Thread Rating:
  • 2 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Plumbata
Some additions to the plumbata database, unfortunately all from auction sites and therefore unprovenanced. A few of them, all them originating from the popular yet doubtful  'German collections' or 'former Yugoslavia':

   
   
   
   

Currently there are 175 published finds:
31 from Serbia
30 from Britain
16 from Slovenia
15 from Italy
15 from Austria
14 from France
10 from Hungary
9 from Croatia
7 from Germany
7 from Switzerland
5 from Georgia/Abchasia
4 from Rumania
3 from Bulgaria
3 from Greece
2 from Liechtenstein
2 from The Netherlands
1 from Belgium
1 from Slovakia

Added are 88 from doubtful or unprovenanced origins (up from 80)
Total 263
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
Thanks for updating, Robert!
Francis Hagan

The Barcarii
Reply
Keep them coming Robert Wink many thanks  Cool
Regards Brennivs  Big Grin
Woe Ye The Vanquished
                     Brennvs 390 BC
When you have all this why do you envy our mud huts
                     Caratacvs
Centvrio Princeps Brennivs COH I Dacorivm (Roma Antiqvia)
Reply
What sort of date ranges do the published finds cover?
Reply
(07-06-2018, 02:25 PM)nikgaukroger Wrote: What sort of date ranges do the published finds cover?


Hi Nick,
I'm not near my notes, but from the late 3rd to th 7th century.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
Thanks. Late 3rd makes sense as it would fit with Vegetius' comments on Diocletian's new legions :-)
Reply
Greetings from California's Sierra Nevada Mountains!

Enjoyed very much the discussion and scholarship on display here in this thread.

On the subjects of throwing method and tactical use I'd like to offer up some experiential and conjectural thoughts.

Underhand vs. overhand: There are posts here that attest that the underhand method results in the most distance vs. overhand....and vice versa. Having spent much of my life on a baseball field as a player and coach, I have never seen any player resort to the underhand throw to achieve either maximum thrust or accuracy. Yes, there is a form of baseball (i.e. softball) where underhanded <I>pitching</I> is required, but that is a rule that was designed to make it easier for hitters to make contact. The implications of that rule are pretty straightforward vis a vis this topic.
I myself, at sixteen, was capable of throwing a ball weighing 180-200g 100 meters with enough accuracy to consistently hit or get close to a man-sized target. And I wasn't particularly gifted in that regard, but I was pretty good. Underhanded, I couldn't do 2/3rds that distance...and with much lower accuracy. And that is without the distance-enhancing effect of having a long handle on the ball to increase throwing leverage.
The underhand style does have a couple of advantages, the biggest of which is that we humans are built in such a way that underhand throws cause less stress/fewer injuries to the thrower. The other is that that a 'lob' throw (high arcing, short 'ballistic' trajectory) is much easier to achieve underhanded.

I can see circumstances in battle where different throwing styles would be employed, of course. I do maintain that the primary style would be overhand, especially in battle formation, for the following reasons:
First of all, a formation using the underhand style would, by necessity, have to be very loose because that method requires more space. Measuring the travel distance of the dart's point for each style proves that. So, more space between soldiers. The fact that the underhanded throw also requires a travel path that results in the missile actually being pointed at your buddy in front of you until a split-second before release is also a major detriment arguing against that implementation.
Secondly, in light of the above, the training doctrine/regimen for underhanded throwing would necessitate new formations and commands. Throwing darts overhand, conversely, is essentially the same as throwing pilae.... same motions = same training.

I hope I've made some sense and that this stimulates further discussion.

I am just an auto-didact (where state-approved), diletantte with an abiding interest in Romans after having spent parts of my life in Mauretania (i.e. Morocco)
and Germania Superior (we're Number One!). This is my first post, so be gentle.
Reply
Ooops, forgot to add my real name.


I am Bruce Pruett.

Not quite the ring of "I am Spartacus"

Bruce
Reply
(12-05-2018, 02:19 AM)Brucicus Wrote: On the subjects of throwing method and tactical use I'd like to offer up some experiential and conjectural thoughts.
Underhand vs. overhand:  [..] Having spent much of my life on a baseball field as a player and coach, I have never seen any player resort to the underhand throw to achieve either maximum thrust or accuracy.  [..]
The underhand style does have a couple of advantages, the biggest of which is that we humans are built in such a way that underhand throws cause less stress/fewer injuries to the thrower.  The other is that that a 'lob' throw (high arcing, short 'ballistic' trajectory) is much easier to achieve underhanded.


Hi Bruce, I heard it snowed in the mountains?

Two things about throwing plumbatae:
1 - the dart is not a perfectly balanced object and it does not behave like .e.g an arrow or a well-made spear (or a ball). Athough it can be aimed over short distances (where throwing overhand is recommended), this is generally recognised as a mass-thrown weapon the aim is not an individual target.
2 - the preferred impact of a plumbata is from a high angle. As you observed, the arching throw is much easier to achieve underhanded, which is probably why most of the modern testing almost always achieves larger distances with underhand throws.

(12-05-2018, 02:19 AM)Brucicus Wrote: I do maintain that the primary style would be overhand, especially in battle formation, for the following reasons:
First of all, a formation using the underhand style would, by necessity, have to be very loose because that method requires more space. Measuring the travel distance of the dart's point for each style proves that. [..]
Secondly, in light of the above, the training doctrine/regimen for underhanded throwing would necessitate new formations and commands. Throwing darts overhand, conversely, is essentially the same as throwing pilae.... same motions = same training.

You are basically correct, and opinions vary. However it can be even more simple. Plumbatae were carried by everyone but not necessaily thrown by everyone.

Not all ranks need to threw at once, so they did not need to open up in order to avoid hitting the man in front - although commands are available to do just that.
To achieve maximus distance (underhand throwing) it's probable that just the front rank threw before the opening of the battle. When the formations were in contact, it's more probable that plumbatae were thrown behind the front ranks, according to Roman doctrine of keeping up a constant rate of fire into the enemy (also slingers and archers did that).
It was of course possible to deliver a massed throw (overhand) from the front ranks when attacked by cavalry or in similar situations.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
Ahhh, the joy of learning a new posting system: I accidentally erased my response while trying to fix my signature. And I used to market supercomputers around the world.
I'll have a go at it again.

Robert: We live at 2000ft, so the last weather was only sleet here. Five miles up the road (Highway 88) chains were needed. Wet and cold caused a nice wild mushroom flush so I've been feasting on steinpilze (aka cepes, porcini) the last 10 days.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert wrote:
Two things about throwing plumbatae:
1 - the dart is not a perfectly balanced object and it does not behave like .e.g an arrow or a well-made spear (or a ball). Athough it can be aimed over short distances (where throwing overhand is recommended), this is generally recognised as a mass-thrown weapon the aim is not an individual target.
2 - the preferred impact of a plumbata is from a high angle. As you observed, the arching throw is much easier to achieve underhanded, which is probably why most of the modern testing almost always achieves larger distances with underhand throws.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Admittedly, I have never thrown a plumbata, but I've thrown plenty of rocks of different shapes and they seem to hold true to their initial trajectory pretty well, even without a vaned guidance device being attached. I can imagine a poorly cast dart tending to veer left or right (slice vs hook if you are a golfer) due to the effect of centrifugal force, but at the distances these are meant to be thrown I wonder if that force would have enough flight time to significantly counteract the initial thrust of the throw. Arrows may be quite a bit more accurate, but they were fired in volleys en masse as well. I don't think the en masse delivery necessarily speaks to the accuracy of an object. Slingers were known to be extraordinarily accurate - but they 'slung' in groups too.
OH throws are less susceptible to wind than UH because the higher arc of the plumbata in an UH throw means less forward momentum to counteract the wind's effect. At the peak of the arc the plumbatae reach their slowest speed and are highly susceptible to outside influence.
Another factor is that UH throws lose accuracy the more forceful the throw. I played a version of baseball where the pitcher was required to deliver (lob) the ball to a 6 foot diameter plate 45 feet away... and the ball had to reach a minimum height of 20 feet. No maximum height was imposed, so literally the sky was the limit. It would have been to the pitcher's advantage to throw a very high ball, but no one could because they wouldn't be able to hit the plate consistently. So if I am in the back ranks of a formation in contact with the enemy I am only tossing my plumbatae about 30 feet or so high because that's about the limit of my accuracy. Don't need sharp, heavy objects falling on my brothers in the front ranks. But at a distance it is easy to OH throw a high arcing shot -perhaps not as high as the UH toss, but with much more forward momentum.

I question the preferred impact at a high angle assumption as well. Missiles dropping straight down on my troops are much easier to defend against than those same missiles coming in at, say, 45 degrees. How do you defend against that with your smaller shield if you are a barbarian? Consider; to the thrower, a plumbata in an enemy's foot or leg is almost as good as one in the head. Aside from the defense issue, some posters in this thread have noticed that angled strikes frequently result in broken shafts. I believe that to be a feature in that denies the darts' use to the enemy.
Underhand (UH) is easier for throwing because of how humans are built. And it is easier because we cannot develop the power, and consequently suffer the stress, that is developed by throwing overhand (OH). Frankly, I question the methodology of those who find superior distance UH vs. OH. Not to denigrate anyone! My experience in introducing American ballsports to Europeans is that the Europeans have real problems with proper form and mechanics in making OH throws. There just isn't the knowledge base in Europe on how to correct throwing form issues. However, if you want a laugh, watch me try to play soccer.
A question comes to mind - if UH throws are best for distance, why is it that no military known to me teaches the UH throw for hand grenades? Even the German Stielgranaten were thrown overhand. I did qualify "expert" in grenades while in the US Army, btw.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert wrote:
Not all ranks need to threw at once, so they did not need to open up in order to avoid hitting the man in front ........

If I have a legion under my command I am sure going to try and find a way to get as many darts in the air as I can. IF the Romans delivered pilae en masse (if), then they could do the same with the plumbatae. I haven't bought into the back-lines-feed-the-front-lines discussion. I just don't see that working when the front lines are in contact. As for cavalry attacks and the like, with an OH throw it would indeed be possible for all ranks to engage. Try that UH and you have some real problems. Not even a quincunx-style formation is adequate because the back ranks would still have a friendly 3-5 meters directly in front of them. Too early a release, a slip from sweaty hands, and boom! your buddy Flavius Targetus is now involuntarily donating his equipment to his successor...if you catch my drift. See how brave you are by standing 3 meters in front of a compatriot who is trying to throw UH for distance to get the sense of what I am saying.

And finally (for this particular post), there is only one way to be hit by a plumbata thrown UH... be at the terminus point of its trajectory. With the OH throw and a lower trajectory, anything in the line of its flight is in danger.

Thanks so much for the discussion. You may be surprised, but there are few opportunities to argue (in the academic sense) about Roman weapons and battle tactics in California.
Reply
(12-13-2018, 06:36 PM)Brucicus Wrote: Admittedly, I have never thrown a plumbata, but I've thrown plenty of rocks of different shapes and they seem to hold true to their initial trajectory pretty well, even without a vaned guidance device being attached. I can imagine a poorly cast dart tending to veer left or right (slice vs hook if you are a golfer) due to the effect of centrifugal force, but at the distances these are meant to be thrown I wonder if that force would have enough flight time to significantly counteract the initial thrust of the throw. Arrows may be quite a bit more accurate, but they were fired in volleys en masse as well. I don't think the en masse delivery necessarily speaks to the accuracy of an object. Slingers were known to be extraordinarily accurate - but they 'slung' in groups too.

Rocks (or sticks) do not behave like a plumbata, not even javelins do. The thing with the weight is that the missile tail wants to overtake the point while in flight, and the flights prohibit that, straightening the missile out about halfway in the air. I’m no expert on ballistics, but my guess would that, especially concerning the longer distances, accuracy suffers from just that. Arrows are very much more accurate.
We agree on en masse fire – accuracy is less of a necessity.

(12-13-2018, 06:36 PM)Brucicus Wrote: OH throws are less susceptible to wind than UH because the higher arc of the plumbata in an UH throw means less forward momentum to counteract the wind's effect. At the peak of the arc the plumbatae reach their slowest speed and are highly susceptible to outside influence.

Indeed. But OH throws do not get you the same distance. And a flat tracectory is not what you need if you want a constant rate of fire over the heads of your comrades fighting in front of you, while a high trajectory can avoid the scuta held in front of your enemy, instead targeting them from above at a 45-degree angle.

(12-13-2018, 06:36 PM)Brucicus Wrote: Another factor is that UH throws lose accuracy the more forceful the throw. I played a version of baseball where the pitcher was required to deliver (lob) the ball to a 6 foot diameter plate 45 feet away... and the ball had to reach a minimum height of 20 feet. No maximum height was imposed, so literally the sky was the limit. It would have been to the pitcher's advantage to throw a very high ball, but no one could because they wouldn't be able to hit the plate consistently. So if I am in the back ranks of a formation in contact with the enemy I am only tossing my plumbatae about 30 feet or so high because that's about the limit of my accuracy. Don't need sharp, heavy objects falling on my brothers in the front ranks. But at a distance it is easy to OH throw a high arcing shot -perhaps not as high as the UH toss, but with much more forward momentum.

Well, if you’re in the back of a formation you won’t be able to see much of the enemy, so accuracy is not playing much of a role. Not being able to throw straight at their faces in an (almost) flat trajectory, makes you want to get as much of an impact, which is achieved by an arc as high as possible, delivering an impact with as much force as possible. We had plumbatae piecing an oak table of at least a centimeter from about 10 meters height. No need to achieve such heights as with your basketball (which behaves very different anyway – see above). Smile

(12-13-2018, 06:36 PM)Brucicus Wrote: I question the preferred impact at a high angle assumption as well. Missiles dropping straight down on my troops are much easier to defend against than those same missiles coming in at, say, 45 degrees. How do you defend against that with your smaller shield if you are a barbarian? Consider; to the thrower, a plumbata in an enemy's foot or leg is almost as good as one in the head. Aside from the defense issue, some posters in this thread have noticed that angled strikes frequently result in broken shafts. I believe that to be a feature in that denies the darts' use to the enemy.

Well – the assumption is not 90 degrees, but 45. That’s the impact angle of my tests (and others) anyway.
The ‘broken shaft construction’ assumption is not one that I share. The weapon being constructed cheap and dirty is reason enough for shafts to break. I mean – the missile used by far the most on a battlefield is the arrow, yet nobody ever contemplates any design feature to make this missile unusable to the enemy (both sides often collected arrows to shoot back). For the relatively low number of plaumbatae lying around, I don’t think that seems to have been a tactical problem in the minds of the Romans either.

(12-13-2018, 06:36 PM)Brucicus Wrote: Underhand (UH) is easier for throwing because of how humans are built. And it is easier because we cannot develop the power, and consequently suffer the stress, that is developed by throwing overhand (OH). Frankly, I question the methodology of those who find superior distance UH vs. OH. Not to denigrate anyone! My experience in introducing American ballsports to Europeans is that the Europeans have real problems with proper form and mechanics in making OH throws. There just isn't the knowledge base in Europe on how to correct throwing form issues. However, if you want a laugh, watch me try to play soccer.

What can I say? Methodology is theory, testing is practice. Testing over many years by many people with different types of plumbatae consistently results in higher distances UH than achieved OH.
Again, stones or balls are not behaving like plumbatae, so maybe other forces come into play?
I would love for tests to show that Americans achieve better plumbatae distances than Europeans because of the way they’re trained in sports btw – that would be a nice study for someone’s phd! But in the meantime, I’ll stick to test results!
Soccer? You mean football. Smile

(12-13-2018, 06:36 PM)Brucicus Wrote: A question comes to mind - if UH throws are best for distance, why is it that no military known to me teaches the UH throw for hand grenades? Even the German Stielgranaten were thrown overhand. I did qualify "expert" in grenades while in the US Army, btw.
Because a hand grenade (even a Stielhandganate) behaves differently from a plumbata? And you don’t always have the room to throw them UH? (But now I’m repeating myself) Wink

(12-13-2018, 06:36 PM)Brucicus Wrote: If I have a legion under my command I am sure going to try and find a way to get as many darts in the air as I can. IF the Romans delivered pilae en masse (if), then they could do the same with the plumbatae. I haven't bought into the back-lines-feed-the-front-lines discussion. I just don't see that working when the front lines are in contact. As for cavalry attacks and the like, with an OH throw it would indeed be possible for all ranks to engage. Try that UH and you have some real problems. Not even a quincunx-style formation is adequate because the back ranks would still have a friendly 3-5 meters directly in front of them. Too early a release, a slip from sweaty hands, and boom! your buddy Flavius Targetus is now involuntarily donating his equipment to his successor...if you catch my drift. See how brave you are by standing 3 meters in front of a compatriot who is trying to throw UH for distance to get the sense of what I am saying.
Of course the Romans would do the same, but pila and plumbatae were thrown on different occasions. Pila were used to break the enemy charge (and plumbatae could be used in the same fashion), but plumbatae were also used during battle (when the pila were already spent), in the same way as arrows and slingstones. Who, in the same way, were also shot at flat trajectories at close range but at high trajectories from the back when the formations had engaged in close combat. There is no ‘back-feeds-front’at that time, we agree there, because the front fights with spear and sword at that point. But that phase of battle is far longer than the initial ‘closing with the enemy’, meaning the UH high-arc fire of plumbatae is what it was probably designed for, not the flat-arc of the pilum.

And no, 3-5 m is adequate, because you are NOT targeting the enemy in front of Flavius Targetus, but the enemy a few ranks behind him. As I wrote earlier, the Roman army kept up a constant rate of fire during the engagement of both armies, not by targeting the enemy in front but rather those at the back. Not only would it thin out the enemy, but also damage his resolve (the one in the rear are the first to run off) and prohibit them to ‘keep up the pressure’ (this was a thing in late Roman formation fighting). The need to guard yourself from what come from above prohibits from engaging with what come from in front of you.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
Greeting from (wet) NorCal'. Not a complaint! Are Christmas markets big in the Netherlands? Hope everyone you care about has a Merry Christmas.

So 'post preview' and return removes my post. What other little tricks are in store for me here? lol. Also, what am I doing wrong in replying here? I don't get any smilies or underline/bolding options. I don't think html commands work here, either. At least not in my first message or two. Any advice greatly appreciated.


Robert said: Rocks (or sticks) do not behave like a plumbata, not even javelins do. The thing with the weight is that the missile tail wants to overtake the point while in flight, and the flights prohibit that, straightening the missile out about halfway in the air. I’m no expert on ballistics, but my guess would that, especially concerning the longer distances, accuracy suffers from just that. Arrows are very much more accurate.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I wasn't arguing that plumbatae are as accurate as arrows...or slings, for that matter. I don't believe they are the roman equivalent of Dragunov sniper rifles, but they are accurate enough to consistently hit a target at further-than-pilum-range, so that counts as 'accurate' for me. Who knows if the Romans thought of them that way. From the videos I've seen, the darts appear to be reacting to the initial discharge of energy into them when they oscillate (wobble) at initial launch, The fletching imparts both drag and centrifugal force, Watch slo-mos of arrows at launch - they do the same thing (oscillate), but their thinner shafts and longer lengths absorb most of the initial lateral force while the arrow begins to spin, keeping the projectile on target. The wobble is more obvious with darts because launch speeds are slower when compared to arrows and the shorter, thicker shafts do not flex like arrow shafts and thus more 'wiggle' is apparent until the fletching stabilizes the flight path along the center of mass' trajectory. At no time should the dart tumble or 'cartwheel' in flight. The attitude of the dart at launch should be identical whether thrown OH or UH if properly performed. I can think of no other should be the same at both. Not that you are claiming that UH an OH; and the weight/length ratio.

You keep mentioning 'how a plumbata behaves'. I may be missing something, but isn't that point irrelevant when discussing comparative distance throwing? Unless you are maintaining that a plumbata behaves differently when thrown UH vs. how it behaves when thrown OH. And by "behave", I mean to say the manner in which it reacts to the forces applied to it: x amount of forward momentum, y amount of lateral force. Of the videos I have watched, I have seen no evidence of that. I cannot think of any inanimate object that has that ability.
"Because a hand grenade (even a Stielhandgranate) behaves differently from a plumbata?" What property does a plumbata have that allows it to differentiate between the throwing methods?

I'll attempt to clarify my thinking, (not always a successful venture): A dart thrown overhand or underhand, with equal amounts of energy (forward, angular, lateral momentum), with equal environmental factors, and launched with the same trajectory will land in the same place. Basic physics supports my claim, I believe.
My position is that, in general, one achieves significantly more energy by throwing overhand than throwing underhand. I also maintain that dart could be thrown en masse, overhand, from formation to a distance farther than that attainable by spear/javelin.

You seem to disregard my personal experience in throwing and teaching throwing. That's OK, you don't know me.And you haven't addressed my examples of professional sports where individuals who get paid to throw long distances accurately, ALWAYS throw overhand. Without exception. Not even in cricket! Or, does that go back to the argument that a ball is different from a plumbata?

To me, having a solid, supportable, contrary perspective brought to me would make me question the validity of studies claiming otherwise. Seeing people on line throw farther OH would do that too. Those videos exist. I am aware of the claims otherwise, but they don't pass the smell test. Smell tests can obfuscate, so I am open to logical discussions contrary to my positions. Have any papers detailing the testing methodology, results, weather conditions (a very high throw with a strong tailwind could, conceivably fly further than a throw kept below the wind). participants' qualifications, statistical confidence level, etc. been published? I can find no links, but I don't have access to many academic sites. I am very interested in reading some. Here is a link https://ojs.ub.uni-konstanz.de/cpa/artic.../2409/2262 that discusses overhand throwing and they state clearly that overhand is a faster, more accurate throw.

I stipulate that the lob (UH) would be used when the front lines were engaged. I thought I was clear on that, so I need to focus on improving my communications.
Accuracy is important in that situation. Roman-era 'accuracy', not 21st C accuracy. Soft lobs are very accurate for nearby targets, but the more force (Higher, farther) required the more accuracy plummets. Try throwing to a 4x4 target box on the ground from about a formation's length away, say 15-20 meters, with your throws going at least 10 meters high and then start increasing height/distance. Too long is a miss, too short is an empty space in your contubernium. You'll see your accuracy dissipate markedly. Your experiment showed a drop of 10meters resulted in 1 cm penetration in an oak table (I hope your wife didn't mind). That, to me, does not sound like 'military level power'. Would it penetrate a shield, or a helmet or lorica whateveritata and cause a serious, debilitating or fatal wound? Highly unlikely, it seems to me. So, soldiers would be tempted to throw them higher for more impact (literally), with both positive and negative results. Mostly negative because the higher the dart is lobbed, the more the falling angle is sharpened, resulting in a strike angle much closer to 90 degrees than 45 degrees and therefore much easier for the back ranks to defend against.. Just put shield overhead until you near the front.

Against a cavalry attack, Centurion Brucicus is going to have his ranging weapons fire as soon as the enemy comes within range.
A modern, average horse gallops at 45-48 kph. Adjusting it down to 40Kph to account for the rider, that means that the charge is covering 11+meters/sec in the attack. Starting the charge 100 meters away puts the enemy in your midst just under 9 seconds. Using 5'7"(170cm) as the height of a legionnaire, one would need to throw at a minimum angle of about 12 degrees to clear a 5'7" obstacle 4 meters in front of him. That angle results in one meter of rise per every 3 meters of forward progress. A dart thrown 30 meters will be 10 meters high minimum. At 60 meters it will be 20 meters high, theoretically. An object weighing 180 grams, with a similar surface area will take 1.4 seconds to fall 10 meters at sea level. It will take 2 seconds to fall from 20 meters, 2,5 seconds from 30 meters. Adding in time to throw from command and flight time, a PIDOMA calculation of 2 seconds, means that the charging enemy will have covered somewhere between 30 and 60 meters from the 'throw' command (which I assume is 'tossum' in Latin). To strike an enemy in that instance requires leading the enemy so that your throw anticipates where the enemy will be when the projectiles land. A very difficult challenge which requires training. But how would the Romans train? How could they simulate this battle condition? And, noting the need for a very loose formation for throwing underhanded, how would they hope to get set in time to receive the charge?
A tight formation, utilizing their pilum-throwing routine, would be able to put the charging attackers under direct fire for as fast as they could throw. Much more effective than what the underhanded throw could achieve. Quite a bit easier to train to, as well.
I doubt that archers and slingers were shooting high angle shots into the enemy from their formation's rear. Perhaps into neighboring formations' attackers where a side angle is available tom hit an exposed flank. From what I have read, archers and slingers were directed to the high ground or to wider angles and farther distances from their formation so as to be able to shoot directly at the enemy. I read recently (Ammianus??) writing about deploying horse archers behind the infantry to shoot directly into the enemy formation.Maybe in battles like Alesia where the enemy combatants were so thickly arrayed would it make sense for archers to shoot virtually straight up to have a chance of hitting the rearward enemy ranks.


When I see test results that don't conform to real-world experience, I choose to question those results.

" But OH throws do not get you the same distance" Eppur si muove. ;-)

European 'football'? You mean that game where little guys run around in their underwear and pretend to be knocked down all the time? Nothing more exciting that a 1-1 tie.....

Thanks for the discussion! I have designed a simple, easy to make plumbata-proxy. Once the holidays are over I will do some testing. I have plenty of access to people who know how to throw. If I have to eat crow at the end of those tests, so be it. I'll be smarter for the effort. Maybe others, too.

Best regards. Have a safe holiday,
Bruce
Reply
(12-18-2018, 02:57 AM)Brucicus Wrote: Greeting from (wet) NorCal'. Not a complaint! Are Christmas markets big in the Netherlands? Hope everyone you care about has a Merry Christmas.

They are popular, but only a few are big. So I went to Strasbourg last week… Sad

(12-18-2018, 02:57 AM)Brucicus Wrote: So 'post preview' and return removes my post. What other little tricks are in store for me here? lol. Also, what am I doing wrong in replying here? I don't get any smilies or underline/bolding options. I don't think html commands work here, either. At least not in my first message or two. Any advice greatly appreciated.

I think smilies can be added? Wink

______________________________________________________
(12-18-2018, 02:57 AM)Brucicus Wrote: I wasn't arguing that plumbatae are as accurate as arrows...or slings, for that matter

You weren’t. We agree there.

(12-18-2018, 02:57 AM)Brucicus Wrote: You keep mentioning 'how a plumbata behaves'. I may be missing something, but isn't that point irrelevant when discussing comparative distance throwing? Unless you are maintaining that a plumbata behaves differently when thrown UH vs. how it behaves when thrown OH.

I mention that when compare it to how a ball, a rock or a wooden branch fly through the air. Except for those basic that you mention (I throw, it flies and then it lands) a plumbata slows down when it rights itself after the throw. Slingshot and arrows don’t do that, nor all these modern objects that you’ve thrown. You cannot compare them where accuracy is concerned. Or when you state that ‘you throw a ball better OH, therefore a plumbata must be behaving in the same manner.

(12-18-2018, 02:57 AM)Brucicus Wrote: "Because a hand grenade (even a Stielhandgranate) behaves differently from a plumbata?" What property does a plumbata have that allows it to differentiate between the throwing methods?

Flights, which make sure the point is not overtaken by the tail. In a Stielhandgranate, that is no problem whatsoever. Smile

(12-18-2018, 02:57 AM)Brucicus Wrote: Basic physics supports my claim, I believe.

I’m not a physicist, my wife is. If you distrust the testing results without even having read them, might there perhaps be some problem with your initial assumptions?
(12-18-2018, 02:57 AM)Brucicus Wrote: You seem to disregard my personal experience in throwing and teaching throwing. That's OK, you don't know me. And you haven't addressed my examples of professional sports where individuals who get paid to throw long distances accurately, ALWAYS throw overhand. Without exception. Not even in cricket! Or, does that go back to the argument that a ball is different from a plumbata?

Well, that makes us even, because you sem to disregard my personal experience with throwing plumbatae, as well that or other people doing the same thing.
As I’ve said before (and below) - yes, throwing a ball is not the same as throwing a short dart with lead on one end and feathers on the other. Smile
(12-18-2018, 02:57 AM)Brucicus Wrote: Seeing people on line throw farther OH would do that too. Those videos exist. I am aware of the claims otherwise, but they don't pass the smell test.

Please share some links, that may be interesting.

(12-18-2018, 02:57 AM)Brucicus Wrote: Have any papers detailing the testing methodology, results, weather conditions (a very high throw with a strong tailwind could, conceivably fly further than a throw kept below the wind). participants' qualifications, statistical confidence level, etc. been published? I can find no links, but I don't have access to many academic sites. I am very interested in reading some.

Many academic sites publish papers, or show links to titles that can be found in other places. Academia.edu is a place where many papers can be found (including mine: https://independent.academia.edu/RobertVermaat)
I’ll share with you some of the studies published about testing plumbatae:
• 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.
• Griffiths, W.B. (1995): Experiments with plumbatae, in: Arbeia Journal, vol. 4, pp. 1-11.
• Lydamore, C. (2007): A possible method of producing barbed projectile heads in the late Roman period, in: Lucerna, vol. 34, pp. 6-8.
• Payne-Gallwey, Ralph (1903): Arrow-Throwing, in: The Book of the Crossbow, (New York), pp. 243-6.
• Sherlock, D. (1979): 'Plumbatae - a note on the methods of manufacture', in: Hassall and Ireland 1979, De Rebus Bellicis, BAR Int. Ser., vol. 63 (Oxford), pp. 101-102.
• Sim, David (1995a): Experiments to examine the manufacturing techniques used to make plumbatae, in: Arbeia Journal, vol. 4, pp. 13-19.
• Sim, David (2012): Death on leaden Wings, in: Minerva, vol. 23 nr. 3, pp. 32-34. http://minervamagazine.co.uk/archive_pdf..._23_03.pdf

(12-18-2018, 02:57 AM)Brucicus Wrote: Accuracy is important in that situation. Roman-era 'accuracy', not 21st C accuracy. Soft lobs are very accurate for nearby targets, but the more force (Higher, farther) required the more accuracy plummets. Try throwing to a 4x4 target box on the ground from about a formation's length away, say 15-20 meters, with your throws going at least 10 meters high and then start increasing height/distance. Too long is a miss, too short is an empty space in your contubernium.

You don’t want that arc too high, because (as you accurately remarked earlier) you don’t want the angle becoming less than 45 degrees. I try to throw along a line (for measurement purposes), which is not difficult. I guess that means that accuracy (Roman style) is good enough.

(12-18-2018, 02:57 AM)Brucicus Wrote: Your experiment showed a drop of 10meters resulted in 1 cm penetration in an oak table (I hope your wife didn't mind). That, to me, does not sound like 'military level power'. Would it penetrate a shield, or a helmet or lorica whateveritata and cause a serious, debilitating or fatal wound? Highly unlikely, it seems to me.

To you maybe. Plumbatae do not penetrate helmets, I doubt they are designed that way – they are not heavy enough. They do penetrate shields (max. thinkness 9mm and certainly shoulders covered in mail armour. Which may be why they seem to be entering service in the later 3rd century, when the plate armour is phased out. Like pila, the plumbata does not need to make a kill per se, getting stuck in the shield (hence the barbs) makes that too heavy to operate. That add the terror effect against cavalry combined with the easy production and almost lack of need for training makes it a weapon for the whole army. According to a later handbook, even the kitchen staff carried some.

(12-18-2018, 02:57 AM)Brucicus Wrote: A modern, average horse gallops at 45-48 kph. Adjusting it down to 40Kph to account for the rider, that means that the charge is covering 11+meters/sec in the attack.

Ah, there you’re making several wrong assumptions.
One, a modern horse is larger and faster than a horse in Roman times.
Two, Roman cavalry carried a much heavier load, which would slow it down.
Three, most cavalry does get among the formation’ – horse archers remain out of range, light cavalry throwing javelins would keep away as far as possible, and the armoured cavalry would usually not charge at an infantry formation (they’d be killed unless the infantry was weakened already) but fight with lances stabbing the front.
None of those cavalry actions is doing the charges you have in mind – that’s Napoleonic stuff etc – hussars against unarmoured infantry. Incomparable to our period.

(12-18-2018, 02:57 AM)Brucicus Wrote: But how would the Romans train? How could they simulate this battle condition? And, noting the need for a very loose formation for throwing underhanded, how would they hope to get set in time to receive the charge?

That would indeed be interesting to know. No information about that exists. If we’d extrapolate information of Roman weapon training, I assume they were testing the real thing on training grounds.

(12-18-2018, 02:57 AM)Brucicus Wrote: A tight formation, utilizing their pilum-throwing routine, would be able to put the charging attackers under direct fire for as fast as they could throw. Much more effective than what the underhanded throw could achieve. Quite a bit easier to train to, as well.

Indeed, we agree there. As I described in my earlier post, that would be the moment for the OH throw – directly at a charging enemy. The UH throw is for the overhead support when the formations are already locked in battle.

(12-18-2018, 02:57 AM)Brucicus Wrote: I doubt that archers and slingers were shooting high angle shots into the enemy from their formation's rear.

Well, that I did not invent that, plenty of sources for that, it was part of Roman battlefield tactics.

(12-18-2018, 02:57 AM)Brucicus Wrote: When I see test results that don't conform to real-world experience, I choose to question those results.

And yet you have not thrown a plumbata in your life. I’m not claiming all the tests have been exact science, but that approach could make you distrust every scientific test until you have replicated it yourself…

(12-18-2018, 02:57 AM)Brucicus Wrote: Eppur si muove


LOL You do realize that the guys he muttered that to were also sticking to pure theory, don’t you? Wink

____________________________________________________
(12-18-2018, 02:57 AM)Brucicus Wrote: European 'football'? You mean that game where little guys run around in their underwear and pretend to be knocked down all the time? Nothing more exciting that a 1-1 tie.....

I mean the sport that was named for all players playing the ball with their feet. And which was renamed ‘soccer’ by people who took the name ‘football’ for a game where it was illegal to touch the ball with their feet. Except for one occasion where they bring in an extra player who is the only one playing the ball with his foot. LOL Smile

Merry Christmas and a happy new year to you as well.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
Robert: The Nuernberg Christkindlmarkt is the most famous in Germany. Can be quite the crowd. I am surprised Stassburg's was disappointing. We don't have Christmas markets like Europe has, Ours are usually privately funded and held in indoor venues. Can't have any governments (city, local, federal) supporting anything religious in the USA!I do not see anyway to add in smilies (not that I want to, I find them infantile but I am old and set in my ways) or to bold, underscore, manipulate fonts, etc. that one often finds in forum engines. That you appear to have that ability is frustrating (but I'm happy for you!).

Now to the meat:
Robert wrote>
I mention that when compare it to how a ball, a rock or a wooden branch fly through the air. Except for those basic that you mention (I throw, it flies and then it lands) a plumbata slows down when it rights itself after the throw. Slingshot and arrows don’t do that, nor all these modern objects that you’ve thrown. You cannot compare them where accuracy is concerned. Or when you state that ‘you throw a ball better OH, therefore a plumbata must be behaving in the same manner.
-----------------------------------------
You are missing the point. Whether thrown UH or OH the plumbata will have fletching impacting its flight. So, what makes a dart with fletching fly further when thrown UH than a dart with fletching when thrown OH as you claim? They both, when properly thrown will have identical launch attitudes, i.e, point forward, tilted upwards. In your tests did the darts thrown OH initially tumble (cartwheel) in flight? Is that what you mean by 'righting itself'? If so, the throw was poorly executed and would indeed greatly reduce the distance and accuracy. Did the UH throws not need to 'right' themselves???

BTW, I have to take back my statement about not having thrown plumbatae - while technically true, a sibling reminded me that we had 'Lawn Darts' as kids (plastic fletching, lead weight concentrated in the tip) and I've probably thrown them hundreds of times, if not a thousand. We used to throw for distance and at targets. Overhand gave us greater distance and better accuracy than UH. Funny that I didn't even think of that. So I claim directly comparable real world experience. In fact, I may have more experience throwing plumbata-like objects than anyone on this thread. (Wild conjecture of course, but if not here, then where? If not now, then when, lol?) Here is a link to modern, safe versions: https://www.dickssportinggoods.com/p/mar...ac13b19754
The ones we had as kids actually had real, sharp points on them! Too many Jimmy-kabobs caused the manufacturers to move to the soft rubber tip. I will use similar devices for my tests. Do you see something that would disqualify these darts as plumbatae proxies at least for a proof of concept test series?

Robert wrote: I mention that when compare it to how a ball, a rock or a wooden branch fly through the air. Except for those basic that you mention (I throw, it flies and then it lands) a plumbata slows down when it rights itself after the throw. Slingshot and arrows don’t do that, nor all these modern objects that you’ve thrown. You cannot compare them where accuracy is concerned. Or when you state that ‘you throw a ball better OH, therefore a plumbata must be behaving in the same manner.
___________________________________________________________________________________
Wrong and wrong. All objects on Earth will slow down once they are released from their initial source of impetus (caveat: Objects shot on a downward trajectory at a speed lower that the object's terminal velocity will accelerate due to gravity until terminal velocity is reached. Does not apply to objects generating their own propulsive force): An arrow is slowing down the second it is released from the string as its shaft absorbs and dissipates lateral and compressive forces. In slow-motion you can see that happening as I explained in my last post. Ask your physicist wife to try and find errors in my statements. (I'd ask mine, but her job as a lingerie model keeps her very busy. She's more into gene-splicing anyway.)
A bullet begins to slow down as soon as it leaves the muzzle. A thrown ball slows down the moment it leaves your hand. Yes, fletching adds drag but it also keeps the projectile aerodynamic in flight - one force slows it down while at the same time allowing it to fly true and far. You keep referring to the fletching as the decisive factor- how does the fletching make the plumbata react differently based on the method of throwing? You maintain that it does but give no description as to how. Not even a theory.



Brucicus Wrote:
"Because a hand grenade (even a Stielhandgranate) behaves differently from a plumbata?" What property does a plumbata have that allows it to differentiate between the throwing methods?
Robert wrote: Flights, which make sure the point is not overtaken by the tail. In a Stielhandgranate, that is no problem whatsoever.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Still missing the point. See above.
__________________________________________________________________
Robert wrote: I’m not a physicist, my wife is. If you distrust the testing results without even having read them, might there perhaps be some problem with your initial assumptions?

Absolutely correct. Turns out I was basing it on extensive personal experience. But that doesn't mean I am necessarily correct, but it sure improves the odds. That's why I asked for more studies, which you have so generously provided. None of them are from Lysenko, are they? ;-)

----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert wrote: Well, that makes us even, because you seem to disregard my personal experience with throwing plumbatae, as well that or other people doing the same thing.
As I’ve said before (and below) - yes, throwing a ball is not the same as throwing a short dart with lead on one end and feathers on the other.

What is your experience throwing? Did you play a ball-throwing sport? Were you trained in proper overhand technique? Can you throw a ball 100 meters, or could you ever? Have you researched OH vs. UH throwing techniques? Are you aware that the fastest UH throw on record is 85 mph while the fastest OH throw on record is 105 mph? What is it about plumbatae that reverses that equation? Fletching? Sorry, smell test fail. I laid it out simply in my previous message. You didn't address that point in your response so I shall repeat it here:

I'll attempt to clarify my thinking, (not always a successful venture): A dart thrown overhand or underhand, with equal amounts of energy (forward, angular, lateral momentum), with equal environmental factors, and launched with the same trajectory will land in the same place. Basic physics supports my claim, I believe.
My position is that, in general, one achieves significantly more energy by throwing overhand than throwing underhand. There is much scientific evidence supporting this claim. I also maintain that dart could be thrown en masse, overhand, from formation to a distance farther than that attainable by spear/javelin.
________________________________________________________________________________________
Robert wrote: Brucicus response in parantheses.
Ah, there you’re making several wrong assumptions.
One, a modern horse is larger and faster than a horse in Roman times. (That's why I reduced the speed by 20%. What number do you find appropriate?)
Two, Roman cavalry carried a much heavier load, which would slow it down. (")
Three, most cavalry does get among the formation’ – horse archers remain out of range, light cavalry throwing javelins would keep away as far as possible, and the armoured cavalry would usually not charge at an infantry formation (they’d be killed unless the infantry was weakened already) but fight with lances stabbing the front. (Are you maintaining that enemy cavalry forces didn't attempt to break up formations? Roman squares, Wellington's squares, the enemy charged them both. If the Roman's formation cracks then the, say, Gothic cavalry wouldn't be in among them? Why not? Why even charge, then? Just saunter up and poke at the enemy with your long sticks! I am clearly missing something here. Are you saying that the Romans wouldn't try to engage the enemy at a distance? Not all the French forces attacked Wellington's squares at Waterloo, so does that make those charges not charges in some manner? Maybe their horses had fletching?)
None of those cavalry actions is doing the charges you have in mind – that’s Napoleonic stuff etc – hussars against unarmoured infantry. Incomparable to our period. (Not many horse charges here in the USA. May be different in the Netherlands.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert wrote: Indeed, we agree there. As I described in my earlier post, that would be the moment for the OH throw – directly at a charging enemy.

Me: OK, now I am confused, did the enemy charge or not charge? Perhaps these are Schroedinger's Cavalry?
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Robert wrote: And yet you have not thrown a plumbata in your life. I’m not claiming all the tests have been exact science, but that approach could make you distrust every scientific test until you have replicated it yourself…

Me: Well, I have addressed that first part statement. Sorry for having passed on bad info initially. As to the second, when 'scientific' results conflict with my personal experience, yes, I will test them if it is in my power to do so. My ex BIL is a German professor in physics. He is also the Oberstudenterat where he teaches which, I am told, is a big deal. Visiting us last year he got all fired up about the Arctic snow cap melting and resultant global flooding that was sure to occur. When I pointed out that his concerns are unfounded as the Arctic is basically a floating ice cube and would not contribute at all to sea level rise, he laughed at me, rolled his eyes and started talking to me as if I were mentally defective. So I set up an experiment: I put a few cubes of ice in a measuring cup and then filled it with water to the 1 cup line and let it sit out a night. The next morning my physics professor bil came to me as soon as I woke up to apologize for being so wrong about something so basic. Yes, the ice had melted and the water level changed not one bit. He was embarrassed. I bet he still went home and continued to spout his unfounded opinion anyway, knowing him.
That's who I am. It's one of the challenges (and rewards) of being an auto-didact...dealing with those who commit the 'arguing from authority' error in logic. Do I need to put together a list of all those things 'science' has believed to be true and then turned out to be false?

You've got me really excited about testing on my own. Would you sponsor me for a PhD for doing so? Just kidding. I don't use any of the degrees I have anyway. Well, maybe psychology. I use it to torment my kids.

Hope I don't come across as too strident. One reason I joined this forum is because I watched all these videos on line showing plumbatae testing and I was entsezt (shocked? troubled?) at how they were being thrown. I am a pretty classic type-A. If I go over a line please attribute it to zeal and ignorance.

Soccer comes from the term 'association football' and, like the game itself, originated in Britain. "Association" was shortened somehow to soccer and was adopted In the USA to differentiate it from the already-invented American game 'football'. American football was banned for 3-4 years in the US because something like 20 college players a year were being killed in games. That ban was lifted when new rules eliminating certain formations (i.e. wedges) and allowing the forward pass were introduced. Kicking used to be a much bigger part of the game. All players in American football (the Original Football tm) do use their feet in the game. Using your feet is even popular in baseball. n I dare you to show me any crickets in cricket.
Thanks again for engaging with me.
Brucicus

Just read your report on your experience. I actually found this on-line a couple weeks ago. Didn't realize it is your product. Excellent documentation, Two issues: you reported a following wind (I didn't see wind speed in your report, I'll look again later). A following wind will carry a higher shot farther than a lower shot. I take advantage of that in golf whenever I can.
You also state that the UH method obtained marginally more distance that the OH...yet the farthest throw of DK1 was overhanded. I know...outlier.
It was great that you included your poor throwing technique as one potential influencing factor on your results.

In your report you stated that: 'No wobbling, turning over in flight or similarly unstable behaviour could be observed.' I must be mis-reading something because it seems that you maintained the opposite in your past couple of responses to me. Something about the fletching 'righting' the plumbatae.

What have I missed?
Maybe our exchange will result in more scientific tests. We have plenty of room for testing and accommodations at my ranch if you want to try it here! I don't think anyone has done any looking for roman artifacts here in California. Maybe you could get a grant?????

Thanks for putting up with my odd-ball humor.

Say hello to Sinter Klaas for me.

Best wishes,
Brucicus
The toughest steel goes through the hottest fire.
Reply
(12-18-2018, 06:13 PM)Brucicus Wrote: You are missing the point.  

Oh I hope not – every plumbata has one. Smile

(12-18-2018, 06:13 PM)Brucicus Wrote: Whether thrown UH or OH the plumbata will have fletching impacting its flight.  So, what makes a dart with fletching fly further when thrown UH than a dart with fletching when thrown OH as you claim?  They both, when properly thrown will have identical launch attitudes, i.e,  point forward, tilted upwards.  

The certainly start point forward, but then the tail starts to overtake them until the flights correct that – the ‘righting itself’ – happens both with UH as well as OH throws. Of course you can judge that ‘poorly executed throws’ but I’ve seen that happen also in the videos of people who reach up to 80 meters. That may be due to how hard they can throw – I never claimed I was Olympic quality, quite the opposite – or how their plumbatae were constructed. There is not ONE plumbata type, weights differ wildly. Of my own versions I throw very light ones and commercial ones with a totally different weight distribution – and it shows.

(12-18-2018, 06:13 PM)Brucicus Wrote: So I claim directly comparable real world experience.  In fact, I may have more experience throwing plumbata-like objects than anyone on this thread.  

LOL. I know (of) lawn darts, but I’ve never seen them around here. That website denies me access btw.
I don’t know how lawn darts differ from plumbata reproductions, but I’m not optimistic about straight comparisons. Once a guy told me about modern darts being ‘the same as plumbatae’, so UH throws were silly according to him, ‘because everyone knows that darts are thrown OH’.

Btw, how did you throw the lawn dart? How did you hold it?

I’m not going deeper into our ballistics discussion because either I do not understand enough about the physics behind it, or I don’t seem to be able to explain why I have a different view on that particular subject. To me you can’t discuss the behavior of a plumbata comparing it to a ball, whereas you seem to hold the view that you can. Let’s agree to disagree here and focus on other details.

(12-18-2018, 06:13 PM)Brucicus Wrote: I'll attempt to clarify my thinking, (not always a successful venture): A dart thrown overhand or underhand, with equal amounts of energy (forward, angular, lateral momentum), with equal environmental factors, and launched with the same trajectory will land in the same place. Basic physics supports my claim, I believe.

I think the detail in that statement is ‘with the same trajectory’. This is where, in my humble experience, the differences between OH and UH occur? An OH throw has the hand deliver a different force than it does with an UH throw. I should use a high-speed camera (if I had one) to look at the difference, but I would suggest (hope it’s correct) that the UH throw naturally takes the plumbata more upwards, and the OH throw takes it more forward? This is were the energy is delivered right? That final flick of the wrist?

(12-18-2018, 06:13 PM)Brucicus Wrote: I also maintain that dart could be thrown en masse, overhand, from formation to a distance farther than that attainable by spear/javelin.

There we agree fully.

(12-18-2018, 06:13 PM)Brucicus Wrote: That's why I reduced the speed by 20%.   /quote]

Alright, you did not mention that, only ‘modern horse’. I would say a reduction of 30-50% would be more accurate, given that the horse was not fresh out of the stables either.

(12-18-2018, 06:13 PM)Brucicus Wrote: Are you maintaining that enemy cavalry forces didn't attempt to break up formations?  Roman squares, Wellington's squares, the enemy charged them both.  If the Roman's formation cracks then the, say, Gothic cavalry wouldn't be in among them?  

No, I did not say that – they charged them when weakened. Plenty of examples exist indeed of enemy cavalry charging Roman infantry, but when not weakened these always held out. Horses are not easy to train and although you can train a horse to charge straight into a group of armed men (I’ve been part of such training) it would cost you the horse (and the rider) without guarantee of success. It’s a myth that cavalry is there to ‘charge the enemy line’. I know of a 6th-c. battle of 100 Roman infantry against Persian cavalry more than 6 times their number. They held out for hours and only succumbed when the Persians dismounted.

Cavalry keeps up the pressure with higher tactical speed, suppressing enemy light troops from coming forward – and of course countering enemy cavalry. Only armoured cavaly (with armoured horses) are meant to harass the infantry up close and personal, with their long lances (7 foot) keeping out of range if possible. Only when the line greaks is cavalry sent in to break ranks, but that’s a gamble. After the enemy breaks the cavalry really comes into play by attacking the fleeing troops – and that is the moment where the casualties fall, not before.
This is standard Roman tactics btw, and it goes for a lot of their enemies as well.

What are ‘Roman squares’ btw? You mean the manipular organization or the later Roman organization? They are not comparable to Napoleonic squared or the pike infantry that went before it.

(12-18-2018, 06:13 PM)Brucicus Wrote: OK, now I am confused, did the enemy charge or not charge?  

There are a number of phases in a battle, requiring different counter-measures. I’m talking Late Roman army here - simplified of course (I know this will draw criticim from people who know more about the subject):
1 – after the march to the battlefield, the army is drawn up into the respective battle positions. No enemy contact.
2 – the first contact, usually by arrows, is met by archers. If you have no achers, reaction requires the first shield-wall formation (static) with the first four ranks holding their shields in front and above (a fulcum). Usually cavalry is deployed now to force archers/slingers back behind their own infantry.
3 – First use of plumbatae – if the cavalry comes to close or attempts a charge while the infantry is still deploying). This would be an OH throw straight into the attackers.
4 – closing with the enemy. Romans would await an enemy coming to them, again by an OH plumbata throw from at least the front ranks. I don’t believe in any ‘rotation schemes’ of people throwing and running back while their comrades throw the next ones. Either the darts are passed forward for a next throw, or they throw their 5 darts and that’s it.
5 – closing with an enemy that will not come forward required the mobile shield wall (confusingly also named fulcum), that resembled the old testudo. Suppressing fire (UH plumbatae and archers/slingers would fire over their heads.
6 – infantry main battle. Suppressing fire (UH plumbatae and archers/slingers would fire over their heads.
Some phases could be repeated, or interspaced with cavalry attacks – see above. Mostly one army pulled back or broke, after which the cavalry was the main actor.

(12-18-2018, 06:13 PM)Brucicus Wrote: I bet he still went home and continued to spout his unfounded opinion anyway, knowing him.

Two things abou that. By PM, as it’s unrelated to this discussion.

(12-18-2018, 06:13 PM)Brucicus Wrote: Soccer comes from the term 'association football'

I know. It just comes across as odd to hear a sport that’s being played worldwide under the name ‘football’ being referred to as something else in one single country, who adopted the name for a different game. Why did they not name it ‘American rugby’ or something like that? Crickets in cricket? Yikes! Smile

I sometimes use this example when discussions are getting off the tracks due to misunderstandings about terminology.

(12-18-2018, 06:13 PM)Brucicus Wrote: you reported a following wind (I didn't see wind speed in your report, I'll look again later).  A following wind will carry a higher shot farther than a lower shot.  

It does. Despite not having a wind meter I know the wind was not significant enough to influence the test results.

(12-18-2018, 06:13 PM)Brucicus Wrote: You also state that the UH method obtained marginally more distance that the OH...yet the farthest throw of DK1 was overhanded.  I know...outlier. /quote]

Actually I blame the lower distance achieved on me getting tired. After a certain amount of throws you see the distances dropping, which is when I stop. Repeating the test with UH throws first may show a difference, I must try that.
(12-18-2018, 06:13 PM)Brucicus Wrote: It was great that you included your poor throwing technique as one potential influencing factor on your results.

But of course. I’m no athlete and not having other people taking part in these tests can really make a difference where conclusions come into play.
I’m planning to do a test with 15 plumbata types and at least 5 people, each test throwing one type at least 5 times. Testing is actually quite dull, and one walks up and down a lot retrieving the darts.

(12-18-2018, 06:13 PM)Brucicus Wrote: In your report you stated that: 'No wobbling, turning over in flight or similarly unstable behaviour could be observed.'  I must be mis-reading something because it seems that you maintained the opposite in your past couple of responses to me.  Something about the fletching 'righting' the plumbatae.  

See? terminology confusion. My English is not perfect.
By 'wobbling' I mean wildly erratic behaviour throughout the flight.
By 'turning over in flight' I mean the dart making a complete 360 in the air. Some darts do this, especially the old Indian reproductions who seem to have an iron rod in the wooden shaft. It prevents breaking but messes up flights.
By 'righting itself' I mean the characteristic behaviour described above, where the dart, after the launch, has the tail attempting to overtake the head.

(12-18-2018, 06:13 PM)Brucicus Wrote: Say hello to Sinter Klaas for me.
Nicolaas has already left the country on December 6th, so that’ll have to wait until next year Wink

Added later: some of my plumbatae

   
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply


Forum Jump: