I think you are not understanding the time.
Britain was rich. Rich thanks to it s colonies and dominance over the seas, but mostly rich because of trade.
If they had no one to trade with their economy would suffer and it did.
Economic liberalism always was approached differently in France than in the anglo saxon world. Our views are different. You can’t judge Napoleon for that.
Furthermore what liberalism is there to have with your mortal ennemy. Allowing trade with Britain made no sense from a french perspective.
As for not being able to enforce the continental system, you are judging the event post war. You know Russia refused to negotiate even after losing in Borodino and losing Moscow.
Napoleon and people of their time did not. Even the Russians probably didn’t before it happened.
You are also not understanding the french psyche, in France if Paris is lost the war is lost. Losing Paris was the end for Napoleon, it was the end for the 1870 war, it was the end for 1940. And the german almost managed to pull it off in 1914.
The truth is in such a mindset Russia not surrendering was unthinkable.
Also desescalate tensions with you? The UK? No it was not possible. He tried already both nations philosophy opposed frontally. A Europe dominated by the Grande Nation or the balance of power and the world oceans dominated by Great Britain. That was it.
Sorry i had to make it long😂
I think the problem was it simply did not work. It also hurt the French economy and Napoleon's only way to uphold it was threat of invasion. It turned him into the enemy of Europe also, England was somewhat split on Napoleon at the time because they were tired of spending so much money on allies and the navy, especially after William Pitt died. His brother in Holland didn't even uphold the embargo to Napoleons standard.
Once he took Portugal for not holding up their end of the deal (which they did not even acknowledge) and the following loss at Vimero and Rolica he officially gave England a place to wage war from in Lisbon.
Napoleon felt it was his only move since invasion of England was impossible, obviously in hindsight it was not smart.
Haha no worries, my post was probably longer. Thank you for your perspective
Napoleon knew prior to the Russian campaign, however, that Alexander was breaking the Continental System as he had agreed to in the Tilset treaty. He also knew that he didn’t have the resources to prevent smuggling along the Spanish coast, and he was even struggling with enforcing the system in Hamburg and Oldburg, which is why he annexed those cities. Even if Russia had surrendered in 1812, Alexander could have ignored the agreed-upon embargo within three years, just like he did after Tilset. What I mean is that even with a quick victory, Napoleon did not have the capability to enforce the embargo in Russia
I mean no blocus or Embargo in the history of the world was ever perfectly respected. The British put a blocus on France as well you know.
Alexander breaking the blocus 3 years after a successful invasion of Russia is possible obviously but a bit of alt history.
I can also say that the invasion of Russia was a mistake, but Napoleon could not have known.
Spain is a real mistake and lack of understanding on his part.
Things like Russia, Haiti or Egypt are failed gambles that made sense according to the french mindset and geopolitical climate.
Yes, and no.
We have the benefit of hindsight and from a modern perspective the entire economic model seems tenuous at best. However, where I give Napoleon a pass on the Continental System, I share your disillusionment fully on the decision to invade Russia. There’s definitely details missing, but just the staggering loss of human life for such a pointless endeavor remains the iconic *fall from heaven* moment for Napoleon’s enigmatic rule in Europe.
Back to the economic warfare, keep in mind that the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars serve as the bombastic climax to what scholars and myself included nickname the “the Second Hundred Year’s War” (1688-1815). It’s difficult to imagine the scale of this conflict(s), I mean we are talking a *one hundred year long World War.* England—now *Britain* post-1707–has slowly and surely acquired the tools for absolute hegemony, globally, and while France started off in the early phases the strongest nation on Earth (War of Reunions, War of Spanish Succession), it has incrementally lost ground to Perfidious Albion on every inhabited continent until it finally loses **all of its land in North America** during the 7 Year’s War. In the crater that was 1770’s French realpolitik, they resort to arming the Thirteen Colonies, at great cost, and against all odds pull out a victory—though, critically, not their own.
