RWO > wrote in
:

> well-reasoned, but the sticking point is, why would the French
> name dishes to commemorate defeats? (after all, there would be so
> many, wouldn't there? grin)

Actually, that's fairly narrow thinking on your part :-)

The British fleet destroyed the French fleet on 1-2 August 1798.
However, the French *had* a victory at Abu Qir, on 25 July 1799.

For the linguistically impaired, this is roughly translated from:

http://aigleconquerant.free.fr/batailles/aboukir.htm

An army of 15000 Turks, escorted by the British admiral Sydney Smith
and commanded by Mustapha Pasha, disembarked at Aboukir on 15 July
(1799) and comandeered the fort. Bonaparte attacked on 25 July,
without waiting for Kléber (a seemingly common behaviour on his
part), with 10000 foot soldiers and the 1000 cavalry of Murat. The
latter charged the fort and took Mustapha prisoner. The Turks
routed. Some sought refuge in the fort but were forced to capitulate
a week later. Bonaparte returned to France as the news of this
victory was made known.

So there...there's your French victory. Don't always make the easy
assumption that it's only about ONE thing. Bonaparte won many more
battles than he lost which is why he was reviled and considered a
threat to English ambitions. Also, he is probably the most
celebrated commander in terms of names for food items related to his
battles.

--

Certainty of death. Small chance of success. What are we waiting for?

Gimli, son of Gloín