What if Denmark won the Gunboat War and still keeps the possession of Norway?


  1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunboat_War

  2. Presume if the Dano-Norwegian government had the manpower to build huge numbers of gunboats that were not only very manoeuvrable, but strong enough to resist multiple hits and able to stand rough seas.

  3. If this wasn’t enough, then please checkout my own personal strategy plan if I were leading the French and Danish navy. https://sta.sh/01vsj77z8ei1

Very interesting but what has this to do with "still keeps the possession of Norway" part? AFAIK, Norway had been lost to Sweden during the Swedish–Norwegian War of 1814 with the Brits being absent from the picture and the war mostly fought on land.
 
For Denmark to keep Norway, they'd need to win against Sweden in 1814. And that's against Jean Baptiste Bernadotte, and he can' t have been entirely incompetent. Napoleon made him a Maréchal, after all.
 
Very interesting but what has this to do with "still keeps the possession of Norway" part? AFAIK, Norway had been lost to Sweden during the Swedish–Norwegian War of 1814 with the Brits being absent from the picture and the war mostly fought on land.
For Denmark to keep Norway, they'd need to win against Sweden in 1814. And that's against Jean Baptiste Bernadotte, and he can' t have been entirely incompetent. Napoleon made him a Maréchal, after all.

The loss of Norway is tied into the wider conflict that was the Napoleonic Wars, saying Denmark lost Norway in the Swedish-Norwegian War of 1814, is just as wrong as saying it was lost in the gunboat war.

The loss happened during congress of Vienna, where Denmark accepted to exchange Norway, for Swedish-Pomerrania, which was traded for the duchy of Lauenburg, a smallish state just south of Holstein.

The Swedish-Norwegian War of 1814 Denmark had no hand in, exept for a danish prince being offered the throne of Norway. But the fact is no Danish soldiers fought it the war (to my knowledge) and even if Denmark wanted to participate, they lacked the means to, the navy was gone. and with that the ability to ferry any troops to Norway. Besides while the Danish army had avoided big losses during the war (limited to skirmishes in Holstein) it was a relative well functioning army under relative competent general. Nevertheless I believe bernadotte is a superior general to Prince Frederik of Hesse.

this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Frederik_of_Hesse

Anyways the point is by the time of 1814 Norway is lost to Denmark even if it wanted to fight.

The gunboat war is also a wrong place to start (IMO) the strategy and hope of @Sam Biswas is way too optimistic in my opinion. There is simply no way gunboats can challenge ships of the line, especially not cutting off the British from the kattegat and skagerak, while notorious if the waters are unknown to the captains, it is simply too open. Now if somehow miraculous Denmark(-Norway) can scrap together enough ships of the line and support ships. Maybe but that's even more of a tall order.

I argue if you wanna avoid Denmark(-Norway) loosing the last part of its name, to Sweden in 1814 I think there is two points you can do this.

1) Change the outcome of the Battle of Copenhagen in 1801. (which I think is doable)

2) Avoid Danish entrance into the Napoleonic wars on the French side.

the first scenario can change the dynamics of the great game in northern Europe, and might not lead to the bombardment of Copenhagen a few years later, avoiding Danish entrance on French side.

second do the same.

Norway is basicly lost when Denmark sides with France, while Sweden sided with Britain.
 
The loss of Norway is tied into the wider conflict that was the Napoleonic Wars, saying Denmark lost Norway in the Swedish-Norwegian War of 1814, is just as wrong as saying it was lost in the gunboat war.

The loss happened during congress of Vienna, where Denmark accepted to exchange Norway, for Swedish-Pomerrania, which was traded for the duchy of Lauenburg, a smallish state just south of Holstein.

The Swedish-Norwegian War of 1814 Denmark had no hand in, exept for a danish prince being offered the throne of Norway. But the fact is no Danish soldiers fought it the war (to my knowledge) and even if Denmark wanted to participate, they lacked the means to, the navy was gone. and with that the ability to ferry any troops to Norway. Besides while the Danish army had avoided big losses during the war (limited to skirmishes in Holstein) it was a relative well functioning army under relative competent general. Nevertheless I believe bernadotte is a superior general to Prince Frederik of Hesse.

this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Frederik_of_Hesse

Anyways the point is by the time of 1814 Norway is lost to Denmark even if it wanted to fight.

The gunboat war is also a wrong place to start (IMO) the strategy and hope of @Sam Biswas is way too optimistic in my opinion. There is simply no way gunboats can challenge ships of the line, especially not cutting off the British from the kattegat and skagerak, while notorious if the waters are unknown to the captains, it is simply too open. Now if somehow miraculous Denmark(-Norway) can scrap together enough ships of the line and support ships. Maybe but that's even more of a tall order.

I argue if you wanna avoid Denmark(-Norway) loosing the last part of its name, to Sweden in 1814 I think there is two points you can do this.

1) Change the outcome of the Battle of Copenhagen in 1801. (which I think is doable)

2) Avoid Danish entrance into the Napoleonic wars on the French side.

the first scenario can change the dynamics of the great game in northern Europe, and might not lead to the bombardment of Copenhagen a few years later, avoiding Danish entrance on French side.

second do the same.