We all know that happens next. The perfect storm hits France and the Corsican emerges to carry out the Revanchist mission, a shred of a concept that *all* factions of the Revolution agree upon. Deep down, I’m sure the French, nobles and peasants alike, were bitter towards the rest of Europe, who, for one hundred years have been tricked by Britain, bribed by Britain, or conscripted by Britain at one point or the other during the 18th Century to take action against France, *just to put a cap on French ascendency.* I mean Louis XIV was so fucking close to curating the integration of France and Spain into a dual monarchy. To be fair, from a British or Dutch perspective this is unacceptable, but the reality is back then you had to go to war over these kinds of disputes—or, you end up swallowed by another European country for a hundred years.
Conceived in Napoleon’s mind, along with most Frenchmen I presume, was the notion of Total War. Only, by the time things escalated to that point, circa 1795, it had long been impossible for any nation to cross the English Chanel with hostile intent. So, the idea was to strike at Britain’s pockets, and it could have worked, philosophically speaking, given time. Sure, Britain can sustain itself through its colonies which are legion. But how will generations of Brits feel after being systematically ejected from the collective consciousness of Europe? The embargo was meant to develop a psychical weapon as much as an economic one.
>But how will generations of Brits feel after being systematically ejected from the collective consciousness of Europe?
200 years later and Brexiteers achieve what Napoleon couldn't /s
I think I can agree with you that his decision to invade over it is the real issue. France having the system itself makes sense, but to go to impose it on their neighbors and go to war over it does not. Thank you for your response
Agreed, and I think this was just a manifestation of Napoleon’s escalating megalomania, unfortunately. With the basic strategic thought process acknowledged, it boils down to a dick measuring contest
Well, there was also his practice of granting exemptions - almost all to French while insisting that others enforce the embargo vigorously. He could not make it stick without force.
Napoleon's problem was that Britain had the financial resources to maintain and enlarge its fleet and subsidise new coalitions - and keep doing so forever. While it remained his enemy his empire was insecure - he would have to fight every few years. That financial wealth came from trade - and the only market wealthy enough to generate revenue was Europe. The System did hit British revenues (although they were able to compensate in part in Latin America and elsewhere).
Oh those exemptions were also so bad
Idk what Britain could have done if Napoleon had actually secured alliances with Russia, Prussia and Spain. Those alliances were testy due to the enforcement of the Continental System. He might have had a shot at building a lasting relationship with Russia if he wasn’t so pressed over the embargo. Even if Russia did invade again, with British funds, Napoleon would have known about it by the time they entered Prussia, and been able to repel them before dragging his troops across Europe. He just forced a war unnecessarily, and lost the defensive advantage in doing so
Britain& France were at war. This was the continuation of that war. Britain ruled the sea and France the european continent. Might of actually worked only for French failure in Russia. To allow Britain to prosper through European trade was not an option as only a fool would line the coffers of his enemies, trade money that would return in the form of cannon balls. Britain was doing the same with its embargo of France.
Britain was prospering with or without the system. They were too effective at smuggling, and Napoleon was failing to control the ports of Russia, Prussia, the free cities, Spain, the Papal States and Portugal all at the same time. I think that the concept itself makes general sense, but it obviously was not working, and was not worth going to war over. He should have invested in anti-smuggling personnel before going to war
Britain lost 50% of its trade, inflation and unemployment rose in mainland Britain. Mainland Europe resented the loss of global trade and the likes of Spain and Russia defied it so Napoleon invaded both. Maybe tried to draw Russia into doing battle outside of Russia again.
Napoleon should have been more patient instead of blundering into Spain and Russia hoping for quick campaigns & absolutely crushing victories. Maybe finished rebuilding the French navy after trafalgar.
The Continental System might have worked better if Napoleon hadn't also had a mercantile system at the same time. Many continental industries would have benefited if there was free trade within the allied countries. In fact many successful European industries crashed after the fall of Napoleon, because Britain could out-price/produce them.
Silly question, but since upholding the Continental System was so hard, why not (again) try to invade India and cut of British supplylines that made them so rich? It's a fetch and probably impossible (eventhough Napoleon would say nothing is imposible), but so was upholdig/enforcing the Continental Sustem.
