Talk:Battle of Copenhagen (1801)

message: Why were the names of the ships removed? Peregrine981 03:45, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
:Garden-variety vandalism, I reverted. Unsummarized deletion by anons is almost always malicious. Stan 05:56, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Old talk page post

message: Why does this article suggest that the Danish-Norwegian army lost ships? When Nelsons terms of peace reached the Danish King not a single Danish-Norwegian ship had been sunk and not a single Danish-Norwegian ship had been captured.
Not to mention that three of Nelsons line ships had just gotten into the firing range of the fortress of Trekroner. Had the Danish king only consulted with his admirals before agreing to the peace treaty Nelsons ships would have been devestrated seriously damaging the naval poweress of the English.
:Judging by your ignorance of the article and pure speculation, I'm guessing you're Danish? (RockDrummerQ (talk) 18:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huh? 

message: See this for reference to Parker's motives http://www.aboutnelson.co.uk/copenhagen.htm
"Judging from what he could see, and the fact that the wind and current prevented his bringing his own division into the action, Parker told his flag captain: "I will make the signal of recall for Nelson's sake. If he is in condition to continue the action, he will disregard it; if he is not, it will be an excuse for his retreat . . . . "
It is claimed that Parker was aware of the consequences to his own personal reputation; but it would be cowardly in him to leave Nel;son to bear the whole shame of the failure, if shame it should be deemed."
Dabbler 20:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Parker's Signal

message: This is written rather overmuch with the British in mind. It says that 350 men died and 850 were wounded on the British ships but I'm pretty sure there were Danish casualties as well considering they lost the war... Does anyone know how many died? I'd be grateful :)
:About 2000, killed and wounded, I couldn't find a more exact figure or breakdown. Dabbler 16:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: More precisely, 1135 killed and wounded. The British figures are also debatable. The figures given for British casualties in this article was according to Admiral Nelson himself — a notorious lier. Admiral Parker, who was a larger admirer of the truth, gave the figure 2237 dead and wounded on the British side. Boreanesia 15:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  As all the British ships maintained crew logs 2,000+ killed would show up clearly, but they don't reflect this figure.Alci12 11:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Danish casualties?

message: I had edited it to read:
After the cease-fire, formal negotiations for peace ensued. These talks lasted for more than a week focusing on the British demand that Denmark-Norway leave the League of Armed Neutrality. The negotiations were difficult and at times almost called for the resumption of hostilities. When it was learned that the Russian Emperor Paul, who was the driving force behind the League of Armed Neutrality, had just died, the British demands suddenly became irrelevant. A 14-week armistice was signed on April 9, 1801, as a beginning of peace between the two parties. The final peace agreement was then signed on October 23, 1801.
This was not to be the end of Danish-Norwegian difficulties with the British. In 1807 similar circumstances led to another British attack, in the Second Battle of Copenhagen.
Back in England, nobody was decorated for the battle. Nelson's conduct during the battle, wherein he disobeyed Parker's orders and thereafter sent a deceptive note to the Danish-Norwegian Crown Prince, was seen as an unworthy conduct.
But most of this was deleted on the grounds that it was POV. Why? I see nothing POV about it. Boreanesia 17:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there was an edit conflict and your edits and mine clashed. However there is a  factual inaccuracy in one of your edits. I would point out that Nelson was created Viscount Nelson of the Nile as a result of the battle, hardly a sign of disapproval. I have reinstated the comment about the 2nd battle and will also put in the part about the Tsar's death and the peace negotiations.Dabbler 18:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  We need to consider the background when considering the viscountcy. See Horatio_Nelson for an explanation of his anger over his barony. It was generally accepted at the time that Copenhagen would probably not of itself have gained him that distinction had it not been for the feeling that perhaps an error had been made previously.Alci12 12:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I concede that Nelson was indeed decorated. As for the British casualty figures, all of my Danish sources say the same thing: i.e., 2237 killed and wounded according to Parker. Danish casualty figures range from 1135 to 2215 depending on which source you look at. Fischer's report, which you have so kindly shown me, does indeed show that nobody really knows the exact figures. In fact, the Danish ships were hastily manned by volunteers from the streets of Copenhagen, not many of whom had any naval experience. Boreanesia 18:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Aftermath

