Napoleon attack Denmark-Norway in 1807

[Redbeard]

OTL
After the peace of Tilsit between France and Russia rumours circulated in London, that a secret part of the treaty recognised the French "right" to (commandeer?) the Royal Danish Navy, then a significant force of some 20 ships of the line.

Apparently something similar was feared in Copenhagen, as the main Danish Army (appr. 40.000 men) was deployed to Slesvig-Holstein with the Prince Regent (the King, Christian VII was there too, but he was even more mad than the contemporary British King George).

For UK a French control of the Danish Navy would be very critical and in August 1807 an army under Arthur Wellesley (later the Duke of Wellington) was landed on Zealand and after brushing aside some militia troops lay siege on Copenhagen. The siege involded a five days long bombardment with rockets that killed 1600 people, mainly women and chilldren. In early september the city surrendered and the British took with them a number of ships and destoyed what they couldn't carry.

This had Denmark-Norway enter the French cause and for the next six years a naval guerilla war was succesfully conducted vs. the RN, but ended with a ruined Danish and Norwegian economy and Norway being given to Bernadotte of Sweden because he had to hand Finland over to Russia.

PoD:
The French actually have aggressive plans with Denmark-Norway and is in a state of war with Denmark-Norway before the British land on Zealand.

I'm certain the Danes and Norwegians would have preferred an alliance with UK to one with France, as that would secure D-N overseas interests and trade, and the French wouldn't be able to advance to Zealand or Norway anayway.

But would the British care about an alliance with the D-Ns anyway, in OTL they didn't spend many efforts to research the option.


Regards

Steffen Redbeard

 

[Oddball]

We have partly been down this road before, see this excellent thread about stronger Denmark: https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=16258&

And the French IOTL acted remarkable closley to your scenario. Only slow comunication avoided a state of war between Denmark and France:

OTL this happened:

7. July: Tilsit peace. Russia becomes an “allied” of France.

3. August: A British fleet enters Öresund and Storebelt.

6. August: French ultimate versus D-N is presented to the ambassador in Paris.

7. August: British ultimate versus D-N is presented to the crown Prince in Kiel.

16. August: After the British starts bombarding and landing in Copenhagen D-N declares Great Britain war. The war with Great Britain leads to an almost immediately loss of both the merchant and the armed fleet.

31. October: D-N alliance with France. Due to distance and lack of communication, D-N government doesn’t know the French ultimate before war with Great Britain is de facto, and it is later kept secret.

I'm certain the Danes and Norwegians would have preferred an alliance with UK to one with France,

Hmm, the Danes maybe have wished it, but the fact is that Denmark was firmly embedded in the french alliance system since 1740

as that would secure D-N overseas interests and trade,

Agree, but Denmark choosed the armed neutrality wich instantly made Britain an enemy

Anyway, Denmarks choice of allied were dependent on countering Sweden than of overseas trade

and the French wouldn't be able to advance to Zealand or Norway anyway.

1658 anyone...

 

[Redbeard]

Hmm, the Danes maybe have wished it, but the fact is that Denmark was firmly embedded in the french alliance system since 1740

Agree, but Denmark choosed the armed neutrality wich instantly made Britain an enemy

Anyway, Denmarks choice of allied were dependent on countering Sweden than of overseas trade

I would more say a successful armed neutrality policy that now and then co-incided with French interests.

The armed neutrality is IMHO a good example of countering Sweden not any longer being the overriding motive in D-N foreign policy - Sweden was partner and the D-N and Swedish fleets even operated together.

The army being deployed in S-H is IMHO more than points to concerns over French aggression being the main motive. The only rationale between such a deployment would be detering a French aggression, as the French anyway by 1807 didn't have naval forces to threaten Zealand, Copenhagen or Norway. The D-N Navy wasn't even made ready for sailing but lay without masts and rigging in Copenhagen.

You may wonder how wise it was, as 40.000 men could not hold up the French Army if they really wanted to have a go, and after Tilsit the French really didn't have any major commitments on land. I have another ATL ready based on this analysis, but await the comments on this one.

1658 anyone...

The belts freezing over enough for an army to pass over is/was something happening a few times each century, rarely more than a couple of weeks. AFAIK the belts didn't freeze over any time during the Napoleonic wars and in 20th century I think only 1940/41 and 41/42 would count.