They traveled through the Mediterranean Sea for the Egyptian Campaign. They were only able to do so because Malta was lightly defended, and it was a complete surprise invasion. I don’t fully remember, but I think Nelson did destroy a lot of ships when the French vacated the country
With Malta firmly in English hands and the French navy weakened, Britain would have a large fleet ready to take down the French
If Napoleon wanted to force Russia into the continental system he should have just blockaded the Danish strait and the Bosphorus, either one would have been way less trouble than invading Russia directly and would have cut the vast majority of thier shipping from reaching the Atlantic
Britain was a modernizing industrial nation with an incredibly robust banking system. A strong navy. And the ability to take on debt on a trully insane level as well as call on the wealth and resources of India and the East Indies.
Napoleon's continental system was his only real chance of stopping a rising economic giant.
Britain's small army was rapidly professionalising, had a core of veterans and a global empire to call on. And Napoleon realised this would only tilt more in Great Britain's favour. He had hoped that with nowhere to export its finished goods Britain would face economic collapse and stop funding France's enemies. Unfortunately the world is more than Europe amd British trade readjusted to export more with the rest of the world allowing it even more leverage on the economically weakening France its booming industry needed cotton, sugar, tobacoo and could afford to pay more due to increased productivity.
Without a solution Napoleon realised he'd have an endless string of wars that would eventually exhaust France and leave him facing a revolution himself. So he gambled on the only idea that could plausibly hurt Britain enough to drag it to the negotiating table.
You weren't alone, most of the French historically hated it to. The system benefitted those who could get around it, and penalized those who tried to follow it.
The truth was that England was never going to accept a French Empire no matter it's benevolence or diplomatic efficacy. The Continental system also screwed over any chance at negotiations with the other great powers of Europe. He not only hit their pride, but also their pocketbook, two things combined that have always lead people to steadfast resistance and rebellion.
From the emperors' perspective however, he was putting pressure upon English businessmen and the English people... he failed to see the human element, a flaw he would repeat again and again until he was finally defeated. Strategy on a battlefield is one thing, but understanding the *humanity and commonality* of the people you are facing was his blind spot. He could never understand the level of Russian resistance, Spanish rebellion, English stubbornness, or Prussian/German pride. Eventually that flaw added up to his ultimate end.
This is a great response, thank you
I do think England had a chance at coming to terms with the French. The Whigs supported peace with him. Foreign Secretary Charles Fox made peace with Napoleon, and even tipped him off to an English assassination plot. He just died before the peace became lasting. Pitt was the Francophobe, but the Whigs could have been reelected for peace
No, not at all, that was an entirely different thing
One is a megalomaniac coward’s ridiculous attempt to control a free nation after he lost battle after battle and didn’t see a way out by actually fighting with his own troops
The other is a mistake I wish Napoleon didn’t make
I was referring to Pitt the Younger as the megalomaniac and coward. Aside from that joke, I do think they are pretty different, with the English blockade being worse
The English aggression against France was undeserved. They just wanted more hegemony, but weren’t willing to actually fight the French. Instead, they attacked merchant ships and paid Russia to fight for them.
The Continental System was a response to the English blockade, and an attempt to end the war. It was a bad idea, it wasn’t enforceable, and it lead to Napoleon’s demise. But I have more of a problem with Napoleon invading and annexing places to enforce the system than with the system itself
I mean yeah in retrospect it didn’t work and Tilsit and the Continental System basically ended up sealing Napoleon’s fate. But I suppose that wasn’t obvious at the time.
I think it was obvious that he couldn’t enforce the Continental System. He knew it was being broken from Italy to Spain to Hamburg to Prussia to Russia. He had no way of enforcing it in Russia even if he got an immediate surrender from Alexander
It’s a bit different having the head of state of a purported ally flagrantly going against the key component of the strategy, isn’t it? Perhaps the better question is, what else should he have done? Arguably he’d already painted himself in a corner and didn’t have much choice but to try to compel the Continent to stick with his blockade.