message: "Supporting the British line were smaller British bomb vessels, which were positioned where they could bombard the city without fear of retaliation."
The high trajectory of a bomb vessel's weapon was useful and intended for attack on fortifications.  It didn't provie long range compared to a cannon.  If the designer of the shore defences had built forts which commanded the roads, except for positions convenient to shell the defences and the city at short range, then perhaps he didn't do it very well?  In that cae something to that effect might go in the article there.  Midgley 14:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bomb vessels: Range cf shorebased cannon 

message: I've added quite alot that explains much of the contoversies.  I can find no support for the assertion that Parker reported 2237 casualties- perhaps he was referring to Danish casualties?  In any case, this is a thing that would have been known exactly from ships' records.  I am afraid I have taken out the paragraph suggesting that 'Danish historians' stating that somehow the battle was not a British victory, partly because of the weasel 'Danish historians', partly because it was not at all clear what was being asserted.  MAG1 11:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Revision

message: I notice that the text here about the flag incident is inconsisteny with that in the article William Bligh which says "When Nelson feigned not to notice the signal 43 of Admiral Parker to stop the battle and kept the signal 16 hoisted to continue the engagement, Bligh on the Glatton was the only captain who could see the conflicting two signals." whereas this article says "Seeing that Nelson had not repeated the signal, nearly all the Captains also ignored it."  Which is true?  --Richard Clegg 12:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Afraid I know nothing which would help.  I was browsing Wikipedia and I happened to notice the inconsistency.  --Richard Clegg 23:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  William Bligh 

message: Some comments to the above:
Largely the above is correct, though the timing isn't.
It's clear that around 1400 hours (the time of the dispatchment of Nelson's Cease fire proposal) the situation was that while both sides had taken heavy damage (The Danish-Norwegian had taken clearly most damage, due to the british superiority of guns and higher rate of fire due to it's well trained crew), the  Danish-Norwegian line was not defeated and still offering stiff resistance.
In the time span it takes to deliver the Cease fire proposal, and the stalling manouver by the danish crown prince (asking for more details/motivation) the battle swings in british favour by most of the southern DK-NO line falling out of the battle. 
In that situation the Crown prince accepts the ceace fire proposal, conversively Nelson is honorbound to accept the acceptance of his    own  proposal, eventhough the development in the situation between 1400 and 1500 would suggest "capitulation" and thus clear victory  rather than a "cease fire" (in the form of a formal draw).
So one can say that Nelson, formally, "looses" his  victory, by allowing the danish command all the time in the world to accept a cease fire proposal - which they do when it's clear that they are loosing.
The reason behind Nelson's cease fire proposal at 1400 hours, can only be speculations, though having the danish side accept the cease fire proposal would mean that the royal navy had reached it's main political and strategical goals at Copenhagen (having DK-NO to drop out of the armed neutrality allience with Sweden, Preussia and Russia - that in a sense allready had shown to be a bluff).
At the same time the Royal Navy had to  continue to Landskrona, Sweden to make the same manouvre against the swedes, so Nelson could not afford a costly victory at Copenhagen.
And at 1400 hours the situation is unclear and the british position was dangerous, particulary if it should be forced to break off contact, a situation which would be even more worring if the coastal fortresses would have to be engaged at some point to force the DK-NO units  from the "kongedyb".
Lastly (and this is a common misconception) it was not the RN's primary goal to destroy the danish-Norwegian navy, and the RN was not given the possibility to do so, since the (unmanned) main force of the danish navy (the newest and strongest units) was kept in the fortified port, while the battle line consisted mostly of smaller or older vessels and "floating batteries".
A reasonable secondary source to the battle  is the  newly published "Danmark i Krig" (H.C. Bjerg, O. L. Frantzen, Politikens Forlag).
(original post was made by User:85.82.169.61).
Valentinian T / C 21:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point, but one could call it a "house rule" on this project that we only add comments to the article discussion page and then work on issues from there. I'll move your latest comment here as well to avoid somebody else accidentally erasing it completely. I have no opinion for or against you edit, btw, this area is beyond my expertise. Regards. --Valentinian T / C 21:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments (moved from article space) 

