"Bernard Cornwell's 'The Fort'" Topic

May I heartily recommend 'The Fort' to anyone with even a passing interest in the American War of Independence, 18th Century warfare, or indeed warfare in general.

Published in 2010, I think this may be one of BC's latest works and was clearly a labour of love, as it is unlikely to be popular in the States, as it rather demolishes Paul Revere's reputation. It was obviously very carefully researched, with excerpts from source documents introducing every chapter, and the characterisation is masterful. BC's ability to bring out the action probably needs no recommendation from me, so I shall concentrate on outlining the plot, in the hope that you get as much pleasure, and insight, as I did from this fantastic novel.

Small British joint expedition sails to Penobscot bay at the tail end of the AWI to establish 'New Ireland'. 3 small sloops and a tiny Bde of 2 half battalions set up a fort and batteries to masterfully command the bay and approaches.

The state of Massachusetts wants all the glory of removing the garrison without asking for help from the Continentals, and so launches an expedition half cocked. The commander is a politician who will venture no action without seeking consensus, his troops are the tail end of the militia, most of them pressed, leavened by a handful of Marines. Disaster ensues, with the awkward and proud Col Paul Revere, expedition's Artillery commander, seemingly sharing the cause of every disaster with the equally obstreperous Naval commander, who eventually carried the can….

Amongst the British characters is a very young John Moore, later of Corunna fame….

All in all an entertaining and informative read…

link

I agree Heartily. Probably Bernard Cronwell's best in my opinion!

…it is unlikely to be popular in the States, as it rather demolishes Paul Revere's reputation.

I wouldn't be too sure about that.
This is not 1959 any more, sadly.

I agree Heartily. Probably Bernard Cronwell's best in my opinion!

Yes, I think the pressure was off with this one, a real labour of love, amazing research and great, in-depth characterisation, which is perhaps a little lacking in his earlier stuff when he was trying to keep the wolf from the door…

Needless to say, fertile ground for AWI small action scenarioes, both Naval and Land…

Very good book

John the OFM wrote:
This is not 1959 any more, sadly.

Why 1959?

I read it and liked it much more than Cornwell's other writings.

Anyone who has actually read American history knows what Revere was like. It took a blithering Victorian idiot like Longfellow to make him into a hero.

I thought it was a fantastic book.

In 1959, I was only 9 years old, and bvelieved everything the teacher taught me.

I guess I'm in the minority. I didn't like it at all and quit about halfway through. I've liked all his other books.

Like Sparker, I was impressed with the attention Cornwall paid to getting the history right in this one. I thought it was an interesting read, but I can't say it demolished Revere's reputation. I would use the word "tempered." It filled in a piece of his later life that is less familiar. It doesn't change the fact that he helped rouse the minute men to turn out when needed.

Reading about the participation of a young John Moore was an unforeseen highlight of the story.

FYI, we have discussed this on TMP previously.

TMP link

Rick

Great read. I like everything Cornwall does

Well, we're both in the minority then, Steve. The book is the first Cornwell I have never managed to finish. While it is no doubt a very good historical description of the campaign, I found it lacked a storyline that went anywhere.

Maybe I should try it again, if it is so well liked here …

I really enjoyed the book but on the Paul Revere fame. When in high school my parents subscribed to some history magazine. They had an article in there about Revere's conduct during this engagement and him later being courtmartialed.

Well soon after this in my history class at school we had to do a report on a historical person. So I wrote my paper based on the article. The teacher, Mrs. Howell, was super excited cause she had never heard this story. So I brought the magazine in for her to read the article. I was always interested in military history but chatting with Mrs. Howell about the AWI and history in general really lit a fire in me. To this day the AWI is my favorite period to read, game or even talk about.

I'm about 76% way through it according to my Kindle.

While I find it a bit confusing to follow as its often hard to remember who is on what side. (I'm reading it in spare moments so lose track) I really want to keep reading on to see what happens next.

I'd love to game it as I had the Airfix figures when I was 12 years old.

it lacked a storyline that went anywhere

Like real life?

I liked it a lot, defintely better than his other books which are good but ultralight reading and basically an endless repetition of the same themes. But this one stood out. I recommended it on the Plus Boards as well.

As for gaming the AWI with Airfix figures; I invite you to my blog pijlieblog.blogspot.com

It sounds like it would be worth reading. I'm glad to hear that he did not name any of his characters "Starbuck", like he did in his ACW series.

The book is the first Cornwell I have never managed to finish.

Same here. Just couldn't get into it. Maybe I'll give it another go, but I still have the newest Anglo-Saxon book still sitting on the shelf.

If you liked that then you might like this

link

And may I suggest an alternative method of enjoying the book, an audio version. Anyway, I enjoyed all.

link

As aye,
Captain D'Ewell

I liked the opening chapters of 'The Fort' and the closing ones too, but my interest waned badly somewhere in the middle.

Enjoyed the read but he refers to Royal Marines maybe a bit pedantic but wasnt Royal added later?

I was 9 in 1959 and couldn't wait to get older. Getting thumped by 6th graders sucked.

Enjoyed the read but he refers to Royal Marines maybe a bit pedantic but wasnt Royal added later?

Ouch…

Marines founded 1664, entitled 'Corps of Royal Marines' 1755 so well in….

I dunno if our resident Royal has seen your post yet, but if he does I don't know you and I wasn't here and you can't prove it….

