December 14, 2025 • 28 mins
Newt talks with Bernard Cornwell about his latest book, “Sharpe’s Storm: Richard Sharpe and the Invasion of Southern France, 1813.” Cornwell shares the serendipitous start of his writing career, which began when he moved to the United States and decided to write a book due to difficulties in obtaining a work permit. His first novel, "Sharpe’s Eagle," set in 1808, marked the beginning of a series that follows the character Richard Sharpe through various historical battles. Cornwell explains his inspiration for writing about the British Army during the Napoleonic Wars, filling a gap he perceived in historical literature. He also discusses the challenges and intricacies of writing two major series, one about Sharpe and the other about The Saxon Stories, which explore the creation of England. Their conversation touches on historical figures like Wellington, whose military strategies and personal characteristics are vividly brought to life in Cornwell's novels. Cornwell also reflects on his characters, expressing a closer connection to Sharpe due to the character's long-standing presence in his work. He hints at the possibility of future Sharpe novels, though he is currently focused on writing another book in The Saxon Series.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:04):
On this episode of News World. One of my all
time favorite authors is Bernard Cornwell. His best selling novels
of historical fiction have kept me entertained and educated for years.
The Wall three Journal calls in quote, the most prolific
and successful historical novelist in the world today, and that
(00:27):
is quite complent. Now he's joined me today to discuss
his latest book, Sharp Storm, set near eighteen thirteen on
a battlefield in France. I've read it. I highly recommend it,
but I'm not going to let him get away. It's
just talking about that Chwis. He's such an interesting person
and his background is so cool. Bernard, thank you so
(00:59):
much much for joining me.
Speaker 2 (01:02):
Well, thank you for inviting me.
Speaker 1 (01:04):
You said your writing career started almost by accident. Tell
us about that, because it's kind of amazing that you
are this successful by accident.
Speaker 2 (01:14):
Well, it was an accident. I think I always wanted
to write novels, but many many people have that wish
and I really couldn't see it happening. And I had
a perfectly good job. I was a producer for BBC
Television working in Northern Ireland, and purely by chance, I
met an American, a woman who I saw getting out
(01:37):
of an elevator in Edinburgh, and I looked at my
reporter and said, I'm going to marry that one. But
it took me eighteen months, and Judy, for very good reasons,
family reasons, couldn't live in Britain. So I said, well,
I'll have to go to America. When I got to
the United States, I found it was quite difficult to
get a work permit. They were not giving them away.
(01:58):
So I said to her, don't worry, darling, I'll write
a book. And that was forty five years ago. I'm
now an American citizen, thankfully, and I've been writing books
ever since. And we're still married.
Speaker 1 (02:11):
What is it you saw in that instant the legend
decide that you had to marry her.
Speaker 2 (02:18):
Well, I'm sure she'd be mad at me for saying it,
but very good legs.
Speaker 1 (02:21):
If it's the truth, You and I both believe that
that's a useful thing to start with.
Speaker 2 (02:26):
We're in agreements on that, mister speaker.
Speaker 1 (02:28):
Obviously, beyond the legs, there was a lot that was
pretty endurable of you guys are still hanging out together
this many years later.
Speaker 2 (02:36):
Oh, we're still hanging out together.
Speaker 1 (02:37):
Yes, I have forgotten. I should know this. What was
your first novel?
Speaker 2 (02:41):
The first novel was called Sharp's Eagle, which was set
in eighteen o eight and the Battle of Talavera. And
I think there are now twenty five Sharp novels. I
think that's the right number, which follow him now from
his early career in India Writes through to the Back
of Waterloo.
Speaker 1 (03:01):
I love the early books when he's in India. And
I'm a little surprised that you kind of start not
quite in the middle, but almost in the middle. So
how did that come to him? What is there that
head you sitting around New Jersey going gee, I think
I'll write about Taliberra Well.
Speaker 2 (03:19):
I think I'd always known what book I wanted to write.
I've often thought that writing itself is very easy. Writing
well is difficult, but knowing what to write about is
the most difficult thing of all. And as I'm sure
you know, there were those great novels by CS Forester
about Hornblower, and it always amazed me that there were
(03:39):
several guys writing about the British Navy in its fight
against Napodium, but nobody was doing the same for the army.
And I thought that was a gap on the bookshelf.
So for years I looked for books that told the
story of Wellington's army, and I couldn't find them. And
eventually this little light went off in my head, and
I thought, what if nobody else is doing it, why
don't you do it? And That's what I've been doing
(04:01):
for forty five years now.
Speaker 1 (04:03):
Well, I have to tell you, by the way, Jim
mattis the Marine Force Star General Secretary of Defense. We
were at dinner one night and he said he had
never understood Waterloo until he read your version, which I
thought was quite a compliment.
Speaker 2 (04:17):
It's a huge compliment. I shall treasure it.
Speaker 1 (04:20):
I had spent a lot of time. Right after I
won the speakership. I spent several months studying Wellington because
I thought the Peninsular campaign of fighting out numbered and
winning was probably the closest thing to my speakership, and
I wanted to learn from Wellington. So I read a
lot of biographies and things, and he is astonishing. But
then you bring both the war and you bring sharp
(04:47):
of course, but you also bring Wellington to life in
a way that a lot of people find very difficult.
Speaker 2 (04:54):
Well he was I think He was a difficult man.
He once said it himself. I have no small talk,
and he was awkward, certainly in conversation. He was quite cold.
In fact. I think he was a very emotional man,
but he hid his emotions very well. And he was,
of course quite brilliant. He'd served in every rank in
(05:14):
the army, from lieutenant upwards. He understood the processes of fighting,
and he especially understood logistics. I feel I know him
remarkably well because I've been writing about him for so long.
I also suspect he would dislike me intensely. He once
said he could not bear authors, and he refused to
(05:35):
talk to authors. I mean after the Battle of Waterloo.
In his long career, he was often questioned about it,
especially about the Waterloo campaign, and he refused to talk
about it. The only way to get him to open
up was to present him with a very young, beautiful woman,
and then he would talk. He was very susceptible to women,
which I like about him. And the best stories about
(05:58):
Wellington all come from what you told other women.
Speaker 1 (06:02):
You remind me by the way Churchill, as a very
impetuous and arrogant young man, decides to write The River
War about the Battle of Omdermen in the book praises Kitchener,
who is the general in charge of the whole campaign.
Kitchener's totally pissed off at him, because Kitchener's attitude is,
who are you as a junior officer? Whether you tell
(06:26):
me you like what I did or you don't like
what I did, you have no right to have an opinion.
I think that he and Wellington would probably have agreed
on that.
Speaker 2 (06:34):
I'm sure they would have agreed absolutely. Yes.
Speaker 1 (06:36):
As you know, not only am I a huge fan
of what you have done for Wellington and for Sharp,
but I am an even bigger fan for what you
have done for Ughtred and for the Last Kingdom. What
I think is probably the best explanation of Alfred that
I have ever seen, capturing the strangely weak and yet
(07:02):
very strong person who becomes the foundation for what they
later on will call England. You've done some secondary books,
but you have these two series that are astonishing. How
do you manage to juggle two totally different storylines, two
totally different eras, and yet both of them come off
(07:23):
I think just as remarkably good.
Speaker 2 (07:27):
Well, I suppose the first storyline is Sharp and the
Napoleonic Wars. And I've been an enthusiast for looking at
the Napoleonic Wars ever since I was a kid. Ughtred
and the Saxon stories came much later, and that was
really because I think living in America, and I've become
(07:50):
very fond of America, and like all Americans, I celebrate
July the fourth, and I realized that I had a
very very idea where the United States came from. It's
birth moment, if you like. And then I thought, well,
I know nothing about where England came from. I mean,
England doesn't have a birth moment. There's no celebration in
(08:11):
England of a day to celebrate England itself. And although
I had a very good education in Britain, it didn't
cover that. So I set out to discover it for myself.
And that's really the story of Ughtred. Ughtred, if you like,
parallels the creation of England. And in July next year
we'll celebrate America's two hundred and fiftieth birthday. England's birthday,
(08:36):
I suppose, is the year nine three seven, at a
terrible battle called the Battle of Brunenburgh. We don't really
know too much about what happened there. But that was
the birth moment at this battle, and maybe I'll celebrate
it privately next October. I'd have to subtract nine three
seven from twenty twenty six, and I can't do that
(08:58):
in my head. I'll leave that to cleverer people.
Speaker 1 (09:18):
In that particular battle, which, as you point out, we
have only very limited archaeological knowledge, but you have a
clear sense that the English side, by keeping part of
its forces in reserve and bringing them in from the
flank at the right moment, were decisive and shattering the
(09:40):
Allied armies that were opposed to England. Is that a
novelistic adventure or is there some reason to believe it
may have happened like that?
Speaker 2 (09:48):
No reason to believe it at all. I had to
make it up. For hundreds of years, over a thousand years,
nobody even knew where the battle was fought. Archaeologists discovered
that about five years ago. One of the joys of
being an historical novelist is you can make things up.
I can't make up anything about the Battle of Waterloo.
It's too well recorded. I mean, I can't invent a
(10:12):
southern flank attack, which in fact was what Wellington was
most worried about. But when it came to Brunenburgh, other
than the fact that the two armies met and that
it was a disaster for the enemy, we don't know
anything really, so I just make it up as I
go along.
Speaker 1 (10:29):
When you think about Wellington and his capacity to do
things in the whole nature of the British Army of
that period, how much do you think would Wellington learn
fighting in India shaped and equipped him to operate in
a backward region like Portugal.
Speaker 2 (10:49):
I think he learned confidence. I think that was the
main thing. At the huge Battle of Essay, which was
his biggest victory in India, he took huge risks and
those risks paid off. I mean he was often reviled
by the French as merely a defensive general, and because
he was a brilliant defensive general, he proved that at Waterloo.
(11:11):
But he was also capable of very very bold attacks,
and his attack at a Say was particularly brave and bold.
He was outnumbered again, but he outflanked the enemy and
he destroyed the enemy. And I think he came away
from India convinced that he could actually operate as a
commander of an army, and that has indeed proved true.
(11:34):
But much later in his life he was asked once
again by a woman, what are you most proud of
in your career? And he answered with one word, assay,
which is a story I tell in Sharp's Triumph. And
he was simply proud of it because it was a
huge risk and enormous risk, and it paid off. And
he proved it again at battles like Salamanca, where again
(11:54):
he was an offensive battle, but it was a brilliant
battle in many ways. People call it Salamanca Wellington's masterpiece,
And as much as a horrible slaughter like Salamanca can
be a masterpiece, it was a masterpiece of generalship. So
I think what he learned in India is to take
(12:15):
heed of his own impulses, to follow them, and to
have confidence in them.
Speaker 1 (12:22):
If I remember Correickly, Salamanca is the battle where he's
watching the battlefield eating a chicken leg and suddenly says,
the French general has made a huge mistake, throws away
the chicken leg and goes out of the battle.
Speaker 2 (12:35):
That's exactly right. He's watching the French from a hilltop.
He sees them making this mistake, which is basically marching
far off to his right and there left, and he
says to his friend Aliva, the Spanish liaison officer Marmont apadu,
Marmont is lost. He then gallops three miles to his
(12:58):
right flank and orders the attack by the third division,
which rolls the French up and again it was risky.
In many ways, it's astonishing, but it was incredibly effective.
Speaker 1 (13:09):
I never thought much about coming out of the peninsula
and into southern France. But in fact, as you may
clear in several of your novels, there was a big
deal and was actually a very real campaign in its
own right.
Speaker 2 (13:24):
It was. And when Wellington crossed the Pyrenees and marches
into France, he is the only enemy army actually on
French soil, and Napoleon wanted to get rid of him,
so he sent big reinforcements to Marshall Sioux, who was
his opponent there. And it was a very difficult campaign
for Wellington because he's hedged in by rivers and faced
(13:47):
with an enormous fortress city, the city of Bayonne, And
in many ways his campaign following the crossing of the
Pyrenees is quite brilliant, and of course it leads in
the end to Britain occupying everything from Bordeaux down to
the French border. That by that time the Austrians, the
(14:10):
Prussians and the Russians were in northern France, and the
situation became impossible for Napoleon. Although Napoleon's own campaign of
eighteen fourteen is also a masterpiece. With very small forces,
he stymied his major enemies in the north, but that
left Wellington free in the south.
Speaker 1 (14:31):
There seems to be an enormous gap in the capabilities
of the French generals without Napoleon, they're pretty consistently unable
to cope with Wellington.
Speaker 2 (14:45):
Yes, that's true, and Wellington himself explained it by saying
that French logistics, French organization was like a very very
fine harness on a horse. It was beautifully constructed, a
beautiful he said. If it breaks, it takes forever to mend.
He says, I just tie ropes to make a harness,
(15:05):
and if something breaks, I tie a knot and keep going.
And that is in many ways true. And of course
this adds to the drama of Waterloo, because on the
eve of Waterloo Napoleon is entirely confident of victory. And
these generals who have faced Wellington have been beaten by
Wellington and say, no, no, you've got to be cautious.
(15:27):
This man is good. And he looks at them scornfully
and says, you only say that because he's beaten you.
I tell you I can beat him and will beat him.
And that is, I really think part of the drama,
because you're right. Napoleon was a genius of war, but
he was faced by another one. And it was like
the Wimbledon final. These two greatest players in the world
(15:49):
have never met before and they meet at the final,
and thank goodness, Wellington won.
Speaker 1 (15:55):
I went back recently and reread you Are, a description
of the novel involving Waterlooon. It is really a close
run things.
Speaker 2 (16:04):
Willington said, it was a close run thing. And again,
the drama of the battle is it began at about
eleven o'clock in the morning, it's still going at eight
thirty at night, and really at eight o'clock it would
be impossible to say who is going to win this.
And then finally Napoleon throws in his elite troops in
the final attack. The attack of the Imperial Guard up
(16:29):
against Wellington's weakened right wing, and you have this final
clash and it all happens very suddenly. An immediate result
happens when the Imperial Guard is defeated and the rest
of the army just panic and run. It is an
incredibly dramatic moment, one of the most dramatic moments in warfare.
Speaker 1 (16:50):
Because you recognize the nature of southern France. You really
give us a sense of how important it was to
be able to have engineering and to be able to
figure out both how to keep the other side of
the Fresh off balance and how to build crossing so
rapidly that you can get the army because it's in
(17:11):
constant danger of being caught with half of it on
the north side and half of it on the south
side and being defeated.
Speaker 2 (17:18):
In detail, well, that really was the story of that campaign.
And again Wellington's understanding of the problems is in many
ways the key to solving them. And he had great
faith in his engineers, who were very, very, very efficient,
and he depends for his survival on these pontoon bridges
(17:39):
that his engineers construct, and when the pontoon bridges fail,
he's in Trouble. But really I think the masterpiece and
it's actually not in Sharp Storm, although I think you
learn all about it if you read the novel. Was
the crossing of the river Adure when he crossed it
at its estuary, the widest point the river, and an
(18:02):
almost impossible place to build a bridge because it was
subject to Atlantic storms. And yet the engineers managed to
throw a bridge over in less than twenty four hours,
and Wellington crosses, and that's out flanks Marshall Soux. Yet again, you.
Speaker 1 (18:33):
Any care that you actually wanted Sharp to be there,
but it didn't fit the timeline because of Sharpe siege.
Speaker 2 (18:41):
Yes, this is called disorganization. On my part, I really
thought the climax of the book would be the building
of the great bridge over the river at Dure, and
then suddenly realized, when I was halfway through the book
that I'd already had Sharp somewhere else when that happened,
so I couldn't tell it, which forced me to come
up with another ending for the book, which in the
end I rather liked. When Sharp is sent to make
(19:03):
a reconnaissance of the northern Bank, I have absolutely no
evidence of such a reconnaissance. Took place, but I can't
believe it didn't, so I just made it up.
Speaker 1 (19:11):
I mean, I think it's very likely that whether Sharp
did it or somebody else did it, the willing to
want to know what was there.
Speaker 2 (19:21):
Oh yes, I agree with you, and I take great
joy in your agreements.
Speaker 1 (19:25):
One of your most interesting characters in this book is
Sir Nathaniel Peacock, who is a real figure. It's kind
of unkind to him to set him up for ridicule,
but apparently it was real.
Speaker 2 (19:38):
Oh yes, he was real. I mean one of the
first persons who ever read the book said you can't
get away with this, and I hadn't written the historical
note by that time. He said, one, the name is ridiculous,
and two, no one can be that pompous and that stupid.
And I pointed out that in fact, the man existed,
and Sir Nathaniel was, if you like, a cowboy caricature
(20:01):
of the arrogant British officer who is born too rich,
too privileged, and thinks he knows it all and on
the whole. Wellington had managed to get rid of most
men like that, but at the last minute, Sir Nathaniel
is inflicted on the army. And he makes a perfect
character for Sharp to dislike, because Sharp because he's the
(20:22):
very opposite of a pompous, arrogant, privileged officer. And I
went to a spoiler and say, what happens to Snathaniel
in the book, But it's all true. It happened more
or less exactly as it's described in the book.
Speaker 1 (20:35):
You have several of those scattered through the book that
people who are out of touch with reality, taken up
with their own aristocracy, and dangerous to the army, and
yet favored by the army headquarters back in London.
Speaker 2 (20:52):
Which was due to their social position and the contacts
they had. And Wellingson often complained when new officers were
sent to him that they were useless incompetent popping jays,
but somehow he survived them.