message: The section is misleading.
The purpose of the british action was to so to speak to  call the bluff of the armed neutrality leaque not to force terms on to the danish capital - which the avialiable forces would have been unable to (the writer seems to mix together the situation in 1801 and  the bombardment of Copenhagen 1807 in which an army of 30000 soldiers and  large  siege artillery batteries were besieging Copenhagen).
The brits did call the bluff, not only didn't the closest member of the neutrality leaque (sweden) send it's substancial navy  to Denmark's aid, it didn't even participate in closing of it's side of  the narrow straight between Helsingør and Helsingborg.
Further I find the nice and derogating story "At this point one of the Danes turned to another and said in French (perhaps thinking that he would not be understood) that disagreement might lead to a renewal of hostilities. (...)"
To be obviously wrong. First of all the lanquage spoken at the danish court would certainly not be English, since broadly speaking  not a single dane would understand a word at that time. It would either have been French or German.
Secondly should a dane want to communicating something that he didn't want the brits to understand he would not choose french, a major lanquage that any man of some education could speak, but ofcourse he would say it in danish - I hope this is so obvious that I don't need to find a reference?
Again a myth that displays Nelson and the english as trumphant victors and the danes as unintelligent and scared peasants, adding to the article's distinct bias.     —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.82.169.61 (talk) 22:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments to the aftermath section

message: I have taken the liberty to remove the part  
At this point one of the Danes turned to another and said in French (perhaps thinking that he would not be understood) that disagreement might lead to a renewal of hostilities. "Renew hostilities!" responded Nelson, and turning to his interpreter said "Tell him that we are ready in a moment; ready to bombard this very night!" Hurried apologies followed (the British fleet was now in positions that would allow the bombardment of Copenhagen) and agreement was reached and signed the next day. 
 
Since it's not only obviously an (untrue) myth (see the above section, for explaination) but also because it has a clear intent of   being derogatory towards the Danish-Norwegian side (Myths are OK imho, but only when they are fair, else it's just propaganda).
I will also make corrections to the confusement, that gives the misleading impression that the danish goverment was forced into an agreement against their will. (The case being that Czar Paul 1 dies in later part of March 1801, the news arrives in Copenhagen late 8th april which gives the danish goverment free hands to dishonor their duties towards the armed neutrality leaque, and thus the danish goverment had no problems in accepting the british demand of danish withdrawel from the leaque.
The problem was that the danish goverment feared giving Russia  a Casus Belli against Denmark, and thus refused to do anything that would be a clear breach of their obligations towards Russia. But the timely arrival of the news of the death of Paul 1, removed this problem and at the same time the armed neutrality leaque had exactly shown to be a "paper tiger" and thus not only worthless, but a liability for the security of Denmark-Norway.
The agreement was signed early 9th april. 
    
Deleted 
The armistice was reduced to fourteen weeks, but during it Armed Neutrality would be suspended and the British were to have free access to Copenhagen. Danish prisoners were also paroled. In the final hour of negotiations, the Danes found out (but not the British) that Tsar Paul had been assassinated, which made the end of the League of Armed Neutrality very likely. 
''
and successfully intimidated the Swedish fleet into staying in the port
Have been changed to "where the Swedish fleet stayed in the port" Since the situation was that the leaque of armed neutrallity had in practice siezed to exists and neutral  Sweden had thus no interest at all in making a battle with the RN, endangering it's Neutrality. I don't know whether or not the swedes were intimidated by Nelson, though such a claim would probably be hard to substantialize, though one can speculate that since it took the RN 3-4 hours to fight a danish riff-raff of floating batteries and old hulks manned by lightly trained volunteers and pressed men to an unclear cease fire agreement, the larger and better prepared Swedish navy would probably have thought it doable - but we can't know.  
In 1807 similar circumstances led to another British attack
Have been changed to: 
In 1807 neutral Danmark-Norway was subject to another undeclared british surprise attack
Since the circumstances weren't at all the same, and that the new text display the fact of the nature of both attacks.
85.82.169.61 07:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletions and Corrections in section "aftermath section" 

message: The current version of Nelson's initial note to the danish goverment: 
To the Brothers of the Englishmen, the Danes:
Vice-Admiral Lord Nelson has been commanded to spare Denmark, when she no longer resists. The line of defence which covered her shores has struck to the British flag: but if firing is continued on the part of Denmark, he must set on fire all the prizes he has taken, without having the power of saving the men who have so nobly defended them. The brave Danes are the brother, and never should be the enemies, of the English.
I am sitting with a photo copy of the original note kept in the "departementet for udenrigske anliggendes arkiv i Rigsarkivet" (the departement of foreign affairs at the danish national archive). The problem is that the sentence The line of defence which covered her shores has struck to the British flag (clearly stipulating that the danish line is defeated) is not in the note!  Also the sentence The brave Danes are the brother, and never should be the enemies, of the English. doesn't seem to be there either (Though I must confess that I have troubles  making out the hand writting in the later part of the note, which is hasty, and what seems to be a patch of blood further wittnesses the situation aboard the HMS Elephant at the writing of the letter).
I will remove the two fraudulent sentences.
85.82.169.61 09:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical Fraud? 

