Talk:Continental System

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Napoleonic era task force (c. 1792 – 1815)

France Low‑importance

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sweden and the Finnish War

This article needs to mention Sweden and the Finnish War. Portugal was not the only country to openly refuse to join the Continental System. Axeman89 18:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Continental Blockade Re-direct Proposal

The Continental Blockade page, linked at the bottom of the Continental System page, is describing the same event. Would it not be better for Continental Blockade to re-direct to Continental System, rather than have 2 pages saying the same thing?

May want to check out Talk:Continental Blockade . -- 199.71.174.100 15:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Napoleon/Dutch angle

From my schoolbooks, I can vaguely remember Napoleon's own brother (King of Holland) also cooperating with the smuggling, and Napoleon giving Louis some nickname for that. (in Dutch: "Grote Sluiker", which translates roughly as "Big Sneaker"). Probably NL, as a trading nation, was hit more than average by the CS.

I did not think that information on the effects of the system fit under "Failure of the System" so I made a effects of the system header. Hope you guys don't mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.244.178.254 (talk) 23:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move

Should this be moved to Continental System (Foreign Policy) or something like that? I'd say the continental system as in method of military organization deserves an article of it's own. All I could find on it in wikipedia was a paragraph in Regiment. 69.12.155.64 05:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heligoland

"In 1807, Heligoland was seized by the British during the Napoleonic Wars. It became a center of smuggling and espionage against Napoleon." Should this be mentioned? --Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} 20:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What was the impact?

This section:

British merchants smuggled in many goods and the Continental System was not a powerful weapon of economic war.[2] There was some damage to Britain's trade, especially in 1808 and 1811, but its control of the oceans helped mitigate the effects

Seems to contradict this sentence:

The System had a significant effect on British trade, with British exports falling between 25% to 55% compared to pre-1806 levels

--Mazz0 (talk) 16:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the article likely needs some cleanup. How does one notify its WikiProject(s)? 72.224.172.14 (talk) 01:27, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The question of who benefited most from the Napoleon's embargo is a complex one, but it certainly didn't significantly tilt the balance of UK-France military power towards France, which was Napoleon's ultimate goal, and so in that respect was an overall failure. If the "Continental system" ended up involving Britain into the war of 1812 with the U.S., but also ended up involving France in the Peninsular War and the attack on Russia (and retreat from Russia), then France would seem to be the overall loser... AnonMoos (talk) 11:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Map

The map is anachronistic with regard to North Africa: it shows "Algeria" and "Tunisia" when neither existed in 1812. 108.254.160.23 (talk) 02:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to Colin McEvedy's Atlas of Modern History, there were the "Regency of Algiers" and the "Beylik of Tunis". I'm not sure whether shortening these to single words is a serious fault in a map which is really not focused on Africa... AnonMoos (talk) 15:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]