(01-19-2021, 10:21 AM)Steve Kaye Wrote: As a former rugby player I also think the overhead (overarm) throwing method is probably superior to the underhand. Some rugby players, scrum halves in particular, like to throw a rugby ball overhead, using the long-axis of the ball held in the palm of the hand and with the finger tips just cupping the circumference (think of the ball being a very short javelin). The overhead throw imparts most of the momentum but, the crucial bit, is the rapid spin imparted by the finger tips to the ball as it leaves the palm. The result is a rugby ball travelling rapidly length-wise, spinning around the long axis and maintaining a steady trajectory. It goes further, straighter and more accurately than the normal two handed underarm throw. The imparted spin is critical to success. Takes a lot of practice.

On seeing plumbata I naturally want to hold the lead portion in the palm of my hand, with fingertips resting on it, to give it spin when thrown overhead.

Regards, Steve Kaye

(01-18-2021, 10:26 PM)Mark Hygate Wrote: Being a reasonable javelin-thrower from my school days (6 years dedication!); the pictures said it all for me!  Perhaps I'll get to read it sometime, but I suspect you've pretty much conclusively (more than) suggested that the Romans threw plumbata in almost exactly the same way that they threw pila for the previous 500+ years!

It could make you wonder why anyone ever thought it was any other way......  :-)

(01-19-2021, 10:21 AM)Steve Kaye Wrote: On seeing plumbata I naturally want to hold the lead portion in the palm of my hand, with fingertips resting on it, to give it spin when thrown overhead.

(01-17-2021, 06:51 PM)Brucicus Wrote: I was looking at the plumbata from Schaan that Mr. Vermaat posted in November of 2019.
It certainly looks like a plumbata, but close examination of the barbed head seems to reveal an eagle's head engraved upon it.  The lead seems better integrated into the iron shaft than any other similar find I've seen as well. 
Without having any better evidence than Vermaat's photo, I strongly suspect that this particular plumbata is a decoration for a pole bearing some sort of standard.  Perhaps this is from one of those legions who specialized in war darts.  The downward turn of the point reduces the effectiveness of this dart in battle, and taking the time to carve an eagle into the dart strikes me as odd for a practical weapon.  Of course, it could be the equivalent of writing messages to the enemy on artillery shells and bombs.
Scroll up and take a look for yourselves.  Did I have too much breakfast wine and am now seeing things?  Or do you think this might be something.

(01-19-2021, 04:50 PM)Brucicus Wrote: Yes!  It does make one wonder how anyone could claim that the Romans threw it underhand.  
That's why my mind was blown when I learned that the underhand method was being espoused as the main delivery method.  In actuality, throwing underhand would only occur if there was no other choice.

I hope my treatise is very convincing.  Feedback indicates that it is.  I have no one pushing back on my findings, so far.  Those who advocated for the underhand method seem to have disappeared, which is a good sign for me but not so flattering for them.   

(01-19-2021, 06:13 PM)Renatus Wrote: Brucius and I had a rather spiky exchange of views earlier in this thread.  To some extent, this may have arisen out of a misunderstanding.  Brucius seemed to have been of the opinion that Europeans were somehow disqualified from experimenting with plumbatae because, unlike Americans, they did not have a tradition of engaging in sports that involved the throwing of balls.  I am not qualified to speak on mainland European sporting traditions but he may  have a point if he were referring only to continental  Europeans.  However, he does not take account (or, if he does, he does not give it sufficient emphasis) of the fact that there is one European country in which there is a sport as demanding as baseball in the throwing of balls, in terms of distance and accuracy.  I am speaking, of course, of the UK and cricket.  He can be forgiven for not knowing that at school sports days, particularly in junior schools, there is an event of throwing the cricket ball, although here it is distance, rather than accuracy, that is the object.  Throwing balls, therefore, is not alien to all Europeans.

Another bone of contention was whether it is correct, in throwing the plumbata, to grasp it behind the flights.  I argued that the statement in De rebus bellicis that there should space for the fingers 'above' the flights meant that it should be grasped between the flights and the lead weight.  However, it is necessary to look at the Anonymous' use of language.  In describing the plumbata tribolata he mentions the point, looking like a hunting spear, 'above which' (supra quam) is the lead in which the spikes are fixed.  He then mentions the flights which he says are 'in  summa . . . parte ' (literally 'in the top part') of the weapon.  Finally, he mentions the space 'above' (super) the flights for the fingers.  Translated literally, the section describing the position of the flights reads awkwardly and translators have adopted different ways of getting round it.  Ireland reverses the Latin and has 'at the lower end', while Thompson (whose translation Brucius seems to be using) dodges the issue and has 'at the other end'.  What the Anonymous seems to be doing is visualising the weapon being held vertically, point downwards, so that the lead weight is 'above' the point, the flights are at the upper part and the grip is 'above' them.  The illustrations, although probably several removes from the original, show a slight projection of the shaft behind the flights. 

