Your Questions

Q

Hi Enjoyed reading your books and the films so much, I have started to collect your UK first edition hardback books. Started with the cheaper ones but hope to own them all in time. I would be interested to know what the size of the print runs for the first editions in the UK was. Is this information available. Thanks Nigel

Submitted July 16, 2004

A

I don't believe the information is available, but I do know that the first four books had fairly small print runs - 3,000 - 5,000 books. Sharpe's Sword was only around 3,000. After that it shot up.

Q

I'm a huge fan of the Sharpe series and recently found new copies of some of the Susannah Kells books at my local library. I find their protagonists very interesting, especially in contrast with Richard Sharpe, but my question is about their author. The blurb on the author inside the book says Susannah Kells is the pseudonym of your wife, but in a little piece you wrote for the Sharpe Appreciation Society website you say Kells was the name made up by a group of would-be novelists on a drunken bet. Which is it? Julia

Submitted July 16, 2004

A

Both right - does that make sense? It's a pseudonym, invented by a drunken group in Ireland, adopted by herself, OK?

Q

Hi Bernard, I've just read in the paper this morning that ITV are to film a new Sharpe adventure, Sean Bean is keen to do it and it will be set in India. Are you aware of it? Do you have anymore details? Regards Ed

Dear Mr Cornwell, I have just read in this morings paper that Sean Bean will be reprising his role as Sharpe in a new episode set in India, is this true or just a rumour, and secondly do you know if they are making it will be a prequal like the books, or someone rewritting history to set it after Waterloo to avoid confusing people?? Rob

Can you give us any more info? I read on itv teletext that they are going to make a film of Sharpes Tiger with Sean Bean. How will they promote Sharpe from the ranks? As they did it in Sharpe's Rifles for tv and how can itv get a "young" Sean Bean? Ian Winter

Submitted July 16, 2004

A

I'm hoping there will be a new Sharpe TV series in 2005, and I'm delighted that Sean Bean has agreed to return and play the hero in an adaptation of Sharpe's Tiger and Sharpe's Fortress. It all looks promising, but there are still obstacles to be overcome so we cannot be certain that it will happen.

Q

Hello Bernard...1 question...Did many people guess the Grail was the cup when you first mentioned it...[I emailed my suspicions to you]. 1 comment...I'm sorry that you were apparently mistreated by a supposedly Christian group as a youngster. I'm a Pastor in Australia and am in a church that promotes freedom of choice in spirituality while still believing wholeheartedly in Jesus Christ. I do wish you all the best and hope you can make it to Australia sometime soon. I enjoy your books and hopefully another Civil War novel will emerge in the near future. Regards, Mark Saundercock.

Submitted July 16, 2004

A

I think you were the first one - so you get today's prize, if we can dream one up. Thanks!

Q

I am almost finished with "Excaliber". I have been reading the Arther stories for a week or so now and I cant say I have ever read a better story. I am addicted to the characters. I know when it is through I will miss them very much. (dont worry, I realize that they are not real.) However, here I am again to anoy you with questions. Much like Derfel anoys Merlin with his, "foolish questions". 1. What is mead exactly? Is it still made? I realize its an alcoholic drink, but what is it made from? 2. It seams as though people didnt have last names back then. Is that the case? If so when did they start using last names? 3. In a way you make it sound as if the Britons were a people scratching around in the dirt before the romans arrived and introduced them to many things they may never have even dreamed of. (and I don't mean to be insulting.) Is this the case? If so what do you think were the major contributions that came from the Roman ocupation? Again thanks for the stories. If you keep writing, I'll keep reading. Don Sawyer

Submitted July 16, 2004

A

Mead is fermented honey - you can still buy it. When did surnames arrive? I'm not entirely sure, but someone will give us an answer. In the dark ages, so far as I can tell, a second name was either acknowledging paternity (John's son - Johnson) or a nickname (Derfel Cadarn). How primitive were the native Britons? Certainly not on a par with the Romans, but they had good farms, substantial (but not stone-built) houses, no writing, so no literature or written laws, and so the Romans would have deemed them primitive, much as the first European settlers in North America regarded the indigenous population. The Roman contribution? It raised civilisation's sights, bequeathed roads and literacy, and introduced us to wine. Thank you!

