"What inaccuracies does the Sharpe novels contain?" Topic

I usually like to read historical fiction to give me a feel of an era I know nothing at all about. If this interests me enough, I usually go on to read more "proper" historical works.

Maybe a bit of background is in order: I come from a small country in Asia, and about the only thing I know about the Napoleonic War is that there was a French guy named Napoleon. Hell, I didn't even know that Britain was a participant in the war.

So being the absolutely clueless newbie that I am, I tried looking for some good historical fiction. I'm not at all interested in naval warfare, so the Hornblower series or the novels by Patrick O'Brian were no-go for me.

The most popular land-based historical novel based on the Napoleonic Wars seemed to be the Sharpe series, but it also looked like there were as many haters as fans. The main reason behind all that hate seemed to be that the Sharpe series contain so may historical inaccuracies, so much so that calling it "historical fiction" is a stretch.

Well, I'm halfway through my first Sharpe book (Sharpe's Tiger), but being as clueless as I am, I couldn't see any glaring historical inaccuracy.
(Maybe the part where Bernard Cornwell makes it sound like every British soldier loaded his musket by biting off the end of the cartridge, keeping the ball in his mouth before spitting it down the barrel)

So I was wondering… just how historically inaccurate are the Sharpe series? What kind of inaccuracies does it contain?

Please do understand that I'm not trying to defend the novel or anything. I just want to know which parts to read "with a pinch of salt".

You will always get nit-pickers with historical fiction, I really wouldn't worry about it, just treat them as novels not history books. Napoleonics seem to attact more nit pickers than most.

I guess most obvious things are the whole line vs column thing, firing four rounds a minute in all weather etc but honestly, these are sources of modern controversy rather than contemporary ones.

(Maybe the part where Bernard Cornwell makes it sound like every British soldier loaded his musket by biting off the end of the cartridge, keeping the ball in his mouth before spitting it down the barrel)

??? But that is the way a musket was loaded. It was also thought to be one of the causes of the Indian Mutiny.

Bernard Crnwell tends to let you know what liberties he took with history in the 'Historical Notes' at the end of each book.

Besides the fact that Sharpe apparently defeated Napoleon all by himself?

They're a great read and while they won't give you much in the way of history, I believe they will give you a decent feel for some aspects of combat. As it focuses on skirmishers it will leave out a lot concerning bigger battles though.

Right wrong or in Chicago, they are a fun read.

Also, there's not a whole lot of military-oriented historical fiction for the land battles, Britain being a naval power and the US not really being involved.

That does make me wonder though about other books similar to it concerning other armies. I too, read the Sharpe books and in fact, am re-reading one now. I enjoy them and will probably re-read them again in the future.

But except for the "Seven Men of Gascony" for the French (a fantastic read. I still remember the retreat from Moscow passages), are there any more historical fiction books for other nations?
Larry

You could do worse than try Alan Mallinson's books too.

Hi Kraussian

I think the earlier Sharpe novels were great, but then became very much like the TV series, very predictable. But as I mentioned in another posting, I'm re-reading Sharpe's Fury (background-Barrosa 1811 campaign), which I'm really enjoying. I think you have to switch off your historical-accuracy judge when reading historical novels of any kind, otherwise you'll spend most of the time saying that didn't happen, they were't there etc, etc. I remember one novel actually describing something Napoleon did, but got reply from the author when I asked where he researched the matter. The answer, of course, it didn't happen. It was all in his head. But most historical authors have a great interest in history, and therefore have a good background (Sidebottom's-Warrior of Rome series for example) or do a fair bit of research. And the obvious difference is, of course, is that you do not read a novel for research, you read them for fun, enjoyment and relaxation. Or at least, I do. And reading Sharpe's Fury after researching and writing up the battle, is fun, enjoyable and very relaxing. And in the Uk, when you read novels everyone speaks English, which we accept quite readily, so just by reading the book (in English) we have dropped the accuracy part. My advice is to just enjoy them. no matter what anyone thinks, that's what they're there for.

Accurate or not I think they give you an idea of the period albiet with a pinch of salt.

HOWEVER after watching a TV episode or listening to a talking Sharpe book they provide 100% motivation to go and paint some more of my miniatures and have a game.

