Dear Mr Cornwell,

I am not a typical reader of yours because as a rule I don’t read historical fiction, although I have a great passion for history (as well as accuracy, of which more anon).  As far as fiction is concerned, I tend to prefer fantasy, albeit something grounded in history and legend, which is why I was drawn to your Arthurian trilogy. While there will probably never be a definitive account of the historical Arthur and his role – if any – in the British resistance to the Saxon incursions, your version is as probable as any, and, more to the point, makes a very compelling story. What I found really impressive about these books though, was the depiction of religion, inasmuch as, although, to the best of my knowledge, completely invented, it just seemed completely credible. My limited understanding of these matters suggests that druids were no longer around at this period, or at any rate not prominent in the way they are in the books, and I have never heard of the gods mentioned, but the presence of Druids, and Derfel’s references to the gods, and the songs sung about them, particularly before battle, brought the milieu to life and actually made me wish it was all true. I particularly enjoyed the curses, which I imagine you had a great deal of fun thinking up! Your inclusion of Merlin – a conceivably historical figure, but probably not a contemporary of  Arthur – was justified by the very subtle and credible depiction of magic, which allowed the reader to understand at least why these characters believed in it, without presenting it as objectively real. The balance between gritty reality of life and battle on the one hand, and the mysterious entities who govern all on the other, was precisely what I seek in an imagined world.

Oh yes, my point about accuracy. As I mentioned, I am deeply interested in history, and particularly military history, with the Napoleonic Wars being a favourite period. (In spite of which, for reasons broadly alluded to above, I have not read any of the Sharpe novels!) I will certainly read your book on Waterloo, which I happened to notice for the first time today. On reading the foreword, however, I noticed a small error in your explanation of military organisation. You state that French infantry battalions had eight companies. In fact by this time they had six. They never had eight, but until 1808 there were nine. As you say, it’s a minefield. (Not invented until some time later, but a problem for any writer, however meticulous his research).

Regards,

Andrew McGuire