Thread Rating:
  • 2 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Plumbata
That stuff from the 'weak tips' belongs to the myths around the pilum, but even so i suspect that mary tips/shafts were damaged on impact.

The anonymous inventor of the 4th c. who wrote De rebus bellicis wanted to add caltrops to the weapon, but so far none of these have been found..
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
Quote:just watched the plumbatae video....your men throw overarm...wish mine went like that....!!

Yes, great piece of video:
[Image: PlumbataeDetalle.jpg]
http://www.cohorsprimagallica.com/recon ... amento.php

Last year at Archeon, the guys from I Germanica also told me that overarm throwing would result in greater distances than underarm throwing. However, when I used their plumbatae underarm, I managed to throw them further than they did overarm... :wink:

Having said that, I've never reached those large distances (80-100m) with my own, larger (Len Morgan-based) plumbatae, that other groups have reached with smaller ones. It seems that lenght of the shaft is really a determining factor for distances reached.

We should test this sometimes, grand scale. With at leat 10 test throwers and several types of plumbatae.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
Quote:maurice talks about lead darts (this coming from english translation, since my greek is so bad) so would it then be ok for a 6th century impression to have and use these in you opinion? thanks for any opinions or input.
aitor iriarte:16ph4evr Wrote:Without doubt, John! 8)
He also says that they are worn inside aquiver. Maybe they were longer than the ones Vegetius said were carried inside the shield board... :?

Iohannis,
Besides Maurikios who's already mentioned by Aitor, I have two modern studies for you:

Kolias, Taxiarchis G. (1988): Die Keule und der Streitkolben, in: Byzantinische Waffen. Ein Beitrag zur byzantinischen Waffenkunde, Von den Anfängen bis zur lateinischen Eroberung, Byzantina Vindobonensia 17 (Wien), pp. 173-84.

Völling, Thomas (1991): 'Plumbata - Mattiobarbulus - Martzobarboulon? Bemerkungen zu einem Waffenfund aus Olympia', in: Archäologischer Anzeiger, pp.: 287-98.

Völling describes a find from Olympia, Greece, so far the only plumbata from Greece that I know of. This is a longer one than normally found, the socketed shaft is 255 mm where the average length is between 100 and 130 mm. The point is not barbed (not unusual but uncommon), but the lead weight is attached halfway on the shaft (I know of only two others), but the weight is square (thát is unique).

Although there is no clear reason to see this find as a development from the ‘common’ plumbatae, this is what both Kolias and Völling think. Vólling dates this one to the 6th c., mostly based on theoretical work by Kolias. The latter was convinced that the plumbata developed into a much heavier and longer weapon, that eventually ended up as a mace. He thought that Maurikios describes this when mentioning that the ‘Martzobarboulon’ was carried in a leather case. He added an image of the ‘plumbata tribolata’ as described in the anonymous source ‘de rebus Bellicis’ as a plumbata combined with a caltrop.

However, Kolias’ reconstruction of this (so far unattested) invention from DRB is totally wrong and does not even bear the slightest resemblance to the known image from DRB – Kolias does not even show the barbed head.

Also, I’ve been told by experts (Philip Rance , pers. Comm..) that Kolias’ translation of Maurikios passage is wrong, and that the ‘Martzobarboulon’ carried in leather cases are clearly to be translated in the plural (hence my own attempt at a reconstruction of this leather case/quiver).
Therefore I reject Kolias’ reconstruction and development theory as wishful thinking.

There are two more plumbatae dated to the 5th and 6th (especially) centuries:

One is from Cebel’da, Cibilium, (Abchasia). However, this is published in an article that I’ve not been able to get hold of:
Kazanski, M. (1987): , in: C.Landes (ed.): Gaule Mérovingienne et Monde Méditerranéen. Actes des Ixe journées d’ Archéologie Mérovingienne, Lattes 24-24 sept. 1987, p. 75, 77 note 3, 80 fig. 1.1.

The other is from Ajdna nad Potoki, Slovenia, mentioned by Völling.

