Could Napoleon's Continental System have worked?

All,

Reading a bit on Napoleon, which is not my strongetst point, so please go easy on me with this:

If Napoleon's aim with his Continental system was to "blockade" and harm Britain, could it then be said that the entire Napoleon wars were a matter of underlying basic differences between two power blocks rather than just Napoleon?

Were the differences so fundamental that a war (trade war) between France and Britain would have happened anyway, never mind Napoleon?

Could his Continental System ever have worked? was Europe strong enough to not being dependent on Britain? Or was Britain so dominant in trade and industrial products that it was impossibnle anyway?

What would it have taken for Napoleon to get it to work, besides pure force?

Ivan

Even if not necessary in the sense of "No trade with Britain, no _____.", trade links were desirable. Countries make money by trading even if not dependent on X good/s.

So only force would have been able to make other countries agree to act against their own self-interest to such an extent.

What do you mean by is Europe "strong enough"?

Any country can survive without trade, they'll just be a lot poorer. In this case, Britain is far more economically successful than anyone else because of the industrial revolution, so it'd be equivalent to Mexico cutting off trade with the USA.

The problem that Napoleon has is that no one can control Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals. Thus there will always be states beyond his control who don't have it in their interests to blockade Britain. It couldn't be achieved.

Socrates said:

What do you mean by is Europe "strong enough"?

The problem that Napoleon has is that no one can control Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals. Thus there will always be states beyond his control who don't have it in their interests to blockade Britain. It couldn't be achieved.

Click to expand...

How much trade did the further Eastern ones really do though?

I mean allowing say Greece and Sweden to trade while not allowing Iberia, the Italian states and German states to do so seems like it would do a fair amount of economic damage to Britain as much as trying to get none fo Europe to.

Iori said:

How much trade did the further Eastern ones really do though?

I mean allowing say Greece and Sweden to trade while not allowing Iberia, the Italian states and German states to do so seems like it would do a fair amount of economic damage to Britain as much as trying to get none fo Europe to.

Click to expand...

And be almost as much trouble to make work.

Iori said:

How much trade did the further Eastern ones really do though?

I mean allowing say Greece and Sweden to trade while not allowing Iberia, the Italian states and German states to do so seems like it would do a fair amount of economic damage to Britain as much as trying to get none fo Europe to.

Click to expand...

The problem is that it's a cascade. The people of Danzig are going to get increasingly restless as the people of St Petersburg and Riga grow fat on taking trade that should have been theirs. Napolen recognised this, of course, which is why he couldn't accept one country leaving the system, as any cracks in the system would quickly expand.

Iori said:

How much trade did the further Eastern ones really do though?

I mean allowing say Greece and Sweden to trade while not allowing Iberia, the Italian states and German states to do so seems like it would do a fair amount of economic damage to Britain as much as trying to get none fo Europe to.

Click to expand...

And if some countries can import Britsh goods while others cannot, isn't that going to be a smugglers' paradise?