Thanks for all this, Marc. I have most of that data and found it useful. It's important to emphasise that, following Waterloo, there was an Allied team of surgeons who were working together in tolerable harmony for the benefit of casualties of all participating nations. It's perhaps surprising, as you say, that there were relatively few cases of tetanus. The French were rather more aggressive with the management of these cases than British surgeons. They often would amputate the wounded part, where appropriate, to obviate the spread of sepsis. This was ineffective. Larrey sometimes knocked out two front teeth to be able to pass a gum-elastic tube into the stomach. 'Lockjaw' spasms prevented swallowing and hence nutrition. The Belgian coterie of surgeons was pretty well trained - most in the Service de Sante. They considered their results superior to the other Allied surgeons! Sadly, there is however, not sufficient data to prove this. Kluysken's amputation mortality was commendable (c. 9%) - half that of Larrey's from the 1812 campaign. Unless we have a breakdown of the types of amputation and wounds, it's tricky to comment. Surgeon Seutin was also a notable fellow - an acolyte of Larrey's. The most impressive issues around the post-Waterloo medical strategy were the public health measures and support from the civilians, garnered by Brugmans. Anyway, it's important to recall the fate of c. 60,000 wounded men after the 1815 campaign, for whom the battle was not yet over. Michael.