On This Day 2 September

[Coog]

On 2 September 1811, the 12-gun brig HMS Manly, under the command of Lieutenant Richard William Simmonds, was cruising off Arendal on the Norwegian coast in the company of the 10-gun brig HMS Chanticleer when they encountered three Danish 18-gun-brigs.

According to the the British, the Danes engaged Chanticleer until she escaped them. They then turned their attention to Manly. The Danes concentrated their fire on her, cutting her spars and rigging to pieces. Surrounded, with only six guns left, and having lost one man killed and three wounded, Manly was forced to strike. Chanticleer maintained a course away from the action and made good her escape.

A court martial on 6 January 1812 “most honourably acquitted” Lieutenant Simmonds.

According to the Danes, at 0200hrs on 2 September Alsen (Senior Lieutenant M. Lütken), Lolland (Captain Hans Peter Holm), and Samsø (Senior Lieutenant Ridder Frederick Grodtschilling) were sailing westward along the coast off Randøerne, some 30 miles SE of Arendal, when they sighted two strange vessels that by their night signals appeared to be enemy. The Danes set out in pursuit, with Samsø, which was closest, sailing for the nearest of the enemy vessels with Alsen and Lolland following. However, their quarry turned south-east, and Samsø and Alsen followed. Lolland then set off after the second ship.

By 0340hrs Lolland had caught up with her. Combat began at 0445hrs and at 0540hrs Lolland succeeded in crossing behind her quarry, which then struck at 0555hrs. Lolland sent a prize crew over that brought back Lieutenant Simmonds.

Meanwhile, at 0345hrs Alsen had come within firing range of the ship that Samsø was chasing and there followed a running fight which persevered as well as the rough seas would allow. Samsø had already broken off her chase when Grodtschilling realized the British vessel was too fast for him; Grodtschilling sailed to join and support Lolland. By 0500hrs Alsen's quarry had gained such a lead on the Alsen that Lütken too gave up the pursuit and turned to join Lolland.

Samsø and Alsen came up at 0630hrs and Holm requested that they help man the prize. Holm reported that Lolland had lost one man killed but had had no wounded; neither of the other two Danish vessels had sustained any casualties. Lolland had slight damage to her rigging and sails, but none to her hull; the other two Danish vessels reported negligible damage.

The Danes took Manly into service, retaining her name and armament.

[Coog]

From 2 to 5 September 1807, a British fleet under Admiral Gambier bombarded Copenhagen when the Danes rejected British demands to surrender. The British bombardment of Copenhagen killed more than 2,000 civilians and destroyed 30% of the buildings. The bombardment had included Congreve Rockets, which caused fires.

On 5 September the Danes sued for peace and the capitulation was signed on 7 September. Denmark agreed to surrender its navy and its naval stores. In return the British undertook to leave Copenhagen within six weeks.

Thus, on 7 September 1807 the Danes surrendered the fleet (eighteen ships of the line, eleven frigates, two smaller ships, two ship-sloops, seven brig-sloops, two brigs, one schooner and twenty-six gunboats). In addition, the British broke up or destroyed three 74-gun ships-of-the-line on the stocks, along with two of the aforementioned ships-of-the-fleet and two elderly frigates.

After her capture, one ex-Danish ship-of-the-line, Neptunos, ran aground and was burnt on or near the island of Hven. Then, when a storm arose in the Kattegat, the British destroyed or abandoned twenty-three of the captured gunboats. The British added the fifteen captured ships-of-the-line that reached Britain to the British Navy but only four — Christian VII 80, Dannemark 74, Norge 74 and Princess Carolina 74 — saw subsequent active service.

On 21 October 1807, the British fleet left Copenhagen for the United Kingdom.

One of the sloops, Lillebælt (renamed HMS Little Belt), would later gain notarity when engaged in 1811 by USS President, triggering the Little Belt Affair.

[Comte de Brueys]

On 2 September 1811, the 12-gun brig HMS Manly, under the command of Lieutenant Richard William Simmonds...

HMS Manley, I think.;)

A nice command for a "young" Lieutenant.

What were the orders for those Brigs? Raiding enemy trading ships? Doing recon stuff for a few ships of the line?

[David Manley]

Nope, HMS Manly is correct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Manly

The US Navy has had three ships Manley (named after Captain John Manley, part of the Devon branch of my family tree :) ) - including the prototype APD

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ma...naval_officer)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Manley

[Berthier]

Not Britain's finest moment I think. The ends no doubt justified the means but their actions pushed the Danes into the French camp till 1814 and was an interesting counterpoint to some of the claims they made against Napoleon's behaviour. In the end it comes down to big nations have a big stick and little nations can't do much about it.

Oran in 1940 was a not dis-similar case where the "Allies" felt the potential addition to their enemy's fleet if the French ships were to go over, outweighed the rights of the French fleet (not at war) to go about it's business.

Both cases are perfectly understandable but the ruthlessness of it does give leave to pause and think.

[David Manley]

the ruthlessness of it does give leave to pause and think.

Yes, it makes me think it is important for national leaders in times of existential conflict to have the strength of character to make tough but necessary decisions such as these.

