WI Denmark sided with British during the Napoleonic wars

I'm not entirely sure what POD could lead to Denmark joining one of the Coalitions, perhaps A.P. Bernstoff lives on for another decade and makes some wiser diplomatic choices.

I don't think this would have a huge impact on the larger war.
I guess Napoleon would surely occupy Jutland, but I believe the intact Danish navy would keep the rest of the Kingdom out of reach.

With the evidently more favorable position at the end of the war, could Denmark make some gains instead of the OTL loss of Norway along with bankruptcy.
 
I'm not entirely sure what POD could lead to Denmark joining one of the Coalitions, perhaps A.P. Bernstoff lives on for another decade and makes some wiser diplomatic choices.

I don't think this would have a huge impact on the larger war.
I guess Napoleon would surely occupy Jutland, but I believe the intact Danish navy would keep the rest of the Kingdom out of reach.

With the evidently more favorable position at the end of the war, could Denmark make some gains instead of the OTL loss of Norway along with bankruptcy.

Toussaint

Interesting idea. A few random thoughts.

a) Possibly, as a fairly narrow isthmus Jutland could be held, a bit like a larger Cadiz or Lisbon? [Might depend on when the Danish joining an alliance occurred as it probably really needs to be late enough to have a strong British army to support them].

b) Alternatively, presuming Jutland falls Zealand may not be totally secure. Think the Swedes once attacked it over the ice so possibly the French could do likewise.

c) A Anglo-Danish alliance could swing Sweden, the traditional rival to the Danes onto the other side. On the other hand it gives Britain more secure access to the Baltic, with political, economic and military impacts.

Steve
 
thanks for the feedback steve.

I actually don't think the Swedes would join Napoleon due to past animosities with the Danes. They had just lost their Pomeranian holdings because they had been part of the Third Coalition along with the UK. In addition to that the peace at Tilsit had the Russians invading Sweden to force them into the Continental System, so I think the Swedes would have liked to have the Danish archipelago and its fleet as a buffer on the southern front.
So if A.P. Bernstoff had been alive in 1807 and had followed his pro-british tendencies and advised Frederik 6. to form an alliance with UK-Sweden we would see a unified Scandinivia with a tremendously powerful combined fleet that could control the Baltic. Gustav Adolph of Sweden could also relocate the bulk of his forces to the Finnish theatre as he could be sure that no Danish invasion was to be expected, perhaps this could have some influence on the outcome the Swedish-Russian war.
Possibly no Bernadotte?

As for Napoleons retribution of Denmark I think Jutland is lost, but I stand by my conviction that Zealand would be impossible to take with the combined British and Danish fleets.
I don't know if Napoleon could pull a 1659 and walk across the frozen sounds, but I think that the 1659 incident was a pretty unique one and only possible because of the mini ice age that took place in the 17th Century.
 
I know Danish people think that siding with Napoleon was one of the biggest mistakes they ever made. Going the other way would have allowed them to keep their colonies.
 
I also consider the decision one of the most critical points in Danish history, Prarievoice.
During the war with the UK I know the Danish West Indies were occupied by the British, but they were returned after the Peace of Kiel I believe.
I don't know if any other colonies were occupied(Gold Coast, Tranquebar, North Atlantic), but losing Norway and the navy were two very defining events in Danish history no doubt.

Perhaps Denmark could even gain a few colonies at the Congress of Vienna, some French or Dutch holdings in the Caribbean or maybe some more forts on the Gold Coast.

Maybe we would see an uprising in Norway demanding independence even if it was to remain a part of the Double-Monarchy. But I really doubt that Denmark would be more accomodating of the Norwegians' plight for freedom, than Sweden was. An eventual rebellion would be struck down as it did OTL.
 

Redbeard

Banned
AFAIK the Danish government repeatedly tried to approach the British, but the British were not interested.

The biggest problem for Denmark-Norway being at war with Great Britain was the huge Danish-Norwegian merchant fleet being lost. Before 1801 it had earned huge sums of money carrying goods under neutral flag for the belligerents. The loss of the merchant fleet and the British blockade were major reasons for the Kingdom of Denmark-Norway going officially broke in 1813 and Norway even starving.

As the British attacked in 1807 Denmark-Norway were “sucked” into the French camp, and although they actually tried to get into the allied camp later they were not allowed. The problem was that Bernadotte as reward for changing to the allied side and giving away Finland to the Russians had been promised Norway. That would make it awkward to have Denmark-Norway in the allied camp in the final phase of the Napoleonic wars.

It we somehow have Denmark-Norway in the allied camp (PoD pre 1807) I agree that the Jutland peninsula probably would be occupied by the French, and allied naval supremacy would keep them from the Danish islands and Norway.

The Belts freezing over is a very rare event. It happened in 1658 under the so-called “little ice age”, in 1941/42 and a few times in between. AFAIK they were not frozen over in the early 1800s.

Jutland occupied would give some interesting opportunities for the allies. It would be fairly easy to land an army corps in eastern Jutland and engage the French garrison there and be shipped away before French reinforcements can arrive.

