Plumbata

[Renatus]

John Eagle is the one who couldn't reach 30m, so he just stopped throwing .

MY point exactly - he gave up too soon. Actually, there is not much wrong with 30m. The Quinta javelin tests produced a maximum of 20m, with a mean for the better throwers of 15m. A pllumbata cast of 30m is, therefore, well within Vegetius' criterion. No doubt, both could be improved with practice but the ratio may not be dissimilar. I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that the obsession with distance may be badly distorting our approach to this subject.

I wish you would point out where my mystification lies, specifically.

Let me quote you: 'Forgive my obtuseness, but I am unclear as to the "major problem" you are elucidating.' That is mystification in my book. The answer is in the following sentence in my post: 'No one knows for sure what these weapons were actually like'.

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.

That's it precisely. The barb projects ahead of the weight. This shifts the centre of balance. The effect may be minimal and not make a hap'orth of difference but, until your replica reproduces this feature, we cannot be sure.

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?

Let's keep this discussion vaguely intellectual, shall we, and not descend to the arguments of the playground? Your comments are tripe and you know it, so why make them? Of course every one can throw overarm, even Europeans. Your point, as I understand it, is that Americans, through a long association with ball-throwing sports, have refined the technique to a degree unattained by those in Europe. The extent to which this technique is 'proper' (to use your terminology) outside the confines of the baseball diamond is, to say the least, debateable. What seems beyond doubt is that there is no evidence whatsoever that the Romans engaged in such sports. It is, therefore, not legitimate to impose the techniques of twenty-first century Americans upon fourth century Romans and assume it to be correct. The techniques of the Old World in this context may have as much, if not more, relevance as those of the New.

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'.

Your comment does not seem to relate to the part of my post quoted. If you are referring to the names of the Joviani and the Herculiani, I refer you to n.3 on p.17 of Milner's translation of Vegetius.

I replied to Kavan's question.  The answer lies there.

Indeed you did - with the fallacious argument that I have endeavoured to expose.