I love the Sharpe Novels but you cant pretend they are accurate. I suspect most of it is artistic liscence rather than "Didnt do the research" on the part of Cornwell though: Theres usually a note in each book giving a bit more of the broader picture and any changes that he may have made to let Sharpe steal somone elses glory, even going as far as moving the dates of entire battles to make sure that sharpe can be in two places at once…Though some wargames I know would attribute that to the general awesomeness and invincibility of the 95th Rifles anyway.

You might try finding some autobiographies about the 1812 campaign. There're some that were written by junior officers that make for an interesting read in a narrative format much like a story. I find them depressing however. Oh, and War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy might serve as well. You'll know if the first ten pages.

Patrick Rambaud's trilogy ("The Battle", "The Retreat", and "Napoleon's Exile") are fantastic reads from the other side of the hill as it were. Very brutal and unflinching.

They're great novels and as has been said, Cornwell does tend to inform you as to the liberties he's taken with history in the notes chapter at the end of each book.

The only nit-picking thing that sticks out for me are the oft-repeated references to 'voltigeurs and their RED epaulettes'… Aargh!!

I always liked Brigadier Gerard

link

The only real inaccuracies I'm aware of in the Sharpe series fall into three categories:

1: Detail nitpicking. Things like giving Voltigeurs the wrong coloured epualettes, or describing British troops in India wearing Shakos instead of Bicornes.

2: Always being in the right place at the right time.
Cornwell has Sharpe pop up all over the place, and some of his travels don't bear close examination. That said, 'The Sharpe Companion', by Mark Adkin, examines the books compared to their historical background… IIRC, there's only one example (and I can't remember what it is!) where Adkins concludes that Sharpe couldn't possibly have been there.

3: Retconning.
Cornwell 'reinvents' some aspects of the character partway through the series, to bring the books in line with Sean Bean's portrayal in the TV adaptation. Therefore, you get references to his fleeing to the North of England and joining a Yorkshire regiment – which was never mentioned before – to explain Bean's northern accent. Prior to this, Sharpe is always described as a born-&-bred Londoner.

Because the books were not written in order, there are occaisional contradictions – in the final book, 'Sharpe's Devil', he takes part in his 'first sea battle'. Of course, that was written before 'Sharpe's Trafalgar'!

And in 'Sharpe's Havoc' he and Harper seem to be old and trusted comrades, whereas according to the calendar, they only met for the first time a month or two before that (in 'Sharpe's Rifles') where they started out ready to kill each other!

In all fairness, Cornwell gets a lot more right than he does wrong.
The books are undemanding, swashbuckling entertainment – certainly worth a try.

Bernard Cornwell can describe very well the nitty gritty gutter fighting, such as at Fuentes de Onoro or slipping out of tight spots; through chimneys, sewer systems or left to hang outside Oporto with his chosen men. Great scenarios for games and would recommend Sharpe's Enemy as the best of the series.

Cheers,

Best way I can sum up how you should view the Sharpe's series is like watching Hogan's Heroes and thinking that's how the Germans really acted during WWII. It's so inaccurate it's entertaining.

I have a book called "The Grenadier" (written in the 1890s). That is a fun read from the French side. Very Romantic. Does have some issues -like Imperial Guard Cuirassiers or dragoons with breastplates. It is a fun read -and lead to my lifelong intrerest in Marshall Lannes.

But I am missing the last few pages so if anyone knows how it ends…..

I think that a lot of the charges of "historical inaccurracy" stems from the BBC TV series based on the Sharpe books. They had to compress the story down into one hour, so a lot of shortcuts were made. The books are a fun read and have more detail in them than the videos do. Certainly Cornwell has done enough research on the period to write about the Napoleonic period in a reasonable fashion.

The Francophiles on TMP are just jealous that they don't have a French counterpart to Sharpe.

Another vote for Conan Doyles "Brigadier Gerard". C'est magnifique.

Sharpe comes across to me as a very 20th Century character.

He doesn't think, talk or act like I'd envisage someone from the early 1800s.

The ome error that really got up my nose was when Cornwell described British colour pikes as having 'the crowns of England" on the finials, rather than the spearheads he should have written (in 'Sharpe's Regiment' IIRC).

Derek, Much like Alexander Kent and his Bolitho character I feel. Matt.

Third for Brigadier Gerard …
And a second for Rimbaud and Mallinson.