Norway is basicly lost when Denmark sides with France, while Sweden sided with Britain.
Checked again. I meant the Bernadotte's campaign against Denmark of 1813, which ended with the Peace of Kiel, wherein Sweden got Norway - which was acknowleded in Vienna - except Greenland, Iceland and the Faroe Islands. This prompted the Norwegians to declare independence and write their constitution. The war that followed is the one you were alluding to, and which ended with a comparativly Swedish-Norwegian Union. In my opinion, to keep Norway, the Danes need only to win against Bernadotte, as I don't think the other allies will enforce his claim on Norway if he can't get it himself. And that is all they did to entice him to join them, they acknowledged a rather dubious swedish claim to Norway; they did not undertake to enforce it.
 
The loss of Norway is tied into the wider conflict that was the Napoleonic Wars, saying Denmark lost Norway in the Swedish-Norwegian War of 1814, is just as wrong as saying it was lost in the gunboat war.

The loss happened during congress of Vienna, where Denmark accepted to exchange Norway, for Swedish-Pomerrania, which was traded for the duchy of Lauenburg, a smallish state just south of Holstein.


By the Treaty of Kiel in January 1814, King Frederik VI of Denmark-Norway had to cede Norway to the King of Sweden. Norwegians did not accept that treaty, hence the Swedish-Norwegian war (taking into an account that after declaration of independence the Norwegian defense had been lead by the Danish crown prince who was a resident Norwegian viceroy it is rather difficult to just shrug off the "Danish factor"). Norwegian Storting on 4 November elected Charles XIII of Sweden as King of Norway, creating the union between Sweden and Norway. Congress of Vienna officially opened only in November 1814.
 
By the Treaty of Kiel in January 1814, King Frederik VI of Denmark-Norway had to cede Norway to the King of Sweden. Norwegians did not accept that treaty, hence the Swedish-Norwegian war (taking into an account that after declaration of independence the Norwegian defense had been lead by the Danish crown prince who was a resident Norwegian viceroy it is rather difficult to just shrug off the "Danish factor"). Norwegian Storting on 4 November elected Charles XIII of Sweden as King of Norway, creating the union between Sweden and Norway. Congress of Vienna officially opened only in November 1814.

I stand corrected. Always associated it with Vienna, that nevertheless does not change that Denmark did not participate in any war on Norway side, and I don't think Denmark would be in any position to aid Norway.

1) no navy, which means Sweden will be able to take control of the sea lanes which Denmark need to send troops to Norway.

2) Denmark went bankrupt in 1813. they also signed said peace deal in Kiel. I think Denmark is simply unable and unwilling to fight a war.

furthermore:

He [Crown prince of Denmark] took the helm in the Norwegian independence movement, most likely with the surreptitious goal of re-unification with Denmark. This was not in the interest of all Norwegians. In fact, the founders of the 1810 movement lobbied for an independent Norway. The initiative of Christian Frederick was successful, partly due to clandestine support from the Danish Crown, but also because it was supported by prominent and influential Norwegians. They convinced the Prince that it would be unwise to claim the throne as his inheritance. Instead they advised him to assume the regency and call an election of representatives to a constituent assembly.

It's a weird situation. Which might have been salvageable by Denmark if there was a will for it. But undeniable it would have changed the dynamic with the constitution and all

Checked again. I meant the Bernadotte's campaign against Denmark of 1813, which ended with the Peace of Kiel, wherein Sweden got Norway - which was acknowleded in Vienna - except Greenland, Iceland and the Faroe Islands. This prompted the Norwegians to declare independence and write their constitution. The war that followed is the one you were alluding to, and which ended with a comparativly Swedish-Norwegian Union. In my opinion, to keep Norway, the Danes need only to win against Bernadotte, as I don't think the other allies will enforce his claim on Norway if he can't get it himself. And that is all they did to entice him to join them, they acknowledged a rather dubious swedish claim to Norway; they did not undertake to enforce it.

You're correct and a little bit wrong ( I think).

in essence yes Denmark just need to defeat Bernadotte's campaign against Denmark, but as I said earlier the conflict is tied into the Napoleonic Wars. Bernadotte did not attack Norway before after the Kiel treaty.

The last time Sweden attack Norway, at the time Danish, was a few years earlier:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dano-Swedish_War_of_1808–09

With ironically Bernadotte being on the Danish (French) side :p

The fighting that lead to the treaty of kiel was the war of the sixth coalition and was located for Denmark, in northern Germany against Sweden, and in the Danish waters in the aforementioned gunboat war. I think it is unreasonable to expect Denmark to change this outcome, especially since they bailed early on.

As much as I would like to see Denmark keep Norway, I think it is at this point too late to keep Norway. You need a change in the earliest of the 19th century.


@alexmilman I know this is a bit of a different view point then I had in the other thread. I hope it makes sense?
 
I stand corrected. Always associated it with Vienna, that nevertheless does not change that Denmark did not participate in any war on Norway side, and I don't think Denmark would be in any position to aid Norway.

Agree: Norway declared independence after Treaty of Kiel and my initial statement was not formulated correctly.
 
Top