Historical Novels have a tendencyof its characters single-handedly cha

[Pisces Axxxxx]

Last year I read Sharpe's Escape. It was my introduction to the Sharpe series and as much as I enjoyed it, I felt the scenario was ludicrous. In the novel as Sharpe is trying to escape back to the British army, along the way he stops by a local town just recently taken over by the French who were plundering the city. He saves a Portuguese girl from being gang raped by French soldiers and with her help, Sharpe destroys the supplies a storage house in the city.

 

This storage house has a significant part within the historical context of the novel. The French were promised by two Portuguese traitors supplies that would feed the French army for entire months. This storage practically had all the supplies the French was given by the two traitors.

 

In real history, it would be the lack of supplies that ultimately defeated the French in Portugal and force them to evacuate the country.

 

Within the story, even though he was one mere soldier, Sharpe felt the outcome of the British expedition in Portugal would very much depend on the French's ability to feedits soldiers as just before the French took over the town whole battalions were already STARVING from months of half-rations or even no FOOD. In fact the reason the French soldiers went out of control and began plundering the town and raping itsinhabitant was because it was tired of months of the hardships of war (a large portion attributed to lack of proper food) along with the army in Portugal consisting of young inexperienced troops who haven't fought much battles.

 

So by destroying this storage house, Sharpe changes the course of the campaign and Portugal and he enables Wellington to beat the French out of the country. Had Sharpe not taken the initiative to destroy the storage before going back to the British, the campaign would have been a failure and Napoleon's defeat prolonged.

 

This is one example of a tendency I notice among historical fiction authors. Which is the tendency to make it out as though their fictional characters were responsible for changing the course of history by performing an act that would lead to the defeat of one side in a war (like Sharpe's Escape portrays) or so forth.

 

I can put so many more examples but I am curious what do you think of this?

 

I understand making their characters important within the context of the story but to make it as though the fictional character was responsible for the Nazi's defeat in WWII or for bringing about the downfall of Rome is absolutely ridiculous IMO unless the character is one who actually lived IRL or a composite of real life people who brought such acts.