Not "Royal Marines" until 1802, I'm afraid; "Corps of Marines" from 1755 until then, but strictly speaking not one continuous lineage from 1664-1755 (some Marines were actually Army regiments), so a little tenuous. However, one argues with Booties at one's peril….

Not the worst book Cornwell ever wrote, and better than most of his later Sharpes; however, there are the usual odd historical errors that aren't devastating to the actual story, but seem to be easier to have got right than wrong given the level of research he obviously did do. One major character shooting another was a groan-out-loud "contrived plotline" moment, but otherwise it was an ok beach read. I think where he struggles is that there isn't enough fine detail of the siege known to us – especially from the British side – to make the bulk of the book gripping in the way the early Sharpes were.

I'd certainly be happier if he wrote another AWI novel than another Sharpe or Starbuck.

The Corps of Royal Marines, the infantry land fighting element of the United Kingdom's Royal Navy, was formed as part of the Naval Service in 1755.

link

Well in!

No, well out I'm afraid. The sentence you quote is wrong (well, it is Wikipedia after all…..). You should have read your own link a little more carefully. I suggest you scroll down to paragraph 8, which reads:-

"On 5 April 1755, HIS MAJESTY'S MARINE FORCES, fifty Companies in three Divisions, headquartered at Chatham, Portsmouth, and Plymouth, were formed by Order of Council under Admiralty control. Initially all field officers were Royal Navy officers as the Royal Navy felt that the ranks of Marine field officers were largely honorary. This meant that the farthest a Marine officer could advance was to Lieutenant Colonel. It was not until 1771 that the first Marine was promoted to Colonel. This situation persisted well into the 1800s. During the rest of the 18th century, they served in numerous landings all over the world, the most famous being the landing at Bellisle on the Brittany coast in 1761. They also served in the American War of Independence, being particularly courageous in the Battle of Bunker Hill led by Major John Pitcairn. These Marines also often took to the ship's boats to repel attackers in small boats when RN ships on close blockade were becalmed. On February 14, 1779 Captain James Cook took with him the following Marines: Lt.Phillips; a Sgt; Corporal Thomas and seven Privates; besides Cook, four Marines-Corporal Thomas and three Privates Hinks; Allen, and Fatchett-were killed and 2-Lt Phillips and Private Jackson-wounded. IN 1802, LARGELY AT THE INSTIGATION OF ADMIRAL JOHN JERVIS, 1ST EARL OF ST VINCENT, THEY WERE TITLED THE ROYAL MARINES BY KING GEORGE III.[2]"

Here are some more accurate links:

link

link

Oops! I stand corrected…Thanks (I suppose…)!

OK. Not meant meanly. :^))

It's not a normal Cornwell ripping good quasi-heroic tale but rather a fictionalized history of a campaign graced with a great many follies and mendacities, fostered by the fertile soil provided by limited intelligence (in both senses) and fog of war. It is one of those books that answer the question "how could that have happened?" Vry much more instructive than inspiring.

Interesting to see that some people said they struggled with this book. I love everything that BC produces, but the difference with The Fort was that there was no central lead character (ie Sharpe/Derfel/Uhtred etc), and for the first 100 pages I kept thinking "one of these chaps is going to be the focus hero soon" and it never happened. But once you get past that, it's still a cracking read.

It has to beat his first AWI book, which I disliked so much I do not recall the Title. Placed in the 1777 Philadelphia Campaign.

"It has to beat his first AWI book, which I disliked so much I do not recall the Title. Placed in the 1777 Philadelphia Campaign."

PVT641

That would be 'Redcoat' – utter bilge. I gave up after reading him describe rolling volleys from the 40th at Germantown and them being in three ranks.

Bernard Cornwell "utter bilge"!? The heck you say, why he has the same rigorous attention to historical detail at teh expense of overblown drama as, say, Oliver Stone and Walt Disney.

Oh wait, maybe you're right…

No as bad as Robert Graves and the Sergeant Lamb series!

I recently finished it and liked it. Seemed truthful to the realities of warfare of that time.

I also like his Saxon/Viking series too….

>That would be 'Redcoat' – utter bilge. I gave up after >reading him describe rolling volleys from the 40th at >Germantown and them being in three ranks.

Liked it…but that was before I was better informed about the AWI; like the Fort better as it seemed to track a bit more closely to history (apart from the endless mistake of referring to Royal Marines before they got that honorific in 1802).

Still like his Napoeleonic books, warts and all. I think they improved over time (perhaps based on feedback re: mistakes he was making).

This is the only Cornwell I have enjoyed. Almost poetic in places.

This is the only Cornwell I have read. I thought it was a dull read for fiction

However it has potential for scenarios and a campaign

I too was 9 in 1959. Revere was a hero. And whether history shows that to be inaccurate, I'm hanging on to my fantasy.

Haven't read this latest book, but itching to. I take Cornwell in stride. Great research, but author's licence. For me, they're just great fun to read. And I appreciate his research. On balance, I've learned a fair bit of history reading his stuff. Backdrops are great.

>I too was 9 in 1959. Revere was a hero. And whether >history shows that to be inaccurate, I'm hanging on to my >fantasy.

Military command was definitely not Revere's forte. Indeed, his bungling at Penobscot was epic. Saltonstall also set a new (low) standard.

link