CS Forester (of Hornblower fame) wrote a couple of "land-based" adventures. "Death to the French" is one of the inspirations for Dick Sharpe, as it features a rifleman of the 95th left behind French lines after a skirmish. "The Gun" focusses more on the guerillas.

Brigadier Gerard is a hoot.

"Much like Alexander Kent and his Bolitho character "

Well, he is supposed to be like Nelson, but he does sometimes manage quite a modern sensibility.

The trouble with having Sharpe act like he really would in 1800 is it would be crashingly boring, a problem some people have with the first couple of Patrick O'Brien books (me included for quite a while).

Dumas Rene! is the French Sharpe!

Hi

There is something about Napoleonics that brings out the nit-pickers. And, often, you can have great fun with the nit-pickers arguing over their Nits!

Sheesh.

A famous reference writer in conversation 10 years ago at Origins intoned to me that as the worlds formost expert, all that Sharpe stuff about multiple volleys was just nonsense, and that spitting the ball was too.

We differed, of course, but then he had never SHOT a musket.

In addition to the "wrong color turnback brigade". I ignore the nappy guys and rarely admit that I have figs or game it for this reason.

As for his always being in the right place for historical events. This is a basic convention for historical fiction. "Winds of War"? Any Mitchner?

I have waited in vein for a few decades for the napoleonic buffs to write a more accurate quality historical novel.

R

For a fun Napoleonic short novel you could also try spanish writer Arturo Perez-Reverte.
His novel "The Shadow of the Eagle" is a good story of a spanish ex-prisioner batallion in the french army during the Russian campaign.

He has the right nations at war with each other.

"What inaccuracies does the Sharpe novels contain?"

How long have we got to answer this?

"He has the right nations at war with each other."

And the action is placed in the right countries – don't forget that. And the foreigners all have foreign names!

You could do worse than try Alan Mallinson's books too

Mallinson broke my heart!

I couldn't put down his first Hervey book and then the blighter went forward in time instead of backwards (the first book ended in 1815)

I guess he didn't want to be known as the bloke who wrote "Sharpe's Cavalry" but he is so much better than that.

Subsequent books around wars I don't care about turned me off completely.

I think that a lot of the charges of "historical inaccurracy" stems from the BBC TV series based on the Sharpe books

Possibly, but BBC didn't make it!

You may have seen the series in the US via the BBC but it was produced by a company called Celtic Films and screened over here via Carlton TV, then one of the UKs commercial channels.

Leaving aside the nit-picking about details of uniforms &c., and the novelist's licence to which Cornwell freely admits, the premise upon which the series is based is extremely unlikely: although sergeants – such as William Newman of the 43rd [IIRC] on John Moore's retreat – were occasionally given commissions, they almost never rose above Captain, were often appointed as adjutants to do the mundane paperwork that was beneath more genteel officers, and frequently forced to exchange into regiments bound for unhealthy climes – such as the West Indies – in exchange for a cash bribe that would enable them to afford uniform, mess bills &c.
An historically more credible premise would have been to make Sharpe a volunteer – a gentleman unable to afford to purchase a commission, who served in the ranks but messed with the officers until such time as a battle death created an ensigncy to which he could be appointed. See, for example, the memoirs of George Hennell, and the letters written by George Simmons of the 95th advising his brother how to proceed as a volunteer.
For some reason, Cornwell chooses to make both Sharpe and Harper unusually tall for that era: most men were not six feet or more tall in 1809. Rifleman Benjamin Harris remarked that on the retreat to Vigo it was the short stocky men who endured; the lanky ones tended to straggle and drop out. {However, Harris himself was only about 5'5" – as am I – so, attractive as I find his view, it may be somewhat biased!]
Sharpe is, in many ways, a Napoleonic James Bond – a male fantasy: a maverick, cleverer than his superiors, victorious in combat and irresistible to women. He even has some gadgets – his non-regulation heavy cavalry sabre and Harper's volley-gun!
Read the memoirs and letters – readily available these days in reprint editions – of officers and men of the 95th instead, would be my advice.

A Soldier of the 71st is also very good – there's even a version online. That was a non-rifle light infantry unit in red coats.

link

Try this. For a French counterpart (roughly), see the Richard Howard series about Alain Lausard. I read the first couple but lost interest – a bit repetitive. Alan Mallinson is in a class of his own, in my view (he writes superbly), and several of the later novels revisit Hervey's service in the peninsula. Very well worth your time.