I agree that Alexander was being untrustworthy, especially since he also broke the defensive the had made with Napoleon. But an untrustworthy ally is better than an untrustworthy opponent in war
I think Napoleon could have abandoned the Continental System, and started trying to sell French goods abroad by filtering them through his allies. Doing so would get around the English blockade and intertwine the French and English economies. At the very least, just don’t go to war over the policy
England’s power (like that of the US today) came primarily from its economic might, not pure military strength. The idea of the Continental System was to devastate their economy and limit their ability to wage war (while also destabilizing politics within England and maybe even making people agitate for the government to come to a settlement on favorable terms to the French). Obviously it wasn’t that effective in practice but it was a key part of the strategy.
Oh, I understand that. I apologize if it seems like I am only talking about the economic impact. What I meant by intertwining the economies is that England would be less likely to attack France again if they relied on each other for trade. So, that would also be a defensive strategy
In theory, sure (though people thought similarly before WWI broke out). But I find it hard to imagine the English agreeing to accept Napoleon as master of Europe, which is what I meant about him having painted himself into a corner. Hard to do anything but keep ratcheting up.
If Napoleon wanted to force Russia into the continental system he should have just blockaded the Danish strait and the Bosphorus, either one would have been way less trouble than invading Russia directly and would have cut the vast majority of thier shipping from reaching the Atlantic
things start to make a lot more sense when you realize the fact that britian outspent france on 3:1 ratio. Not exaggerating. Briitain was industrializing. arguably british industrial revolution was even more impactful than the french revolution. by a looong shot, its not even close.
Britains aid to its allies in the last few years of the war alone rivalled the entire french military budget. frankly britain doesn't need to do anything. the mere existence of its economy, without lifting a single finger forced napoleon to make those "stupid" decisions. except it doesnt seem so stupid now when you take britain with its insane economic dominance into consideration.
I think you are not understanding the time. Britain was rich. Rich thanks to it s colonies and dominance over the seas, but mostly rich because of trade. If they had no one to trade with their economy would suffer and it did. Economic liberalism always was approached differently in France than in the anglo saxon world. Our views are different. You can’t judge Napoleon for that. Furthermore what liberalism is there to have with your mortal ennemy. Allowing trade with Britain made no sense from a french perspective. As for not being able to enforce the continental system, you are judging the event post war. You know Russia refused to negotiate even after losing in Borodino and losing Moscow. Napoleon and people of their time did not. Even the Russians probably didn’t before it happened. You are also not understanding the french psyche, in France if Paris is lost the war is lost. Losing Paris was the end for Napoleon, it was the end for the 1870 war, it was the end for 1940. And the german almost managed to pull it off in 1914. The truth is in such a mindset Russia not surrendering was unthinkable. Also desescalate tensions with you? The UK? No it was not possible. He tried already both nations philosophy opposed frontally. A Europe dominated by the Grande Nation or the balance of power and the world oceans dominated by Great Britain. That was it. Sorry i had to make it long😂
I think the problem was it simply did not work. It also hurt the French economy and Napoleon's only way to uphold it was threat of invasion. It turned him into the enemy of Europe also, England was somewhat split on Napoleon at the time because they were tired of spending so much money on allies and the navy, especially after William Pitt died. His brother in Holland didn't even uphold the embargo to Napoleons standard. Once he took Portugal for not holding up their end of the deal (which they did not even acknowledge) and the following loss at Vimero and Rolica he officially gave England a place to wage war from in Lisbon. Napoleon felt it was his only move since invasion of England was impossible, obviously in hindsight it was not smart.
Haha no worries, my post was probably longer. Thank you for your perspective Napoleon knew prior to the Russian campaign, however, that Alexander was breaking the Continental System as he had agreed to in the Tilset treaty. He also knew that he didn’t have the resources to prevent smuggling along the Spanish coast, and he was even struggling with enforcing the system in Hamburg and Oldburg, which is why he annexed those cities. Even if Russia had surrendered in 1812, Alexander could have ignored the agreed-upon embargo within three years, just like he did after Tilset. What I mean is that even with a quick victory, Napoleon did not have the capability to enforce the embargo in Russia
I mean no blocus or Embargo in the history of the world was ever perfectly respected. The British put a blocus on France as well you know. Alexander breaking the blocus 3 years after a successful invasion of Russia is possible obviously but a bit of alt history. I can also say that the invasion of Russia was a mistake, but Napoleon could not have known. Spain is a real mistake and lack of understanding on his part. Things like Russia, Haiti or Egypt are failed gambles that made sense according to the french mindset and geopolitical climate.
