WIF: Russian Shlezwig-Holstein

Of course, Denmark was not ready to make any concessions without a fight but, as I said, at least superficially the whole thing looks like it could be relatively easily resolved with a minimal fighting (to save prestige).

This is why I'm assuming that soon after it starts, the sides are starting talking to each other.

But, with the minimal success and willingness to negotiate expressed by Denmark Peter most probably would be persuaded to start talks.

All true, in general, but (a) as I keep saying, I don't think that the whole affair would escalate to a full-scale prolonged war

This is how you get Denmark to talk if you want a quick an easy victory:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_Across_the_Belts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_at_Humlebæk
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Copenhagen_(1801)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Copenhagen_(1807)

& it's not always enough:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_on_Copenhagen_(1659)


Look at the map you produced. As I understand, the issue was just about some pieces of Schlezwig without changing the existing administrative mess elsewhere or grabbing extra territories. Of course, if the war proves to be a prolonged affair, the operations are going to spread elsewhere.

Yes it might be "some pieces" og Schleswig, but I don't think you understand how valuable these pieces are to Denmark.

When Denmark entered The Great Northern War these were the objectives in order:

1) reduce the threat of the Gottorps to the south.

2) reconquer Skånelandende, which consisted of 1/3 ! of the ancestral Danish territories. Territory that during the period was considered far more Danish than Jutland was.

3) reduce the Swedish presence in Northern Germany.

4) reconquer the Baltic Isles.

5) reconquer the lost Norwegian provinces.

In the Great Northern War Denmark was able to do two of these objectives:

They reduced the Gottorps possessions to relative irrelevancy in Schleswig-Holstein, and they broke the Gottorp-Swedish alliance. Furthermore they occupied parts of the Swedish German territories (later given up to Hannover to get England to enter the war. )

These territories Peter wants have played a integral part of Denmarks foreign policy during the last 60 + years, which is why I don't think Denmark is willing to sit down to talk unless Peter got an ace up his hands, such as a threat to Copenhagen.
 
This is how you get Denmark to talk if you want a quick an easy victory:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_Across_the_Belts

If you paid at least some attention to what I wrote, this option was mentioned.


They reduced the Gottorps possessions to relative irrelevancy in Schleswig-Holstein, and they broke the Gottorp-Swedish alliance. Furthermore they occupied parts of the Swedish German territories (later given up to Hannover to get England to enter the war. )

By treaty of 1773 they ceded Counties Oldenburg and Delmenhorst to Russia (after which these territories had been given to Frederic-August of Oldenburg) in exchange for "Hottorp inheritance".

These territories Peter wants have played a integral part of Denmarks foreign policy during the last 60 + years, which is why I don't think Denmark is willing to sit down to talk unless Peter got an ace up his hands, such as a threat to Copenhagen.

Yes, I got it: Denmark was unbeatable (except for few cases when it was) and completely invulnerable except and unless one is going to get to Copenhagen. For which you just need a reasonably cold winter. "On average, ice covers an area of some 170 000 km2, which stands for 40 % of the total Baltic Sea area (422 000 km2, including Kattegatt and Skagerrak)." http://en.ilmatieteenlaitos.fi/ice-winter-in-the-baltic-sea

Well, if you are saying that the Danes would refuse a reasonably easy option and keep fighting while their "continental" territories, including those in Germany (like County Oldenburg) being destroyed by war and occupation who am I to object. :cool:
 
If you paid at least some attention to what I wrote, this option was mentioned.

... I paid attention to what you wrote, except you edited yours, which yes you did before I posted, but not before I started forming my reply. I apologize that I did not wait till then. So let me address that comment first:

You keep misinterpreting the things I said. There is a huge difference between "without fighting" (which is yours) and minimal fighting which I'm talking about.

Okay sorry for misunderstanding that then, but why would Denmark stop fighting, when they certainly were willing to fight in this period of history!? you keep saying that little fighting will happen, and then Peter's idea will happen because Denmark will agree to a peace. While I'm saying that Denmark WILL fight for it. I'm not saying they will win, but they will fight for it. And I certainly do doubt Russia's capabilities of finishing such a war to the aforementioned goal.

And as for the water freezing, this happens during the winters on the Baltic Sea and in 1658 Charles X Gustav led the Swedish troops from Jutland across the ice of the Little Belt to Funen and the Great Belt to reach Zealand.

As you will notice I mentioned this in my post too, it is not like I ignored it. There is however a very fucking important point here. Where you are 100 % complete wrong. the Baltic Sea does not completely freeze over every winter, and you should know that before going in saying something like that (IMHO)

Here is something for you:

"On the long-term average, the Baltic Sea is ice-covered at the annual maximum for about 45% of its surface area. The ice-covered area during such a typical winter includes the Gulf of Bothnia, the Gulf of Finland, the Gulf of Riga, the archipelago west of Estonia, the Stockholm archipelago, and the Archipelago Sea southwest of Finland. The remainder of the Baltic does not freeze during a normal winter, with the exception of sheltered bays and shallow lagoons such as the Curonian Lagoon." - Wikipedia on the Baltic Sea

The Danish straits are 1: fast flowing hindering the formation of ice unless it is a harsh winter. 2: the salinity of the Danish straits are higher and equal to that of the nearby Kattegat, not the low salinity that the Baltic sea in further in, which helps preventing ice to form.

