]Do you think that the analysis side of it generates its own fervor- that previous interpreatations of, for example, the Peninsular campaigns, encourage alternative or more developed discussion? (snip)

Well it is one of those areas where historians (amateur and professional) love to argue their various points of view. Having some newer examinations of the events is a good thing. One reason being that if you look at them carefully, many previous works are based on a few earlier interpretations (eg Napier). Another is that often the author is deliberately or unconciously shaping his work around values, beliefs, etc. from his own era. For example, I've read a number of books written during or shortly after WWII, which tell you as much about WWII as it does about the time of Napoleon.

]Yet the Waterloo campaign does get re-enacted, and the sites do get visited- there are battlefield tours to the area that are as popular as those to the WW1 and WWII sites.

Quite so. I was at the 175th anniversary of Waterloo in 1990 (part of a contingent of about 135 from Canada and the US). It was obvious that part of Belgium relied upon that battle. However, from looking around at the monuments, "Napoleon slept heres", etc., you wondered if Wellington was ever there. (Although I do remember at one point our Battalion was parked waiting to move on, with a marker for Mercer's battery next to our Company.) Our Major remarked that Napoleon didn't loose the Battle of Waterloo, he merely captured the "Marketing Rights" and withdrew. ;-)

I remain, etc.
Jason E.