Your Questions

Q

Dear Bernard In regards to your forthcoming book tour for Last Kingdom I was wondering if you might find yourself at Chester. A great historical town with a huge history from Roman times through to the British Civil Wars (worth a visit)???? btw After reading Robert Malcomson's excellent book on the Battle of Queenstown Heights in 1812 (I can reccomend it ) I was wondering if you have ever thought about writing about the War of 1812 conflict and the battles like QH/Stoney Creek/Chryslers Fram and Lundys Lane etc all seem just as bloody (if slightly smaller scale) as the fights in Spain especially that most of the fighting (and dying) was done by British soldiers (tragicaly brushed over) who called themselves the forgotten soldiers similar to British soldiers in the far East during WW2 who called themselves the same thing. I was just wondering if Sharpe/Fredrickson or Sandman might per chance ever get to some of these engagements. While its undeniable that your books reawakened interest in British soldiers in Spain I was wondering if the same thing might be applied to the troops in NAmerica. People like Brock and Tescumseh and the maligned Prevost have been given short thrift. It was part of the Napoleonic wars as well. And especially as (Monroe I think but not sure) admitted that If they (The US) knew Napoleon was going to lose they never would have declared war. btw in regards to Starbuck wil he ever gat back with Sally Truslow since those charachters seemed to have a lot more chemistry off the page than Julia Gordon who just seemed to giggle a lot. And will Starbuck find out about Delenays treachery in regards to both trying to kill him and having Sally raped??? Also after reading Gordorn Rheas books about the Overland campaign and the slightly more sympathetic look at Grant what is your opinion of him. Lee himself considered Grant the greatest general who ever lived yet on the other hand there is the Legendary Grant the Butcher charge. Whats your opinion and wil Starbuck be fighting in the 40 days ???Also undeniably Starbuck has a high opinion of his abilities so will he ever meet and fight with Nathan Bedford Forrest or Pat Cleburne's division in some of the western battles like Stoney Creek or Chickamuaga against the Norths western armies who would have a low opinion of his abilities in being and easterner ???? Anyway look foward to Last Kingdom. Regards, Geriant

Submitted September 30, 2004

A

Sorry, no plans to be in Chester - maybe another time. The War of 1812 is not high on my list of priorities right now. I suspect Lee was exaggerating! I think Grant is an extremely hard-headed, cold-eyed general who understood what was needed to defeat the Confederacy, and then did it ruthlessly and well. He's certainly not one of the great imaginative generals (as Lee was). I find Grant's personal story immensely interesting, and think he's probably underrated, but in the end it's hard not to see him as the man who remorselessly grinds down the enemy by using superior numbers, superior weaponry and a willingness to take casualties.

Q

Firstly may i say what pleasure you have given me over the years. With all of your books firstly Sharpe and onwards. My favorites of all your books are the Starbuck Chonicles.Have you any intention of continuing the Adventures of Nate and Lassan.... I'm sure after the current conflict either the West and or the French adventure in Mexico beckons. Peter Cooley

Submitted September 30, 2004

A

I do hope to get back to Starbuck someday, but it won't be this year and probably not next...

Q

Mr. Cornwell: I am reading Heretic at the moment having thoroughly enjoyed the first two. As an American living in England having more than a passing interest in the period of which you write I do appreciate the fact that I can see the places you describe (and having been to Warwick Castle have watched an archer and the long bow in action). While over here I have also seen the Sharpe series - well done-and wondered if the BBC has considered producing the Grail Quest series? Regards, Mike Burz

Submitted September 23, 2004

A

No, not that I've heard (but we can keep our fingers crossed!).

Q

Hello Bernard I was wondering if you have ever thought of how you and Sharpe would get on if you ever had the chance to meet(I know, completely impossible but stay with me!), what with you being a man of words and he of so few, do you think he'd like you? Going to the signing in London to pick up a couple of copies of the new book, one for me, one for dad, can't wait to read it, are you happy to put inscriptions in them? Only want a jokey one for my dad, something comparing him to Sharpe! would you oblige? Kind regards and many thanks. Pete

Submitted September 23, 2004

A

Would Sharpe like me? I'm sure he wouldn't! It's an interesting question. I like him, but I doubt he'd like me (lazy bugger who thinks words can do all the work). We might a sense of humour in common. I'll look forward to meeting you in London.