The Danish Straits freezing over is a very big deal, during the last 100 years it happened TWICE, in 1942 and 1966. and nearly in 1987 If you wanna base a plan on that good luck.
Even then crossing such frozen over straits are a huge gamble, that paid off for the Swedes. Yes Russia would be able to cross the straits IF the winter was harsh enough, if they can pull it off they can enforce a peace on Denmark.

By treaty of 1773 they ceded Counties Oldenburg and Delmenhorst to Russia (after which these territories had been given to Frederic-August of Oldenburg) in exchange for "Hottorp inheritance".

I wrote relative irrelevancy, Peter's idea about reconquest showed Denmark that having Gottorps in Holstein is not as safe as they hoped it was.

Yes, I got it: Denmark was unbeatable

I never mentioned that Denmark was unbeatable, infact I said the complete opposite earlier in this thread:

I'm not against "Denmark lossing" I'm the first to admit that Denmark have had far more losses than victories, just look at its history.

So I kindly ask you not to pull the biased card again, when you're incapable of answering my questions or statements. You're belittling the effort I am making and I find that insulting.

(except for few cases when it was) and completely invulnerable except and unless one is going to get to Copenhagen.

No I never said that, I said if you want a quick and easy peace that you want in the scenario, you need to threaten what matters to Denmark, which is Copenhagen, the danish isles (Sjælland) and Norway. In that order, I doubt Russia is capable of that, as mentioned previously, please don't change the meaning of what I'm writing to fit your narrative.

If you want to bring Denmark to the peacetable otherwise, you need either A: fight a war that exhausts danish resources, something that is certainly possible, but it requires a war, not just occupation of fifty percent of Schleswig. or B: offer a reasonable deal that Denmark is willing to accept such as the exhange that happened

I also mentioend Denmark is willing to fight a war during this period something you still keep ignoring. Why are they willing to fight this war? Because to Denmark this "little piece" of territory matters. Might not have mattered to Russia in the long run, but it clearly did to Denmark. So please answer why the fuck Denmark would just hand over the territory without getting anything in return.

or which you just need a reasonably cold winter. "On average, ice covers an area of some 170 000 km2, which stands for 40 % of the total Baltic Sea area (422 000 km2, including Kattegatt and Skagerrak)." http://en.ilmatieteenlaitos.fi/ice-winter-in-the-baltic-sea

Oh hey stats you did not mentioned in the previous post, hey apparantly it is not common for all of the baltic to freeze over the winter, who would have guessed !?

Let's see, "reasonably cold winter" it says in the link that you posted:

"In mild winters the Sea of Bothnia doesn't freeze at all and the Gulf of Finland only gets a partial ice cover. In severe winters the ice reaches the Danish Sounds and the central Baltic Proper."

Yea.... as mentioend early, if you wanna base you plan on that I suggest you look up old sources to check the severity of the winters in the late 18th century...

Edit:
Well, if you are saying that the Danes would refuse a reasonably easy option and keep fighting while their "continental" territories, including those in Germany (like County Oldenburg) being destroyed by war and occupation who am I to object. :cool:
They will refuse it, as I said previously, due to these territories being seen as vital (vital in the sense of security) to the Danish state, loosing these territories will set Denmark back diplomatically several decades. That is why they will fight it. Furthermore Oldenburgs worth is relative litte (considering Denmark was willing to trade it for undisputed control of Holstein) Schleswig and Holstein is worth more, but this will not be the first time they have been occupied it is, as mentioned, something Denmark is willing to let happen.

The continental territory of Denmark are not the moneymakers of the Danish state. The isles, Norway, trade and the sound toll are. To threaten this you need to beat Denmark at the sea, or walk over a not very often frozen over pieces of straits

Which I've mentioned several times, yet you seem to ignore this fact.

goodnight, looking forward to answering your reply tommorow!
 
Last edited:
... I paid attention to what you wrote, except you edited yours, which yes you did before I posted, but not before I started forming my reply. I apologize that I did not wait till then. So let me address that comment first:



Okay sorry for misunderstanding that then, but why would Denmark stop fighting, when they certainly were willing to fight in this period of history!? you keep saying that little fighting will happen, and then Peter's idea will happen because Denmark will agree to a peace. While I'm saying that Denmark WILL fight for it. I'm not saying they will win, but they will fight for it. And I certainly do doubt Russia's capabilities of finishing such a war to the aforementioned goal.



