12-05-2018, 02:19 AM
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.
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.
