into any anti-French activities and a strong D-N navy might make it more tempting to join the French actively as there might be a realistic chance of actually beating the British and thus gaining access to the seas and British colonies.

If the British still succeed in taking Copenhagen we know what happens, but what if they either:

- do nothing?

or

- are defeated at land and/or at sea?


Regards

Steffen Redbeard

Interesting but wouldn't this be throwing ourselves into the arms of Nap?
The Crown Prince tried to sit between to chairs - not getting involved in war with either Britain or France... AFAIK the Danish government tried to get the attention of the British PM but didn't succed in getting their message through.
Have a look at Henning Søby Andersen: en lus mellem to negle, Dansk-Norsk neutralitetspolitik 1801-07. He's going into some detail.
What you propose would IMO deter a British attack on Copenhagen and in the best tradition of the Danish Navy we'd see a naval battle in the Sound perhaps with an initial diversion of Danish light forces trying to ensnare some British units into the Great Belt. That or the following battle of the British landing should the trick. Problem is however that sides would have been chosen by such action and apparently not the one desired by the Crown Prince.
I don't know of the Russian actions following this but I see a British presence in Kattegat/Skagerrak disrupting communications with Norway triggering starvation and a second - disastrous sortie by the Danish Navy...

 

[Redbeard]

Interesting but wouldn't this be throwing ourselves into the arms of Nap?
The Crown Prince tried to sit between to chairs - not getting involved in war with either Britain or France... AFAIK the Danish government tried to get the attention of the British PM but didn't succed in getting their message through.
Have a look at Henning Søby Andersen: en lus mellem to negle, Dansk-Norsk neutralitetspolitik 1801-07. He's going into some detail.

The policy of the OTL D-N government indeed was one of trying to avoid geting involved by not really siding with anyone. But as that policy proved impossible I thought of surveying the options of a "clearly choosing sides" policy.

To me it appears like nothing would be lost compared to OTL, but that several options is present for contributing to the big ally - Napoleon - winning the war. And as we ended up in Napoleon's arms anyway, why not try to get something out of it?

What you propose would IMO deter a British attack on Copenhagen and in the best tradition of the Danish Navy we'd see a naval battle in the Sound perhaps with an initial diversion of Danish light forces trying to ensnare some British units into the Great Belt. That or the following battle of the British landing should the trick. Problem is however that sides would have been chosen by such action and apparently not the one desired by the Crown Prince.
I don't know of the Russian actions following this but I see a British presence in Kattegat/Skagerrak disrupting communications with Norway triggering starvation and a second - disastrous sortie by the Danish Navy...

As long as the D-N navy is intact I doubt the British can effectively blockade Norway and an enemy fleet of 20 SotL is too big to ignore (the RN had 27 SotL at Trafalgar).

If in charge of the D-N navy I would prefer giving battle in the Oeresound too, as the British fleet will have to fight the land fortifications too. First Kronborg at Elsinore and further down south the forts at Copenhagen. In OTL 1801 Kronborg only saluted as no war yet had broken out, but in this ATL the RN might feel it as running a gaunlet. Trying to go through the Great Belt involve a great risk of wrecking a large part of the fleet (Spanish Armada...you know).

The RN loosing a great number of SotL would be disastrous for UK, and would probbaly force UK to seek a peace ASAP. If the defeat is "only" on land I'm more in doubt about what happens, but a lot of prestige is lost and less men will be available for operations elsewhere (like Spain and N. America). In Scandinavia Sweden is probably up for an invasion and risk ending up as the carved up one - Finland going to Russia and the southern and western provinces to D-N.

And if the British end being the indecisive ones I think Sweden probably is the first looser, but I also wonder if the British by early 19th century could spare the deliveries of tar, timber and other naval supplies from the Baltic. Later they largely got that from India and N.America, but was that so by early 19th century?

The big question of course is how likely it was for the Crown Prince to choose such a policy. I clearly understand why he/they wished to stay out, as the years of neutrality had been extremely profitable and hostility with France or UK would involve the loss of either S-H and Jutland (lots of prestige) or the merchant fleet and a lot of trade (big money). My impression of the Crown Prince is not him being indecisive, but rather stubborn and guided by rigid honour codes. In OTL that had him end up as Napleon's last ally.

But if we butterfly in a few extra incidents of bad British behaviour (that need not be hard - increase the rum rations ) and give them a little spin I think he would do what is needed, especially if we spice it a little with some flattering French diplomacy - isn't that what diplomats are supposed to do anyway? I mean if you don't wan't to flatter somebody, but thrash them, you have much better instruments than diplomats

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

 

[Oddball]

The RN loosing a great number of SotL would be disastrous for UK, and would probbaly force UK to seek a peace ASAP. If the defeat is "only" on land I'm more in doubt about what happens, but a lot of prestige is lost and less men will be available for operations elsewhere (like Spain and N. America).

Im afraid that you are overestimating the Danish-Norwegian navy at the time. According to Feldbæk, the RN did not feare the DN navy regarding an invasion of Britain. But the fear was of closing of the Sounds and the following loss of Baltic trade (both monetary and in strategic resources).

In Scandinavia Sweden is probably up for an invasion and risk ending up as the carved up one - Finland going to Russia and the southern and western provinces to D-N.

Even tough I greatly would like a outcome like this, I doubt it. Reestablishing a singel nation in control of both sides of the Sound would go against every great powers interest.

I dont even see this in a dececive French victory peace treaty with Denmark as France only allied.

IMHO, to have a Danish Skåne, you have to have a POD latest in 1658

 

[arctic warrior]

The policy of the OTL D-N government indeed was one of trying to avoid geting involved by not really siding with anyone. But as that policy proved impossible I thought of surveying the options of a "clearly choosing sides" policy.