To be reasonably safe the French will need 20-30.000 men in Jutland itself (armycorps) and a similar force around Hamburg for backup. That will be a force difficult to spare elsewhere.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
Hmm, I don't think it will swing Sweden, they were quite firmly anti- Napoleon. But of course, you never know.

Jutland would probably be occupied. But I don't think the French would reach Sjaelland. Especially not if Sweden won't swing to the French side. I could even see a Danish prince as a serious candidate for Swedish heir in this scenario.
 
I agree with you Steffen, we need to have Denmark joining the British before the Gunboat War in order to have it firmly on the anti-Napoleon side.
OTL Denmark was given an ultimatum by Canning(1807) to join the British under the condition that its fleet would be transfered to Britain for the duration of the war and then handed back(I think that was the offer but maybe I'm wrong about some details), but would it be possible for Denmark to join the UK and Sweden while still retaining the fleet?

While the British paranoia over having the large Danish navy so close to the napoleanic continent is not to be underestimated, wouldn't the Danish navy remaining in the Baltic Sea be a huge factor in favor of the British against the Russians(after Tilsit)?
 
Didnt Denmark have a fort in Africa where many of the slave ships departed for the Americas?

If that is so then Denmark being a more powerful nation into the 1800's could have had an effect on the Civil War.
 
Well, if Denmark sides with Britain Bernadotte will not be invited to form the nucleus of the invasionforce that was to invade Sweden. He doesnt take a liking to the country and thus are never king of Sweden.
 
While the British paranoia over having the large Danish navy so close to the Napoleonic continent is not to be underestimated, wouldn't the Danish navy remaining in the Baltic Sea be a huge factor in favor of the British against the Russians(after Tilsit)?
According to wikipedia - I know, I know - the British offered them a subsidy for the number of troops they kept standing, the protection of 21 British warships, and the return of their fleet after the war just before the Second Battle of Copenhagen. If they're worried about the Dano-Norwegian fleet then the obvious solution is to have them serve in other parts of Europe and their defensive duties be carried out by the offered 21 Royal Navy ships to watch the straits, and subsidised troops defend Funen, Zeeland, and the other eastern islands from the French. What was the quality of the Dano-Norwegian crews like? I know they had something like the second largest fleet in Europe after the French and Spanish fleets had been knocked out but were they of an equal standard to the Royal Navy? Would it be feasible for them to serve in say the Mediterranean or blockading French ports? Or would the British still be too paranoid and demand nothing less than their turning over the whole of the fleet?
 
You're right Prairievoice, Denmark had slaveforts on the Gold Coast, one of them where Accra is situated today, but Denmark abolished the slavetrade in 1792(though the legislation didn't come into effect until 1803), and slavery on the Danish West Indies ended in 1848.
Of course this is straying a bit away from the original discussion, but by all means lets digress.
So we're assuming that Denmark allying with the British results in a significantly better positioning during the 19th Century.
OTL this Danish economy took a huge hit when the navy was lost(as Steffen pointed out), the Gunboat war bankrupted the state and of course Norway was lost.

But with the fleet Denmark could probably continue its prosperous trading and maintain closer ties with overseas holdings(which might be somewhat bigger if Denmark is rewarded at Vienna).

So in what way do you think this would have butterflies in the Civil War Prairievoice? Would Denmark meddle in American affairs? Would it go as far as to choose a side, the Danish West Indies would be conveniently placed as a base for naval operations.

But OTL not even the UK interfered in any big way, even though the Union blocade of the Confederacy hurt the British texstile industry(cotton), so somehow I doubt that a smaller power like Denmark would in such a big conflict so far away.

@ Mattep

Yea in this scenario Bernadotte-Sweden is highly unlikely, and we might even see a united Scandinavia(Frederik 6. of Denmark ascending the Swedish throne).
 
I think that could be a plausible compromise, Simon. The question is whether a despatched Dano-Norwegian navy would still be under Danish command, or if it would have to fly British colours and be under British authority.

If having the Dano-Norwegian too close to Napoleon is the sole concern of the British then the first option could seem alright, and operations in the Mediterreanean and Atlantic would not be out of the way.

As for the quality of the crews, I see no reason why they would worse than those of the Royal Navy. The Danes have always been seafaring, so unless the Royal Navy had adopted some new revolutionizing maritime protocol and training procedure the Danish crews should not be inadequate.
 
Yeah in this scenario Bernadotte-Sweden is highly unlikely, and we might even see a united Scandinavia(Frederik 6. of Denmark ascending the Swedish throne).
Dunno. Even if the Dano-Norwegian government is able to hold out on Zeeland, Funen, and the other eastern islands the French are still going to march in and take Jutland, which means garrisoning it. At that point it's not that great a distance from Jutland to Sweden, if Napoleon still gets the hump with the Swedes it's not out of the realms of possibility that he might send a trusted underling to go look into the idea of invading them. Taking Sweden would also have the added bonus on encircling the surviving Danish islands, although whoever he sent would no doubt take a good look and tell him to forget it.
 