Q

Hello Mr. Cornwell: Welcome back after what I am sure was a supremely deserved vacation. I want your opinion on a couple of things: Why, during the whole of the Napoleonic Wars, did the French never learn from their mistakes? After the columns were beaten by the lines a dozen or so times, you would think they would figure out that new tactics were called for. But from Rolica right through to Waterloo, they just came on "in the same old way." Secondly, WERE there any tactics that would have worked against Wellington? Lastly, I really admired Major Dulong in Havoc, and I hope you'll think of a way for him and Sharpe to meet up again in a future adventure. Sincerely, Alan Kempner

Submitted July 16, 2004

A

The French did learn, but not quite well enough. They understood that their tactic of launching a column against the British line would not work, but they were stuck with the column anyway (easy to train conscript troops) so tried two variations. One was to hugely increase the number of skirmishers, which worked very well (but not quite well enough) at Waterloo, and secondly to deploy the column into a thickish line when it came within musket range - and this didn't work well at all. Napoleon always insisted that columns could only beat well-trained lines if artillery had already beaten up the lines, but Wellington's tactics of drawing up his men on a reverse slope took away that French advantage. So French tactics were not static, but just not flexible enough to solve the problem! I agree with you about Dulong . . . I'll try!

Q

I have now read Battleflag, Stonehenge, The Grail Quest, but my favourites by far were the Arthur Trilogy. Was the character of Lancelot based on historical/mythological readings or did you decide yourself to put a new slant to the charactor by making him not the hero we have always read about. Derek Wyke

Submitted July 14, 2004

A

I think I was just being perverse - and, for some reason, I've never particularly liked Lancelot, so why not be perverse? Glad you liked the books!

Q

Dear Mr Cornwell, I have just read the first chapter of the Last Kingdom and I noticed that you have called an Ealdorman the same thing as an Earl. I was under the impression that they did differ. I thought that an Ealdorman was chosen by the King and did not have an hereditary position, it was up to the King to present the title to the Ealdorman's son or another candidate. This is very similar to the way the crown was passed as after Eathelred's death the crown passed to Alfred and not Eathelred's sons. Anyway I was under the impression that the word Earl comes from the Danish Jarl and it is an hereditary position and it did not appear properly in Anglo-Saxon Britain until Cnut's invasion in 1016. Also the powers granted to the individual differ on what they can do with regards to calling out the fyrd and various other things such as their position on the Witan. I was wondering where the information for this book came from and I also would like to know if there will be many parallels drawn between Uthred's writing and that of asser's? (apologies about the spelling but I am slightly dyslexic). Matthew Bowman

Submitted July 14, 2004

A

You'll understand, when you read the rest of the book, why Uhtred calls himself an earl which is, as you rightly say, a Danish rank and did not enter English usage until Cnut - but there is a reason!! Ealdormen? Some were appointed by the king, but many families were so powerful (like the real-life Uhtred family) that they arrogated the rank and no king was strong enough to take it away. There certainly are hereditary ealdormen - lots of them - though doubtless the kings would have preferred it otherwise.

Q

Dear Mr Cornwell, I have just read the first chapter of the Last Kingdom and I noticed that you have called an Ealdorman the same thing as an Earl. I was under the impression that they did differ. I thought that an Ealdorman was chosen by the King and did not have an hereditary position, it was up to the King to present the title to the Ealdorman's son or another candidate. This is very similar to the way the crown was passed as after Eathelred's death the crown passed to Alfred and not Eathelred's sons. Anyway I was under the impression that the word Earl comes from the Danish Jarl and it is an herediatry position and it did not appear properly in Anglo-Saxon Britain until Cnut's invasion in 1016. Also the powers granted to the individual differ on what they can do with regards to calling out the fyrd and various other things such as their position on the Witan. I was wondering where the information for this book came from and I also would like to know if there will be many parallels drawn between Uthred's writing and that of asser's? (apologies about the spelling but I am slightly dyslexic). Matthew Bowman

Submitted July 14, 2004

A

You'll understand, when you read the rest of the book, why Uhtred calls himself an earl which is, as you rightly say, a Danish rank and did not enter English usage until Cnut - but there is a reason!! Ealdormen? Some were appointed by the king, but many families were so powerful (like the real-life Uhtred family) that they arrogated the rank and no king was strong enough to take it away. There certainly are hereditary ealdormen - lots of them - though doubtless the kings would have preferred it otherwise.

Q

Thank you for improving my vocabulary. I do know that I need a dictionary for some of the words. One does not seem to be in the dictionary. It appears in the book after Trafalgar when he is trying to sell his commission. The word is "fungled" or similar. Sorry, I do not have the book with me and I only just discovered your site and this word occasionaly pops up in my head and is a constant irritant! Please help. Philip Norman

Submitted July 14, 2004

A

Fungible! You need a new dictionary! Something fungible is an object that can be exchanged - either for money or barter - something with intrinsic value. Sharpe's commission is not fungible - poor man.