message: . Of the Danish ships, three escaped, two sank, one exploded, eleven taken and burnt, and one, the Holsteen, added to the Royal Navy and renamed HMS Nassau
I have removed the ship cassualty numbers since they are contradicted by information in the header of the article. 85.82.169.61 10:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of what has been done is good, some of it is is commentary, some of it is original research.  There has also been some deletion of material because it does not fit a point of view.  I've restored the deleted stuff, tried to add the new information, and deleted the commentary and OR.  The idea is not to arrive at "The Truth", but report the different facts as they are reported by differnt historians.  MAG1 09:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletions The battle 

message: "No they don't, they're the same" 
When you go into battle with 17 ships, how can you then save plus loose 18 ships?
I don't know what the ship looses were, around 1500 men were taken prisoner, which would correspond to 1/3-1/2 of the line. 85.82.169.61 11:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ship numbers

message: http://www.sa.dk/lak/saxo/1801/text/skibe.htm
For those not familiar with danish:
"Folk" ="crew" (in this context)
"Døde" = "dead"
"Sårede" = "wounded"
Different categories under "Status"
"Stryger flaget" = "Strikes colours"
"Sunket" = "sunk"
"Ude af kampen" ="retreated" ("out of the fight").
"Ikke i kamp" ="Not in the battle".
The source of the numbers are O. feldbæk (University of Copenhagen).
The web site (www.sa.dk) is the offical archives of the danish state (Statens arkiver).
85.82.169.61 21:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Danish casualties 

message: I have re-written a part of the section "Battle" corrected wrong dateings and thus strived to present a correct time order of the events around 1330-1430 hours, to allow the reader to form a more correct oppinion about the circumstances around Nelson's note and the conclusion of the battle. My sources are primarely works by O. Feldbæk, H. C. Bjerg and O. L. Frantzen (particulary H. C. Bjerg and O. L. Frantzen recently published "Danmark i Krig").
H. C. Bjerg is Cand Mag (University of Copenhagen) his CV includes; Archiver of the national archive of Denmark (1971), Supervisor of the archives of the armed forces of Danmark (1982-2002), The danish Navy's consultant in historical matters. professor at the danish academy of war  (navial war history), together with a number of positions in official socities of the danish history.
O. L. Frantzen is Cand phil (history, University of Copenhagen)) Direktor of the danish museum of war (Tøjhusemuseet), Direktor of the state's mussems of war (Tøjhusmuseet and Orlogsmuseet) and Colonel of the reserve.    
85.82.169.61 16:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-writing of the section "Battle" 

message: I think that MAG1 has made a great work in sourcing some of the many unsourced claims in the article. I also think that Mag1 has contributed with many bits of information that are making the current article a little bit less biased and POV. 
Though much is left back which gives misleading impressions or outright disinformation, or is "old" myths generally not believed to be believable by modern historians, or simply by leaving a lot of information out.
So I suggest that we try to make a subsection that describes what can be said to factually have  happened (Sourced by modern and reliable sources) and then we make a section describing the controversy and the many theorems and myths that surrounds the battle.
Some  key points that we have to cover and are controversial  are: The situation on the battle field at 1400 hours (the time of Nelson's note), The importance of the Bombardierships and the political situation after the battle. Jomsviking 14:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion to a re-structuring 