Unfortunately I don’t have images for either one. I’ll scan some pictures of the Olympia plumbata and Kolias’ reconstruction after weekend.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
Quote:
Vortigern Studies:199ia7kk Wrote:
ambrosius:199ia7kk Wrote:Actually, the reason yours and Len Morgan's plumatae-heads eventually
broke from the shaft is that they were tanged. The socketed-head actually tends to compress the wood of the shaft, rather than split it.
Yes and no. You're right about tanged shafts, but that's not the whole story. Plumbatae (and pila) mostly land at an angle, and their relative high weight puts much more force on the joint between iron and wood.
Well yes and no... and no. 8) All projectiles with a metal head and a
wooden shaft will be front-heavy, and so land at an angle unless being
shot/thrown at extreme point-blank range. That goes for arrows and
pila as well as plumbatae.

Not all projectiles with a metal head are therefore point heavy - some arrows are not, most javelins that I held were not, and most stabbing spears certainly are not (before you correct me that these aren't projectiles - yes, they are described as being thrown regularly).

The difference between arrows and spears (hastae) on the one hand, and pila and plumbatae on the other, is that they are weighted. This weight gives them different qualities, and much more force is put on the joints betwen head and shaft.

Quote:It doesn't really matter what angle they land
at, though, as long as the force of impact is straight through the head
and into the shaft.
And this is exactly what happens with a plumbata - when the head hits the target (or the ground), the weight plus shaft will 'overtake' the head, thereby forcing it to bend or break. A well-poored weight should protect the shafted as well as the tanged joint from that force.

I would very much like to test if tanged shaft break sooner than socketed shafts.

So far however, I assume the reason from far more plumbatae showing tanged joints is that these are much easier the manufacture. From what we know of these weapons today, they were 'fast & dirty' weapons, easy to make and unlikely to be repaired if retrieved at all.

Quote:Another point is that a plumbata is only being thrown, rather than shot
from a bow. So a plumbata is travelling a lot slower over the same
distance than an arrow. And it's speed which largely governs the amount
of kinetic energy a projectile has, rather than weight. So, even with a
lead weight, a socketed plumbata-head ought to be just as long-lasting as a socketed arrow-head (when shot at the same targets).
Sure, but a plumbata is so much heavier than an arrow that the extra weight surely makes up for being slower.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
Quote:
ambrosius:1fdx7diw Wrote:Well yes and no... and no. 8) All projectiles with a metal head and a wooden shaft will be front-heavy, and so land at an angle unless being shot/thrown at extreme point-blank range. That goes for arrows and pila as well as plumbatae.

Not all projectiles with a metal head are therefore point heavy - some arrows are not, most javelins that I held were not, and most stabbing spears certainly are not (before you correct me that these aren't projectiles - yes, they are described as being thrown regularly).

I think you'll find that they are. Weigh any of them at the mid-way point
and they'll be front-heavy. Even the smallest metal arrowheads will
outweigh the horn nock and feather fletchings at the back (though the
difference will be less, here, than with the heavier head of a javelin or
a spear, obviously. Try throwing a modern athletics javelin, and the
metal head will give it a downward trajectory at the end of its flight.
That's the whole idea of its design. The IAA don't want javelins flying
on a completely flat trajectory and skidding-off the grass to spear some
official or spectator. On the other hand, they do want the javelin to
stick in the ground, where it can A.) Do no damage beyond its point of
impact and B.) make a clear mark in the grass which can be measured.

The same principle goes in warfare. The primary function of the head
of any projectile (or spear) is to punch through the target, rather than
get blunted or split, as the bare wooden shaft might, on its own. But
with projectiles, especially, you desire them to be slightly front-heavy,
as this prevents them tumbling in flight and not hitting the target with
the point first. The fletchings on an arrow or a plumbata also help to
keep the flight straight, by acting ar rudders in the air and even by
imparting spin (arrow fletchings do this) like the rifling of a gun barrel.
You only have to see what happens to a cylindrical bullet fired from a
non-rifled barrel to realise how easy it is for projectiles to tumble or spin
(end-over -end) in mid-flight and either hit the target side-on or fly-off at an angle and miss it completely. So if you were just throwing a sharpened stick at the enemy, it coudn't even be guaranteed to fly straight. In fact, the act of sharpening a wooden stave would actually remove some of the weight from the point and make it 'back-heavy', meaning that it was
far more likely to tumble in flight or simply drop its tail way before it
reached the target and hit the taget side-on or even back-on. Confusedhock:

Quote: The difference between arrows and spears (hastae) on the one hand, and pila and plumbatae on the other, is that they are weighted. This weight gives them different qualities, and much more force is put on the joints betwen head and shaft.

