Despite some little mistake, this book is quite good book for people who are about to come to Belgium or ever went to Belgium. It describes different socio-professional classes in Belgium , riches and "poor", flemish and wallons, ... (but most are catholics).

The main default of this book is that is looks to me quite "old-fashioned" because now, society has evoluted a lot and lots of things have changed since the first voyage of Renée C. Fox.

In conclusion, if you're intersted in Belgium or in life in "traditionnal" european countries, you must read it.

This time Sharpe is a lieutenant-colonel in the Belgian Light Dragoons under the command of the 23 year old Belgian Prince of Orange. Sharpe's primary function is to provide military advice to the youthful prince and try to keep himself from killing the idiotic monarch. Really he is there to collect soldier pay. Along the way Sharpe encounters a wife's betrayal, monumental military bumbling, senseless slaughter, and of course battle. For it wouldn't really be a Sharpe story without battle.

However, (and I cannot put my finger on it) "Waterloo" is written differently from Sharpe's other stories. Perhaps the characters are more mature or maybe it is the fact that half of the story is about the actual battle. Cornwell's Sharpe's books usually devote a chapter to the battle and not half a book. But lets face it the battle is one of the biggest in history.

What makes Sharpe stories so great is the writing, Cornwell knows how to convey a story and keep it interesting. I recommend this book to military history buffs, arm-chair generals, and any one else who enjoys a story told well.

The topic came around to Waterloo. The Frenchman told the table that Napoleon didn't lose. He made a strategic defeat, and anyway it was the Prussians who won the battle. The German said the Prussians won the battle, and the French were beaten spitless. The Englishman said that Wellington and his army of scum won the battle, that Napoleon ran like a rabbit, and the Prussians arrived too late to do anybody any good. Before sabres were drawn, I poured another port and laid out an excellent Blue Vein cheese from New Zealand's Kapiti Coast.

No matter what Cornwell did with this Sharpe story, he was going to be in trouble. I loved the book. Great battle! It's hardly a Sharpe book at all: Sharpe's merely the device Cornwell uses to draw the battle together for the reader.

But Cornwell was always going to cop it in the neck from the Dutch (What? The Dutch run? Never! ) He was always going to be mocked by the Germans (Loiter on the way to a battle? Nein! ). The French have never believed they lost the battle anyway, so Cornwell's version would have to wrong, wrong, wrong.

The book's an entertainment, so let's not get our knickers in a twist about "the facts". It's Cornwell's view of the battle - accept that. And when you come to accept it as an entertainment, you'll enjoy it. This is battle on a huge scale - the largest number of men ever committed to battle at the time. And it's described expertly, with a feel for the blood, terror, glory, and unthinking heroism of the day.

Deeply satisfying, dramatic, gory - with a neat wrap-up for Sharpe's adulterous [...] ex. What more could you want for a Sunday afternoon?

If this sounds rather dull to you, then you have the correct impression. The book is not as exciting as Jane Eyre or as moving as Villette. The narrative moves slowly, and Crimsworth is a very analytical type of character who does not scruple to record his thoughts on every detail. Nothing really dramatic happens and emotions are not heightened. But what I really dislike about this novel is the prejudiced portrayal of the Flemish, described often as coarse and unthinking, as inferior to the English.

The novel has a strong negative sound, very different to that in Villette. Although Crimsworth is the marble image of perseverance and self-control, almost to an inhuman level, he is haunted by hypochondria. There is a general sense of mistrust and hostility between all the characters. The editor explains in her introduction that this is the result of suppressed impulses and denied indulgences of the main characters, and reveals Bronte as a social critic. And there is one very interesting character, Mr. Hunsden, a cynical, but very like-able artistocrat who dislikes wealth (he's a bit like Rochester). Though the story is lacking in feeling, it still has bits here and there of beautiful prose and warmth that make it worth reading for a Bronte fan, but most others would judge it too slow-paced and dull.