<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Stefan Reuter</i>I fear you have forgotten that Wellington had no single battalion left capable to keep the French routing.[:D] It was not Wellingtons first battle in which he re-wrote the facts.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Which facts were re-written by Wellington, from whose perspective were they facts, and by whom were they originally written and proclaimed to be facts[?]
Facts are all a matter of perspective. There used to be a very good television advert for a newspaper in the UK. IIRC it showed a young punk running towards an older man in his suit who put up his briefcase for protection against the imminent assault. The shot was then shown from another angle, wider perspective. The youth dived at the man and knocked him out of the way just as the scaffolding he was standing beneath collapsed. He was saving the man not assaulting him.
Same situation viewed from two different perspectives.
Wellington's forces battled the French all day, held the field at the end of the day, Prussians made a contribution that drew off some of French reserves and triggered and sustained the French rout. By holding the field, Wellington had brought about Napoleon's defeat whether Blucher arrived that evening or not until the next morning. The French having failed to defeat the Allied army could not have faced the Prussians the next day.
So, I figure, from his perspective, Wellington was perfectly entitled to claim victory. But maybe I am missing something!
Mark
VII Corps
|
</center>
