The topic started by @susangrosseyauthor reminded me of a question I had when reading the memoirs of Auguste Petiet ("Mémoires du général Auguste Petiet, hussard de l'empire", edited by Nicole Gotteri, S.P.M., Paris 1996, page 343).
During the battle of Gebora, the author, then at the rank of a captain, I believe, was wounded in the head during a cavalry fight, by a sabre cut. After a rather desperate struggle he's brought out of the danger zone:
I call my hussars of the 10th and the former children of Lassalle support me and lead me away from the battlefield. I met the marshal who asked me if the wound I had received in the head was from a gunshot. On learning that it was a sabre wound, he exclaimed: "Ah! that's so much better! [Ah! Tant mieux!]" - This "so much better" showed me his interest and I was touched by it. Can somebody explain to me why Soult is so relieved on hearing it's "only" a sabre wound? Were gun wounds generally considered more dangerous (maybe due to infection risks)? Or is this rather some idea specific to Soult (who had suffered a rather bad leg wound in Genoa)?
I have data on the severity, location and cause of wounds suffered by 4,200 French officers in the Peninsula, about 40% of all combat injuries for this cohort. It shows that sabre injuries were indeed the least likely to prove fatal; cannon wounds were nine times more lethal, and musket wounds four times more deadly. So Soult's relief is both justified, and understandable.
The data has been extracted from Officiers de Napoléon tués ou blessés pendant la guerre d'Espagne (1808-1814) (de Blas and Campos) , which Jorge Planas Campos most generously sent me in digital form. It's a monumental effort, and a gold mine!