Your Questions

Q

Dear Mr. Cornwell: I am a thirty year old American who studied military history at college. I stumbled upon Sharpe's Tiger two years ago and my wife still complains about the ever increasing pile of Cornwell novels next to our bed. You've provided a new and more interesting way to learn. You have a unique ability as a writer to blend compelling tales with soundly researched history. Military history does not consist of arrows on the map of a battlefield but rather the impressions of the men who were there. One suggestion and three brief questions: Your text can read like a racehorse straining aginst the reins. I'm waiting to read not flashes of brilliance but one long brilliant explosion. Your writing talent can take you further than you've gone. Forget the success, forget even the genre and indulge your gift for language and your instincts. What is your favorite book which you have written and, more importantly, why? (I know that's predictable but I'm very curious.) Why was the British infantry so indominable? (We matched you in 1770's, why not everybody else?) Why did the Scots, the Irish and the Welsch fight so hard for the British? I realize the latter two querys could flesh out a doctorate but I await your succint explanation. Thank You, Peter Arthur McClenahan

Submitted August 10, 2004

A

My favourite book? Probably Excalibur, why? Because it was enjoyable to write. Why did the Scots etc fight for the British? Because they were British and didn't believe they were fighting for the English - besides, few men fought for King and Country, they fought for their companions, and the regional nature of British regiments encouraged that. I think the success of the British army under Wellington had much to do with its reaction to the perceived failings of the 1770's - so fresh tactics were introduced (two deep line instead of three, deployment of rifle battalions) - and it didn't hurt to have Wellington in command - a general who thinks, wow.

Q

Hello, Mr. Cornwell - I wrote a short time ago for the first time and want to thank you for posting my comments. Now I have a few questions - Will Richard Sharpe ever meet Jane again? What ever happened to Peter D'Alembord who was such a good friend to Sharpe? I know he survived Waterloo. Did they ever meet again? Those are my two burning issues at the moment. Thank you so very much for such well researched stories. I have always had an interest in the Napoleonic Wars and have managed to amass quite a library of books on the Emperor. Now through Richard Sharpe I have found another tangent to pursue, the Peninsular War(s) and Arthur Welsley. The one thing I particularly appreciate is the "Historical Note" at the end of each volume which puts everything into perspective as far as what really happened and how Sharpe and Harper "fit in." I have read this series with pen in hand and have made a running commentary in the margins so it will be easier when I read them the second, third, fourth time. Thank you again. I know that at some point Sharpe and Harper are going to run out of adventures and quests, but please not too soon. Bobbe Klimovich

Submitted August 10, 2004

A

Meet Jane again? Meet Peter D'Alembord? Dunno. Honest. If I ever write that part of his life I'll find out. Thanks for your message!

Q

I just recently finished "The Winter King" and I'm looking forward to reading "Enemy of God." There is one thing that puzzles me. A warband of 200 spears or so is considered a large force while one or two thousand is considered a massive army. As I recall, Queen Boudicea of the Iceni had a force of approximately 40M in 60 AD when she rebelled against the Roman occupation. I realize that number probably included women, slaves, etc., but what happened to the population of Britain during the intervening 400 years? If a warrior queen could raise a force of thousands of spears in the 1st Century AD, what made the situation so different 500 years later? Guy E. Orr

Submitted August 10, 2004

A

I doubt very much that Boadicea could raise 40,000 men (or women) into an army. Lucky if she got to four or five thousand. Lots of things going on here. First the ancient writers always exaggerated the size of armies (one more or less contemporary account of Agincourt claims the French had an army of 250,000 - wow). Then, at the beginning of the Warlord trilogy, Britain is fractured into numerous small kingdoms, none of which is capable of raising and sustaining a large army - which is an incredibly difficult thing to do without starving your men. Later in the trilogy the armies do get larger as alliances are made against a common enemy. Most research into early warfare attests to the small size of armies - often very small - and I believe it.

Q

Dear Mr. Cornwell: I consider your Arthur books as some of the best I have ever read. The way you used many elements from the original legend and made them so realistic is brilliant. My question is, do you plan to use any other real--or in this case, mythological--historical figures as subjects of future novels? Thank you, Tami Barlow

Submitted August 10, 2004

A

Aren't you wonderful. I don't think I'm planning anything similar, but am always hoping an idea strikes . . .

Q

Dear Mr. Cornwell, I just wanted to let you know that I very much enjoy reading your books. Especially the Sharpe-serie. About two years ago I bought Sharpe's Prey. After reading it I was hooked and read the whole serie from the beginning. I do have one question for you. Maybe you will find it a strange question but here goes. In your foreword of Sharpe's Sword you say that you have a Heavy Cavalry sword hanging over your fireplace. You also say that these swords are nowadays very hard to find. My question is where did you buy it because I too would like to have such an authentic Heavy Cavalty sword. With kind regards, Andrew van der Schalk (The Netherlands)

Submitted August 10, 2004

A

I bought it twenty something years ago from a London dealer who has long disappeared. Not much help . . . .sorry. They do appear on the market from time to time, but are horrifically expensive these days. Mine was dirt cheap, ho ho. e-bay?