I could do with a Sven Hassel type writer taking a Frenchman or Irishman through Napoleon's campaigns. That would be fun.

s

Can anyone tell me for certain at what point Sharpe ceased to have a commission in the 95th and held regimental rank in the South Essex instead?

The pinches of salt are mostly required when he primes his rifle or unbuttons his pants.
Other than that its as accurate as a novel ever gets.

I actually enjoy his Hundred Years War series better.

I could do with a Sven Hassel type writer taking a Frenchman or Irishman through Napoleon's campaigns. That would be fun

Here you go!

For a fun Napoleonic short novel you could also try spanish writer Arturo Perez-Reverte.
His novel "The Shadow of the Eagle" is a good story of a spanish ex-prisioner batallion in the french army during the Russian campaign

Sounds like Sven Hassel to me!

Alan Mallinson is in a class of his own, in my view (he writes superbly), and several of the later novels revisit Hervey's service in the peninsula

Titles! Damm it all Man! Titles!

My problem with Cornwell is that the first novel you read, you will enjoy it. But two novels later you will realize that all his novels have the same plot repeated again and again. It won't matter if the action is set in Xth Century England or in Napoleonic wars. I bored after a couple of books.

After 43 posts, I am still looking for something beyond wrong strap colors.

John the OFM

Well, you could start with Sharpe capturing an eagle at Talavera, 1809, when you know the first eagle captured by the British wasn't until 1811, at Barrosa, and it wasn't by Sharpe. I've always thought that it was a bit of dumb plotting on behalf of the author. But fiction is fiction. And I still enjoyed the books, although there wasn't (still isn't) that much around at the time, novel wise. But if you can accept Sharpe capturing an eagle and hardly any of his chosen men getting killed, then you should be able to ignore anything else that is not accurate. I enjoyed the TV documentary on the Peninsular War, introduced by Cornwall. He got the first eagle captured by the British correct in that, so he probably does know his stuff. As for the TV series, not bad, a bit predictable and nothing else (apart from Hornblower) around to compare it with. But the Waterloo episode was awful, even if some of the riflemen did actually die in it!

And let's add to the fact that Sharpe should have little to no skill with the sword as swordsmanship isn't something you gain with a commission. How he's able to beat every officer using a sluggish heavy cavalry sabre is one of the elements that gives the whole series a comic book approach to war.

And let's add to the fact that Sharpe should have little to no skill with the sword as swordsmanship isn't something you gain with a commission. How he's able to beat every officer using a sluggish heavy cavalry sabre is one of the elements that gives the whole series a comic book approach to war.

It doesn't take the brains of an archbishop to realise that his lack of education in the finer points of swordsmanship is exactly why he used a sluggish heavy cavalry sabre…

Having been commissioned rather late in my career, I was rather surprised to recieve sword training, but as you can imagine it was all purely ceremonial, saluting and presenting arms etc (as a male, marching and issuing commands and wielding a sword all at the same time did require endless hours on the paradeground!) But nevertheless reasonably intricate.

Now as soon as I passed out it was all gone… I suspect the same was true of formal fencing training back in those days. Give me a cleaver everytime!

I also heartily endorse both the Sharp novels, which are accurate in a holistic sense of men on campaign, and the Mallinson 'Hervey' books. I for one had no idea of the amazing complexities of horse soldiering…But yes, its a shame he didn't spend more time on our period!

The one thing about the Sharpe TV series is the way the French never fire roundshot…ever. Every artillery round fired must be from a howitzer because they always explode killing and injuring men within the blast zone. Whatever happened to a roundshot screaming through the ranks wreaking havoc as it flies or bounces on its murderous path.
But I do enjoy the Sharpe series. There should be more Napoleonic themed movies and TV shows.

Whatever happened to a roundshot screaming through the ranks wreaking havoc as it flies or bounces on its murderous path

And how many members of the cast and 'extras' do you want to kill exactly?

Far be it from me to defend but don't forget how long ago it was made and on how small a budget!

No CGI back then!

Well, there's Uxbridge's brigade capturing the guns at La Belle Alliance while riding rhinoceri.

No, wait, that's the Spartan movie…..