To me it appears like nothing would be lost compared to OTL, but that several options is present for contributing to the big ally - Napoleon - winning the war. And as we ended up in Napoleon's arms anyway, why not try to get something out of it?

OK - now I'm getting your picture. So the Crown Prince and his make up their minds and decide the French alliance being the lesser evil. And as there had been skirmishes on the sea with the RN a kind of pay-back...

As long as the D-N navy is intact I doubt the British can effectively blockade Norway and an enemy fleet of 20 SotL is too big to ignore (the RN had 27 SotL at Trafalgar).

If in charge of the D-N navy I would prefer giving battle in the Oeresound too, as the British fleet will have to fight the land fortifications too. First Kronborg at Elsinore and further down south the forts at Copenhagen. In OTL 1801 Kronborg only saluted as no war yet had broken out, but in this ATL the RN might feel it as running a gaunlet. Trying to go through the Great Belt involve a great risk of wrecking a large part of the fleet (Spanish Armada...you know).

The RN loosing a great number of SotL would be disastrous for UK, and would probbaly force UK to seek a peace ASAP. If the defeat is "only" on land I'm more in doubt about what happens, but a lot of prestige is lost and less men will be available for operations elsewhere (like Spain and N. America). In Scandinavia Sweden is probably up for an invasion and risk ending up as the carved up one - Finland going to Russia and the southern and western provinces to D-N.

I'd say at this point the Danish-Norwegian navy is some force in being. So there would be skrimishes if not battles while the Brits tries a blockade of Denmark-Norway. The Danish-Norwegian navy would have to spend some more time at sea than usual because of the war.
IMO the British would be enraged by loss of SOLs and have another or more go's.
My idea was to have the British lured into the Belts and the ajecent archipelago and have light forces deal with them there as OTL. The Danish-Norwegian ships were build for the environment usually having only 2 decks because of shallow draught - also the SOL.

And if the British end being the indecisive ones I think Sweden probably is the first looser, but I also wonder if the British by early 19th century could spare the deliveries of tar, timber and other naval supplies from the Baltic. Later they largely got that from India and N.America, but was that so by early 19th century?

Read something on the supplies from Russia and the Baltic. Think your right.
About Sweden - I don't find any indication of a Danish invasion of Sweden. The 1808-09 war would find Denmark-Norway on the Russian-French side if only due to Russian-French pressure. (did a read up on that) This would of course make for a different situation as with an intact Danish-Norwegian navy the Norwegian army would recieve supplies, cereals would be shipped to Norway, no starvation and there would be no shipping off of Bernadottes Spanish forces by the RN. So guess your right - Sweden would be bad off in TTL with Denmark-Norway forced by the events to ship Bernadottes corps across the Sound. That would make for his being king of Sweden somewhat earlier - he, he, he... But if other things went according to OTL the Spanish troops would rebel and this time wiped out by French and Danish army leaving no invasion of Scania and thus only a defensive Norwegian posture against Sweden.

The big question of course is how likely it was for the Crown Prince to choose such a policy. I clearly understand why he/they wished to stay out, as the years of neutrality had been extremely profitable and hostility with France or UK would involve the loss of either S-H and Jutland (lots of prestige) or the merchant fleet and a lot of trade (big money). My impression of the Crown Prince is not him being indecisive, but rather stubborn and guided by rigid honour codes. In OTL that had him end up as Napleon's last ally.

But if we butterfly in a few extra incidents of bad British behaviour (that need not be hard - increase the rum rations ) and give them a little spin I think he would do what is needed, especially if we spice it a little with some flattering French diplomacy - isn't that what diplomats are supposed to do anyway? I mean if you don't wan't to flatter somebody, but thrash them, you have much better instruments than diplomats

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

So we end up with Denmark-Norway being an ally of Napoleon earlier with the Navy intact - more or less due to combat losses. A few ships could be built in Norway as OTL showed, probably some more than OTL with no starvation.
Question is do Denmark-Norway in TTL manage to stay together, i.e. no Kiel Peace? I'm unsure on this but probably the Swedes will not be in the OTL position and Britain could swing. Other members of the coalition had done so before Denmark-Norway, made peace with France and then joined the coalition. Perhaps some more determination on the part of Denmark-Norway could do the trick - but I might be far off on this one - but it would make for something better later, 1848 and all that.

 

[Redbeard]

Im afraid that you are overestimating the Danish-Norwegian navy at the time. According to Feldbæk, the RN did not feare the DN navy regarding an invasion of Britain. But the fear was of closing of the Sounds and the following loss of Baltic trade (both monetary and in strategic resources).

I wasn't thinking of invading England with the D-N navy, but if a fleet at the size of Nelson/Parker's is decisively defeated, it will be a dramatic decrease in the size of the 1807 fleet - remember at Trafalgar Nelson had just 27 SotL. Next I think the Russians would be seriously tempted to have a go at UK, and the Russian and D-N fleets combined begin to look like something. But anyway the risk of being cut off from the Baltic would alone be very serious and in itself part the Russians and the British.

Even tough I greatly would like a outcome like this, I doubt it. Reestablishing a singel nation in control of both sides of the Sound would go against every great powers interest.

I dont even see this in a dececive French victory peace treaty with Denmark as France only allied.

IMHO, to have a Danish Skåne, you have to have a POD latest in 1658

Actually in OTL there were plans to invade Sweden after 1808, that was what the Spanish troops was sent to Denmark for (although I wonder how they were meant to cross the sound). In an ATL like this D-N would be a French satellite and the sound thus in secure French control, by a D-N proxy. The Russians would have a tougher time buying that, as their access to the seas would be on French mercy, but that would perhaps be exactly why the French would want it so.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard