Dear Bernard Cornwell: I have just finished your Death of Kings and though I thought it great read I also was offput by a serious anachronism. You had everyone galloping around on horseback at a time when there were few if any horses around. Almost a hundred years later, Harold's army arrived at the battle of Hastings with 7,000 infantry and perhaps a few mounted soldiers. You had 7.000 Danes and 4,000 Saxons on horseback at a time when there was no infrastructure to carry horses in those numbers through an English winter. Hay was not available as a major crop at this time for example. I have read lots of your books with great enjoyment and am not usually this picky but I felt I had to make a comment this time. Graham
Few, if any? I'm not sure where you get that impression. If you read any respectable authority on the Viking way of warfare they all agree that almost the first thing that they did once their boats had landed was to round up local horses to make themselves as mobile as possible. Then there's all the evidence of horse graves, which are many and often fairly elaborate. As for the paucity of horses in William's army, I'd guess that was more to do with the difficulty of transporting them, and they're certainly featured on the Bayeux tapestry. You're right, of course, that most battles were fought on foot, but that doesn't mean a shortage of horses - Henry V's army and the Black Prince's army both fought on foot, but they all possessed horses, and I can't see why it would be different in Saxon England. And certainly the infrastructure was present! Farmsteads. Neither hay nor oats are particularly tricky to grow. I appreciate your writing, but I'm afraid we're just going to agree to disagree.