Armand
Very interesting piece. In terms of Arcole, true, Napoleon did not successfully lead his men across the bridge. But the point is, he tried. He stepped into the firing line and showed that he would not ask his men to do what he would not do himself. That would elevate any military commander to hero status, or at the least of high admiration. And of course, the French did win the battle when the Austrians were forced to retreat.
And a hero, any hero, is usually a winner or someone defying the odds (Thermopylae) or someone not giving up despite the odds. At the time and up until 1810, Napoleon was a winner and with everyone making war against France, from the time of the Revolution onwards, people looked to someone to offer them hope. Napoleon was that man, in the same way that Alfred the Great was for England.
And when a hero keeps on winning they join the ranks of other great heroes, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar etc. And sometimes, even when they lose, they are still considered by some as their hero, because they still offer hope and maybe the only one doing so. Football is a great example of this. Look at the fans heroes. When their player is winning the game for their team they become heroes, but even when they don't, they often remain heroes to the fans. A prime example of that is Liverpool's Stephen Gerrard. He is a still a legend, a hero to many of the fans, even though he was not producing the goods later in his career when still at Liverpool.
But heroes are human, and I suppose some people will always spend their lives looking for faults, no matter who the hero is.
returns to Flintloque to paint an Ogre.
