04-20-2021, 02:07 PM
Renatus (in bold):
The impression I gain from Vegetius, De rebus bellicis and Maurice is that plumbatae were primarily short- to medium-range weapons, designed for use against a charging enemy. My objection to the underarm throw is that it requires a relatively loose formation to allow the thrower sufficient room to wield his weapon and this is not the ideal formation to receive an enemy charge. It is also likely to be less accurate and forceful than other methods of delivery. Modern experiments seem to concentrate on achieving maximum range which, on my reading of the sources, is unnecessary.
Well yes and no.
I’m not sure that I gain the same impression from Vegetius, but I share your observations about the underarm throw up to a point. Yes, an overarm throw would be more preferable where force is concerned, but maximum range is not unimportant either because an enemy must be hit as far out as possible. Further tests will determine the last word on that, so let’s not go too much into that. When the enemy gets closer, we agree that overarm throws are to be preferred though.
My opinion in favor of the underarm throw as at least as important stems from the known Roman practice of keeping the enemy pinned down after both forces have met. Plumbatae, as I believe, would be as important as archers to keep up as constant pressure on the enemy force, especially when one considers that close contact fighting in the Late Roman period probably included pressure on the front (at least at times). Expecting to be hit from above would at least hinder the enemy in keeping that up. For this the underarm throw would be preferable, delivering distance as well as a higher arc.
Despite having mentioned De rebus bellicis, I remain skeptical as to whether the plumbatae it describes ever existed, even in their basic form without caltrops or bodkin points. First of all, they are not the same as the weapons found archaeologically which are identified as plumbatae, in that the lead weight is placed part-way down the shaft, rather than enclosing the join between the shaft and the head as in the archaeological examples.
Again yes and no.
As much as I would love to see the first ‘caltrop plumbata’ (et tribolata) found, I share your lack of belief they ever existed.
However, your first reason is invalid – we do have plumbatae where the lead is attached to the metal shaft.
Some commentators assert that the weapons that have been found are the plumbatae mamillatae described in De rebus bellicis on the assumption that the lead weights loosely resemble breasts. This is a misconception. First, it ignores the fact that most of the examples found are barbed, whereas plumbatae mamillatae have bodkin points.
That is an interesting observation, but I am not so sure about that. The image that we have has clearly suffered from copyists – it is hard to determine how much. The lead weight seems to have been flattened and the heads don’t differ that much for me to see a big difference between the ‘tribolata’ and the ‘mammilata’. They could well both be barbed in the original drawing for all we know.
De rebus bellicis describes plumbatae as being javelins fletched like arrows. However, given the nature of this work, one has to question whether this fletching and the tail-end grip associated with it existed in the weapons actually in use or whether they are just products of the fertile imagination of the Anonymous.
This we will never know for sure. I am however not inclined to go as far as you in this, and presume that the author invented this completely. Test see better results with fletched examples, because the lead weight makes the dart ‘turn over its axis’ in flight.
It should also be investigated whether, using these methods, it is possible to achieve Vegetius' criterion that the weapon should outrange the common javelin. I would add that such improvement in range would have to be significant in order to justify the invention of a new weapon, although not to the extremes that modern re-enactors seem to aim for.
I think that the current ranges have already proven that plumbatae outdistance any pilum or short hasta.
1. Establish the range of the standard javelin.
That may be interesting if data are available. I am not interested in testing a pilum, hasta, verutum, spiculum, angon or bebra as I am not versed in details about those weapons – this would also be hard because some of these we know only by name. I trust Vegetius in his judgement.
2. Establish the maximum distance an unfletched plumbata can be thrown overarm using the standard javelin grip at the point of balance.
This can be done of course.
3. This involves the adding of fletching to see if the greater stability that this is likely to provide increases the range. Previous experimenters have gone a long way towards demonstrating that fletched plumbatae can outrange standard javelins to a significant extent, Dr David Sim achieving 25 metres and John Emery an estimated 33-36 metres. If this can be replicated or improved upon that may be judged sufficient to satisfy Vegetius' criterion. If not, a different design and method of delivery would be required.
