Testing Plumbata

[Michael]

Hi Folks from a new arrival.

Any views on Tod's workshop Youtube video of Plumbata. ??

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Folks from a new arrival.

Any views on Tod's workshop Youtube video of Plumbata. ??

The plumbatae looked good, weight as well (though on the heavy side).

He got the dating wrong (they are Late Roman, 250-550ish with earlier looking quite different), and he should have thrown the point blank range overhand. The underhand range was also not very good (40-90m should be possibvle even by untrained throwers).

[Michael]

Thanks for comments and info.  Who else has experimented with them.

[Brucicus]

Thanks for comments and info.  Who else has experimented with them.

I have performed extensive testing of plumbatae. 
My paper on it is available here: https://www.academia.edu/44834773/_UPDAT..._Straight_

Apologies in advance for a little bit of formatting problems (just some fotos and captions a bit out of position).  You will find it illuminating. 

In my work you'll find an analysis of throwing styles, a critique of the misinformation from previous testers that infects the current corpus of works on the subject, as well as my own testing on the subject.

Tod's plumbatae consist of too heavy shafts and too much fletching.  Tod and I have communicated and I suspect you may find him producing and testing better plumbate in the near future. 
Also, one of the world's greatest universities wants to work with me under their auspices to further expand my work.  This would be already done if not for covid.


I'll be happy to answer any questions you have on the subject.  I feel that a scientist must be willing to defend his work.

Best wishes,
Brucicus

[Crispianus]

Hi Brucicus I just read your artical in full and excellent results!, I wont comment further at this point except to say that some images using your current format and somewhat jumbled the last images showing the test throwers, I would suggest converting to a PDF format.
I use  the free version of Foxit PDF reader which does convert the document seamlessly and I would recommend it.

[Brucicus]

Hi Brucicus I just read your artical in full and excellent results!, I wont comment further at this point except to say that some images using your current format and somewhat jumbled the last images showing the test throwers, I would suggest converting to a PDF format.
I use  the free version of Foxit PDF reader which does convert the document seamlessly and I would recommend it.

Thanks so much for the compliment!  Yes, the PDF converter Academia uses does jumble things up a bit.  I will indeed try the Foxit converter that you so kindly recommend.  

Best regards,
Brucicus

[Brucicus]

Hi Brucicus I just read your artical in full and excellent results!, I wont comment further at this point except to say that some images using your current format and somewhat jumbled the last images showing the test throwers, I would suggest converting to a PDF format.
I use  the free version of Foxit PDF reader which does convert the document seamlessly and I would recommend it.

Thanks so much for the compliment!  Yes, the PDF converter Academia uses does jumble things up a bit.  I will indeed try the Foxit converter that you so kindly recommend.  

Best regards,
Brucicus

Crispianus,

That is a useful resource.  However, I still got the same corruptions in the final document.  Obviously, the issue is with some hidden formatting commands that I need to seek out and destroy.  It looks fine in .doc format but PDF always introduces formatting errors.  I suspect it may be somewhere in the graphics formatting.

No es bueno!
I will try again within the week to fix it.  Wenn schon, denn schon.

Or maybe it's BIG PLUMBATA trying to keep the truth from coming out?
[Where did that ominous music some from?]

Schoen Gruss auf Deutschland.

Brucicus

---

Thought I would post some of the photos here for others to see what we are on about.  

This sequence is of a dart being thrown:
                   

Here is a better picture taken just before loosing the dart.  Note how much energy is being released into the throw.  Also bear in mind that his is from a standing start and only takes two steps.      

These are what my testers were throwing:    

Results?  Overhand throws averaged over 40% more distance than was attainable throwing underhand.   Distances of over90m were reached with overhand throws.  Underhand throws only reached the mid-60m range at best.  Overhand throws were much better at hitting the target than underhand.

My paper covers much more than just my testing, in case you are curious.

Here it is: https://www.academia.edu/44834773/_UPDAT..._Straight_

Thanks,
Brucicus

[Michael]

Thanks Bruccius

Sorry for late reply.

Very comprehensive, very interesting, One point I came across a  Dave Freeman, mentioned as one of the testers, back in the dim distant past of my Celtic renactment.  I seem to remember he was pretty nifty with a sling, he must be in his 60s now if it is the same guy.

Thanks again

[Robert Vermaat]

Thanks for comments and info.  Who else has experimented with them.

A list:

Drake, A. (1994): a preliminary report on the range and accuracy of the dart commonly called the plumbata or martio barbulla, unpublished. 
Eagle, J. (1989): Testing plumbatae, in: van Driel-Murray 1989a, Roman Military Equipment: the Sources of Evidence. Proceedings of the Fifth Roman Military Equipment Conference, BAR Int. Ser., vol. 476 (Oxford), pp. 247-253.
Emery, J. (2010): Experimenting with Plumbatae and observations on their Behavior, thesis, University of Wisconsin-La Crosse. https://minds.wisconsin.edu/bitstream/ha...sequence=1
Griffiths, W.B. (1995): Experiments with plumbatae, in: Arbeia Journal, vol. 4, pp. 1-11. 
Payne-Gallwey, Ralph (1903): Arrow-Throwing, in: The Book of the Crossbow, (New York), pp. 243-6. https://archive.org/details/TheCrossbowM.../page/n277
Pruett (2019): Testing Plumbatae.
Pruett (2021): Re-Testing Plumbatae - Setting the Record Straight...
https://www.academia.edu/44834773/_UPDAT...d_Straight
Sim, David (1995a): Experiments to examine the manufacturing techniques used to make plumbatae, in: Arbeia Journal, vol. 4, pp. 13-19.
http://minervamagazine.co.uk/archive_pdf..._23_03.pdf
Tod’s workshop (2020a): Plumbata - Roman war darts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfgMfSZiQSU
Tod’s workshop (2020b): Plumbata 2 - Bigger, Better and thrown every way!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNlgb79A4mM
Vermaat, R.M. (2007): testing Late Roman plumbatae 1 – Veerse Dam. https://www.academia.edu/30544051/Vermaa...e_Dam_2007
Vermaat, R.M. (2011): testing Late Roman plumbatae 2 - Breezand. https://www.academia.edu/30545939/Vermaa...ezand_2011

[Ulfric]

I had to apply for a new password, been so long since I read this forum.
I do hope to be making and testing plumbata this summer, so posting on the thread as a bookmark.

[Renatus]

I am sceptical about what has become the standard method of throwing plumbatae, i.e., by gripping them at the tail end and throwing them underarm. Might I ask that you try holding your reconstruction at the point of balance and throwing overarm like a standard javelin and see what results you achieve after practice?

[Robert Vermaat]

I am sceptical about what has become the standard method of throwing plumbatae, i.e., by gripping them at the tail end and throwing them underarm.  Might I ask that you try holding your reconstruction at the point of balance and throwing overarm like a standard javelin and see what results you achieve after practice?

It depends on what you hope to achieve with your throw - maximum distance, flat or a high trajectory?

I am currently planning new tests, performed by able throwers unlike myself  practising underarm, overarm throws and several different sort of grips.

[brennivs - tony drake]

Great to hear Robert   to me its more what you want the barb to achieve   the method you which to throw, is as only as good if it reaches its goal. Whether it is at a distance or close range. No point in being able to throw at great distance if it can end up in a shield or be deflected especially if you can see them coming at you. To me they are either deployed at a charging enemy or while at close quarter fighting. My own experience is to be able to throw it at height then perfect the ability to target a specific areas at different ranges. I can see competitions being held a bit like darts match to hone there skills. Being able to throw as a individual and as a group to concentrate fire at a given point makes the weapon a very useful tool in your battle tactics. Looking forward to seeing your results 
Regards Brennivs 

[Renatus]

I am currently planning new tests, performed by able throwers unlike myself  practising underarm, overarm throws and several different sort of grips.

I'm glad to see that.  I think that that is the approach that is required, rather than relying on just one method of delivery.  I will try to encapsulate my thoughts on this matter as succinctly as possible.

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.

Despite having mentioned De rebus bellicis, I remain sceptical 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.  Secondly, the Anonymous describes how the weapons are to be constructed as if this were something new, rather than a simple modification of an already existing weapon. 

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.  Secondly, the Anonymous places little emphasis on the weights.  The names that he gives to his inventions, tribolatae and mamillatae, relate to what he evidently considers their distinguishing features, the caltrops and the bodkin points respectively.  In Latin, mamilla means not only 'breast' but also 'teat' or 'nipple'.  It is most likely that it is in this second sense that the Anonymous is using the word, emphasising that the heads are round in cross-section, rather than barbed.

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.  Accordingly, it is relevant to examine whether plumbatae were simply small javelins, unfletched but augmented by a lead weight, and whether they were delivered in the manner of ordinary javelins, overarm and using the standard javelin grip with which the Roman soldier was familiar.  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.

How you formulate your experiments is obviously a matter for you but, if I were testing my hypotheses, I would adopt a staged approach as follows:

1.  Establish the range of the standard javelin.  Experiments by Quinta and John Conyard indicate that distances of 20 metres can be achieved.  Nevertheless, this should be tested to see if, with more practice, longer distances are possible.  This would impact upon the relative efficacy of the plumbata and establish the minimum distance that would have to be exceeded to satisfy Vegetius' criterion.

2.  Establish the maximum distance an unfletched plumbata can be thrown overarm using the standard javelin grip at the point of balance.  Previous experimenters have been disappointed with the results achieved with unfletched weapons but their findings should nevertheless be tested to see if more practice and/or different lengths of shaft produce better results.  If it should be found that substantially longer distances than those of the standard javelin can be achieved, there is probably no need to experiment further.  While the Romans might have sought to achieve even better results by modifying the weapon, there would be little incentive to do so, if it already gave them all they required of it.  If this method did not produce the desired result, I would move on to Stage 3.

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.

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.  Bruce Pruett has produced impressive results by this method but there is no need to seek to emulate the kind of distances (up to 90 metres) achieved by his testers.  It is sufficient to exceed the range of the standard javelin by a significant margin.  Nevertheless, the ability to throw these weapons a long distance in training, as advocated by Maurice, whether by this or either of the other methods mentioned above, would increase the force with which they could be delivered at shorter range in battle.

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.

[Robert Vermaat]

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.