But anyway, IF the D-Ns and the French are in war at the time the British arrive in Øresund why should the D-N refuse an alliance with UK? S-H and Jutland will anyway be occupied by the French, but there is no way, especially not with the RN on your side, that the French can advance to Zealand (Copenhagen) or Norway.

The question IMO is if the British would want an alliance with D-N at all. In OTL they didn't care about asking at all, and their main concern was keeping the D-N navy out of the game. If you could do that by bombarding Copenhagen, why bother with obligations towards a new ally?

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

 

[Oddball]

I would more say a successful armed neutrality policy that now and then co-incided with French interests.

The armed neutrality is IMHO a good example of countering Sweden not any longer being the overriding motive in D-N foreign policy - Sweden was partner and the D-N and Swedish fleets even operated together.

Yes. But only as long as Russia were into it also and could guarantie Denmark versus Swedish agression.

IMHO countering Sweden were THE motive in Danish foreign policy all the way until Norway were lost permanently.

The army being deployed in S-H is IMHO more than points to concerns over French aggression being the main motive. The only rationale between such a deployment would be detering a French aggression, as the French anyway by 1807 didn't have naval forces to threaten Zealand, Copenhagen or Norway. The D-N Navy wasn't even made ready for sailing but lay without masts and rigging in Copenhagen.

You may wonder how wise it was, as 40.000 men could not hold up the French Army if they really wanted to have a go, and after Tilsit the French really didn't have any major commitments on land. I have another ATL ready based on this analysis, but await the comments on this one.

Im not sure about this I have to check some reference work this evening.

The belts freezing over enough for an army to pass over is/was something happening a few times each century, rarely more than a couple of weeks. AFAIK the belts didn't freeze over any time during the Napoleonic wars and in 20th century I think only 1940/41 and 41/42 would count.

Agree

But anyway, IF the D-Ns and the French are in war at the time the British arrive in Øresund why should the D-N refuse an alliance with UK? S-H and Jutland will anyway be occupied by the French, but there is no way, especially not with the RN on your side, that the French can advance to Zealand (Copenhagen) or Norway.

The question IMO is if the British would want an alliance with D-N at all. In OTL they didn't care about asking at all, and their main concern was keeping the D-N navy out of the game. If you could do that by bombarding Copenhagen, why bother with obligations towards a new ally?

Again I will have to consult my reference material first, but there is more to this than you might think.

 

[Oddball]

My primary source is volume IV in the reference work regarding the union between Denmark and Norway from 1380 - 1814. Editor of this volume is Ole Feldbæk, professorin history at the university in Copenhagen.

Regarding the army on the south border were there to "secure the Danish territorial claims and the neutrality." It was aimed towards the waring parties in Hannover, occupied by France and blocaded by the British. It was not intended to withstand a French direct attack towards Slesvig/Holstein or Jutland.

Regarding an alliance with GB. After the british fleet had showed up i Copenhagen in 1807, the British actualy demanded an alliance. It was after the Danish crown prince refused this that the british physicaly attacked. An alliance were also suggested after the attack...

Regarding defence of Sjaelland in case of an French attack. The British had considered this in their proposal of an alliance. According to historical sources a force of 30 000 men were tought (by GB) to be needed. A force that GB did not dispose, so a combination of Swedish and Danish forces were suggested.

 

[arctic warrior]

Regarding an alliance with GB. After the british fleet had showed up i Copenhagen in 1807, the British actualy demanded an alliance. It was after the Danish crown prince refused this that the british physicaly attacked. An alliance were also suggested after the attack...

I haven't read Feldbæk, but other sources agree to this.
However the big issue of the alliance proposal was the handing over of the navy to the British, in disguise operating alongside the RN but in reality out of Danish national command. THAT was the crux of the matter.

 

[Oddball]

However the big issue of the alliance proposal was the handing over of the navy to the British, in disguise operating alongside the RN but in reality out of Danish national command. THAT was the crux of the matter.

Sure, in addition to the fear/guarantie of loss of Jutland and the dutchies to french occupation.