message: Much of the section is OK (though I don't like the "prosa style"), but there are many bits of information that are weird or theoretical:
Parker had given Nelson twelve ships-of-the line, those with the shallowest drafts, and all the smaller ships in the fleet and he stayed with the remainder of the fleet to the north-east of the battle, screening it from external interference and moving towards Copenhagen to engage the northern defences. One of Nelson's ships, the Glatton, was commanded by William Bligh of Bounty fame. Nelson's plan was for the British ships to approach the weaker, southern end of the Danish defences in a line parallel to the Danish one. As the foremost ship drew alongside a Danish ship, it would anchor and engage that ship. The remainder of the line would pass outside until the next ship drew alongside the next Danish ship, and so on. The frigate Desiree with small gun-brigs would rake the Danish line from the south, and a force of frigates, commanded by Captain Riou of the Amazon, would attack the northern end of the line. The Tre Kroner fortress would be assaulted with troops (source? the water depth from the Trekroner extending 500m was only between 1-3m, awfully long way to row in small boats subjected to the fire from 68 36-pounder guns, Further more subduing the fortress by direct fire from lineships would have to happen (because of shallow waters) from around 500-700m, a distance at which the guns of the fortress would hold great advantage, not to mention the ships in the inner run, completely covered by reefs and the batteries of  Kastellet.)   once the Danish line of ships had been subdued. Bomb vessels would sit outside the British line and bombard the Danes over it (This doesn’t sound millitarely plausible, what is meant  the city? or the navial base?). Even should the stronger, northern defences not be subdued, the destruction of the southern ships would be enough to allow the bomb vessels to approach within range of the city and force negotiation (Source? why should 6 bombardiers fireing at 2-3Km at a target they cannot see, “force” negociations? ).
Jomsviking 14:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with a part of section battle 

message: Much of the controversy surrounding the battle focusses on Nelson’s note:
Some British as well as danish  officers thought the offer of a truce a skillfull ruse-de-guerreRoger,  and amoung the danish officer corps there was a wide spread “back stab legend” which was fueled by the fact that Nelson’s note had been sendt to the Crown Prince and not the commanding officer Olfert Fischer at TreKroner. The core of the legend was that the Crown Prince had made up his mind without consulting the leadership of the Navy (Olfert fischer and Steen Bille) and that the Crown Prince did not have a good overview of , or the competence to assess, the action (and thus made a wrong asesment of the factual state of the battle). 
The legend branches off in two major versions: One (and probably the oldest) stipulates that the danish navy was infact in a winning position at 1400 hours, and the acceptance of the cease fire stole a brilliant victory from the Navy. This view is not factual, and at 1430 hours, the defenses of the outer run had in a large extend been defeated. It’s also  known that the Crown Prince did infact have a good view of the battle and that in his staff there were men cabable of assesing the millitary situation.   
The other version stipulates that while the Northen and center defense of the outer run had practically been defeated at around 1430, the southern part was not defeated and more importantly the defenses (Fortress TreKroner, two large hulks and two modern ships of the line, a couple of other units and the costal batteries)   around the “inner run” (the entranche to the harbour)  had not (or only lightly) been engaged  at 1430, and it was unlikely that Nelson’s Navy at this point would have had the strength to defeat it. So by continuing the battle the Danish Navy would have repelled the attack.  
This version, more correct in it’s assesment of the true situation at around 1430-1500 hours, does not take into account the strategical and political circumstances of the action on the “outer run”, which by the defeat of the defense of the outer run had clearly given Britain the political as well as strategical win.
 
It is the modern view and shared by all leading authorities that the Crown Prince did right in accepting Nelson’s offer when he did it around 1430-1500. 
 
Another view is that at 1400 hours (the time of the note),  the danish defense had been defeated, and Nelson’s note was, as claimed by Nelson, infact a letter of humanity and an ultimatum. 
A number of modern historians (f.ex. (O. Feldbæk, H. C. Bjerg, O. L. Frantzen et al. H. C. Hjerg, O. L. Frantzen ”Danmark I Krig” Politikkens forlag 2005,  Dr. Phil. Proffessor  O. Feldbæk “Slaget på reden” or in english version: “The battle of Copenhagen”  Pen & Sword Books / Leo Cooper 2002, )  do not consider that view to be consistent with the historical facts of the battle: At 1400 the danish line was fighting, no ships had been taken and the defenses around the Inner Run had not really been engaged.
A modern view (suggested f.ex. by H. C. Bjerg, O. L. Frantzen )   is that at 1400 hours it was advantageous for Nelson to end the battle having achived his political aims, but not having defeated the defenses who still offered stiff resistance. At the same time it was  advantageous for the danish side to stop the battle and hence the Note containing a cease fire proposal is sendt and accepted. In the timespan the parley takes place, Nelson achives a  complete millitary victory on the “outer run”, but the Note of 1400 hours so to speak catches Nelson and the Cease fire is agreed.  
Jomsviking 19:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Controversy 