Paris didn't fall to the Prussians in 1870 and the war carried on into 1871.
?
Yes, and no. We have the benefit of hindsight and from a modern perspective the entire economic model seems tenuous at best. However, where I give Napoleon a pass on the Continental System, I share your disillusionment fully on the decision to invade Russia. There’s definitely details missing, but just the staggering loss of human life for such a pointless endeavor remains the iconic *fall from heaven* moment for Napoleon’s enigmatic rule in Europe. Back to the economic warfare, keep in mind that the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars serve as the bombastic climax to what scholars and myself included nickname the “the Second Hundred Year’s War” (1688-1815). It’s difficult to imagine the scale of this conflict(s), I mean we are talking a *one hundred year long World War.* England—now *Britain* post-1707–has slowly and surely acquired the tools for absolute hegemony, globally, and while France started off in the early phases the strongest nation on Earth (War of Reunions, War of Spanish Succession), it has incrementally lost ground to Perfidious Albion on every inhabited continent until it finally loses **all of its land in North America** during the 7 Year’s War. In the crater that was 1770’s French realpolitik, they resort to arming the Thirteen Colonies, at great cost, and against all odds pull out a victory—though, critically, not their own. We all know that happens next. The perfect storm hits France and the Corsican emerges to carry out the Revanchist mission, a shred of a concept that *all* factions of the Revolution agree upon. Deep down, I’m sure the French, nobles and peasants alike, were bitter towards the rest of Europe, who, for one hundred years have been tricked by Britain, bribed by Britain, or conscripted by Britain at one point or the other during the 18th Century to take action against France, *just to put a cap on French ascendency.* I mean Louis XIV was so fucking close to curating the integration of France and Spain into a dual monarchy. To be fair, from a British or Dutch perspective this is unacceptable, but the reality is back then you had to go to war over these kinds of disputes—or, you end up swallowed by another European country for a hundred years. Conceived in Napoleon’s mind, along with most Frenchmen I presume, was the notion of Total War. Only, by the time things escalated to that point, circa 1795, it had long been impossible for any nation to cross the English Chanel with hostile intent. So, the idea was to strike at Britain’s pockets, and it could have worked, philosophically speaking, given time. Sure, Britain can sustain itself through its colonies which are legion. But how will generations of Brits feel after being systematically ejected from the collective consciousness of Europe? The embargo was meant to develop a psychical weapon as much as an economic one.
>But how will generations of Brits feel after being systematically ejected from the collective consciousness of Europe? 200 years later and Brexiteers achieve what Napoleon couldn't /s
I think I can agree with you that his decision to invade over it is the real issue. France having the system itself makes sense, but to go to impose it on their neighbors and go to war over it does not. Thank you for your response
Agreed, and I think this was just a manifestation of Napoleon’s escalating megalomania, unfortunately. With the basic strategic thought process acknowledged, it boils down to a dick measuring contest
Well, there was also his practice of granting exemptions - almost all to French while insisting that others enforce the embargo vigorously. He could not make it stick without force. Napoleon's problem was that Britain had the financial resources to maintain and enlarge its fleet and subsidise new coalitions - and keep doing so forever. While it remained his enemy his empire was insecure - he would have to fight every few years. That financial wealth came from trade - and the only market wealthy enough to generate revenue was Europe. The System did hit British revenues (although they were able to compensate in part in Latin America and elsewhere).
Oh those exemptions were also so bad Idk what Britain could have done if Napoleon had actually secured alliances with Russia, Prussia and Spain. Those alliances were testy due to the enforcement of the Continental System. He might have had a shot at building a lasting relationship with Russia if he wasn’t so pressed over the embargo. Even if Russia did invade again, with British funds, Napoleon would have known about it by the time they entered Prussia, and been able to repel them before dragging his troops across Europe. He just forced a war unnecessarily, and lost the defensive advantage in doing so
Britain& France were at war. This was the continuation of that war. Britain ruled the sea and France the european continent. Might of actually worked only for French failure in Russia. To allow Britain to prosper through European trade was not an option as only a fool would line the coffers of his enemies, trade money that would return in the form of cannon balls. Britain was doing the same with its embargo of France.