They are all weighted. The plumbata most of all and the arrow least.
The arrow needs less of a weight in its head to keep it flying straight
as it has the added benefit of the fletchings, which, coupled with its
higher speed of flight, give it a large 'rudder' effect and a longitudinal
spin which prevents 'end-over-end' spin (the thing we're trying to avoid).
The javelin requires a larger weight in its head, to keep it flying front-
first, as it doesn't have the fletchings. The plumbata is an interesting
case. How do you throw yours? By holding it at the back of the shaft,
behind you, and pointing backwards? Right. And you fling it (either
over- or under-arm - it doesn't matter which) past your head with your
arm passing through 180 degrees. Thus the plumbata is also passing
through 180 degrees. You are thus not only giving it lateral motion but
imparting rotational kinetic energy to it. That is, if it did not have
the lead weight to over-ride its rotational momentum upon leaving
your hand, it would continue to spin, end-over-end in mid flight, losing
speed and either dropping short of the target or hitting the target at any angle other than head-on. Notice that slight 'wobble' as it first leaves
your hand and settles into its trajectory? That's the lead weight kicking-
in and correcting the rotational spin, which would otherwise cause the
problem mentioned above. 8)

Quote:
ambrosius:1fdx7diw Wrote:It doesn't really matter what angle they land at, though, as long as the force of impact is straight through the head and into the shaft.
And this is exactly what happens with a plumbata - when the head hits the target (or the ground), the weight plus shaft will 'overtake' the head, thereby forcing it to bend or break. A well-poored weight should protect the shafted as well as the tanged joint from that force.

No, no. That's the point (the metal one Big Grin ). So long as the projectile hits squarely (point-first) then the impact goes directly through the axis of the head and the shaft, lengthways, just how it's designed to do. The problem only comes when it hits at an 'angle-off' and imparts a lateral strain on
the joint between head and shaft. That's when it's liable to break. As we
discussed with tanged versus socketed heads, both will direct the force
of impact straight througn the head and shaft on target and force the
two together. But a slight 'angle-off' on the impact will tend to split the
shaft with the tanged head, while the socketed head actually provides
a uniform force on the shaft and compresses it inside the socket, which
helps to prevent the wood splitting. :wink:

Quote: I would very much like to test if tanged shaft break sooner than socketed shafts.

So would I :twisted:

Quote:So far however, I assume...


Confusedhock: You should never do that. 8)


Quote:Sure, but a plumbata is so much heavier than an arrow that the extra weight surely makes up for being slower.

Kinetic energy is proportional to the weight of a projectile but proportional
to the SQUARE of the velocity. E=m x v squared. (That's exactly
the same as Einstein's famous equasion, without the 'BANG' :lol: )

Ambrosius/Mike[/quote]
"Feel the fire in your bones."
Reply
Quote: Weigh any of them at the mid-way point and they'll be front-heavy. Even the smallest metal arrowheads will outweigh the horn nock and feather fletchings at the back (though the difference will be less, here, than with the heavier head of a javelin or a spear, obviously.
I see, yes, you're right there.

Quote:The IAA don't want javelins flying on a completely flat trajectory and skidding-off the grass to spear some official or spectator.
That would not be good for the sponsors, indeed..
However, javelins are primarily flat-trajectory weapons. Plumbatae are mainly curved trajectory weapons, arrows can be both.

Quote:The same principle goes in warfare. The primary function of the head of any projectile (or spear) is to punch through the target, rather than get blunted or split, as the bare wooden shaft might, on its own. But with projectiles, especially, you desire them to be slightly front-heavy, as this prevents them tumbling in flight and not hitting the target with the point first.
Agreed. The metal head will do that for you.

Quote:
Vortigern:1bdk5j49 Wrote:The difference between arrows and spears (hastae) on the one hand, and pila and plumbatae on the other, is that they are weighted. This weight gives them different qualities, and much more force is put on the joints between head and shaft.
They are all weighted. The plumbata most of all and the arrow least.
No they are not. You are talking about different things. All trajectory weapons have a metal head (the're weapons, after all) but that's not 'weighted'. The weight of the pilum and the plumbata is added to gain the force to punch through armour.

