Dear Mr. Cornwell, Wellington is always described as a miliary genius, yet from the descriptions of the battles I have read in your books, it seems that more often than not, Wellington blunders or does nothing special, and this is only righted by the skill of his troops and subordinates, the location of the battle, or the work of his inteligence staff. For example, in Sharpe's sword, although, I think I am right in saying that the spies in the book did not exist, Wellington places his troops behind the curve of the river, and Marmont attacks, thinking it is a deception, and the main body of his troops has marched West, yet a main reason for this is the work of Wellington's intelligence officers, persuarding the Marquesa into writing a false letter. And when the 3rd in command of the French army advances the Main French column, rather than a stroke of genius from Wellington, it is the bravery of the South Essex (presumably some other regiment in Real life) that stops retreating and forces the column onto the 6th division. Secondly, at Fuentes D'orno, Wellington splits his army and the whole smaller section looks to be enveloped, until Black Bob and the light division pull off some incredible soldiering, and saves Wellington from defeat. Then at other battles it seems not that Wellington has blundered or made any mistake, but neither has he made any briliant plan to defeat the enemy, such as the battle described at the beginning of Sharpe's Fortress, when it is the sheer stoic determination of the highlanders that defeats the enemy, marching in a blunt, unsubtle, un-inspiring advance at the enemy ridge. At Waterloo it seems to me that had Ney not thrown away the French cavalry and had Grouchy come to Napoleons aide in time, and had the British troops not been so brave withstanding the constant artillery bombardment and then face up to the Imperial guard, and all the armies of France, then it would have been Napoleons Brilliance that won the day. Do you hold the view that Wellington was a genius? The British infantry are always described in your books as firing faster than the French some 15 seconds per shot, with the French at some 20 seconds per shot (am I correct in this assumptiom) and that the rifles fired at some 30 seconds or more per shot? If I am right, then by the American civil war, and the Starbuck Chronicles how fast was the rate of fire of the average line infantry (assuming they were using non-repeating rifles)? Finally do you hold the opinion, that had the English, or French or any other Major European power joined the war on the side of the confederates, that they would have then eventualy won the war? Sorry this is all rather long winded, William Richards