As you will notice I mentioned this in my post too, it is not like I ignored it. There is however a very fucking important point here. Where you are 100 % complete wrong. the Baltic Sea does not completely freeze over every winter, and you should know that before going in saying something like that (IMHO)

Here is something for you:

"On the long-term average, the Baltic Sea is ice-covered at the annual maximum for about 45% of its surface area. The ice-covered area during such a typical winter includes the Gulf of Bothnia, the Gulf of Finland, the Gulf of Riga, the archipelago west of Estonia, the Stockholm archipelago, and the Archipelago Sea southwest of Finland. The remainder of the Baltic does not freeze during a normal winter, with the exception of sheltered bays and shallow lagoons such as the Curonian Lagoon." - Wikipedia on the Baltic Sea

The Danish straits are 1: fast flowing hindering the formation of ice unless it is a harsh winter. 2: the salinity of the Danish straits are higher and equal to that of the nearby Kattegat, not the low salinity that the Baltic sea in further in, which helps preventing ice to form.

The Danish Straits freezing over is a very big deal, during the last 100 years it happened TWICE, in 1942 and 1966. and nearly in 1987 If you wanna base a plan on that good luck.
Even then crossing such frozen over straits are a huge gamble, that paid off for the Swedes. Yes Russia would be able to cross the straits IF the winter was harsh enough, if they can pull it off they can enforce a peace on Denmark.



I wrote relative irrelevancy, Peter's idea about reconquest showed Denmark that having Gottorps in Holstein is not as safe as they hoped it was.



I never mentioned that Denmark was unbeatable, infact I said the complete opposite earlier in this thread:



So I kindly ask you not to pull the biased card again, when you're incapable of answering my questions or statements. You're belittling the effort I am making and I find that insulting.



No I never said that, I said if you want a quick and easy peace that you want in the scenario, you need to threaten what matters to Denmark, which is Copenhagen, the danish isles (Sjælland) and Norway. In that order, I doubt Russia is capable of that, as mentioned previously, please don't change the meaning of what I'm writing to fit your narrative.

If you want to bring Denmark to the peacetable otherwise, you need either A: fight a war that exhausts danish resources, something that is certainly possible, but it requires a war, not just occupation of fifty percent of Schleswig. or B: offer a reasonable deal that Denmark is willing to accept such as the exhange that happened

I also mentioend Denmark is willing to fight a war during this period something you still keep ignoring. Why are they willing to fight this war? Because to Denmark this "little piece" of territory matters. Might not have mattered to Russia in the long run, but it clearly did to Denmark. So please answer why the fuck Denmark would just hand over the territory without getting anything in return.



Oh hey stats you did not mentioned in the previous post, hey apparantly it is not common for all of the baltic to freeze over the winter, who would have guessed !?

Let's see, "reasonably cold winter" it says in the link that you posted:

"In mild winters the Sea of Bothnia doesn't freeze at all and the Gulf of Finland only gets a partial ice cover. In severe winters the ice reaches the Danish Sounds and the central Baltic Proper."

Yea.... as mentioend early, if you wanna base you plan on that I suggest you look up old sources to check the severity of the winters in the late 18th century...

Edit:

They will refuse it, as I said previously, due to these territories being seen as vital (vital in the sense of security) to the Danish state, loosing these territories will set Denmark back diplomatically several decades. That is why they will fight it. Furthermore Oldenburgs worth is relative litte (considering Denmark was willing to trade it for undisputed control of Holstein) Schleswig and Holstein is worth more, but this will not be the first time they have been occupied it is, as mentioned, something Denmark is willing to let happen.

The continental territory of Denmark are not the moneymakers of the Danish state. The isles, Norway, trade and the sound toll are. To threaten this you need to beat Denmark at the sea, or walk over a not very often frozen over pieces of straits

Which I've mentioned several times, yet you seem to ignore this fact.

goodnight, looking forward to answering your reply tommorow!


So, to sum up your position (if I got it right), the disputed territories were not "the moneymakers" and yet they were so important that Denmark would disregard a clear possibility of occupation and devastation of its whole continental part just to keep them. Well, as I said, I can't argue against this position (except that in 1864 occupation of the continental part forced Denmark to ask for peace and to lose much more; but this was a century later so parallels are dangerous) and don't see any point to keep going back and forth.
 
Last edited:
the disputed territories were not "the moneymakers" and yet they were so important that Denmark would disregard a clear possibility of occupation and devastation of its whole continental part just to keep them.
It's important because the Gottorps had been a dagger in the Danish backs due to its allegiance with Sweden. That's why it is valuable. Denmark is not capable of pursuing a Swedish front while it's continental territories where threatened by the Gottorps. As such Denmark had to deal with this before any offensive towards Sweden could be taken.


Well, as I said, I can't argue against this position (except that in 1864 occupation of the continental part forced Denmark to ask for peace and to lose much more; but this was a century later so parallels are dangerous) and don't see any point to keep going back and forth.

Agreed
 
So, to sum up your position (if I got it right), the disputed territories were not "the moneymakers" and yet they were so important that Denmark would disregard a clear possibility of occupation and devastation of its whole continental part just to keep them. Well, as I said, I can't argue against this position (except that in 1864 occupation of the continental part forced Denmark to ask for peace and to lose much more; but this was a century later so parallels are dangerous) and don't see any point to keep going back and forth.


Actually it didn't.

Danish resistance didn't crack until the Austro-Prussians successfully occupied the island of Als, thus revealing that Denmark's insular possessions (including Copenhagen itself) were at risk if the war continued.
 
Top