This would lead to starvations in Norway, who depended on grain from these provinces. Btw, it was not the starvation in itself that worried, but subsequent revolts and loss of Danish controll

It was also feared that Danish entry in a GB alliance would lead to Swedish entry in the French-Russian "alliance" and then a loss of Norway.

IMHO Denmarks realy found herself in a shitty position during the Napoleonic wars...

 

[arctic warrior]

Sure, in addition to the fear/guarantie of loss of Jutland and the dutchies to french occupation.

This would lead to starvations in Norway, who depended on grain from these provinces. Btw, it was not the starvation in itself that worried, but subsequent revolts and loss of Danish controll

It was also feared that Danish entry in a GB alliance would lead to Swedish entry in the French-Russian "alliance" and then a loss of Norway.

IMHO Denmarks realy found herself in a shitty position during the Napoleonic wars...

Well, it sort of dictated the outcome - didn't it??? Plague or cholera - whats your choise?
The following starvation of Norway was one concern another defence of Copenhagen. That navy was sorely needed in home waters! Let it go of in loss or alliance - pretty much no change to the outcome.

 

[Redbeard]

The situation indeed was difficult for Denmark-Norway in those years, but I guess we can narrow the question to: would the British still demand a humiliating control over the D-N navy if D-N already is in open war with France and thus in effect prevent an alliance?

Anyway I will as mentioned above post another TL based on a different D-N approack pre-1807.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

 

[arctic warrior]

The situation indeed was difficult for Denmark-Norway in those years, but I guess we can narrow the question to: would the British still demand a humiliating control over the D-N navy if D-N already is in open war with France and thus in effect prevent an alliance?

Anyway I will as mentioned above post another TL based on a different D-N approack pre-1807.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

I would more say a successful armed neutrality policy that now and then co-incided with French interests.

The armed neutrality is IMHO a good example of countering Sweden not any longer being the overriding motive in D-N foreign policy - Sweden was partner and the D-N and Swedish fleets even operated together.

The army being deployed in S-H is IMHO more than points to concerns over French aggression being the main motive. The only rationale between such a deployment would be detering a French aggression, as the French anyway by 1807 didn't have naval forces to threaten Zealand, Copenhagen or Norway. The D-N Navy wasn't even made ready for sailing but lay without masts and rigging in Copenhagen.

But anyway, IF the D-Ns and the French are in war at the time the British arrive in Øresund why should the D-N refuse an alliance with UK? S-H and Jutland will anyway be occupied by the French, but there is no way, especially not with the RN on your side, that the French can advance to Zealand (Copenhagen) or Norway.

The question IMO is if the British would want an alliance with D-N at all. In OTL they didn't care about asking at all, and their main concern was keeping the D-N navy out of the game. If you could do that by bombarding Copenhagen, why bother with obligations towards a new ally?

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

Its difficult I think, because as you yourself state the British didn't care about asking at all. That indicate that they would still claim the handing-over of the Danish navy as OTL. The non-preparing of the Danish navy has been seen by some as a clear signal to the British that Denmark had no hostile intentions at sea. And the mustering of the Army in Holstein and the presence of the Crown Prince in Kiel another such.

About the armed neutrality. The Zar died prior to the Battle of Copenhagen Roads 1801 but due to slow communications the info didn't get to the parties until the Crown Prince had signed the cease fire. Getting the info just a few days before the battle would alter the scenario, and the Danes might reach an agreement with the British. Perhaps not an alliance, but an agreement.
That could lead to Denmark rejecting Naps Swedish adventure 1806 and a following battle in Holstein and loss of Jutland + Sleswig-Holstein.
IMO the Danish getting into the Armed neutrality with Russia and Sweden 1801 were partly dictated by the Danish wish of the Swedes not to ally themselves with Britain and at the same time keep Denmark neutral.

The bad thing for Denmark was of course letting Naps spanish troops into the country 1805-6 to prepare for the attack on Sweden. On the other hand the Danes didn't interfere in the British transporting the Spanish troops off from Denmark to Spain. IMO Denmark having an agreement with Britain 1805 could stiffen Danish (the Crown Prince) to reject Naps plan of an invasion of Sweden, keeping Denmark in the British camp. Then there might perhaps not be a 1807 British attack.

A lot of ifs and perhaps...