Q

Dear Mr. Cornwell! I am reading and enjoying "Wellington - The years of the sword". Seems like Mrs. Longford is very much under the spell of her object of study. Well, who could blame her for that? One of the most interesting parts was the description of the one and only meeting between Wellington/Wellesley and Nelson. Gives you a fine characteristic of both men! I heard that no commentary by Nelson about this meeting exists, because he obviously had no time afterwards and other things on his mind. Yet in your book "Trafalgar" you let him say that he found W. rather "frightening". Is this your own interpretation, or does a commentary exist by him about that fascinating meeting? Grisel

Submitted September 23, 2004

A

That's entirely my interpretation. Many folk did find Wellington frightening - there was a sense that he was judging you, a silence about him - it was actually reticence (he once complained that he had 'so small talk'). Writer's licence, I fear.

Q

Dear Mr Cornwell, I'm currently re-reading Sharpe's Company and it's still as good as the first few times I've read it. This time round it got me thinking about the brave and somewhat suicidal men of the Forlorn Hope. You mentioned that any officers who managed to survive the hope would be given an instant promotion. My question is what about the common soldiers? Do the lucky few get anything other than pats on the back from envious fellow red coats? I can't imagine a Private, for instance, throwing his life away for nothing more than brief glory. Thank you. Lawrence Leong

Submitted September 23, 2004

A

But they did, they did, and they volunteered in the hundreds. For fame? yes, and because they would get some kind of monetary reward - or an extra issue of rum. There were no actual regulations covering it - it just seems to have been an accepted practice - some sources suggest a badge was awarded to survivors (hooray), but my sense of it is that a man who survived had added to his reputation - and reputation, among soldiers, counts for a lot. Another effect was that if a man in a regiment was under sentence of death then a brilliant display of bravery by his fellows could have the sentence annulled or reduced. There were, I think, a variety of motives - but the chief one is pure bloody-mindedness - and I've no doubt that the survivors were given some reward - probably cash, but it wasn't regulated so it's difficult to know.

Q

Wanted to thank you for all the wonderful books. I've read the Sharpe series as well as the grail series, and I have what may sound like an odd question. It seems to me that long bow might have well been a more lethal weapon than the muskets of Sharpe's day. The rifles and cannons I understand, but why would one use a musket over a bow? The bow was quicker to load, more accurate at a longer range, and the defenders wouldn't have carried shields. Couldn't the bow have wreaked more havoc against a line of troops? Perhaps the bow wasn't considered "civilized" or was the "cough" of a thousand muskets a much better pschological tool? In all your research, have you ever come across a battle of bows versus muskets? Just a curious thought, hope you don't mind the rambling. A.S.

Submitted September 23, 2004

A

You're absolutely right! The longbow was a far more effective weapon than the musket - more accurate, faster rate of fire - and in any clash between longbows and muskets, the longbows would have won easily. The Duke of Wellington even tried to raise a corps of longbowmen, but there were none to be had. Ben Franklin reckoned that if the Continental Army had been equipped with longbows then the British would have been driven from the thirteen colonies inside a year - so why didn't they use them? Because it took years - ten or more years - for a man to master the longbow, and no-one used it much after the 15th century (some in the 16th - the Mary Rose - Henry VIII's flagship - had bowmen aboard). The longbow, simple as it is, was just too difficult to aim, and required enormous upper body strength, and it faded away. Anyone could fire a musket, and it only took a few days to train a musketeer.

