So how did the Roman Army really use plumbatae in battle?
Although new, informed, testing has yet to begin, let us assume that proper overhand throwing allows for more distance and better accuracy than underhanded throws so that we can theorize how plumbatae may have actually been employed on the battlefield. As part of this think piece I am including my thoughts on what would constitute the perfect plumbata for each battle situation. If the archaeological record should produce plumbatae corresponding to the idealized types, then that may give us basis to infer the battle technique for which they were employed.
Against Approaching Enemy
Enemy at extreme plumbata range
With the overhand throw offering more reach than earlier assumed attainable, adversaries would be engaged sooner (i.e. when farther away). In coordination with archery units, skilled plumbata use could be an effective force multiplier. One example: Roman archery could, given favorable battlefield conditions, act against enemy bowmen in 'counter battery' suppressive fire while skirmishers or other troops move in close enough to quickly launch dart after dart into the infantry or perhaps, cavalry masses, using the weapon's reach as a buffer against sudden attack. Another example: Archery providing high-angled plunging fire forcing enemy shields up while the darts arrive at a lower angle, forcing enemy shields down. A 1-2 punch of that nature would severely impede or could even discourage the progress of an attacking force, I conject. It was certainly advantageous for the Romans to keep the adversary in the killing zone for as long as possible. A bigger kill box does precisely that.
En masse delivery of plumbatae to their extreme ranges thrown overhand can be delivered by troops assembled in a somewhat 'loose' formation, e.g. quincunx or, because the overhand method, unlike the previously espoused method, requires little space side-to-side, with only slightly increased spacing in files. Being in close proximity offers the advantage of rapid reassembly in the face of an onrushing foe.
Underhand distance throwing would require much looser 'formations' than overhand. The very nature of the underhand throw relegates it to being a front-line-only weapon when reach is required; as stated in a previous post, a launch angle of approx. 12 degrees is required for a plumbata to clear an obstacle 170cm tall 4 meters in front of the thrower, the number I use to represent the height of an average Roman soldier (I name him Flavius Targetus). With 4 meters between lines we are looking at huge, loose formations that complicate the process of quick reassembly.
Conclusion
Frankly, I see no advantage that the underhanded throw offers for combat at extreme range, and I therefore conclude they were not thrown in that manner for this battle situation.
Plumbata implications: If I were to develop a plumbata specifically for long distance attacks it would have a long wooden shaft (by plumbata standards) and a shorter than standard (yes, I know there are no real plumbata "standards") metal shank leading from the weight to the arrowhead. Why? In an overhand throw the length of the shaft essentially extends the length of your arm, i.e. your leverage, just as an atlatl does. The farther out you move the center of mass, the more energy it develops when thrown. The shorter metal arrow shank moves more mass closer to the end of the dart, thereby maximizing energy potential (and distance) in a tradeoff for some penetration depth capability.
Enemy at Medium Range
As the adversary approaches to a distance just outside of pilum/franziska/javelin range, archers stationed to the rear of the Roman formation may find it difficult to bring the enemy in battery for direct fire due to not being able to find a safe shooting lane, or in some cases may lose complete sight of the enemy due to the nature of the terrain, enemy fire, and/or the archers' positioning. The same impediments may make their plunging fire difficult and ineffective as well. In this situation, the overhand thrown plumbata can essentially, as Vegetius alludes, replace archers. At medium distances the Romans would have tightened their formations in anticipation of a charge, ruling out en masse underhand throws. Direct, aimed fire as well as high-arced plunging fire are both quite attainable with the overhand throw at medium distances, from formation, so that one-two punch mentioned above could still be delivered. While en masse throwing would predominate this battle phase, I believe that, at this distance, it was quite possible that certain individual enemy targets were prioritized for 'sniping'. (As an aside, I expect accuracy tests at all distances using overhand delivery will surprise those of you unfamiliar with the method. We'll see.)
Conclusion
Lobbed (underhanded) throws from the rear of the Roman formation were certainly a possibility, but they would need a fair amount of space to launch them, thus keeping their numbers and their potential effectiveness low. As that method offers no particular advantage and only disadvantages, I do not believe that underhand throws were used in that battle situation.
Plumbata implications:
Designing darts for this situation I would end up with a dart shorter than the above, but with a longer metal arrowhead shaft and more added weight. Distance isn't the main concern, it's accuracy and impact that matter now. The heavier weight makes up somewhat for the dart's shorter length, and the shorter length also helps in en
masse throwing from formation. The lengthened arrowhead shank is for enhanced penetration
This dart would also suffice in meeting the requirements of a plunging fire missile: A high arcing throw expends much of its energy in the ascension. For it to be effective as a weapon of war it must recapture as much of the spent energy as possible via the fall to the target. The extra weight allows the dart to accelerate downwards towards terminal velocity faster than a lighter one, resulting in higher impact and more penetration.
Enemy at Close Range
As the adversary closes to within pilum range and then on to the press of spear-against-shield, both overhand and underhand methods have their place.
