Before we start, I have to get it out there. I am not a fan of Sharpe. And while I would love to just spout off about how utterly ridiculous it all is, I know that I do have to base my argument on something. So I thought I would put aside my vitriol for a second and take a look at what makes Sharpe historically inaccurate and reflect on why I disagree with it so much. So here we are.
First, let’s start with the basics. What is Sharpe?
Sharpe is a series of novels by Bernard Cornwell, set in the Napoleonic wars. It was later turned into a TV series and films with Sean Bean playing the title role (he says ‘Bastard!’ a lot).
It is a quite beloved series (not by me, though, as aforementioned. No I won’t let it go). It sees Richard Sharpe, the son of a sex worker, make his way through the ranks of the British Army due to his bravery and wit. He is described as “brilliant but wayward” in one of the books.
Originally Cornwell set out to write 11 books, but due to the success, he decided to write more.
Sharpe’s rise through the ranks is ludicrous
Richard Sharpe rapidly progresses from private (who joined to escape arrest for murder) to officer is one of the series’ biggest fictional elements – to put it lightly. It just simply would never have happened.
The British Army was built on wealth, education, social connections and the purchase of commissions. Richard Sharpe has none of these things. Merit and reward for good service or bravery just didn’t happen at that time, so the fact that Sharpe is rewarded for his achievements is wildly inaccurate.
The portrayal of the British Army is nonsensical
British officers are posh, but inept. In contrast to Sharpe, who is definitely not posh and somehow is incredible at warfare.
I think the portrayal of the Officers is probably accurate. As mentioned, in the British Army, Officers bought their ranks (known as commissions). The higher the rank, the more expensive it was. For reference, the lowest officer rank was an ensign, and it had a cost of £200. In today’s money that’s around 57,000 USD.
This means that yes, they were posh, and because they had to buy their way in rather than through experience, expertise or bravery etc, they were likely to be inept as well. However, through years of continuous campaigns, the incompetent leaders were often weeded out, leaving highly professional commanders who worked together.
As a whole, the British Army is portrayed as incompetent, but in reality they won many battles without the likes of Sharpe’s individual heroism.
The combat and battlefield realism is exaggerated
Combat in the Sharpe series focuses heavily on small-group heroics, independent rifle skirmishes and hand-to-peer duels. In reality, Napoleonic warfare was on a massive scale – it was chaotic, brutal and terrifying.
Sharpe and his chosen men operate like special forces, slipping behind enemy lines and turning the tide of the battle through individual marksmanship and acts of bravery. Historically, the 95th Rifles did harass the enemy through loose skirmish lines, but the battles were lost and won by huge blocks of line infantry who teared into each other with mass volleys and rapid-reloads.
Close quarters fighting in Sharpe is very coordinated and dramatic, with lots of sword fighting and knife duels. In real life it was brief and chaotic. Rarely between just two men, hand-to-hand combat was usually entire masses that surged together in a blur of bayonets and blood.
The role that women and relationships play is absurd
Like many novels written by men, about men, women are plot devices or romantic conquests to show how sensitive the man is (on the inside)- so of course there are going to be some historical inaccuracies when it comes to the roles of women in the Napoleonic wars.
Many of the upper-middle class women that Sharpe encounters are frequently more ‘free’ than a woman of that time period would be. They would have faced immense social ruin, physical danger and severe reputation constraints and probably not engaged with Sharpe in the way that they actually do.
They also all seem to fall in love with him at the drop of a hat. Absurd.
Accuracy in historical fiction
It is my humble opinion that fiction set in a particular time period should be very accurate. What’s the point of setting your story in a specific historical period if you’re not going to adhere to how things were done and what happened in history?