Speaker 1 (21:10):
You communicate the army is winning not because it's perfect,
but because in its imperfections, it is still dramatically more
durable than its opponent, which I think a really interesting
question about culture and warfare. All the way through this,
this being the Napoleonic Horse, the British stay just below
(21:32):
the military crest so that the French artillery will pass
over them. The British shoot from line, so he can
bring all of their weapons to bear. Simultaneously, the French
march up the hill in a column, which allows them
to control the much less professional troops that they have,
but at the same time means when they collide with
(21:53):
the British that only the people on the outside of
the column will be able to fight. And this goes
on consistently with Wellington for the entire period of warfare.
You know, up through Waterloo. They never learn.
Speaker 2 (22:07):
Well, they did learn, and they tried to counter it.
But as you say in the end, as Wellington said
of Waterloo, they came on in the same old way,
and we saw them off in the same old way.
The French understood that this was a problem. Their solution
to the problem was to try and deploy the column
into line just before they clashed with the British. It
(22:28):
never worked, because the British simply advanced and blasted them
with musketry as they tried to deploy. But they did
know it, and they tried two things to avoid it.
One was to send more skirmishes ahead, but they came
up against the British riflemen, and the British had the rifle,
and the French didn't have rifles, and they came up
(22:50):
against the too deep British line, and as you say,
every British musket could fire, whereas in a column only
the guys in the rank and a few on the
files at the side could reply. So although the French
outnumbered the British, they were far outnumbered in the number
of muskets that they could use. And to me too,
(23:12):
it's astonishing that the French really didn't abolish that method,
but it had worked so well for them against every
other enemy that they just couldn't give it up. And
they did the same at Waterloo. The Imperial Guard attacked
in column and met a British line, and the line
is always going to win.
Speaker 1 (23:31):
I had to ask you one almost sully question, I
guess do you feel closer to Sharp or to Hautred?
Speaker 2 (23:39):
Well, that's an interesting question. Probably Sharp, because I've been
writing him for so long, and if I'm walking the dog,
I hear him talking in my head Outred is in
many ways more fun to right because we know less
about his period, so I can make up more things
for him. But Sharp is incredibly real to me. So yes,
(24:00):
I'm sure that Sharp is the answer to that question.
Speaker 1 (24:03):
You've always sort of ended the novels with the promise
that Sharp and his sergeant Harper well Marchigan, but you
don't at the dinners. Are we at the end of
the Great Journey with Sharp?
Speaker 2 (24:18):
I have a feeling probably we are, but I always
say never say never, And who knows. In two or
three years time, when I'm wondering what the next book
should be, I'll hear Sharp saying, well, you haven't taken
me to the Battle of Alberherira yet, have you. So
we'll see. We'll see in the interim.
Speaker 1 (24:35):
What are you working on?
Speaker 2 (24:36):
I'm working on another Utred. And again I mean this
is we went back to about a year ago and
I was thinking what will be the next book? And
Utred said, hey, how about me? And I'm doing what
I promised myself i'd never do with Utre, which was
going back in his history and sort of love tailing
this book into the series. But we'll see whether it works.
Speaker 1 (25:00):
I have to confess, the first time I picked up
the initial volume where he's with his father in that
very first battle, I actually didn't read it very long.
I have read the first couple of chapters and I thought,
this is really so different. I couldn't wrap my head
around it. And then about ten years later I came
back and realized how brilliant it was. And I don't
(25:24):
know what it was about my two connections with Lutred,
but I become a very deep fan of that series
and think us a remarkable achievement.
Speaker 2 (25:33):
Well, thank you, missus speaker.
Speaker 1 (25:35):
You dedicated this book to Susan Watt. You're longtime editor
and somebody who wanted you to reveal more of Sharpe's
emotional life. How did Susan shape the whole experience of
Sharp over the years.
Speaker 2 (25:51):
Well, Susan was a quite extraordinary editor. I think she
felt motherly towards Sharp, and she cared very deeply about him,
and she was always urging me to describe his emotions
more and I would just say, well, he's always grumpy,
that's about it, and I refuse to do it. I
remember when I wrote the three Arthurian books, she wanted
(26:13):
to know more about Arthur's childhood, which resulted in one
line in the book what is the Egg to the Eagle?
And I refused to do it. She was a wonderful
editor and the books were always improved after she had
gone through them and made her requests.
Speaker 1 (26:31):
Since she had known her for so long, would you
go through a process of sort of chatting about the
book before you started writing, or just showing up with
the book?
Speaker 2 (26:40):
Showed up with the book, which annoyed her. She always
wanted to see early drafts, and I always refused. I said,
you'll see the book when it's finished. And then I
would try and put in little traps for her, because
I would understand that the one thing she was really
going to object about the book, so I'd put in
four or five others, things which I would pretend to
(27:02):
fight for and give way on so I didn't have
to give way on the big one. I think she
eventually realized what I was doing and became better at
sorting it out.
Speaker 1 (27:10):
Well, that's very funny, you know. I always have this
problem when I write. I really don't like being edited.
Speaker 2 (27:17):
No one does.
Speaker 1 (27:18):
Yeah, make me feel better. Frankly, I want to thank
you for joining me. A bit more importantly, I want
to thank you for all the years you've spent developing
several worlds so that people like me can literally lose
themselves in Bernard Cornwall's.
Speaker 2 (27:35):
World, and I want to thank you for your support
which has always been wonderful. Thank you, mister speaker.
Speaker 1 (27:42):
You and I have to tell people your new book,
Sharp Storm is available now on Amazon and in bookstores everywhere,
and people can also follow you on your website at
Bernard Cornwell dot net. So thank you very much for
joining me and having this wonderful conversation.
Speaker 2 (28:00):
Thank you, mister Sweakt.