Quote:The javelin requires a larger weight in its head, to keep it flying front-first, as it doesn't have the fletchings. The plumbata is an interesting case. How do you throw yours? By holding it at the back of the shaft, behind you, and pointing backwards? Right. And you fling it (either over- or under-arm - it doesn't matter which) past your head with your arm passing through 180 degrees. Thus the plumbata is also passing through 180 degrees.
The javelin has a weight in its head? The head is the weight. The trick to keep it flying front-first without the tail overtaking it does not lie in the weight of the head, but in the technique of throwing it. With pila you don't have that problem because it's much slower and the weight is attached much further down. With the plumbata it is higher up, which is why the plumbata needs flights.

The throwing of the plumbata is mostly not 180 degrees, but 360 degrees, to give it more speed. And like shooting slings, it's the trick to let it go when it has all that speed exactly in the direction that you want it to go. if you do it right, the tail will hardly wobble or not at all, like with the javelin.

Quote:You are thus not only giving it lateral motion but
imparting rotational kinetic energy to it. That is, if it did not have the lead weight to over-ride its rotational momentum upon leaving your hand, it would continue to spin, end-over-end in mid flight, losing speed and either dropping short of the target or hitting the target at any angle other than head-on. Notice that slight 'wobble' as it first leaves your hand and settles into its trajectory? That's the lead weight kicking-in and correcting the rotational spin, which would otherwise cause the problem mentioned above. 8)
No, that's the flights kicking in, preventing the rotational spin that's started by the heavy front. the stabilising flights actually prevent the tail overtaking the head. Like you said above:
Quote:it has the added benefit of the fletchings, which, coupled with its higher speed of flight, give it a large 'rudder' effect and a longitudinal spin which prevents 'end-over-end' spin (the thing we're trying to avoid).

Quote:
Vortigern:1bdk5j49 Wrote:
ambrosius:1bdk5j49 Wrote:It doesn't really matter what angle they land at, though, as long as the force of impact is straight through the head and into the shaft.
And this is exactly what happens with a plumbata - when the head hits the target (or the ground), the weight plus shaft will 'overtake' the head, thereby forcing it to bend or break. A well-poured weight should protect the shafted as well as the tanged joint from that force.
No, no. That's the point (the metal one Big Grin ). So long as the projectile hits squarely (point-first) then the impact goes directly through the axis of the head and the shaft, lengthways, just how it's designed to do. The problem only comes when it hits at an 'angle-off' and imparts a lateral strain on the joint between head and shaft. That's when it's liable to break.
Agreed! If they land neatly head-on, they'll stay in one piece. The socketed head makes no difference there over the tanged one - the latter has enough strength from the lead weight to prevent the shaft being split.

Quote:As we discussed with tanged versus socketed heads, both will direct the force of impact straight through the head and shaft on target and force the two together. But a slight 'angle-off' on the impact will tend to split the shaft with the tanged head, while the socketed head actually provides a uniform force on the shaft and compresses it inside the socket, which helps to prevent the wood splitting. :wink:
Like I said, the lead weight prevents the shaft being pressed downwards onto the tanged point where it would be split.
However, both experience a sideways forced, that wants to 'bend' the shaft and head.
Is the socket stronger? I would like to test that.
So far, I assume that most plumbatae have tanged heads because these are cheaper and easier to make.

Quote:
Vortigern:1bdk5j49 Wrote:So far however, I assume...
Confusedhock: You should never do that. 8)
You should always do that as long as you don’t know. It's called science. Scientists who do not assume when they do not know are not doing their job. I know assuming is not popular with modern media :wink: but that's not what we mind very much about here.

Btw, I would love to see some pictures of you testing your plumbatae.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
Quote:
ambrosius:3plg37w8 Wrote:Weigh any of them at the mid-way point and they'll be front-heavy. Even the smallest metal arrowheads will outweigh the horn nock and feather fletchings at the back (though the difference will be less, here, than with the heavier head of a javelin or a spear, obviously.
I see, yes, you're right there.

Quote:The IAA don't want javelins flying on a completely flat trajectory and skidding-off the grass to spear some official or spectator.
That would not be good for the sponsors, indeed..
However, javelins are primarily flat-trajectory weapons. Plumbatae are mainly curved trajectory weapons, arrows can be both.