I was highly sceptical of reconstructions of the weapon that placed the grip behind the flights, as I saw this as being based on modern preconceptions of how the weapon should delivered.  However, having looked closely at the Latin, this seems to be what the Anonymous is describing after all.  There remains only to consider whether the weapon was thrown overarm or underarm.  I am firmly of the overarm school.  Lobbing it underarm into the rear ranks of the enemy may cause disruption there but that is not how the Anonymous or Vegetius seem to envisage it being used.  The Anonymous speaks of it being thrown at short range, while Vegetius says that it is used to wound the enemy or his horses before they get to close quarters or even within the range of normal javelins.  Short- to medium-range accuracy seems to be the order of the day.

(01-19-2021, 06:13 PM)Renatus Wrote:  Brucius seemed to have been of the opinion that Europeans were somehow disqualified from experimenting with plumbatae because, unlike Americans, they did not have a tradition of engaging in sports that involved the throwing of balls.  I am not qualified to speak on mainland European sporting traditions but he may  have a point if he were referring only to continental  Europeans.

(01-19-2021, 10:21 PM)Brucicus Wrote: So any critique of you is considered an ad hominem?

(01-20-2021, 01:14 AM)Nathan Ross Wrote:

(01-19-2021, 10:21 PM)Brucicus Wrote: So any critique of you is considered an ad hominem?

That is more or less the definition of 'ad hominem'...

(01-19-2021, 10:21 PM)Brucicus Wrote: Even Renatus . . . has come to see the light.

(01-20-2021, 11:57 AM)Renatus Wrote: I was probably in a minority in advocating the javelin grip anyway.

(01-20-2021, 11:57 AM)Renatus Wrote:

(01-19-2021, 10:21 PM)Brucicus Wrote: Even Renatus . . . has come to see the light.

Don't get too excited!

a)  I was never an underarmer.

b)  I do not accept that, because of their experience with baseball, Americans are uniquely qualified to test plumbatae.

c)  Although I accept that you may be right in saying that continental Europeans may not have a tradition of ball-throwing sports, I do not accept that this precludes them from testing plumbatae.

d)  Where I have moved is that, having considered the Latin of the Anonymous and the structure of the relevant passage, I accept that what he describes is not a javelin-style but a tail-end grip.  I am not sure that this is a great breakthrough, as I was probably in a minority in advocating the javelin grip anyway.  I wonder if those who have espoused the tail-end grip have done so having studied the Latin or on empirical grounds.  Having said all this, I still harbour some concerns and may raise them in another post.

Before my most recent posts, I had only dipped into your study in academia.edu but I have now read it in full.  I do not intend to offer a critique of it but would like to raise a few points:

a)  I should look at your footnotes.  Some seem to be unnecessary and even facetious.  Do we need to be told that vice versa is the Latin for vice versa?  This serves only to diminish a serious study.

b)  In saying how the weapon is described in DRB, you say that it states that the fletching is towards the middle of the shaft.  This is not so.  As I posted above, it places the fletching 'at the top' (in summa parte), but leaving space for the grip.

c)  In mentioning the response to your theories that you received on what is evidently this forum, the examples that you give appear to refer to comments made by me.  These do not accurately reflect what I said and I can only assume that you have misunderstood me.

Thanks for the response, Michael.

A.) Michael, you continue misstating my positions.  I have never claimed that Americans are uniquely qualified, only that we are more familiar with throwing, as a general rule, than most Europeans.  If you wish to continue in this vein, please post quotations of where I make such a non-sensical statement.

B.)  I quote the DRB and then provide how I interpret it.  The fletching is indeed  more towards the middle of the shaft when compared to having them placed at the end of the shaft.

C.)  Yes, some of my footnotes are facetious.  I meant the paper to be informative and entertaining.  It is still incomprehensible to me that no historian had taken a good hard look at the body of research and realized how poor it is.  Clumsy dart designs, inappropriate testers, improper grips, false attributions; that is what today's 'knowledge' rests upon, and that, to me is funny.  Sad but funny.  Yes, I tried to add some levity into my work.  If you find it too distracting, well, my apologies.  Others have commented back to me that they find my style refreshing and engaging.  I'm OK with that.  

D.)  If I have misunderstood you, my apologies.  I stand by my work.  I believe any fair reading of our past unfortunate discussion will support my characterizations of the arguments made.  That you continue to claim that I stated the Europeans aren't qualified to test the darts only reinforces my opinion.  I don't want to re-live the past, I'd much rather start back at square one and see if we can have a productive back-and-forth.

Best regards,
Brucicus

(01-20-2021, 01:35 PM)Nathan Ross Wrote:

(01-20-2021, 11:57 AM)Renatus Wrote: I was probably in a minority in advocating the javelin grip anyway.

From what I can make out, both Mark and Steve (above) are advocating variations on the javelin grip, thrown point-first. Bruce and Robert prefer the tail-end grip, with the weapon reversed and either flung over-arm or lobbed underarm.

Do we even know that there was a single 'correct' way to throw these weapons? They seem quite a versatile tool, and could have been used in various ways, depending on requirements. All the suggestions so far seem quite effective: underarm for high-trajectory drop-shots, overarm for range, javelin-style for close range aimed strikes.

The old weighed pilum seems to have been used at a distance of 15-30 metres against an advancing enemy, so outranging one with a plumbata wouldn't be difficult. If you want really long range, you'd use a sling or a bow.