Speaker 1 (28:04):
Thank you to my guest, Bernard Cornwell. Newtsworld is produced
by kingridh Thwreet sixty and iHeartMedia. Our executive producers, Guardnzie Sloan,
our researchers Rachel Peterson. Your work for the show was
created by Steve Fenley. Special thanks to the team at
Gingrish three sixty. If you can enjoy Nutsworld, I hope
you'll go to Apple Podcasts and both rate us with
(28:26):
five stars and give us a review so others can
learn what it's all about. Join me on substarck at
gingrishtree sixty dot net. I'm newt gingridg. This is Newtsworld.
On this episode of News World. One of my all
time favorite authors is Bernard Cornwell. His best selling novels
of historical fiction have kept me entertained and educated for years.
The Wall three Journal calls in quote, the most prolific
and successful historical novelist in the world today, and that
(00:27):
is quite complent. Now he's joined me today to discuss
his latest book, Sharp Storm, set near eighteen thirteen on
a battlefield in France. I've read it. I highly recommend it,
but I'm not going to let him get away. It's
just talking about that Chwis. He's such an interesting person
and his background is so cool. Bernard, thank you so
(00:59):
much much for joining me.
Speaker 2 (01:02):
Well, thank you for inviting me.
Speaker 1 (01:04):
You said your writing career started almost by accident. Tell
us about that, because it's kind of amazing that you
are this successful by accident.
Speaker 2 (01:14):
Well, it was an accident. I think I always wanted
to write novels, but many many people have that wish
and I really couldn't see it happening. And I had
a perfectly good job. I was a producer for BBC
Television working in Northern Ireland, and purely by chance, I
met an American, a woman who I saw getting out
(01:37):
of an elevator in Edinburgh, and I looked at my
reporter and said, I'm going to marry that one. But
it took me eighteen months, and Judy, for very good reasons,
family reasons, couldn't live in Britain. So I said, well,
I'll have to go to America. When I got to
the United States, I found it was quite difficult to
get a work permit. They were not giving them away.
(01:58):
So I said to her, don't worry, darling, I'll write
a book. And that was forty five years ago. I'm
now an American citizen, thankfully, and I've been writing books
ever since. And we're still married.
Speaker 1 (02:11):
What is it you saw in that instant the legend
decide that you had to marry her.
Speaker 2 (02:18):
Well, I'm sure she'd be mad at me for saying it,
but very good legs.
Speaker 1 (02:21):
If it's the truth, You and I both believe that
that's a useful thing to start with.
Speaker 2 (02:26):
We're in agreements on that, mister speaker.
Speaker 1 (02:28):
Obviously, beyond the legs, there was a lot that was
pretty endurable of you guys are still hanging out together
this many years later.
Speaker 2 (02:36):
Oh, we're still hanging out together.
Speaker 1 (02:37):
Yes, I have forgotten. I should know this. What was
your first novel?
Speaker 2 (02:41):
The first novel was called Sharp's Eagle, which was set
in eighteen o eight and the Battle of Talavera. And
I think there are now twenty five Sharp novels. I
think that's the right number, which follow him now from
his early career in India Writes through to the Back
of Waterloo.
Speaker 1 (03:01):
I love the early books when he's in India. And
I'm a little surprised that you kind of start not
quite in the middle, but almost in the middle. So
how did that come to him? What is there that
head you sitting around New Jersey going gee, I think
I'll write about Taliberra Well.
Speaker 2 (03:19):
I think I'd always known what book I wanted to write.
I've often thought that writing itself is very easy. Writing
well is difficult, but knowing what to write about is
the most difficult thing of all. And as I'm sure
you know, there were those great novels by CS Forester
about Hornblower, and it always amazed me that there were
(03:39):
several guys writing about the British Navy in its fight
against Napodium, but nobody was doing the same for the army.
And I thought that was a gap on the bookshelf.
So for years I looked for books that told the
story of Wellington's army, and I couldn't find them. And
eventually this little light went off in my head, and
I thought, what if nobody else is doing it, why
don't you do it? And That's what I've been doing
(04:01):
for forty five years now.
Speaker 1 (04:03):
Well, I have to tell you, by the way, Jim
mattis the Marine Force Star General Secretary of Defense. We
were at dinner one night and he said he had
never understood Waterloo until he read your version, which I
thought was quite a compliment.
Speaker 2 (04:17):
It's a huge compliment. I shall treasure it.
Speaker 1 (04:20):
I had spent a lot of time. Right after I
won the speakership. I spent several months studying Wellington because
I thought the Peninsular campaign of fighting out numbered and
winning was probably the closest thing to my speakership, and
I wanted to learn from Wellington. So I read a
lot of biographies and things, and he is astonishing. But
then you bring both the war and you bring sharp
(04:47):
of course, but you also bring Wellington to life in
a way that a lot of people find very difficult.
Speaker 2 (04:54):
Well he was I think He was a difficult man.
He once said it himself. I have no small talk,
and he was awkward, certainly in conversation. He was quite cold.
In fact. I think he was a very emotional man,
but he hid his emotions very well. And he was,
of course quite brilliant. He'd served in every rank in
(05:14):
the army, from lieutenant upwards. He understood the processes of fighting,
and he especially understood logistics. I feel I know him
remarkably well because I've been writing about him for so long.
I also suspect he would dislike me intensely. He once
said he could not bear authors, and he refused to
(05:35):
talk to authors. I mean after the Battle of Waterloo.
In his long career, he was often questioned about it,
especially about the Waterloo campaign, and he refused to talk
about it. The only way to get him to open
up was to present him with a very young, beautiful woman,
and then he would talk. He was very susceptible to women,
which I like about him. And the best stories about
(05:58):
Wellington all come from what you told other women.
Speaker 1 (06:02):
You remind me by the way Churchill, as a very
impetuous and arrogant young man, decides to write The River
War about the Battle of Omdermen in the book praises Kitchener,
who is the general in charge of the whole campaign.
Kitchener's totally pissed off at him, because Kitchener's attitude is,
who are you as a junior officer? Whether you tell
(06:26):
me you like what I did or you don't like
what I did, you have no right to have an opinion.
I think that he and Wellington would probably have agreed
on that.
Speaker 2 (06:34):
I'm sure they would have agreed absolutely. Yes.
Speaker 1 (06:36):
As you know, not only am I a huge fan
of what you have done for Wellington and for Sharp,
but I am an even bigger fan for what you
have done for Ughtred and for the Last Kingdom. What
I think is probably the best explanation of Alfred that
I have ever seen, capturing the strangely weak and yet
(07:02):
very strong person who becomes the foundation for what they
later on will call England. You've done some secondary books,
but you have these two series that are astonishing. How
do you manage to juggle two totally different storylines, two
totally different eras, and yet both of them come off
(07:23):
I think just as remarkably good.
Speaker 2 (07:27):
Well, I suppose the first storyline is Sharp and the
Napoleonic Wars. And I've been an enthusiast for looking at
the Napoleonic Wars ever since I was a kid. Ughtred
and the Saxon stories came much later, and that was
really because I think living in America, and I've become
(07:50):
very fond of America, and like all Americans, I celebrate
July the fourth, and I realized that I had a
very very idea where the United States came from. It's
birth moment, if you like. And then I thought, well,
I know nothing about where England came from. I mean,
England doesn't have a birth moment. There's no celebration in
(08:11):
England of a day to celebrate England itself. And although
I had a very good education in Britain, it didn't
cover that. So I set out to discover it for myself.
And that's really the story of Ughtred. Ughtred, if you like,
parallels the creation of England. And in July next year
we'll celebrate America's two hundred and fiftieth birthday. England's birthday,
(08:36):
I suppose, is the year nine three seven, at a
terrible battle called the Battle of Brunenburgh. We don't really
know too much about what happened there. But that was
the birth moment at this battle, and maybe I'll celebrate
it privately next October. I'd have to subtract nine three
seven from twenty twenty six, and I can't do that
(08:58):
in my head. I'll leave that to cleverer people.
Speaker 1 (09:18):
In that particular battle, which, as you point out, we
have only very limited archaeological knowledge, but you have a
clear sense that the English side, by keeping part of
its forces in reserve and bringing them in from the
flank at the right moment, were decisive and shattering the
(09:40):
Allied armies that were opposed to England. Is that a
novelistic adventure or is there some reason to believe it
may have happened like that?
Speaker 2 (09:48):
No reason to believe it at all. I had to
make it up. For hundreds of years, over a thousand years,
nobody even knew where the battle was fought. Archaeologists discovered
that about five years ago. One of the joys of
being an historical novelist is you can make things up.
I can't make up anything about the Battle of Waterloo.
It's too well recorded. I mean, I can't invent a
(10:12):
southern flank attack, which in fact was what Wellington was
most worried about. But when it came to Brunenburgh, other
than the fact that the two armies met and that
it was a disaster for the enemy, we don't know
anything really, so I just make it up as I
go along.
Speaker 1 (10:29):
When you think about Wellington and his capacity to do
things in the whole nature of the British Army of
that period, how much do you think would Wellington learn
fighting in India shaped and equipped him to operate in
a backward region like Portugal.
Speaker 2 (10:49):
I think he learned confidence. I think that was the
main thing. At the huge Battle of Essay, which was
his biggest victory in India, he took huge risks and
those risks paid off. I mean he was often reviled
by the French as merely a defensive general, and because
he was a brilliant defensive general, he proved that at Waterloo.
(11:11):
But he was also capable of very very bold attacks,
and his attack at a Say was particularly brave and bold.
He was outnumbered again, but he outflanked the enemy and
he destroyed the enemy. And I think he came away
from India convinced that he could actually operate as a
commander of an army, and that has indeed proved true.
(11:34):
But much later in his life he was asked once
again by a woman, what are you most proud of
in your career? And he answered with one word, assay,
which is a story I tell in Sharp's Triumph. And
he was simply proud of it because it was a
huge risk and enormous risk, and it paid off. And
he proved it again at battles like Salamanca, where again
(11:54):
he was an offensive battle, but it was a brilliant
battle in many ways. People call it Salamanca Wellington's masterpiece,
And as much as a horrible slaughter like Salamanca can
be a masterpiece, it was a masterpiece of generalship. So
I think what he learned in India is to take
(12:15):
heed of his own impulses, to follow them, and to
have confidence in them.
Speaker 1 (12:22):
If I remember Correickly, Salamanca is the battle where he's
watching the battlefield eating a chicken leg and suddenly says,
the French general has made a huge mistake, throws away
the chicken leg and goes out of the battle.
Speaker 2 (12:35):
That's exactly right. He's watching the French from a hilltop.
He sees them making this mistake, which is basically marching
far off to his right and there left, and he
says to his friend Aliva, the Spanish liaison officer Marmont apadu,
Marmont is lost. He then gallops three miles to his
(12:58):
right flank and orders the attack by the third division,
which rolls the French up and again it was risky.
In many ways, it's astonishing, but it was incredibly effective.
Speaker 1 (13:09):
I never thought much about coming out of the peninsula
and into southern France. But in fact, as you may
clear in several of your novels, there was a big
deal and was actually a very real campaign in its
own right.
Speaker 2 (13:24):
It was. And when Wellington crossed the Pyrenees and marches
into France, he is the only enemy army actually on
French soil, and Napoleon wanted to get rid of him,
so he sent big reinforcements to Marshall Sioux, who was
his opponent there. And it was a very difficult campaign
for Wellington because he's hedged in by rivers and faced
(13:47):
with an enormous fortress city, the city of Bayonne, And
in many ways his campaign following the crossing of the
Pyrenees is quite brilliant, and of course it leads in
the end to Britain occupying everything from Bordeaux down to
the French border. That by that time the Austrians, the
(14:10):
Prussians and the Russians were in northern France, and the
situation became impossible for Napoleon. Although Napoleon's own campaign of
eighteen fourteen is also a masterpiece. With very small forces,
he stymied his major enemies in the north, but that
left Wellington free in the south.
Speaker 1 (14:31):
There seems to be an enormous gap in the capabilities
of the French generals without Napoleon, they're pretty consistently unable
to cope with Wellington.
Speaker 2 (14:45):
Yes, that's true, and Wellington himself explained it by saying
that French logistics, French organization was like a very very
fine harness on a horse. It was beautifully constructed, a
beautiful he said. If it breaks, it takes forever to mend.
He says, I just tie ropes to make a harness,
(15:05):
and if something breaks, I tie a knot and keep going.
And that is in many ways true. And of course
this adds to the drama of Waterloo, because on the
eve of Waterloo Napoleon is entirely confident of victory. And
these generals who have faced Wellington have been beaten by
Wellington and say, no, no, you've got to be cautious.
(15:27):
This man is good. And he looks at them scornfully
and says, you only say that because he's beaten you.
I tell you I can beat him and will beat him.
And that is, I really think part of the drama,
because you're right. Napoleon was a genius of war, but
he was faced by another one. And it was like
the Wimbledon final. These two greatest players in the world
(15:49):
have never met before and they meet at the final,
and thank goodness, Wellington won.
Speaker 1 (15:55):
I went back recently and reread you Are, a description
of the novel involving Waterlooon. It is really a close
run things.
Speaker 2 (16:04):
Willington said, it was a close run thing. And again,
the drama of the battle is it began at about
eleven o'clock in the morning, it's still going at eight
thirty at night, and really at eight o'clock it would
be impossible to say who is going to win this.
And then finally Napoleon throws in his elite troops in
the final attack. The attack of the Imperial Guard up
(16:29):
against Wellington's weakened right wing, and you have this final
clash and it all happens very suddenly. An immediate result
happens when the Imperial Guard is defeated and the rest
of the army just panic and run. It is an
incredibly dramatic moment, one of the most dramatic moments in warfare.
Speaker 1 (16:50):
Because you recognize the nature of southern France. You really
give us a sense of how important it was to
be able to have engineering and to be able to
figure out both how to keep the other side of
the Fresh off balance and how to build crossing so
rapidly that you can get the army because it's in
(17:11):
constant danger of being caught with half of it on
the north side and half of it on the south
side and being defeated.
Speaker 2 (17:18):
In detail, well, that really was the story of that campaign.
And again Wellington's understanding of the problems is in many
ways the key to solving them. And he had great
faith in his engineers, who were very, very, very efficient,
and he depends for his survival on these pontoon bridges
(17:39):
that his engineers construct, and when the pontoon bridges fail,
he's in Trouble. But really I think the masterpiece and
it's actually not in Sharp Storm, although I think you
learn all about it if you read the novel. Was
the crossing of the river Adure when he crossed it
at its estuary, the widest point the river, and an
(18:02):
almost impossible place to build a bridge because it was
subject to Atlantic storms. And yet the engineers managed to
throw a bridge over in less than twenty four hours,
and Wellington crosses, and that's out flanks Marshall Soux. Yet again, you.
Speaker 1 (18:33):
Any care that you actually wanted Sharp to be there,
but it didn't fit the timeline because of Sharpe siege.
Speaker 2 (18:41):
Yes, this is called disorganization. On my part, I really
thought the climax of the book would be the building
of the great bridge over the river at Dure, and
then suddenly realized, when I was halfway through the book
that I'd already had Sharp somewhere else when that happened,
so I couldn't tell it, which forced me to come
up with another ending for the book, which in the
end I rather liked. When Sharp is sent to make
(19:03):
a reconnaissance of the northern Bank, I have absolutely no
evidence of such a reconnaissance. Took place, but I can't
believe it didn't, so I just made it up.
Speaker 1 (19:11):
I mean, I think it's very likely that whether Sharp
did it or somebody else did it, the willing to
want to know what was there.
Speaker 2 (19:21):
Oh yes, I agree with you, and I take great
joy in your agreements.
Speaker 1 (19:25):
One of your most interesting characters in this book is
Sir Nathaniel Peacock, who is a real figure. It's kind
of unkind to him to set him up for ridicule,
but apparently it was real.
Speaker 2 (19:38):
Oh yes, he was real. I mean one of the
first persons who ever read the book said you can't
get away with this, and I hadn't written the historical
note by that time. He said, one, the name is ridiculous,
and two, no one can be that pompous and that stupid.
And I pointed out that in fact, the man existed,
and Sir Nathaniel was, if you like, a cowboy caricature
(20:01):
of the arrogant British officer who is born too rich,
too privileged, and thinks he knows it all and on
the whole. Wellington had managed to get rid of most
men like that, but at the last minute, Sir Nathaniel
is inflicted on the army. And he makes a perfect
character for Sharp to dislike, because Sharp because he's the
(20:22):
very opposite of a pompous, arrogant, privileged officer. And I
went to a spoiler and say, what happens to Snathaniel
in the book, But it's all true. It happened more
or less exactly as it's described in the book.
Speaker 1 (20:35):
You have several of those scattered through the book that
people who are out of touch with reality, taken up
with their own aristocracy, and dangerous to the army, and
yet favored by the army headquarters back in London.
Speaker 2 (20:52):
Which was due to their social position and the contacts
they had. And Wellingson often complained when new officers were
sent to him that they were useless incompetent popping jays,
but somehow he survived them.
Speaker 1 (21:10):
You communicate the army is winning not because it's perfect,
but because in its imperfections, it is still dramatically more
durable than its opponent, which I think a really interesting
question about culture and warfare. All the way through this,
this being the Napoleonic Horse, the British stay just below
(21:32):
the military crest so that the French artillery will pass
over them. The British shoot from line, so he can
bring all of their weapons to bear. Simultaneously, the French
march up the hill in a column, which allows them
to control the much less professional troops that they have,
but at the same time means when they collide with
(21:53):
the British that only the people on the outside of
the column will be able to fight. And this goes
on consistently with Wellington for the entire period of warfare.