Quote:The same principle goes in warfare. The primary function of the head of any projectile (or spear) is to punch through the target, rather than get blunted or split, as the bare wooden shaft might, on its own. But with projectiles, especially, you desire them to be slightly front-heavy, as this prevents them tumbling in flight and not hitting the target with the point first.
Agreed. The metal head will do that for you.

Quote:
Vortigern:3plg37w8 Wrote:The difference between arrows and spears (hastae) on the one hand, and pila and plumbatae on the other, is that they are weighted. This weight gives them different qualities, and much more force is put on the joints between head and shaft.
They are all weighted. The plumbata most of all and the arrow least.
No they are not. You are talking about different things. All trajectory weapons have a metal head (the're weapons, after all) but that's not 'weighted'. The weight of the pilum and the plumbata is added to gain the force to punch through armour.[/quote]

No, I'm not talking about two different things. You agreed that the
weight of a metal projectile head (on a wooden shaft) is what helps it to fly straight towards the target. Even with the smallest of arrowheads.
It's a continuum from this up to a plumbata. The arrow flies on the
flatest trajectory (helped by its speed and fletchings) the plumbata
on the most parabolic (because of its 'extra' lead weighting, in addition
to the iron head) with javelins in between.

Quote:The javelin requires a larger weight in its head, to keep it flying front-first, as it doesn't have the fletchings. The plumbata is an interesting case. How do you throw yours? By holding it at the back of the shaft, behind you, and pointing backwards? Right. And you fling it (either over- or under-arm - it doesn't matter which) past your head with your arm passing through 180 degrees. Thus the plumbata is also passing through 180 degrees.

Quote:The javelin has a weight in its head? The head is the weight.

Exactly. That's what I've been trying to tell you. I thought you understood
that when you agreed above. Why do you try to distinguish between
the weight of a metal head (large or small) and the additional
weight of the lead on a pilum or plumbata? The latter is just an extension
of the former, with both intended to keep the projectile flying straight.

Quote:The trick to keep it flying front-first without the tail overtaking it does not lie in the weight of the head, but in the technique of throwing it. With pila you don't have that problem because it's much slower and the weight is attached much further down. With the plumbata it is higher up, which is why the plumbata needs flights.

Wrong. It is very hard to throw a broom handle (for example) over a
long distance so that it hits the target point first. It tumbles in flight,
because it does not have the 'weight' of a metal head to lead it in the
direction you threw it. But add a metal point, and you have a javelin.

Quote:The throwing of the plumbata is mostly not 180 degrees, but 360 degrees, to give it more speed.

I'm really not sure you understood my description. Throwing starts
with your arm furthest back and ends with it furthest forward, with
the point swinging through 180 degrees.

Quote:And like shooting slings, it's the trick to let it go when it has all that speed exactly in the direction that you want it to go.

Different technique. You are holding onto the shaft of a plumbata.
With a sling you have no shaft to hold.

Quote:...if you do it right, the tail will hardly wobble or not at all, like with the javelin.

That's not how it works. Try throwing an arrow with a small head using
exactly the same technique as your plumbata. See below:

Quote:You are thus not only giving it lateral motion but
imparting rotational kinetic energy to it. That is, if it did not have the lead weight to over-ride its rotational momentum upon leaving your hand, it would continue to spin, end-over-end in mid flight, losing speed and either dropping short of the target or hitting the target at any angle other than head-on. Notice that slight 'wobble' as it first leaves your hand and settles into its trajectory? That's the lead weight kicking-in and correcting the rotational spin, which would otherwise cause the problem mentioned above. 8)

Quote:No, that's the flights kicking in, preventing the rotational spin that's started by the heavy front. the stabilising flights actually prevent the tail overtaking the head. Like you said above:

No it's not. 8) It's a combination of the two. If you threw a wooden
stick, without the metal head or lead weight and without the flights, in
exactly the same way as a plumbata, it would tumble over and over.
It's the combination of the weighted head and the fletchings at the back
that keep it in a straight line.



Quote:it has the added benefit of the fletchings, which, coupled with its higher speed of flight, give it a large 'rudder' effect and a longitudinal spin which prevents 'end-over-end' spin (the thing we're trying to avoid).