The problem here is that replication may be difficult because the exact method of throwing is unknown. Even the description by some of these testers is not accurate enough to ascertain the exact placement of the fingers and the movement of the arm. I achieved better results myself, not to mention the known Catalan and American testers.
I am not convinced that single testers who throw but a few times are not representative for a scientific result. My hopefully significant method of improving this will be to use a number of testers, some young an inexperienced, some older but having thrown a plumbata before, who each throw at least ten times with each testing example.
4. This would necessitate conceding that the author of De rebus bellicis may have been working from a pre-existing model and adopting his design by extending the shaft to provide a grip behind the fletching and throwing the weapon overarm as one would throw a stone. This action would not be unfamiliar to the Roman soldier, as Vegetius recommends that recruits should be trained in throwing stones by hand.
Indeed a method that would easily get the trainees some experience. I see no problem there.
My preference, if it were possible, would be to go for the simplest method, delivering an unfletched plumbata as one would a normal javelin. Whether the disappointing results obtained in previous experiments are due to limitations inherent in the aerodynamic characteristics of the weapon or lack of perseverance on the part of the experimenters can only be established by further testing. If this method should still fail, John Emery may have already demonstrated that a fletched plumbata is likely to satisfy Vegetius' criterion. If all else fails, the design of weapon in De rebus bellicis and the overarm throwing method seems to be the only alternative. I would adopt this with some reluctance, due to the suspect nature of the inventions in that work, but would do so as a last resort. Bruce Pruett's experiments demonstrate that this method easily meets Vegetius' criterion. It is implicit in the foregoing that, despite its popularity with re-enactors and previous experimenters, I do not see a place for the underarm throwing method in the deployment of plumbatae on the Roman battlefield.
I will certainly include the unfletched plumbata from the start, but as I see no reason to doubt DRB, the main accent will surely be on testing several types of a fletched version. I am thinking of longer vs shorter shafts, heavier vs lighter dart etc. Also included will be mass throwing on targets vs aiming at specific individual targets.
The underarm throwing will be (some) part of distance experiments, but as I already wrote above, I believe its use in battle has already been explained.
The impression I gain from Vegetius, De rebus bellicis and Maurice is that plumbatae were primarily short- to medium-range weapons, designed for use against a charging enemy. My objection to the underarm throw is that it requires a relatively loose formation to allow the thrower sufficient room to wield his weapon and this is not the ideal formation to receive an enemy charge. It is also likely to be less accurate and forceful than other methods of delivery. Modern experiments seem to concentrate on achieving maximum range which, on my reading of the sources, is unnecessary.
Well yes and no.
I’m not sure that I gain the same impression from Vegetius, but I share your observations about the underarm throw up to a point. Yes, an overarm throw would be more preferable where force is concerned, but maximum range is not unimportant either because an enemy must be hit as far out as possible. Further tests will determine the last word on that, so let’s not go too much into that. When the enemy gets closer, we agree that overarm throws are to be preferred though.
My opinion in favor of the underarm throw as at least as important stems from the known Roman practice of keeping the enemy pinned down after both forces have met. Plumbatae, as I believe, would be as important as archers to keep up as constant pressure on the enemy force, especially when one considers that close contact fighting in the Late Roman period probably included pressure on the front (at least at times). Expecting to be hit from above would at least hinder the enemy in keeping that up. For this the underarm throw would be preferable, delivering distance as well as a higher arc.
Despite having mentioned De rebus bellicis, I remain skeptical as to whether the plumbatae it describes ever existed, even in their basic form without caltrops or bodkin points. First of all, they are not the same as the weapons found archaeologically which are identified as plumbatae, in that the lead weight is placed part-way down the shaft, rather than enclosing the join between the shaft and the head as in the archaeological examples.
Again yes and no.
As much as I would love to see the first ‘caltrop plumbata’ (et tribolata) found, I share your lack of belief they ever existed.
However, your first reason is invalid – we do have plumbatae where the lead is attached to the metal shaft.
Some commentators assert that the weapons that have been found are the plumbatae mamillatae described in De rebus bellicis on the assumption that the lead weights loosely resemble breasts. This is a misconception. First, it ignores the fact that most of the examples found are barbed, whereas plumbatae mamillatae have bodkin points.