Q

Dear Bernard, In the Sharpe books you make it very clear that Wellington was very much opposed to duelling. Is this something you made up for the books or does it reflect his real beliefs. The reason I ask is because I've just read that Wellington was the last Prime Minister of Great Britain to fight a duel, with the King's approval. I don't know who he fought or why, or what the outcome was (other than he obviously survived). What changed his mind? And isn't it a little hypocrytical? Best Regards Ed

Submitted September 21, 2004

A

He was vehemently opposed to duelling among his army's officers because it was a waste of life, provoked dissent and was generally stupid! He felt that way because a close friend of his (a fellow officer) in India was killed in a duel, and he thought it senseless. He did fight a duel himself, later on, when he felt his honour was impugned, but that was much later, long after he had left the army. There does seem to be a contradiction - but the truth is he always disapproved. When he could he stopped his officers from doing it (they did it anyway, or some did), but later in life he probably felt he had no choice if he was to defend his honour. What he did, of course, was not even try to kill his opponent. He fired well off to one side, making it clear he was not attempting to hit Winchilsea, and Winchilsea, replying, shot into the air. Honour was satisfied.

Q

On your site you mention that SHARPE'S RIFLES was "written at the request of the producers of the TV series who wanted a Spanish hero to share the honours with Sharpe." The book is listed as being published in 1988, yet the episode appeared on British TV in 1993. How long did it take to write the book and were the producers anticipating the creation of the television show as early as that? Just curious. Jack Miller

Submitted September 21, 2004

A

The book probably took six months. Much quicker to write a book than make a TV series!

Q

I have enjoyed the Sharpe's series very much, but my library doesn't have all and I like to read following the time line. With Sharpe it hasn't made a terrible difference. The grail series has been different. I really enjoyed 'Archer's Tale' and was surprised that the second 2 were in the library. I'm about 1/3 thru Heretic (finished Vagabound on Sat). It has sparked interest in Grail, etc. I looked for Cathars but it went nowhere except Cathar Treasure, a new novel. I was a history maj in college and teach 7th grade including Lit, History, and Pre-algebra. The history is from the fall of Rome and we spend a lot of time on Middle ages. Howard Coe

Thank you for many hours of pleasure, reading your books, and reading a lot or peripherally related material. My middle name is Wellington, and your Sharpe novels got me started reading about the Duke and other accounts of the Napoleonic wars. (I had long been a reader of novels of the Georgian Navy in that period, but, before Sharpe, had never had an interest in the land warfare of the time.) I have found your history in the Sharpe series to be remarkably consistent with all the historical factual (and most fictional) accounts of the period. I particularly like the 'Historical Notes', where you document your deviations from accepted reality. I have just finished Heretic. (I wait for the paperback editions.) The Grail Quest trilogy was an interesting story, I enjoyed the characterizations and the history of a period that I was near totally ignorant of. Again, I have a personal relation to the books -- my ancestor Jean Baptiste Chapoton left Languedoc in the early 1700s to become the surgeon at Fort Ponchatrain du Detroit (around which the city of Detroit grew). The ancestral winery, Domaine Chapoton, is still operational in the Rhone valley.. With some personal connections, I began rooting around the Web for stuff related to the stories. I was particularly interested in the Cathars, since their beliefs and practices are central to the Grail Quest trilogy. You know something that I have not been able to discover. Everything I can find tells me that the Cathars would have no interest in anything material -- neither the lance of St.George or, especially, the Holy Grail. Everything I read says that the Cathars did not see Jesus as a human, and that all material things were fundamentally evil. From what I can access, they did not have a communion ritual, and would have no interest in a purported cup that Jesus drank from or one that collected his blood. Can you point me to the sources you used to base this crucial part of your tales on? I have looked at the FAQs and skimmed the archives of your e-mail questions, but found nothing there. If I missed where you addressed this before, please point me to it. Thanks again for your books. I have enjoyed them immensely, and am in awe of your ability to create. Charles Chapoton

Submitted September 21, 2004

A

I'd say the Cathars are fairly peripheral to the story, which takes place long after they flourished, and, of course, their extermination (or attempted extermination) gave rise to endless rumours about their great 'treasure'. Did they have one? I doubt it - any more than the Templars had the Holy Grail - but the Cathars did have possessions and wealth. Before the fall of Montsegur in 1243 it took four men to carry the treasury to safety - O'Shea, in The perfect Heresy - describes it as 'gold, silver and coins'. As for having no interest in the Holy Grail? Don't believe it for a heartbeat.