Quote:
ambrosius:3plg37w8 Wrote:No, no. That's the point (the metal one Big Grin ). So long as the projectile hits squarely (point-first) then the impact goes directly through the axis of the head and the shaft, lengthways, just how it's designed to do. The problem only comes when it hits at an 'angle-off' and imparts a lateral strain on the joint between head and shaft. That's when it's liable to break.
Agreed! If they land neatly head-on, they'll stay in one piece. The socketed head makes no difference there over the tanged one - the latter has enough strength from the lead weight to prevent the shaft being split.

Yes, but when it does not land neatly head-on, that is when the
socketed head is better than a tanged head. See below:

Quote:Is the socket stronger? I would like to test that.
So far, I assume that most plumbatae have tanged heads because these are cheaper and easier to make.
]

Of course. And they probably weren't meant to last long or be repaired.
Just melted down and recast.

Quote:You should always do that as long as you don’t know.

As a rule, assuming goes beyond the evidence.

Quote:It's called science. Scientists who do not assume when they do not know are not doing their job. I know assuming is not popular with modern media :wink: but that's not what we mind very much about here.

What scientists do is theorise about the evidence, with a lot of testing,
to prove them either right or wrong. It's the testing that helps them
to avoid the assumptions. :wink:

Ambrosius/Mike
"Feel the fire in your bones."
Reply
Small side remark: the name of the quoted person has to be placed between quotation marks. If you would be so kind as to correct that in the post above and the whole is much more easily red.
drsrob a.k.a. Rob Wolters
Reply
Quote:Why do you try to distinguish between
the weight of a metal head (large or small) and the additional
weight of the lead on a pilum or plumbata? The latter is just an extension
of the former, with both intended to keep the projectile flying straight.
No, I'm afraid not. The added weights of a pilum and a plumbata have nothing to do with their trajectiory, but everything with the force needed to smash trough a shield or armour. You seem not to understand the difference between a pilum/plumbata and a javelin.

How many different plumbata have you actually tested yourself?
I'll say it again - I'd like to see some pictures of you testing plumbatae. How do you throw them?
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
Quote:
ambrosius:7d463ek1 Wrote:Why do you try to distinguish between the weight of a metal head (large or small) and the
additional weight of the lead on a pilum or plumbata? The latter is just an extension of the former, with both intended to keep the projectile flying straight.

No, I'm afraid not. The added weights of a pilum and a plumbata have nothing to do with their trajectiory, but everything with the force needed to smash trough a shield or armour. You seem not to understand the difference between a pilum/plumbata and a javelin.

:roll: No Robert, I'm afraid it is you who don't seem to understand
the difference between a pilum, plumbata and a javelin. For a start,
a pilum IS a javelin, as it's designed primarily to be thrown,
rather than thrusted. And yes, before you argue yet another academic
point, I said primarily. We all know spears could be thrown,
just as javelins could be thrusted. But that's not how they were
primarily designed to be used.

Quote:How many different plumbata have you actually tested yourself? I'll say it again - I'd like to see some pictures of you testing plumbatae. How do you throw them?

And I'll say it again. 8) The weight of both the iron head and
the lead 'weight' contribute to lead (that's the verb 'to lead', not the
name of the metal) the plumbata in flight. Yes, on impact, any added
lead weight on a pilum or plumbata will help with penetration. But
that point has already been made (by me, I thought) in addition to
the point about the weight at the front of a projectile being necessary
to give it the desired attitude in flight.

I know that you feel your assumptions make you a scientist, as you
have said. But what a scientist actually does is test his assumptions
by experimentation. So here are some suggestions for experiments
you can conduct to see who is right about the function of the lead
weight on a plumbata:

1.)Construct two plumbatae. One without the lead weight and one
without both the lead weight and the iron head. Then try throwing
them in exactly the same way as you do your 'normal' plumbata.
Report back to us all on the different trajectories that you observe
in flight.

2.)Try throwing your existing 'normal' plumbata in exactly the same
way as you usually do, but holding it at the other end (the iron
head won't cut your fingers, trust me :twisted: ). Now watch, as
despite you releasing the plumbata tail-first, it magically rights itself
in mid-air, as soon as you let go of it, and spins end-over-end just
once, till it is flying nose first.

