For and about the Book and Website MR. LINCOLN'S HIGH-TECH WAR
RSS icon Email icon Home icon
  • Additional Hunley Information

    Posted on March 17th, 2009 Roger No comments

    I have just come across some additional information regarding the internal design, the crew, and the naming of the Hunley. View the updates and errata page. Some of the information is a little murky (sources don’t fully agree on who was aboard the various fatal journeys of the sub) but that just makes it all more interesting.

  • March Update

    Posted on March 7th, 2009 Roger No comments

    Things have been quiet here, as we have more or less completed the official main phase of promoting the book’s release. We’ll no doubt have some events here or there in the future, but it’s not likely to be as much or as often.

    Things are also quiet here because they are pretty busy elsewhere. Dad is on the big final push to finish his NEXT book, and I am serving as what’s I’ve called manuscript wrangler — helping him get the appendices and other backmatter put together, assembling the chapters of the book so that everything’s neatly in one format for submission, etc. Lots of fiddly details — but it’s moving forward pretty smoothly.

    Roger

  • Bayonet Wounds — Correcting an error

    Posted on February 11th, 2009 Roger No comments

    I mis-stated a statistic on one of my radio interviews yesterday, and I wanted to put it right. I said that there were fewer that 100 reported bayonets wounds during the Civil War. I need to dig a bit deeper to pull up the full statistic, but the actual number is fewer than 1,000 — 944 bayonet wounds — about four tenths of one percent of the total wounds reported. This is one of those falsely-precise numbers, of course. There must have been more wounds than this that weren’t reported, and there were likely many killed by bayonets without anyone bothering to note the cause of death when the dead were cleared from the battlefield. The sources I have dug up so far don’t make it clear if this is the number for both sides, or merely the Union army. (I believe it is both sides, but I’ll have to check.)

    All that being said, however, the main point I was trying to make holds true — there were remarkably few bayonet wounds in the war. That is not to say the bayonet was useless — seeing an army’s worth of sharp steel blades marching toward you — or charging toward you — couldn’t have been good for morale. The bayonet also made an excellent all-purpose tool for cutting, digging, prying things open, and so on.

    Roger