This is not a paraphrase but a parody --
and such an unfair one that it misses the point completely. You deliberately
ignore the crucial epistemological question of corroboration by independent
evidence. We have innumerable independent accounts of Napoleon's biography and
of the circumstances of the Battle of Waterloo. They confirm one another in
many respects and when there are contradictions there is usually enough data to
clarify them. If Napoleon were only a character in a patriotic saga written
by an English poet and historian, and if French, German, Russian and
other historians had never heard of him, he'd be the same sort of entity as
Odinus the Trojan. If we were to believe early Polish historians -- hwaet! --
our Proto-Polish ancestors defeated Alexander the Great and repelled the Roman
imperial armies on more than one occasion. It's a pity the Greek and Roman
historians managed to cover it all up.
By the way, if any "English historians"
really claimed that Napoleon was "defeated by English troops", they'd be guilty
of Anglocentric megalomania and their story would distort the historical
truth in important respects. The armies of Blücher and Wellington were
Prussian/Saxon and British/Dutch (plus miscellaneous German speakers),
respectively. If I remember correctly, the British troops (not "English",
please; even Wellington was a Dubliner) accounted for about 25% of the allied
forces, even if their contribution was particularly spectacular.
Lastly, not even an English historian
would dare to invent a fantastical genealogy to suggest that
Wellington (aka Arthur Wellesley) had something to do with the half-legendary
Arthur of Britain, or that his ancestors came from a Trojan or Macedonian royal
house.
Piotr
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 12:04 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] Odin as a Trojan Prince
Let me paraphrase Klingenberg's argument:
A lot of English historians claim there was a battle near a place
called Waterloo, and a certain French emperor Napoleon was defeated
by
English troops. But we all know that many English historian were
educated at
boarding schools where they read the classical authors.
It is evident that
they calqued the battle of Gaugamela, where
Alexander beat the Persian
emperor. The purpose of the story is
therefore to justify the English
independence of France. The story is
_factually false, and there has never
been a battle at Waterloo,
except in the heads of a lunatic fringe who have
a need to believe
such stories.