Testing Plumbata

[Renatus]

an enemy must be hit as far out as possible.

Yes, within reason.  It is no use expending plumbatae at a distance, if you have nothing left when the enemy gets close.  I believe that they are most effective at shortish range, when they can be delivered with force.  It is not quite a case of holding fire until you see the whites of his eyes but something close to that.

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.

The problem with this is that the rear ranks would have to have sufficient space between them so as not to risk hitting the rank in front.  This would lead to a very loose formation.  A better arrangement, I believe, would be to maintain a close formation and, when battle is joined, for the rear ranks to throw their weapons overarm over the ranks ahead into the ranks of the enemy.  Of course, the pressure would be off anyway, once the five plumbatae had been thrown.

However, your first reason is invalid – we do have plumbatae where the lead is attached to the metal shaft.

I should have made myself clearer.  The shaft I was referring to is the wooden shaft.  DRB states that there should be space between the socket of the head and the weight.

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.

I don't think we can rely upon the illustrations at all.  In referring to the bodkin points, I am following the description in the text.

I am however not inclined to go as far as you in this, and presume that the author invented this completely.

The long-standing Roman tradition was to use simple non-fletched javelins.  Even adding flights would have been an innovation to them.  Adding flights and an entirely new form of delivery would have been positively revolutionary.

I think that the current ranges have already proven that plumbatae outdistance any pilum or short hasta.

With the tail-end grip, certainly and  some experimenters have found that flighted reconstructions thrown as javelins can too.  I would want to test thoroughly whether unflighted reconstructions can do so as well. 

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 agree that this is a problem but it is necessary to establish a yardstick against which the plumbatae can be tested.  Quinta have tested javelins and produced a maximum range of 20 metres and an average of 15 metres.  John Conyard reports a range of 20 metres for both the spiculum and the verutum, which is curious as they are very different weapons.  Perhaps Fectio has a javelin that it regards as standard which could be taken as the model.

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.

Speaking only of the javelin-type throw, previous experimenters seem to have found the point of balance and, therefore, the place for the grip to be the position of the weight or the junction of the weight and the shaft.  As to the movement of the arm, I can think of two possibilities (there may well be more): first, projecting the weapon forward at shoulder level and, secondly, starting with the weapon held at a low level slightly behind the body, sweeping upwards and forwards.  I think that either method could have occurred to the Romans and they would have chosen the one that produced the best results.

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.

In a footnote to their report on their experiment in the Antiquaries Journal in 1974, John Musty and Philip Barker quote H. Russell Robinson of the Tower Armouries, who provided them with their replicas, as follows: 'Mr. Russell Robinson feels that it should be stressed that with long and constant practice the legionary would have developed a technique for throwing this weapon.  He suggests that until such training is simulated no clear idea can be formed of how far or accurately the plumbata could be thrown.'  This seems an almost impossible ideal but clearly some prior preparation would be desirable.  John Emery undertook a period of familiarisation before commencing his experiments proper.  You probably have this in mind already but I don't think that simply launching into tests without it would produce very satisfactory results.  Ten throws would not, I think, bring the inexperienced testers up to speed and even the experienced testers, if they were only used to one method of delivery, would probably find it difficult to master an unfamiliar method in the time.

[Till_When?]

Wow, I knew I was right to register on this forum, you guys don't joke around in terms of research and knowledge, that beats any historical community I've ever been a part of.
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?

[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.

[Till_When?]

Thank you for the detailed answer, I'll go to bed smarter tonight! Looking at it, I wouldn't have guessed it's launched javelin-style, but if you had better results like this, I'll trust your word.

Speaking of what types of troops were trained for it, was it a weapon that was issued should the need arise, but not each time, which would explain why it could sometimes not be used by frontline troops but also possibly used by logistical echelons?

[Renatus]

I wouldn't have guessed it's launched javelin-style, but if you had better results like this, I'll trust your word.

Don't trust my word.  I haven't been able to test these weapons.  I theorize that the Romans would, initially at any rate, have regarded these as another form of javelin and launched them in the way that they knew.  If that did not produce the results that they were after, they would have to look for alternative methods.  Some experimenters have produced results that suggest that fletched plumbatae thrown javelin-style could meet Vegetius' criterion of being able to out-range standard javelins but I would like this to see this thoroughly tested, particularly with regard to unfletched weapons.

Speaking of what types of troops were trained for it, was it a weapon that was issued should the need arise, but not each time, which would explain why it could sometimes not be used by frontline troops but also possibly used by logistical echelons?

The passage I was thinking of is Maurice's Strategikon 12.B.16:

'The heavy infantry, who are drawn up in the front line, advance still closer to the enemy.  If the men have darts (martzobarboula) or missile weapons they throw them, resting their lances on the ground.  If without such weapons, they advance more closely, then hurl their lances like javelins' (Dennis's translation).

This does not explain why they might not have had the weapon, whether by accident or by design.

[Till_When?]

Okay, so there's no absolute rule regarding the issuing of plumbata to the troops, if they have them, great, if they don't, do without them. Coming from 20th century historical reenactment, it looks like I have a lot of cultural acclimatation to do!