message: Don't know whether or not they are reliable. Jomsviking 19:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Clowes was a well known early historian, and is usually fairly reliable. The ship's records, sent to the Admiralty, would have given detailed returns of casualties after the battle so they are probably pretty close. I see the figures currently in the article given match quite closely for the wounded (689 to 685) and we currently show more killed than Clowe's does (264 to 255). Dabbler 20:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: If you can find authoritative casualty figures which differ from the very well-sourced ones given here then I suggest that you add them. Your assumptions about the probability are not evidence.Dabbler (talk) 17:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  british cassualties 

message: I just corrected the danish casualties to be between 1600-1800, as estimated by olfert Fischer after the battle.
1-: the danish casualties are historically based on an estimate from the danish commander (It was impossibe to figure out precisely since a large part of the danish crew where civilian)- 
would it not be more correct to show the british casualties in more rough numbers, due to their (after all) speculative nature?
Davamb (talk) 23:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualties (again) 

message: From the article: "The British ships anchored by the stern about a cable (240 yards) from the line of Danish ships"
I don't know the source of the distance "a cable", but if it's from an original British report, it would be British cable length, which is 1/10 nautical mile, 185.2 m, 202.5 yards. That difference of about 20% seems significant even as this is given as a rough distance. ospalh (talk) 14:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cable 

message: At the moment the article describes the battle as a strategic British victory. The Danish fleet lost 15 ships and the British fleet lost none — surely this was a tactical British victory as well as a strategic one. --89.27.103.116 (talk) 04:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: From the article: "Furthermore, neither side had deployed the ships which they both held in reserve, of which the Danish reserve was arguably the larger, and the truce effectually prevented this deployment at a moment where the British fleet was exposed. Though the British had lost no ships, most were severely damaged and three ships of the line had lost all their manoeuvrability and had at the time of the truce drifted within the range of the Tre Kroner's heavy guns which, up until then, like the other fortresses, had been out of range of the British ships." As such it cannot be said to have been a conclusive tactical victory. Especially since it was vital for Nelson to have a full strength fleet ready for action against the expected mission against the Russians, something he might likely not have had had he continued the fighting. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strategic and tactical victory 

message: ... a discretion Nelson declined.
Discretion is the permission or latitude to use one's own judgment. One does not "decline a discretion," one has or is given the discretion to accept or decline a suggestion or direction. Changed to "and Nelson declined."
Sca (talk) 13:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Syntax glitch

message: :Parker, aged 61, had just married an eighteen-year-old and was reluctant to leave port in Great Yarmouth.
I should rather think he was reluctant to "leave port"!  I can't be bothered to dig through the history to see who wrote this; is it meant to be a very dry bit of innuendo?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.188.176.146 (talk) 12:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this for real? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Battle of Copenhagen (1801). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070816205044/http://navalhistory.dk:80/Danish/Historien/1801_1814/Englandskrigene_nelsonbr_PO.htm to http://www.navalhistory.dk/danish/Historien/1801_1814/Englandskrigene_nelsonbr_PO.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050909093913/http://www.nelson-society.org.uk:80/html/copenhagen_2.htm to http://www.nelson-society.org.uk/html/copenhagen_2.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The current lead section reads: "The British already in August 1800 had entered Øresund with a navy, in order to force Denmark to sign an alliance with Denmark". While I'm pretty sure the purpose of the incursion was not to force the Danes to sign an alliance with themselves, I'm not certain if the alliance was to be with the British or some other third party. Doonesman (talk) 14:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  1800 alliance 

message: Under a map of Zealand the article comment on the difficulties in entering the Isefjord and the Roskilde Fjord. This is certainly true but I find it hard to believe, that the british ever considered entering these narrow waters with a fleet of sailing ships. And for what purpose? Copenhagen and the naval base there cannot be reached by ships via the fjords.
Much later - in the first world war - the possibility of an enemy landing ground forces in the bottom of Roskilde Fjord was considered a real threat and some forts was build to prevent it, but at that time the warships was no longer sailing ships and much more manoeuvrable.
It may have been possible for a small fleet of sailing ships to enter the more wide Isefjord but again: for what purpose? In 1801 the British did not bring a big landing force as they did later in 1807. The only target for the guns of the ships would have been the small town of Holbæk.
To say it short: the caption of the map is not incorrect but it is rather absurd.
Laluha (talk) 23:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why Roskilde Fjord?