You know, up through Waterloo. They never learn.
Speaker 2 (22:07):
Well, they did learn, and they tried to counter it.
But as you say in the end, as Wellington said
of Waterloo, they came on in the same old way,
and we saw them off in the same old way.
The French understood that this was a problem. Their solution
to the problem was to try and deploy the column
into line just before they clashed with the British. It
(22:28):
never worked, because the British simply advanced and blasted them
with musketry as they tried to deploy. But they did
know it, and they tried two things to avoid it.
One was to send more skirmishes ahead, but they came
up against the British riflemen, and the British had the rifle,
and the French didn't have rifles, and they came up
(22:50):
against the too deep British line, and as you say,
every British musket could fire, whereas in a column only
the guys in the rank and a few on the
files at the side could reply. So although the French
outnumbered the British, they were far outnumbered in the number
of muskets that they could use. And to me too,
(23:12):
it's astonishing that the French really didn't abolish that method,
but it had worked so well for them against every
other enemy that they just couldn't give it up. And
they did the same at Waterloo. The Imperial Guard attacked
in column and met a British line, and the line
is always going to win.
Speaker 1 (23:31):
I had to ask you one almost sully question, I
guess do you feel closer to Sharp or to Hautred?
Speaker 2 (23:39):
Well, that's an interesting question. Probably Sharp, because I've been
writing him for so long, and if I'm walking the dog,
I hear him talking in my head Outred is in
many ways more fun to right because we know less
about his period, so I can make up more things
for him. But Sharp is incredibly real to me. So yes,
(24:00):
I'm sure that Sharp is the answer to that question.
Speaker 1 (24:03):
You've always sort of ended the novels with the promise
that Sharp and his sergeant Harper well Marchigan, but you
don't at the dinners. Are we at the end of
the Great Journey with Sharp?
Speaker 2 (24:18):
I have a feeling probably we are, but I always
say never say never, And who knows. In two or
three years time, when I'm wondering what the next book
should be, I'll hear Sharp saying, well, you haven't taken
me to the Battle of Alberherira yet, have you. So
we'll see. We'll see in the interim.
Speaker 1 (24:35):
What are you working on?
Speaker 2 (24:36):
I'm working on another Utred. And again I mean this
is we went back to about a year ago and
I was thinking what will be the next book? And
Utred said, hey, how about me? And I'm doing what
I promised myself i'd never do with Utre, which was
going back in his history and sort of love tailing
this book into the series. But we'll see whether it works.
Speaker 1 (25:00):
I have to confess, the first time I picked up
the initial volume where he's with his father in that
very first battle, I actually didn't read it very long.
I have read the first couple of chapters and I thought,
this is really so different. I couldn't wrap my head
around it. And then about ten years later I came
back and realized how brilliant it was. And I don't
(25:24):
know what it was about my two connections with Lutred,
but I become a very deep fan of that series
and think us a remarkable achievement.
Speaker 2 (25:33):
Well, thank you, missus speaker.
Speaker 1 (25:35):
You dedicated this book to Susan Watt. You're longtime editor
and somebody who wanted you to reveal more of Sharpe's
emotional life. How did Susan shape the whole experience of
Sharp over the years.
Speaker 2 (25:51):
Well, Susan was a quite extraordinary editor. I think she
felt motherly towards Sharp, and she cared very deeply about him,
and she was always urging me to describe his emotions
more and I would just say, well, he's always grumpy,
that's about it, and I refuse to do it. I
remember when I wrote the three Arthurian books, she wanted
(26:13):
to know more about Arthur's childhood, which resulted in one
line in the book what is the Egg to the Eagle?
And I refused to do it. She was a wonderful
editor and the books were always improved after she had
gone through them and made her requests.
Speaker 1 (26:31):
Since she had known her for so long, would you
go through a process of sort of chatting about the
book before you started writing, or just showing up with
the book?
Speaker 2 (26:40):
Showed up with the book, which annoyed her. She always
wanted to see early drafts, and I always refused. I said,
you'll see the book when it's finished. And then I
would try and put in little traps for her, because
I would understand that the one thing she was really
going to object about the book, so I'd put in
four or five others, things which I would pretend to
(27:02):
fight for and give way on so I didn't have
to give way on the big one. I think she
eventually realized what I was doing and became better at
sorting it out.
Speaker 1 (27:10):
Well, that's very funny, you know. I always have this
problem when I write. I really don't like being edited.
Speaker 2 (27:17):
No one does.
Speaker 1 (27:18):
Yeah, make me feel better. Frankly, I want to thank
you for joining me. A bit more importantly, I want
to thank you for all the years you've spent developing
several worlds so that people like me can literally lose
themselves in Bernard Cornwall's.
Speaker 2 (27:35):
World, and I want to thank you for your support
which has always been wonderful. Thank you, mister speaker.
Speaker 1 (27:42):
You and I have to tell people your new book,
Sharp Storm is available now on Amazon and in bookstores everywhere,
and people can also follow you on your website at
Bernard Cornwell dot net. So thank you very much for
joining me and having this wonderful conversation.
Speaker 2 (28:00):
Thank you, mister Sweakt.
Speaker 1 (28:04):
Thank you to my guest, Bernard Cornwell. Newtsworld is produced
by kingridh Thwreet sixty and iHeartMedia. Our executive producers, Guardnzie Sloan,
our researchers Rachel Peterson. Your work for the show was
created by Steve Fenley. Special thanks to the team at
Gingrish three sixty. If you can enjoy Nutsworld, I hope
you'll go to Apple Podcasts and both rate us with
(28:26):
five stars and give us a review so others can
learn what it's all about. Join me on substarck at
gingrishtree sixty dot net. I'm newt gingridg. This is Newtsworld.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Bobby Bones Show
Listen to 'The Bobby Bones Show' by downloading the daily full replay.