Q

Dear Bernard, I am reading your Sharpe books in chronological order (am now on Rifles) and I think these books are great. At first I was unsure whether I should read them because I am not fond of the historical period they are set in (I prefer the dark ages) but now I am hooked! I was wondering if you have heard about the new romance that is coming out to cinema called Tristan and Isolde? I believe it is more romanticised than the one in The Enemy of God because Tristan is a knight. This leads upto a few questions: 1. Did you get Culhwch and Olwen the Silver from the poem entitled Culhwch and Olwen? 2. You said in an earlier message that the Kings most probably existed. I cannot find any information on Oengus, Cuneglas, Gundleus, Gorfyddyd and Leodegan. Where did you find about these Kings? 3.When I looked up Tewdric and Meurig, I found that both where said to be born after Mount Badon (which I believe was 500AD) and that Meurig was a great warrior King. May I ask where did you find the information about Tewdric and Meurig? Apologies if any of these questions come off as sounding rude, that is not my intention. I would just like to look at the texts etc. Thanks for the hours of pleasurable reading. Lewis

Submitted August 10, 2004

A

The questions aren't rude at all, they're extremely intelligent, and I probably can't answer them. The trouble is that I wrote those books a decade ago, the notes for them are all in storage (and are a mess anyway), and I frankly can't remember what the sources for individual names were. Some came from genealogies, but most were probably plucked fairly at random. I think it's a mistake to look for exactness in the record - they aren't called the Dark Ages for nothing, and in the end what I was trying to do was tell a story, not recount a history. Sorry about this - but it would take at least half a day to dig out the notes and try to reconstruct what was going through the brain cells when I wrote the books.

Q

Dear Mr. Cornwell, Having just visited your website for the first time, I read your explanation for the delay in writing another Starbuck book with interest. I do not want to sound like a starstruck fan, but I have actually read all of your books. I did particularly enjoy the Starbuck series, as I have an interest in the Civil War from my days at University. I have to say that I believe the reason you have not written another one for so long is not because of the conflict with Sharpe, but because the Southern cause is not politically correct and Sharpe is more lucrative.... I wonder if you would care to comment? I have to say that I feel slightly cheated at the termination of Nathaniel Starbuck! Scott Holloway

Submitted August 10, 2004

A

I don't care that it's politically incorrect, indeed I like that aspect of Starbuck, but the poor truth is that Sharpe got in the way - simple as that.

Q

Dear Mr. Cornwell, I have already in the past praised your Warlord trilogy as being one of the best things I have ever read in my life. And so I won't do it again (although I should say there is not enough praise for them). I'd just like to share a thought with you. I always nourished the idea (being Sansum such a dislikeable character) that Derfel would only endure all the abuse by Sansum (at the monastery, I mean, while he was writing his story), because he meant to find the best opportunity and use Hywelbane on him at the end of the book, so he could die a free man (at least, free from an oath to a vicious man, he that was once so proud of having an oath towards such a noble man as Arthur). I always thought that the last pages of Excalibur would be dedicated to this sweet simple retribution, and that Sansum would finally have what he deserved, because Derfel had despised him throughout his life (and one could feel it deeply in Derfel's notes towards him in his writings -'the mouse lord') and I felt it overly restrained of him (having been such a proud man all of his life) to endure all that abuse from Sansum (even though he had an oath). Did you imagine such an ending to the story, and decided against it, or did it never cross you mind? By the way, I'll devour 'The Last Kingdom'. Thanks for everything. Best Regards Carlos Miguel da Silva

Submitted August 10, 2004

A

I think I left the ending to the reader - which is not very nice of me, but there it is.

Q

Bernard Quick question which has probably been asked a few times but couldn't find anything on it. Have you ever considered doing a story based on the other part of the napoloenic period. ie the russian campaigns or something like that? I'd be interested to see a novel by you with the battle of Leipzig or something like that? Simon

Submitted August 10, 2004

A

I think about it from time to time and, who knows? Maybe one day.

Q

Dear Mr. Cornwell, I loved your Warlord Trilogy. My wife, who is a big King Arthur fan, is now reading it as well and is enjoying them. We both speculated (and this is pure conjecture) that you modeled the description of Saxon Cerdic, with his blond hair, clear-cut features, calm demeanor and clerk-like bearing, on the well-known twentieth century image of the high-level Nazi beaurocrat/monster (Adloph Eichmann being the best image of this); quiet, banal, calm, orderly and evil. Considering the German connection (Cerdic, being a Saxon afer all), we were wondering if your description of Cerdic was in fact a subtle joke on the modern archetype. Were we completely wrong about this? Michael Newman

Submitted August 10, 2004

A

It escaped me! No, nothing intended . .