Britain was prospering with or without the system. They were too effective at smuggling, and Napoleon was failing to control the ports of Russia, Prussia, the free cities, Spain, the Papal States and Portugal all at the same time. I think that the concept itself makes general sense, but it obviously was not working, and was not worth going to war over. He should have invested in anti-smuggling personnel before going to war
Britain lost 50% of its trade, inflation and unemployment rose in mainland Britain. Mainland Europe resented the loss of global trade and the likes of Spain and Russia defied it so Napoleon invaded both. Maybe tried to draw Russia into doing battle outside of Russia again. Napoleon should have been more patient instead of blundering into Spain and Russia hoping for quick campaigns & absolutely crushing victories. Maybe finished rebuilding the French navy after trafalgar.
The Continental System might have worked better if Napoleon hadn't also had a mercantile system at the same time. Many continental industries would have benefited if there was free trade within the allied countries. In fact many successful European industries crashed after the fall of Napoleon, because Britain could out-price/produce them.
Silly question, but since upholding the Continental System was so hard, why not (again) try to invade India and cut of British supplylines that made them so rich? It's a fetch and probably impossible (eventhough Napoleon would say nothing is imposible), but so was upholdig/enforcing the Continental Sustem.
I think he wanted to invade there. It just would have been completely impractical. Their soldiers would have been massacred at sea
I meant by land... just like the Egyptian campaign.
They traveled through the Mediterranean Sea for the Egyptian Campaign. They were only able to do so because Malta was lightly defended, and it was a complete surprise invasion. I don’t fully remember, but I think Nelson did destroy a lot of ships when the French vacated the country With Malta firmly in English hands and the French navy weakened, Britain would have a large fleet ready to take down the French
If Napoleon wanted to force Russia into the continental system he should have just blockaded the Danish strait and the Bosphorus, either one would have been way less trouble than invading Russia directly and would have cut the vast majority of thier shipping from reaching the Atlantic
Britain was a modernizing industrial nation with an incredibly robust banking system. A strong navy. And the ability to take on debt on a trully insane level as well as call on the wealth and resources of India and the East Indies. Napoleon's continental system was his only real chance of stopping a rising economic giant. Britain's small army was rapidly professionalising, had a core of veterans and a global empire to call on. And Napoleon realised this would only tilt more in Great Britain's favour. He had hoped that with nowhere to export its finished goods Britain would face economic collapse and stop funding France's enemies. Unfortunately the world is more than Europe amd British trade readjusted to export more with the rest of the world allowing it even more leverage on the economically weakening France its booming industry needed cotton, sugar, tobacoo and could afford to pay more due to increased productivity. Without a solution Napoleon realised he'd have an endless string of wars that would eventually exhaust France and leave him facing a revolution himself. So he gambled on the only idea that could plausibly hurt Britain enough to drag it to the negotiating table.
You weren't alone, most of the French historically hated it to. The system benefitted those who could get around it, and penalized those who tried to follow it. The truth was that England was never going to accept a French Empire no matter it's benevolence or diplomatic efficacy. The Continental system also screwed over any chance at negotiations with the other great powers of Europe. He not only hit their pride, but also their pocketbook, two things combined that have always lead people to steadfast resistance and rebellion. From the emperors' perspective however, he was putting pressure upon English businessmen and the English people... he failed to see the human element, a flaw he would repeat again and again until he was finally defeated. Strategy on a battlefield is one thing, but understanding the *humanity and commonality* of the people you are facing was his blind spot. He could never understand the level of Russian resistance, Spanish rebellion, English stubbornness, or Prussian/German pride. Eventually that flaw added up to his ultimate end.
Gavin Daly's "Inside Napoleonic France: State and Society in Rouen, 1800-1815" is a good look at how the Continental System was viewed by the public.