[Comte de Brueys]

As long as the other side(s) has(have) the same eligibility to make such decisions, it's ok.

[David Manley]

of course, in particular in similar situations where one is fighting a war for freedom against a great tyranny, not necessarily only for one's own survival but for the survival of others :)

Copenhagen and MEK weren't the first time things like this have happened, and they certainly won't be the last. Remember the French and British considered occupying Norway to prevent German access, but were pipped to the post by Operation Weserubung, and the US considered the invasion of the northern coastal region of Brazil in WW2 to head off suspected Nazi sympathies there.

[Berthier]

of course, in particular in similar situations where one is fighting a war for freedom against a great tyranny, not necessarily only for one's own survival but for the survival of others :)

Copenhagen and MEK weren't the first time things like this have happened, and they certainly won't be the last. Remember the French and British considered occupying Norway to prevent German access, but were pipped to the post by Operation Weserubung, and the US considered the invasion of the northern coastal region of Brazil in WW2 to head off suspected Nazi sympathies there.

Agreed, in the case where fighting for freedom against great tyranny there is always a rationale for what could be described as intervention, but more on this later.

The Napoleonic Wars can be viewed as a continuation of the fight for global hegemony by European powers (in particular France and Britain) that had been going off and on since at least the Seven years War and arguably long before that. Whether France was ruled by a Bourbon, a Revolutionary Government or Napoleon, the economic issues of trade & markets were paramount for Britain and France as was protection of these markets and sea lanes and empire. Napoleon saw Britain as his greatest threat, unable to combat that threat militarily he chose to use the continental blockade of Europe to attack British trade. It didn't work and it probably never would have, nonetheless both countries saw this as a fight for dominance and were prepared to do whatever was necessary to achieve their aims.

Denmark found itself in the unenviable position of being a minor power with a fleet that everyone wanted and unable to maintain a non-aligned position. France were prepared to coerce and when that failed were prepared to invade to force them into the continental system (and pick up their fleet) whilst Britain was also prepared to coerce and when that failed initiated military action to obtain/destroy the threat of that fleet. The Danes, wanting only to be left alone, found that an untenable position in the real world of 19th century european power politics. They thus did what many nation states would do, defended their soverignity against any who would theaten it. It could just have easily been the French who invaded first, they were certainly preparing to so, but Britain beat them to it and thus the loss of the Danish fleet and the demise of Denmark as a minor power forever. The outcome for Denmark was unlikely to change under any circumstance. Perhaps had Britain waited until the French had crossed the border of Denmark this discussion would be mute since then the Danes would have allied with Britain and likely sent their fleet away (as did Portugal later) to prevent the French capture, but Britain felt it could not risk the uncertainity waiting entailed. Certainly in Britain the action was controversial with arguments in Parliament and debates in the Press. The hard decision DID need to be made and I agree with David that it is good to know there are those prepare to make hard decisions..but where we may differ is in our view of when the hard decisions are justified.

Not all fights have as clear rights/wrongs as WW2 where extermination of peoples and enslavement of nations was a consequence of defeat at the hands of the Axis. The Napoleonic Wars pitted France under Napoleon as head of state against the Kings/emperors of Prussia, RUssia, Austria and the Parliament-King of Britain. The preceding twenty years had seen these states carve up Poland with little more justification than a desire for more territory and no perceived or real threat at all. This behavoiur continued throughout the period, Russia slicing slabs of the shrinking Turkish Empire and expanding into central and south asia, the Prussians absorbing small German states and the Austrians exerting control into the Balkans and Italy, Britain picking up european colonies around the globe (Aside: Gibralter and Malta make great discussion poiints as well). A case for the "fight for survival" in this context seems inappropriate..this was a fight for empire and hegemony and they were all playing the same game only some did it better than others, the stakes were high but I don't feel there was a substantive moral high ground to be had here. Even after the wars had ended the carve up of Europe at the Vienna Congress was to modern eyes (well my eyes) quite appalling.


Nations feel they have right on their side. I'm sure Iran, Israel, the USA as well as my own country, Australia, feels their foreign policies are justified, moral and in the interests of their own people. I'm also sure that each of them sees the policies of the others in a completely different light. Who decides the "right" is usually down to who is the strongest, this neither makes it right nor moral nor justified, it just is. Sometimes a majority of nations do agree on what is acceptable and are willing to fight to protect it (eg WW2), on other occasions the situation is less clear. These are difficult issues and I don't pretend to have answers but I think they are always worth debating.

[David Manley]

A case for the "fight for survival" in this context seems inappropriate

I disagree - the Napoleonic Wars were most definitely regarded as a fight for national survival in Great Britain.

[Comte de Brueys]

My point of view:

Britain used the whole Revolutionary/Napoleonic wars to fortify their leading positions on the oceans, conquer colonies, rule trading routes, control of vital resources from overseas, etc...

The Check & Balance Sytem is well known - to keep continental Europe in motion, so that there can't grow a real rivalry or threat for the Empire.

I'm shure they were "amused" about the French Royals, when they were kicked from the throne, but the realized the danger coming from the French Revolution and the new ideas.

So it's understandable, that you call it "a fight for national survival in Great Britain", when Napoleon ruled Europe.