Your Questions

Q

Bernard, Since Sharpe and his green coated rifleman do so well at moderate range with the Baker Rifle, I was wondering how prevalent Rifle Regiments were in the British Army during the Napoleonic era. I seem to recall a few times when Sharpe and his troops were being over run by Frogs that they just spit unpatched balls down the barrell as fast as any Brown Bess could be loaded. The reason the US Continental Army of the period did not use rifles was the issue of loading speed. (3 x a minute with the Brown Bess versus once a minute with a clean Kentucky Long rifle) Your thoughts? Bob Long

A

Rifle regiments weren't over-prevalent - basically they were used in company sized packets to bolster the skirmish line. It was very rare for the rifles to fight in a battalion-sized unit, simply because, as you say, their slow reload rate would make them vulnerable. They could, of course, tap-load, but then they surrendered all the advantages of a rifle. Tap loading was fairly common - it was a very frequent vice of French skirmishers.
But once you 'salted' riflemen among musket-carrying skirmishers they were extraordinarily effective. The short-range muskets held off the enemy skirmishers while the rifles picked off prime targets - and the fact that the British persevered and expanded the rifle units during the wars demonstrated that some very hard-headed generals (Wellington) understood their value. I don't know (but ought to) what the proportion of rifles to muskets was in a skirmish line - that information might be in Mark Urban's excellent book, Rifles, but I'd guess it was around 15%?


Q

Hello again Bernard. I hope your travels are going well. Just a quick question. I was looking up Sharpes Challenge on the net, out of curiosity. I'm disappointed to see your India books abused, but I hope it at least lives up to the spirit of the novels. I hope they use computer graphics or something like Hornblower did, just to enhance the scale. Anyway, this is besides the point. I've been onto the Picture Palace Productions website in a futile search for information. In their coming productions section, they list 'Gallows Thief' as forthcoming. Please tell me this isn't a vicious rumour. With Dan Brown whoring himself across all media, I would sooner see the work of a worthy author such as yourself brought to the screen. So, what do you know? Take Care, Iain

A

As far as I know Gallow's Thief is not going to be filmed, and I don't know why it's on Picture Palace's website, unless they know something I don't! They did have the rights, so perhaps they've commissioned a script, but I'm ignorant of it! I'm off to London to see the new Sharpe films - fingers crossed!


Q

Hey I live in New Zealand and was wondering if you knew when "The Lords of the North" book is going to be released in my country???? thanks. Jason Shepard

A

I believe New Zealand follows the UK schedule so you should see the book in stores in June.


Q

I was truly amazed by the battle of picardy in Harlequin. ...I was wondering which tense you like best. because the Saxon stories are first person and the Grail quest is 3rd. Andrew

A

It's swings and roundabouts. You do lose something by writing in the first person - not just the suspense of whether the main character will survive (which he or she usually does even in third person narratives), but also the alternative points of view that can increase suspense - i.e. you can watch an ambush being laid, then watch your hero walking into it. On the other hand there's an immediacy to the first person which can increase excitement and pace. I don't think one is any better than the other - and though most of my books are third person I enjoy doing the first.


Q

Dear sir, I am a great fan of all your books and I spend much of my time dreaming of long dead battles and I have always wondered just how destructive volleys of muskets were as i cant seem to find accurate statistics anywhere. So to phrase it in a way I hope you find relatively easy to answer, How many dead or wounded (at a rough estimate of course) would one volley, from a well trained line battalion of 600 men (another number if its easier) in the Napoleonic wars (British) firing at 50 yards, cause to a column of say three French Battalions (or different number if its easier). Also were we to skip forwards 50 years and enacted two battalions firing at say 80 yards at each other in line across flat ground equally well trained with rifles( in the Yank civil war) how much (roughly) damage would they cause? Sorry its a bit long winded and if the questions are a bit tricky to answer. Thanks again for the books. James Duffy

A

Wow! Let us try and answer this, but there's going to be a certain amount of inspired guesswork. The quick answer is that if 600 well-trained British redcoats fired a well-directed volley against a French column 50 yards away then probably 60% to 75% of the balls would strike home. Of those? Maybe 10% would cause wounds bad enough to cause death, 50% would wound severely and the rest would be wasted in greatcoats, musket butts, non-incapacitating wounds, etc. That's a guess. My basis for guessing that? During the Napoleonic Wars the Prussian army made some experiments and we still have the results. They placed a battalion in line and had them shoot their muskets at a target which was a fence one hundred feet long and six feet high. At 75 yards 60% of the shots hit the fence. At 150 yards it was 40% and at 225 yards it was 25%. If you use those figures the you can probably work out your own answer. French musketry was not as good as Prussian and British was probably marginally better. You'll get no better results in the American Civil War until you arm your regiment with rifles, in which case, at 75 yards, the result ought to be 100%!


Q

Dear Sir, I always enjoy your novels and and purchase them as soon as they are published. Do you have any plans to return to the American Civil War? I am sure your publishers keep you busy with the 'Sharpe' books as the are very popular but i found the Starbuck novels as good if not better. Many thanks Noel Andrews

Mr. Cornwell, I am just adding my voice to other requests for another Starbuck novel. Your series offers a compelling, historically-based view of the American Civil War, as opposed to the alternate history fictions that are so common. You have created a very interesting world of characters that I would like to know more about. I hope you find the time and inclination to add to the Starbuck series. Thank you for the enjoyment your books provide. Best regards, Rick Frattali Baltimore, Maryland

Dear BC, I have wrote to you a couple of times in the past, and again would like to thank you for the on going entertainment you provide. I'm glad to see Sean Bean is involved in the making of another tv Sharpe, but they pale in comparison to the books. By an approximate count, you get over 10 enquires per month on this website asking when you will revive Starbuck from his decade of rest, and I was overjoyed to see that you're finally having thoughts on the idea. I love the Sharpe series - it was what introduced me to your writing, but somehow I enjoy the Starbuck series more, I think it is because the books are almost twice the length and more involved. You plan to wake Starbuck after Sharpe, but with so much potential for more Sharpe stories, will this ever happen in your lifetime, or - if I make it to heaven will I have to stalk you around the place because you never wrote a fifth Starbuck? Thanks for taking the time to reply. Michael Campbell

I've always thought the American Civil War, like the English, a very interesting period and after a visit to Maryland a couple of years ago began reading more about it. I am currently reading the last of the Starbuck Chronicles and have found these books compulsively readable: sympathetic characters, brilliant action sequences, unpredictable plotting. May I add my voice to other readers who have urged a return to this series! Giles

....In regards to the next Starbuck book you have said in previous posts that the next book will be about Fredricksburg and cause there is a huge gap between that and Chancerlorsville could Starbuck make an apparence at Stones River. Frericksburg was so one sided it was more a slaughter than a fight while SR was a stand up battle....Tony

A

The book will (when it gets written) deal with a great deal more than Fredericksburg! I really must get down to it . . .


Q

Dear sir, great fan of your books but one thing I've always wondered is why other armies did not see and learn from the British army and start: 1) training with live ammo. 2) fighting in a 2 rank line and 3) employing riflemen as skrimishers. Thanks. Tom Finlay

A

They did! The French were very stubborn about rifles, so they didn't (until after Napoleon), and the poor darlings suffered from a shortage of powder so didn't indulge in live firing drills.


Q

Will you be writing any more books of the Lazender family. I have read the first 2 and have enjoyed them very much. Kim Allison

Hi Bernard. First I'd like to thank you for the huge amount of pleasure you've given myself and millions of others with your books.I've read and re-read most of them and enjoyed them all, having no special favourites (although possibly the Grail Quest and the Saxon Stories remain my most-read). The Sharpe books I'd read before the TV series, but casting John Tams, with his wonderful voice, as Daniel Hagman was a stroke of genius, and the CD of the music from the series is one of my most-played! I've just finished reading one of your older books, A Crowning Mercy, and have started reading Fallen Angels... there is a considerable gap between the two, and I wonder if you are ever going to tell us how the Campion and Toby of the first developed into the Campion and Toby of the second? Did you just get tired of the people and the era, or was there never an intent to write a series about the people and the times? Anyway, I love the way you develop your characters and your stories, and will be waiting future books with a great deal of anticipation. Many thanks. Paul Brewer

Dear Bernard, After having read most of your books, and thoroughly enjoyed them all, my most loved is Crowning Mercy. I consider it an almost perfect story. What I don't like is the Title. Why did you call it this, and not, say, "The Covenant", which would seem to reflect the plot more than "Crowning Mercy" does? And why was such a gem hidden for so long before recently being re-published? Rick Edmonds

A

Another Lazender book? It might happen . . . it isn't on the radar yet, but I've thought about it from time to time. Who knows? I have an idea there was another book called The Covenant at about that time - but you're right, it's a much better title. I remember having the most appalling problems finding a title for that book, and in the end the publisher came up with A Crowning Mercy. It isn't my favourite title, but too late now! Thanks for your kind comments.


Q

Dear Bernard I hope you are enjoying your holiday in the far east. and if you ever get to the great wall of China it's worth a look. On another note can you give any clue on what the next project you will be working on after the Sharpe book in the Autum is released??? And after the Barossa book will Sharpe get to Albuera in the next one? I know you have mentioned concerns about time scale but a real life Rifleman from the 5th/60th managed to get to both Fuentes-De Onoro and Albuera so it is possible. And Albuera was the most vicious fight in the enire Peninsular war and speaking from a reader stand point it would be such a shame if you had Sharpe miss it.And unlike Waterloo its more tragic since that settled everything and this settled nothing with the failure of 2nd siege of Badajoz as bad as the first.## btw On a tangent if you have not read it I can reccommend Donald.E.Graves Guns Across the River about the Canadian rebellions in the 1830's and an attempt to make an Alamo of the North. And since a lot of ex-Napoleonic war soldiers like John Colbourne and war of 1812 soldiers like James Fitzgibbon and Wellington himself took an interest in that war (He got a man promoted at his urging). Have you ever thought of getting Sharpe and a young Patrick Lassan there for a last huzzah. .... Finally although you have so many projects on the go at once I do not know how you manage have you ever thought of the Crimean war and getting Harpers son there. Ian Fletcher and Natalia Ishchenko's A clash of Empires on the Crimean war is also worth a read. Enjoy the rest of your holiday! Tony

A

Albuera? I haven't really researched it yet - want to finish Barossa first.

I have thought of it, yes . . and done some meagre research, but I wasn't aware of Graves's book and I'll make sure I get a copy - thank you!

No, no, no!!! I hate the Crimean War. Why? Dunno. It's a prejudice. Maybe I'll have therapy and get over it, and if so you'll get your book!


Q

Mr. Cornwell, I promise that I won't take too much of your time considering that you're booked enough as it is. As an Irish American interested in knowing, and also out of curiosity, is it true that Irish soldiers serving in the British Army between the American Revolution and the Napoleanic Wars were the finest and most aggressive shock troops in the World? Additionally, according to Wellington himself they were mainly responsible for Britain's preeminence in its military career. Though I guess one could make this equally strong case for the Scottish Highlanders and the Gurkhas as well, yet I still believe that the Irish were the best of the best! From what I've read certain units of Irishmen could strike fear into the hearts of even the toughest German Hessians, and those guys knew how to fight (the Hessians!)! Thing is, you know way more than I do regarding Britain's military history, and you certainly have the authority to repudiate any assumptions that I may have concerning the role that the Irish played as fearsome red coats charging into battle under the Union Jack. From reading Sharpe's Battle I could easily ascertain that they proved to be the decisive factor in the final clashing of bayonets and cold steel during those moments that mattered! They had balls, that's for sure (they were courageous beyond measure!)! Mr. Cornwell, thank you very much for your time and best of luck, Taylor Ahern, N. Quincy Massachusetts. p.s.- your books are simply outstanding, often exhilarting and flawlessly detailed, though of course you know that!

A

The Irish have always served in the British army, right up to the present time. Even during the worst of the 'troubles' there were still recruits coming from the republic to serve in regiments like the Irish Guards. As for the Napoleonic Wars - there is no 'merit table' of regiments. Many were undoubtedly very good - you can cite units like the 52nd or the Guards - but no one ever ranked them. But it is true, I think, that Irish regiments do appear to have had a fearsome reputation. Wellington obviously liked having the 88th (Connaught Rangers) under command, because they could always be relied on to fight like the devil - they could also be relied on to be fairly difficult to discipline off the battlefield, but they were usually forgiven that because of their bravery in a fight. I confess to being biassed and would certainly give my vote to the 88th as probably the best unit of Wellington's army, but plenty of folk would put forward other regiments.