Testing Plumbata

[Renatus]

Still, was the plumbata an efficient weapon on ancient battlefields? I reckon it'd be useful against unarmored forces, but these would also often fight in loose formations, while that sort of relatively inaccurate weapon would fare better against massed troops. And were these carried by specialists, or would standard scutum-and-pilum infantry carry them like modern infantry carries grenades?

I think that it must have been pretty efficient.  If it was the same as the martzobarboulon mentioned by Maurice and later by Leo, it remained in use for at least 300 years, if not 600.  I don't see it as inaccurate.  Certainly, if it were simply lobbed blindly into the far distance in the hope of hitting something, that would be true but I don't see anything in the sources about it being used in that way.  As I read them, it was primarily intended to be used at fairly close range and, if that were so, if launched overarm using a javelin-style or tail-end grip, I would see it being pretty accurate.  As to who were equipped with it, Maurice says that both heavy and light infantry and even the wagon drivers in the baggage train should be trained to use it but, in describing battle tactics, he clearly envisages some front-line troops not having it.