Your Questions

Q

I am just rereading the Starbuck Chronicles after visiting Manassas, and Appamadox Courthouse last year. You say at the end of the Historical notes of 'The Bloody Ground' that 'Starbuck will march again'. Can you tell me when. Many thanks Tony Hewison Newcastle upon Tyne England.

i love your books i have read nearly all your books twice or more and would like to thank you for the joy they have given me. Please can you continue the starbuck series just read the 4 for the 5th time and not knowing what happens is killing me. Wishing you well Stephen Dawson

Dear MR. Cornwell I'm a young writer who has been inspired me to write my own book. I know you have been asked this many times but when will the next starbuck book be published?

Michael Molman

Submitted March 2, 2011

A

I hope to return to Starbuck, but I can't say when it might happen because I just don't know!

Q

Hello Bernard, I have read nearly all of your books and loved everyone of them. I was wondering if you ever intent to write any more of your nautical thrillers? Thanks Adam

Submitted March 2, 2011

A

Maybe....but not any time soon.

Q

Hi Mr. Cornwell. Why had European armies abandoned use of the hand grenade by Sharpe's time? It seems that on several occasions he could have used a few of them to lob at various enemies. Alan Kempner

Submitted March 1, 2011

A

They were too bulky, too fragile (made of glass), too difficult to light in action or bad weather, and generally just too clunky! Really they would have used them if they were at all practicable!

Q

Hello, Mr.Cornwell! You're probably tired of listening to things like that over and over, but yeah, I love your books :)and yeah, I'm a fan!:) You came to Brazil last year and I missed it... :( Do you intend to come again any time soon? Perhaps for the bookfair this year? I particularly adore the Saxon Stories - people don't seem to know how sensational they are, tangled up as they are in this Sharpe stuff ;) - and would like to talk to you about the last one published - the title in english is Burning Land, right? Well, I'd like to know if the final result of it was as you wanted and expected it to be, cause to me it seemed... less wrought than the others. Don't get me wrong, it's a great book, but some things bugged me... :) For example, the previous book ends fantasticly, leaving the reader with all that anticipation: we wanna know what's gonna happen when he arrives at Lundene with Ethelflaed, we get anxious to find out what they're gonna tell Alfred, what his reaction is going to be, etc, and then the next book comes and there's none of it... Why?????

Kelly

Submitted March 1, 2011

A

I assume you'll fill in some gaps yourself? Maybe I should have provided more, but I genuinely didn't think Alfred's reaction was particularly important.. I was probably wrong. I often am.

No plans for another trip to Brasil this year, but maybe in the future?

Q

Page 61, top, The Burning Land: "...fastened at the back with loops and buttons..." Buttons, as fasteners for clothing, did not appear until the 13th century.

Clayton Adams

Submitted March 1, 2011

A

Wrong word, right thing. Not gonna sweat that one.

Q

Bernard, I am a big reader of your books especially Sharpy. I have now completed your latest "the Fort" I must say how disappointed I am in you view point as an Englishman. The book was bias towards the colonials and never really saw the British point of view. yes, we kick some bums and characters went to notoriety in other campaigns. The you went on to say to your book dedication Col John Wessmiller and he would Know what to do. This statement hurts as an Englishman and an ex Serviceman. I am happy that Brigadier McLean was portrayed as he was in your book but deeply down I strongly believe he would have made a good stand and the British would have come away from this action as Victorious for defending a piece of earth so well. you mention Moor in this book and it would be very interesting for you to write about him. I have still got a lot of your books to read in your Arthurian series but look forward to your next book Dave

Submitted March 1, 2011

A

I really don't understand that. I changed very little and the book's undoubted story line ends in a crushing victory by the Scottish infantrymen under McLean. And I'm free to dedicate books to whomsoever I like, including gallant old soldiers who are close friends. In truth I think the rebels experience was more interesting, which is why I concentrate so much on it, but only as a prime example of how to screw things up.