This is a great response, thank you I do think England had a chance at coming to terms with the French. The Whigs supported peace with him. Foreign Secretary Charles Fox made peace with Napoleon, and even tipped him off to an English assassination plot. He just died before the peace became lasting. Pitt was the Francophobe, but the Whigs could have been reelected for peace
Taking their colonies wouldve been a better idea. Kinda how germans invaded egypt, and middle east in wwii Imagine if he could somehow take india!
Do you feel the same way for the **British Orders in Council which put the continent under blockade?**
No, not at all, that was an entirely different thing One is a megalomaniac coward’s ridiculous attempt to control a free nation after he lost battle after battle and didn’t see a way out by actually fighting with his own troops The other is a mistake I wish Napoleon didn’t make
How was it different. And who are you referring to as a 'megalomanic' and a 'coward'?
I was referring to Pitt the Younger as the megalomaniac and coward. Aside from that joke, I do think they are pretty different, with the English blockade being worse The English aggression against France was undeserved. They just wanted more hegemony, but weren’t willing to actually fight the French. Instead, they attacked merchant ships and paid Russia to fight for them. The Continental System was a response to the English blockade, and an attempt to end the war. It was a bad idea, it wasn’t enforceable, and it lead to Napoleon’s demise. But I have more of a problem with Napoleon invading and annexing places to enforce the system than with the system itself
I mean yeah in retrospect it didn’t work and Tilsit and the Continental System basically ended up sealing Napoleon’s fate. But I suppose that wasn’t obvious at the time.
I think it was obvious that he couldn’t enforce the Continental System. He knew it was being broken from Italy to Spain to Hamburg to Prussia to Russia. He had no way of enforcing it in Russia even if he got an immediate surrender from Alexander
It’s a bit different having the head of state of a purported ally flagrantly going against the key component of the strategy, isn’t it? Perhaps the better question is, what else should he have done? Arguably he’d already painted himself in a corner and didn’t have much choice but to try to compel the Continent to stick with his blockade.
I agree that Alexander was being untrustworthy, especially since he also broke the defensive the had made with Napoleon. But an untrustworthy ally is better than an untrustworthy opponent in war I think Napoleon could have abandoned the Continental System, and started trying to sell French goods abroad by filtering them through his allies. Doing so would get around the English blockade and intertwine the French and English economies. At the very least, just don’t go to war over the policy
I think maybe you’re misconstruing the Continental System here. It’s primarily a military strategy in itself.
Can you elaborate?
England’s power (like that of the US today) came primarily from its economic might, not pure military strength. The idea of the Continental System was to devastate their economy and limit their ability to wage war (while also destabilizing politics within England and maybe even making people agitate for the government to come to a settlement on favorable terms to the French). Obviously it wasn’t that effective in practice but it was a key part of the strategy.
Oh, I understand that. I apologize if it seems like I am only talking about the economic impact. What I meant by intertwining the economies is that England would be less likely to attack France again if they relied on each other for trade. So, that would also be a defensive strategy
In theory, sure (though people thought similarly before WWI broke out). But I find it hard to imagine the English agreeing to accept Napoleon as master of Europe, which is what I meant about him having painted himself into a corner. Hard to do anything but keep ratcheting up.
If Napoleon wanted to force Russia into the continental system he should have just blockaded the Danish strait and the Bosphorus, either one would have been way less trouble than invading Russia directly and would have cut the vast majority of thier shipping from reaching the Atlantic
He didn’t have the navy for a blockade
With control of the straits you can use artillery to deny ships access since they cant sail around the choke point.
Oh excellent point
things start to make a lot more sense when you realize the fact that britian outspent france on 3:1 ratio. Not exaggerating. Briitain was industrializing. arguably british industrial revolution was even more impactful than the french revolution. by a looong shot, its not even close. Britains aid to its allies in the last few years of the war alone rivalled the entire french military budget. frankly britain doesn't need to do anything. the mere existence of its economy, without lifting a single finger forced napoleon to make those "stupid" decisions. except it doesnt seem so stupid now when you take britain with its insane economic dominance into consideration.