That's kind of hilarious. I mean, I guess it's nice to learn the history of the other stuff you're studying, as opposed to or in addition to general misc history, but I'm sure it all falls under "when am I ever going to need this?!" for a lot of kids.

Revolving doors scare me.

Do you freeze up in front of them and NOT LET ME OUT? Because if you do, I'm afraid that you won't be able to get revenge for that earworm because I'll have to kill you.

Do not trap me in a tiny plastic coffin, people!

What a catloaf looks like from underneath.

Or, you can tell them that the reason the British (to quote Bill Cosby) "had to wear red and march in a straight line" was that they only had inaccurate muskets, because there was no manufacturing method to produce rifling for the gun barrels in large quantities. More of the colonists had their own rifles because they needed them for hunting, so that's why they were able to hide behind the hedges, etc., and take potshots on the road from Concord back to Boston in April 1775.

Well...except that there was also the issue that at the time it took three times as long to reload a muzzle-loading rifle because of rifled barrel than a smooth-bore musket, and while breech-loading rifles existed, the mechanisms available at the time weren't robust enough to withstand the frequent, rapid fire of battle (as opposed to hunting). So while accuracy is all very well, if your opponent can shoot at you three times as often, it loses some of its effectiveness. At most, you want a small group of rifle-armed skirmishers to provide accurate fire as a supplement to the massed fire of your musket-armed regular infantry. Also, the hunting rifles used by American Revolutionary militias had drawbacks as a combat weapon because they weren't equipped with bayonets and were too long to be readily retrofitted with them, so the soldiers had no defense against an enemy bayonet charge while they were reloading. Which is why most of Washington's army fought with either French-supplied or captured British muskets.

t /military history geek who has to do SOMETHING with all this useless knowledge

Shrift, you just made me laugh out loud, which is definitely a first this Monday morning.

On the upside, I now know the difference between casting and forging!

Also, the industry-recommended amount of closet space for a man and for a woman, the three classes of bridges and two types of architectural structures, and that the same guy founded both Atari and Chuck E. Cheese's!

Atari and Chuck E. Cheese's!

I met his mom on a plane once. She was very proud.

Thanks for the info, Susan! My sister looks at me weird when I confess to watching "The History of the Gun" show on the Military Channel/History International, but info like that is why I find the evolution of weapons just fascinating. The way that technology is tied into tactics is something that is never discussed in history classes at the K-12 level, and probably should be. Otherwise, you end up thinking (like I did) that the British line, the Civil War bayonet charge, and the trench warfare of WWI were just stupid, but viewed in combination with what they had on hand, they either make sense or explain why the death rates were so high.

Otherwise, you end up thinking (like I did) that the British line, the Civil War bayonet charge, and the trench warfare of WWI were just stupid, but viewed in combination with what they had on hand, they either make sense or explain why the death rates were so high.

I recently read The Guns of August. Fascinating book. I learned the French were unable to stop the German advance until they adopted trenches for defense.

and that the same guy founded both Atari and Chuck E. Cheese's!

You mean the latter isn't officially the work of the Devil?