Hello, I have been listening to and enjoying Sharpe audio books being legally blind and unable to read print books. I have been a long time lover of history and my son, Kevin has also come to love history though he has really come to admire Napoleon and is fascinated by the Napoleonic wars. We started watching the Sharpe series on TV and though my first love is ancient history, I confess to being caught up in the Napoleonic wars as well. I hope to see more of the Sharpe movies as I hope my local library acquires more audio books in this series. Having said this, there is one thing I noticed in Sharpe’s Waterloo that bothered me. My understanding is that during the battle, Wellington had two horses shot out from under him and lost a leg in the battle, but in the book. it was someone next to him that lost the leg. I suppose its a small thing but I wondered why you chose not to take Wellington’s leg as took place in history? My understanding is it was taken off but he refused to be taken off the field and continues overseeing the battle. How he managed to not die of blood loss I do not know, but from all accounts he was one tough individual. So not to be critical, I would like to know why you wrote the incident that way? Sorry to take up your time with trivia, but it was something I noticed and it bothered me. Thank You for your time. Tom Gervasi Christchurch New Zealand