Plumbata

[Brucicus]

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

---

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.

Nathan, I believe you are misreading Mark's statement.  He appears to be fully supportive of how the dart is thrown as presented in the photo sequence I provided.  Steve's point is more ambiguous and I am unclear as to what he was trying to say.

Please read my paper where I discuss the trajectories of the different throwing methods.  Bottom-line, the underhand throw would never be used if an overhand throw was possible because the overhand delivery offers more power, more accuracy, and a full range of possible trajectories.  The javelin-style, which I take you to mean that the dart is held just behind the weight, would never be used as it is a weak, ineffective way to throw these missiles.  John Conyard, whom I quote in my paper, said "the speed at which this dart can be thrown from close range, added to its weight, make its effectiveness on the battlefield a terrifying prospect"   He advocates the tail grip with the overhand throw just as I do.

You can find that paper here:  https://www.academia.edu/44834773/_UPDAT..._Straight_

Thanks for your comment.  It is always a pleasure to read your posts.
Regards,
Brucicus