AFAIK the Danish government repeatedly tried to approach the British, but the British were not interested.

The biggest problem for Denmark-Norway being at war with Great Britain was the huge Danish-Norwegian merchant fleet being lost. Before 1801 it had earned huge sums of money carrying goods under neutral flag for the belligerents. The loss of the merchant fleet and the British blockade were major reasons for the Kingdom of Denmark-Norway going officially broke in 1813 and Norway even starving.

As the British attacked in 1807 Denmark-Norway were “sucked” into the French camp, and although they actually tried to get into the allied camp later they were not allowed. The problem was that Bernadotte as reward for changing to the allied side and giving away Finland to the Russians had been promised Norway. That would make it awkward to have Denmark-Norway in the allied camp in the final phase of the Napoleonic wars.

It we somehow have Denmark-Norway in the allied camp (PoD pre 1807) I agree that the Jutland peninsula probably would be occupied by the French, and allied naval supremacy would keep them from the Danish islands and Norway.

Agreed - in the shwi-isot game (on yahoo groups - still going if people start contributing again) the soc.history.what-if members who got sent back to 1800 had a great deal of trouble with this, because it was hard to figure out how to get the British to actually accept their entreaties. (Why they wouldn't want more allies I don't understand, except perhaps they, too, were worried about Jutland, and the French having an easy chance to invade Sweden. Normally you don't reject the chance for more allies.)

IIRC (it's been 8-9 years now) we got around the problem by having the French attack. Could the French fleetsomehow be convinced to attack?

Simon's compromise also sounds good, and since we never really explained by the British *don't* attack first in the ATL, perhaps that is the agreement that is reached. As one of our mods back then said, "Why not? It seems like it would be more difficult, but it's not impossible, and there have been somewhat improbable things in rea lhistory." Or, words to that effect.
 
DTF955Baseballfan

That sounds a fascinating game?

I think that the British attack to seize the fleet in 1807 was because they believed [correctly I think?] that Napoleon was just about to invade and seek to sieze it. Possibly you could have a position where the British arrive just after the French while the Danes are moblising to fight them. Think Wellington was unhappy with the idea of attacking the Danes so possibly he could have made an on the spot decision to support them? [Wellington was in command of the forces that actually landed].

Reading Wiki [I know] it suggests that both Britain and France were making approaches and the Danes were determined to stay neutral, the bulk of their army being on Jutland seeking to defend against a French attack when the British arrived. Sounds like it should have been possible to get some sort of deal.

Interesting it said that Parliament suggested seeking to hold Zealand - which would have been in breach of the cease-fire agreed with Denmark. Wellington rejected the idea. [Not sure whether he though it was impractical with Denmark now hostile or would have thought so if an alliance had been agreed with them].

Steve

Agreed - in the shwi-isot game (on yahoo groups - still going if people start contributing again) the soc.history.what-if members who got sent back to 1800 had a great deal of trouble with this, because it was hard to figure out how to get the British to actually accept their entreaties. (Why they wouldn't want more allies I don't understand, except perhaps they, too, were worried about Jutland, and the French having an easy chance to invade Sweden. Normally you don't reject the chance for more allies.)

IIRC (it's been 8-9 years now) we got around the problem by having the French attack. Could the French fleetsomehow be convinced to attack?

Simon's compromise also sounds good, and since we never really explained by the British *don't* attack first in the ATL, perhaps that is the agreement that is reached. As one of our mods back then said, "Why not? It seems like it would be more difficult, but it's not impossible, and there have been somewhat improbable things in rea lhistory." Or, words to that effect.
 
AFAIK the Danish government repeatedly tried to approach the British, but the British were not interested.

The biggest problem for Denmark-Norway being at war with Great Britain was the huge Danish-Norwegian merchant fleet being lost. Before 1801 it had earned huge sums of money carrying goods under neutral flag for the belligerents. The loss of the merchant fleet and the British blockade were major reasons for the Kingdom of Denmark-Norway going officially broke in 1813 and Norway even starving.

As the British attacked in 1807 Denmark-Norway were “sucked” into the French camp, and although they actually tried to get into the allied camp later they were not allowed. The problem was that Bernadotte as reward for changing to the allied side and giving away Finland to the Russians had been promised Norway. That would make it awkward to have Denmark-Norway in the allied camp in the final phase of the Napoleonic wars.

It we somehow have Denmark-Norway in the allied camp (PoD pre 1807) I agree that the Jutland peninsula probably would be occupied by the French, and allied naval supremacy would keep them from the Danish islands and Norway.

You merely need to delay the bombardment of Copenhagen. Napoleon was instructing Bernadotte to invade Denmark if it failed to comply with the Continental System.

The imp in me remembers, of course, that Canning was the Prime Minister of Britain at the time. I can easily see him anticipating Denmark to fall to Napoleon, and so ordering a strike on the French navy anyway.
 
Top