"The wars continued every year" was rejected. I can't see the reason why "were" is so important in this sentence. Reporting.
Probably simply because the lesson in which this sentence appears is on past passive sentences, and "the wars continued" is active.
Well yes, but you would never say 'were continued' in English unless you were including information about the agent e.g. 'were continued by the government', but even then it sounds odd to me. As it says in the notes, Danish uses the passive much more than English, and this is one of those examples where we don't use it in English. We are learning how to recognise the Danish passive, what it means and when to use it, but none of that requires translating it as passive in English if it's not natural to do so.
But you do agree that there is a subtle difference in meaning between "the wars continued" and "the wars were continued"? In the first sentence, you're implying that no one was to blame, the wars continued by themselves, while in the second sentence it's clear that someone had decided to continue them.
I think that's actually the question. In English "were continued" is particular; it indicates that it is important that someone is causing them to continue, whereas "continued" alone is the more normal construction. I don't think the Danish "fortsættes" has the same particular connotation as the English "were continued" does.
Parties and meetings and films are continued. Wars continue, they are not continued.
I really don’t understand what you mean? “[in the past] the wars (were) continued every year.” Writing “the wars continue every year” would surely put the sentence in the present tense, and mean that the wars are still going on?