That is an interesting observation, but I am not so sure about that. The image that we have has clearly suffered from copyists – it is hard to determine how much. The lead weight seems to have been flattened and the heads don’t differ that much for me to see a big difference between the ‘tribolata’ and the ‘mammilata’. They could well both be barbed in the original drawing for all we know.
De rebus bellicis describes plumbatae as being javelins fletched like arrows. However, given the nature of this work, one has to question whether this fletching and the tail-end grip associated with it existed in the weapons actually in use or whether they are just products of the fertile imagination of the Anonymous.
This we will never know for sure. I am however not inclined to go as far as you in this, and presume that the author invented this completely. Test see better results with fletched examples, because the lead weight makes the dart ‘turn over its axis’ in flight.
It should also be investigated whether, using these methods, it is possible to achieve Vegetius' criterion that the weapon should outrange the common javelin. I would add that such improvement in range would have to be significant in order to justify the invention of a new weapon, although not to the extremes that modern re-enactors seem to aim for.
I think that the current ranges have already proven that plumbatae outdistance any pilum or short hasta.
1. Establish the range of the standard javelin.
That may be interesting if data are available. I am not interested in testing a pilum, hasta, verutum, spiculum, angon or bebra as I am not versed in details about those weapons – this would also be hard because some of these we know only by name. I trust Vegetius in his judgement.
2. Establish the maximum distance an unfletched plumbata can be thrown overarm using the standard javelin grip at the point of balance.
This can be done of course.
3. This involves the adding of fletching to see if the greater stability that this is likely to provide increases the range. Previous experimenters have gone a long way towards demonstrating that fletched plumbatae can outrange standard javelins to a significant extent, Dr David Sim achieving 25 metres and John Emery an estimated 33-36 metres. If this can be replicated or improved upon that may be judged sufficient to satisfy Vegetius' criterion. If not, a different design and method of delivery would be required.
The problem here is that replication may be difficult because the exact method of throwing is unknown. Even the description by some of these testers is not accurate enough to ascertain the exact placement of the fingers and the movement of the arm. I achieved better results myself, not to mention the known Catalan and American testers.
I am not convinced that single testers who throw but a few times are not representative for a scientific result. My hopefully significant method of improving this will be to use a number of testers, some young an inexperienced, some older but having thrown a plumbata before, who each throw at least ten times with each testing example.
4. This would necessitate conceding that the author of De rebus bellicis may have been working from a pre-existing model and adopting his design by extending the shaft to provide a grip behind the fletching and throwing the weapon overarm as one would throw a stone. This action would not be unfamiliar to the Roman soldier, as Vegetius recommends that recruits should be trained in throwing stones by hand.
Indeed a method that would easily get the trainees some experience. I see no problem there.
My preference, if it were possible, would be to go for the simplest method, delivering an unfletched plumbata as one would a normal javelin. Whether the disappointing results obtained in previous experiments are due to limitations inherent in the aerodynamic characteristics of the weapon or lack of perseverance on the part of the experimenters can only be established by further testing. If this method should still fail, John Emery may have already demonstrated that a fletched plumbata is likely to satisfy Vegetius' criterion. If all else fails, the design of weapon in De rebus bellicis and the overarm throwing method seems to be the only alternative. I would adopt this with some reluctance, due to the suspect nature of the inventions in that work, but would do so as a last resort. Bruce Pruett's experiments demonstrate that this method easily meets Vegetius' criterion. It is implicit in the foregoing that, despite its popularity with re-enactors and previous experimenters, I do not see a place for the underarm throwing method in the deployment of plumbatae on the Roman battlefield.
I will certainly include the unfletched plumbata from the start, but as I see no reason to doubt DRB, the main accent will surely be on testing several types of a fletched version. I am thinking of longer vs shorter shafts, heavier vs lighter dart etc. Also included will be mass throwing on targets vs aiming at specific individual targets.
The underarm throwing will be (some) part of distance experiments, but as I already wrote above, I believe its use in battle has already been explained.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