Q

Dear Mr.Cornwell, I love your books from the medieval period and Uhtred's adventures leave me glued to the pages you wrote no matter what. I would like to ask you, whether you agree with the claim that Uhtred is the "ultimate anti-hero"? To me, all the priests, christians(including Alfred) are the anti-heroes. Maybe it is because I come from a quite atheistic society(Czech republic) and the life of a so-called "pagan" sounds much more fun and rational to me(drinking, feasting and women) than a life of piety and asceticism. Uhtred's conflicts with Christian priests are simply a delight to read! Could you comment on this? Greetings from Czech republic and keep up the great work! (apologies for the mistakes in my English)

Jan

Submitted March 1, 2011

A

I agree with you - paganism seems a lot more fun! Is he an anti-hero? I don't think of him like that, but he is the personification of a process that was happening fast in the 9th and 10th Centuries - the Christianization of northern Europe. I do think Alfred is a hero, though his piety and fear of sin make him a very puritanical character and I'm definitely not fond of puritans in whatever disguise they adopt. Christianity, of course, offered a better after-life to a wider cross-section of society, which probably explains its appeal, though the price you pay is much less enjoyment in this world.

Q

Hi Bernard, Have just finished Sharpe's Regiment as part of a full tour through the series. Must say I really liked it. It was a nice interlude to the activities in Spain/France. But I didn't quite get the ending. I can't figure why in Fenner's office and with the ledgers and the Dowager by his side Sharpe did not strike a harder bargain. Why did he not demand the lieutenant-colonelcy of the regiment rather than insisting on Girdwood going to Spain? It can't be that Sharpe didn't see the opportunity. He looked after Lawford and Girdwood was ready to resign. Why did he not seize the moment and return to Spain as lieutenant-colonel himself? Kind Regards Willie

Submitted March 1, 2011

A

I don't remember, to be honest. I think (I wrote the book long ago, and it's a hazy recollection) that Sharpe wanted Girdwood in command because he was already planning his revenge. He's not a nice man.

Q

Hi Bernard.. I am a huge fan.. read most of your books in the last year or so.. cant believe I was unaware of you for so long..two quick questions: (1) Is there now or might there be an overlap between Sharpe and Moore and

(2) I live in Massachusetts and plan a visit to "The Fort" - wondering how much there is in the way of historical markers beyond the actual site of the Fort itself. Keep them coming. I have introduced you to 3 friends. All the best. John Smolenski

Submitted February 27, 2011

A

I doubt it, but I've learned never to say never!

There are a lot of historical markers all over Castine - the half Moon fort is marked, though not the seaman's redoubt. The American landing place ought to be marked, but isn't. It's easily discoverable - go to the light-house at the peninsula's western end and there's a footpath that leads down the bluff (it will amaze you that the American forces assaulted the bluff so successfully). It's really worth a visit!

Q

Dear Bernard, I'm travelling through Australia at the moment and have brought the Last Kingdom and the Pale horseman with me and have read them both already, I love them now as much as the 1st time I've read them. One thing that I keep wondering about is why Wessex's army/warriors seemed more formidable than the other English kingdoms? Wessex was never conquered, they resisted the vikings and won many battles such as Cynuit, Ethandun, Ashdown, Farham etc. whilst the other kingdoms fell much quicker. In your books and in the many documentaries I've seen it is stated that the Danes were better at warfare than the saxons and we learnt how to fight from them, but Wessex was strong enough to resist and eventually conquer the northern kingdom's and I'd love to know why?. thanks for your time. Ian Parkhouse

Submitted February 27, 2011

A

There are various reasons. First, I think, the Danes are quintessentially disorganised, so they rarely make a concerted and long-lasting effort. One defeat and their armies break up into their constituent parts and go looking for easier prey. Second, Wessex was farthest away and so had more time to prepare. The Danish invasion started in the north and worked south, so the west Saxons could see what was happening and had more time to ready themselves. Third, of course, is the intelligent response initiated by Alfred - the burh system. He didn't originate it, but copied it from continental Europe, but he applied it brilliantly. The Danes, being a light mobile force, were never equipped for sieges and the burh system stymied them totally. And, of course, though undoubtedly the Danes were considered better warriors at the beginning of their incursions, the Saxons learned fast and were certainly as good by the beginning of the tenth century.