I've tried both the above, myself, btw. 8)

When I previously described the motion of throwing a plumbata, I
was actually describing the minimum arc through which your
plumbata will travel (180 degrees) before you release it. You have
since described that your own preferred method is to wind-up like
a helicopter preparing for take-off (that is, through 360 degrees).
That's fine. It won't actually increase the range of the plumbata by
much, and will only increase the amount of angular momentum you impart on it at release, which would tend to make it spin end-over-end (the problem we've been discussing) in the absence of the lead weight. The point is, whether you throw over or under-arm, the plumbata is passing through a minimum of 180 degrees. That is what would
make the plumbata spin end-over-end without it being nose-heavy.
Happy chucking. :wink:

Ambrosius/Mike
"Feel the fire in your bones."
Reply
Some recent posing:
[Image: vechten2007_mei_plumbataes.jpg]
Click here for the large version.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
Very nice demonstrating!

the scale distance proportion between the three "soldiers" seems very good.
Paulus Claudius Damianus Marcellinus / Damien Deryckère.

<a class="postlink" href="http://monsite.orange.fr/lesherculiani/index.jhtml">http://monsite.orange.fr/lesherculiani/index.jhtml

[Image: bandeau2008miniyi4.jpg]

Nouveau forum de l\'Antiquité Tardive: <a class="postlink" href="http://schnucks0.free.fr/forum/index.php">http://schnucks0.free.fr/forum/index.php
Reply
Guys, you may decide this is irrelevant, but I suggest you try this technique - you may be surprised.........
When I was a boy, we could only dream of having a real bow ( as opposed to home-made ones ), but we could afford real (second-hand) arrows from the pawn-shop.We would take these commercial arrows ( wooden shafts in those days !) and turn them into what we called "Gypsy arrows".......
We would carve a notch in a circle round the shaft toward the back and mould a piece of lead flashing (soft lead in a strip, used to seal roofs ) around the shaft near the head to add a little weight.......sound familiar so far ?
We would then take a length of string, tie a knot in one end, then wrap the string in the carved groove, against the knot, and lead it forward, where we would grasp the broadhead and wrap the string round the fingers, so that it was taut.
We then took a short run-up and launched the "Gypsy arrow" with an overarm throw, javelin fashion. It flew, to our boyhood imaginations, almost out of sight !!!!........at the very least, 50-100 metres or more.

Now I appreciate that launching a plumbata with an "amentum" in this fashion might be awkward to say the least whilst carrying a shield, but the range achieved was phenomenal, at least to my boyhood eyes.......

I recommend you try this method of launching as an experiment.....
Tell us all the results !!
"dulce et decorum est pro patria mori " - Horace
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)

"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
Reply
Hi Paul,

What you describe sounds very much like the 'arrow-throwing' that was once a popular sport in the UK, at least in Yorkshire, and which has been described in this article:
Payne-Gallwey, Ralph (1903): Arrow-Throwing, in: The Book of the Crossbow, (New York), pp. 243-6.

Apart from the adding of the lead, the technique is almost similar, at least, it sounds similar to me. The record achieved with these blunt arrows was 372 yards.

Here is an image:
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
Most interesting, and thanks, Robert......given that my mother's family come from that part of the world, and the proclivity of boys to pass on their games to the next generation, that may explain where the tradition came from....
The launch technique is identical, though our effective "launch length" for the string was 18-20" inches. The arrows themselves, as mentioned, were modified commercial arrows, rather than the specialised, long, unflighted, tapering arrows shown.
The reason for the lead weights in our case was that the lead flashing was handily available in waste off-cuts from building sites, and it added significantly to penetration, and made a satisfying thud when hurled into the trunks of gum trees! A surprise side effect was that weighted arrows flew better and further than unweighted.......
But we digress - whilst the idea of amentum aided plumbata is attractive, it would seem that a more than adequate range could be achieved without it.
The number carried was probably significant ( why not two?why not ten? )
My guess is that the number corresponds to the number a trained soldier could get off in the time it took a charging foe to cross the 'fire zone' and I'd assume enemy infantry here and I'd futher guess that both underarm and overarm techniques were used - overarm lends itself to'point blank' deliveries, and launching over ranks in front and the impression gained from re-enactors seems to be that most achieve max range with an underarm throw.
Is this consistent with re-enactors experiences, or are my guesses way off-track ?
"dulce et decorum est pro patria mori " - Horace
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)

"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
Reply


Forum Jump: