01-06-2019, 02:32 AM
There is a lot in your two posts and I do not intend to try to deal with all your points individually. That could merely degenerate into a tit-for-tat exchange that would lead nowhere. I will instead pick up on points that particularly strike me as requiring comment. If others occur to me later, I will deal with them then.
First, you say that none of the reports of earlier experiments mention wind conditions. I don't know what you have been reading but W. B. Griffiths in the Arbeia Journal mentions a strong cross-wind and John Eagle in his report speaks of a three-quarter following wind, albeit in relation to only one of his tests. Robert Vermaat specifically chose sheltered sites to avoid his tests being affected by wind. Neither of these tests were bi-directional, such as mine. John Eagle is the one who couldn't reach 30m, so he just stopped throwing .
You seem mystified by my saying that we do not know what these weapons were actually like. I don't know how I can make this any plainer. We have the metal parts but, as to the rest, we have only the vague description in 'De rebus bellicis' plus its illustrations which are some removes from the original and probably not very reliable. Only one shows the weight and that is in connection with the provision of spikes and apparently not as we see it in the surviving metal parts. You say that arrows have flights at the end of the shaft whereas the shaft of the plumbata projects behind the flights. That is only because that is how experimenters have reconstructed it. It need not be correct. For what it is worth, the illustrations in 'De rebus bellicis' have the flights at the end of the shaft, like arrows. I wish you would point out where my mystification lies, specifically. You stated mine was nose heavy, yet on the plumbatae remains discovered all of the weight is on the nose :i.e the shaft terminates in a socket or other junction of the shank with the barb attached. The lead weight is then wrapped over that junction. Perhaps a review of plumbata construction would be more beneficial to you than to me. I shall leave it to others to determine if my plumbata qualifies as a valid test device. I have already posited that, for close in work with an enemy in contact, fletching would be as far to the rear as possible for maximum accuracy ....while leaving plenty of room for the grip for an underhand throw I believe that was in my last post.
I would be very surprised if your experience did not bear upon how your sons performed. I am quite sure that, if you thought that they were doing it wrong, you would say so. This brings me to a crucial point. You say that modern day Europeans do not have the same experience of throwing sports as in America and that relatively few know how to throw overarm using the proper grip and technique. I need hardly say that the Romans did not have the American experience either. To the best of my knowledge, the Romans did not play baseball. You simply cannot take you experience and assume that the Romans had the same. In fact, a truer test may well be by those without that experience. So being raised by a Little League coach somehow disqualifies my children, while the total lack of any throwing skills somehow qualifies others. That makes no sense to me. Why would you use completely untrained individuals to determine how hardened, trained warriors used them in real life? Would you test a plane with an unqualified pilot? This too is a puzzling statement. And while I would like for America to take credit for throwing, did the Romans kick their pila at the enemy? Did shepherds in Mesopotamia scissor-kick their rocks at wolves? Did cavemen roll their spears at aurochs? This argument makes no sense to me either. I also find it difficult to believe that he Romans would have all the components of a superior infantry ranging weapon and then not take advantage of its potential. Your argument that we don't know what the plumbata looked like works as much for me as against me, you understand. I tend to think the Romans were at least as smart as me.
your theory that their technique related to illustrations of the manner on which Jupiter delivered his thunderbolts, it would be immediately apparent that he employed the standard javelin grip.
I know when to bow to superior knowledge Should you be so inclined, I would welcome a source. All of the ones I have uncovered state 'history is unclear' and 'historians debate'. I appreciate the update.
This finally brings me to Kavan's eminently sensible comment that the grip should be on or just behind the point of balance. This is what the Anonymous seems to be describing. I would suggest that a more profitable area for research would be to see whether a plumbata delivered with that grip could achieve Vegetius' criterion of outranging a javelin. I know that some researchers have tried this and been disappointed but one of John Eagle's tests using, in effect, the pub darts throw did outdistance by a small margin the maximum javelin throw achieved by Quinta in tests reported in the Arbeia Journal in 1992, so it does seem possible, given a suitable amount of practice . In short, those who have abandoned this method and resorted to holding the plumbata by the end of the shaft and throwing it overarm or underarm may have given up too easily. As I have said before, we need not be looking for these super-distances. I replied to Kavan's question. The answer lies there.
Best regards, Bruce
First, you say that none of the reports of earlier experiments mention wind conditions. I don't know what you have been reading but W. B. Griffiths in the Arbeia Journal mentions a strong cross-wind and John Eagle in his report speaks of a three-quarter following wind, albeit in relation to only one of his tests. Robert Vermaat specifically chose sheltered sites to avoid his tests being affected by wind. Neither of these tests were bi-directional, such as mine. John Eagle is the one who couldn't reach 30m, so he just stopped throwing .
You seem mystified by my saying that we do not know what these weapons were actually like. I don't know how I can make this any plainer. We have the metal parts but, as to the rest, we have only the vague description in 'De rebus bellicis' plus its illustrations which are some removes from the original and probably not very reliable. Only one shows the weight and that is in connection with the provision of spikes and apparently not as we see it in the surviving metal parts. You say that arrows have flights at the end of the shaft whereas the shaft of the plumbata projects behind the flights. That is only because that is how experimenters have reconstructed it. It need not be correct. For what it is worth, the illustrations in 'De rebus bellicis' have the flights at the end of the shaft, like arrows. I wish you would point out where my mystification lies, specifically. You stated mine was nose heavy, yet on the plumbatae remains discovered all of the weight is on the nose :i.e the shaft terminates in a socket or other junction of the shank with the barb attached. The lead weight is then wrapped over that junction. Perhaps a review of plumbata construction would be more beneficial to you than to me. I shall leave it to others to determine if my plumbata qualifies as a valid test device. I have already posited that, for close in work with an enemy in contact, fletching would be as far to the rear as possible for maximum accuracy ....while leaving plenty of room for the grip for an underhand throw I believe that was in my last post.
I would be very surprised if your experience did not bear upon how your sons performed. I am quite sure that, if you thought that they were doing it wrong, you would say so. This brings me to a crucial point. You say that modern day Europeans do not have the same experience of throwing sports as in America and that relatively few know how to throw overarm using the proper grip and technique. I need hardly say that the Romans did not have the American experience either. To the best of my knowledge, the Romans did not play baseball. You simply cannot take you experience and assume that the Romans had the same. In fact, a truer test may well be by those without that experience. So being raised by a Little League coach somehow disqualifies my children, while the total lack of any throwing skills somehow qualifies others. That makes no sense to me. Why would you use completely untrained individuals to determine how hardened, trained warriors used them in real life? Would you test a plane with an unqualified pilot? This too is a puzzling statement. And while I would like for America to take credit for throwing, did the Romans kick their pila at the enemy? Did shepherds in Mesopotamia scissor-kick their rocks at wolves? Did cavemen roll their spears at aurochs? This argument makes no sense to me either. I also find it difficult to believe that he Romans would have all the components of a superior infantry ranging weapon and then not take advantage of its potential. Your argument that we don't know what the plumbata looked like works as much for me as against me, you understand. I tend to think the Romans were at least as smart as me.
your theory that their technique related to illustrations of the manner on which Jupiter delivered his thunderbolts, it would be immediately apparent that he employed the standard javelin grip.
I know when to bow to superior knowledge Should you be so inclined, I would welcome a source. All of the ones I have uncovered state 'history is unclear' and 'historians debate'. I appreciate the update.
This finally brings me to Kavan's eminently sensible comment that the grip should be on or just behind the point of balance. This is what the Anonymous seems to be describing. I would suggest that a more profitable area for research would be to see whether a plumbata delivered with that grip could achieve Vegetius' criterion of outranging a javelin. I know that some researchers have tried this and been disappointed but one of John Eagle's tests using, in effect, the pub darts throw did outdistance by a small margin the maximum javelin throw achieved by Quinta in tests reported in the Arbeia Journal in 1992, so it does seem possible, given a suitable amount of practice . In short, those who have abandoned this method and resorted to holding the plumbata by the end of the shaft and throwing it overarm or underarm may have given up too easily. As I have said before, we need not be looking for these super-distances. I replied to Kavan's question. The answer lies there.
Best regards, Bruce