It works in theory

One of the odder sections of the marginalia of Burnished Rows of Steel - a timeline with plenty of odd sections - is when TFSmith attempts to argue that US naval design was almost as good as British with regard to ships. The means he chooses to do so, however, is (predictably) a double standard on several levels.

An Old Man's War

TFSmith's use of Wolseley to pronounce many of his opinions of officers in both the British and American armies tends to make the man look a little bit biased.

Petty Officers

Some write alternate history because they wish things were different; others write alternate history as a way of exploring what actually happened. And some write alternate history to spite other people who like alternate history. For instance, the encounter at Block Island we have described previously took place in June 1862, but is placed in a chapter that otherwise takes place in November 1862. There is absolutely no reason for this to be told in flashback- so why was it put here?

Mississippi Burning (1)

In chapter 4 part 1, the USS Mississippi engages a British squadron. I intend to do a fuller post to explore the problems with this battle, but in the meantime I have a request for your assistance. I simply can't make head or tail of what's going on: can you help?

Naval Gazing (1)

In an unrelated discussion thread, TFSmith explained his methodology for researching ship locations:

‘Do a search for "The Navy List" for the appropriate years (1861, 1862, whatever) on Google Books. They have all been scanned in; aside from the occasional finger, they are pretty amazing images, and - depending on your version of Acrobat - are searchable. If not, the indexes are completely accurate.

 The Navy List was published annually, even quarterly; assignments of ships (whether active, in reserve/ordinary, building, etc.) and the officers of the ships in commission are included, along with flag officers and their staffs for all the various fleets, squadrons, and detachments.’

Like his explanation of his economic model for the war, this is very helpful: it allows us to explain exactly where he goes wrong.

A warning to readers: this particular post may itself be accused of navel-gazing, as it considers in detail why TFSmith's use of sources is so misguided. If that doesn't interest you, you can ignore this post and wait for the follow-up, which deals with some of the things he's actually got wrong.

Garbledowen

TFSmith chooses to open Chapter 3 part 1 with the lyrics to Garryowen, which he suggests to be:

Instead of port, we'll drink brown ale
And pay the reckoning on the nail

This is a rather unusual interpretation of the lyrics. Port, for those who are unfamiliar with it, is a sweet red wine which has been fortified with a grape spirit called aguardente; this makes it stronger than standard wine (c.20% ABV rather than c.12%). It was an upper class drink, popular in the London clubs, with Pitt the Younger and Sheridan boasting of their ability to drink three bottles of port in a single sitting. Brown ale, meanwhile, is a moderately strong beer of around 6% ABV, primarily drunk by the lower classes.

The actual first line should be Instead of water, we'll drink ale or Instead of spa, we'll drink brown ale
(spa, of course, being water derived from mineral springs). As for the second line, it should be And pay no reckoning on the nail. 'The reckoning' is, of course, the bill, and to pay 'on the nail' means to pay immediately.

In other words, TFSmith's version of Garryowen has the singers boasting about drinking cheap, relatively weak alcohol and paying up when they're asked to. This perhaps explains why For debt no man shall go to gaol: however, it certainly takes away some of the arrogant machismo that made Garryowen so popular in the first place.

Copy and Paste Atrocity

The author, with his deep-seated desire to portray the British as the bad guys and the Americans as good, takes certain liberties with historical events. In that vein we come to the "sack of Sorel" in Chapter 9.

Though the author has had no problem blatantly copying and pasting historical events into his narrative despite them being wildly unsuited for his scenario, here we have something of field day with the British behaving badly. The author manages to in one scene, lift events from not one, not two, but three historical acts and splice them together in an unholy mess.

Don't blame it on the moonlight

This is a very minor thing, but still amusing.

During the battles around Portland in the first two days of June, the Irish Brigade gets off their train at midnight of 1-2 June 1862 and make a moonlight march to get into position.:

As they approached the brook, Steele’s British infantry came under fire from Meagher’s troops, notably Col. John Burke’s 63rd New York Volunteers and Col. Robert Nugent’s 69th New York; they were supported by Lt. Col. Patrick Kelly’s 88th New York and Capt. John D. Frank’s Battery G, 1st New York Light Artillery. The brigade had arrived in Portland at midnight by train, and marched out to the battlefield by moonlight, led by some of the stalwart men of the 3rd Maine Militia and Saunders’ sharpshooters, who had held the British off the previous day.

This should not have been nearly so easy as it is presented, for one simple reason - the moon was four days past new. As such, not only should it have been very dim, but it set an hour and a half before midnight.
This should not, by itself, be the kind of detail that cripples a timeline. But it is not as though this kind of thing is impossible to find out.

His truth is wiki'ing on

The first post of BROS includes two verses and two choruses of the Battle Hymn of the Republic, which you are encouraged to read. Unfortunately, the lyrics still include the hyperlinks showing that they were copied and pasted amateurishly from Wikipedia.

(hover over 'gospel', 'the serpent', and 'Christ' to reveal their origin).

TFSmith cannot spell 'foreword'

Per the OED:

foreword, n.:  word said before something else; hence, an introduction, a preface.
foreward, n.1 (Obs.): An agreement, compact, covenant, promise.
n.2 (Obs.): The first line of an army, vanguard, front
v. (Obs.): trans. To guard, or fortify in front

 TFSmith121, 27 December 2014:

'"Foreward" was when I thought I'd be posting separate chapters, rather than a long thread...although one could read this as a "foreward" to a very different Twentieth Century, perhaps?'

TFSmith, 4 January 2014:

'As I stated in the foreward, I am trying to be "fair" to all sides'

Or forward, for that matter:

'1000 yards or more of unobstructed maneuvering room to each side and foreward of the fairway'