In a close Roman shieldwall formation, I believe that a version of the overhand throw that I describe as a 'flick' may have been used. The 'flick' is simply an abridgement of the complete, proper overhand throw, but eliminating the initial reach-back and subsequently eliminating the need for a follow through. The 'flick' is accomplished by grasping the dart on the shaft behind the fletching (true for all methods mentioned here) so that the dart is pointed up.) Facing the enemy, raise your throwing arm so that your elbow is the same height as your shoulder, then simply snap your arm forward and flick the wrist toward your target. Basically, it is the same motion as pub darts, but because you are holding it by the shaft behind the fletching (like holding an ice cream cone)... and because the dart's mass is out towards the other, pointy end, enough energy is developed to get off a quick, accurate (in a Roman context) strike that might dissuade your not-so-friendly Goth buddy 5 meters away from continuing to try and puncture you with his spear. With timely communications, second, third and maybe fourth lines could, I conjecture, coordinate on the spot to keep up timely, deadly, harassing fire literally into the faces of their enemies.
At the same time as the front ranks are engaged, the rearmost ranks would be lobbing plumbatae underhanded onto the enemies back ranks. In this situation, these plumbateers could be formed more tightly side-to-side (but still trying to be far enough away from the ranks in front) because the underhand lob is a close-up precision throw and the proper technique for that throw keeps your throwing hand close to your body throughout the delivery. It's the bocce ball toss. Testing has shown that this is the most precise way to hit nearby targets. As distances grow, however, accuracy quickly diminishes. But for close-in plunging fire this is the way to go. And I imagine it would be very effective. One can deliver high arcing shots via the overhand throw AND achieve more height than with the underhand method, but accuracy is lost and, speaking personally, even as a young man, because it requires a sharp torso tilt and suffers from a lack of horizon for orientation, I got dizzy trying to do it more than a few times. Others are more stalwart than I am, I am sure.
Conclusion
Both throwing methods, adapted to the short distances involved, offer unique capabilities that would be of great value in this battle situation. I have no doubt that the lobs occurred, but the 'flicks' are just supposition based on my knowledge of throwing and belief that necessity is the mother of invention was as true under the Romans as it is today.
Plumbata implications:
The best dart, to my mind, for the close-in, direct, "flick" attack would need to be short for ease of use in close quarters. It wouldn't need much weight added to it because it doesn't have far to go and it is not expected to deliver a forceful impact. I can only speculate what an optimal arrowhead and shank design would be. I think it would probably be just a more delicate version of the others.
For the plumbatae lobbed underhanded into the enemy's rear, I would think that they would be given substantially more weight and that the wooden shaft would be somewhat more substantial to allow better purchase on the grip so to avoid friendly fire due to sweaty palms/poor throws and to withstand the higher forces that the additional weight brings into play.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I hope this make sense. Any thoughts the community wishes to share gratefully accepted. I don't intend for this list to be inclusive of all battle situations. More just capturing a string of thoughts.
Goodnight
Although new, informed, testing has yet to begin, let us assume that proper overhand throwing allows for more distance and better accuracy than underhanded throws so that we can theorize how plumbatae may have actually been employed on the battlefield. As part of this think piece I am including my thoughts on what would constitute the perfect plumbata for each battle situation. If the archaeological record should produce plumbatae corresponding to the idealized types, then that may give us basis to infer the battle technique for which they were employed.
Against Approaching Enemy
Enemy at extreme plumbata range
With the overhand throw offering more reach than earlier assumed attainable, adversaries would be engaged sooner (i.e. when farther away). In coordination with archery units, skilled plumbata use could be an effective force multiplier. One example: Roman archery could, given favorable battlefield conditions, act against enemy bowmen in 'counter battery' suppressive fire while skirmishers or other troops move in close enough to quickly launch dart after dart into the infantry or perhaps, cavalry masses, using the weapon's reach as a buffer against sudden attack. Another example: Archery providing high-angled plunging fire forcing enemy shields up while the darts arrive at a lower angle, forcing enemy shields down. A 1-2 punch of that nature would severely impede or could even discourage the progress of an attacking force, I conject. It was certainly advantageous for the Romans to keep the adversary in the killing zone for as long as possible. A bigger kill box does precisely that.
En masse delivery of plumbatae to their extreme ranges thrown overhand can be delivered by troops assembled in a somewhat 'loose' formation, e.g. quincunx or, because the overhand method, unlike the previously espoused method, requires little space side-to-side, with only slightly increased spacing in files. Being in close proximity offers the advantage of rapid reassembly in the face of an onrushing foe.
Underhand distance throwing would require much looser 'formations' than overhand. The very nature of the underhand throw relegates it to being a front-line-only weapon when reach is required; as stated in a previous post, a launch angle of approx. 12 degrees is required for a plumbata to clear an obstacle 170cm tall 4 meters in front of the thrower, the number I use to represent the height of an average Roman soldier (I name him Flavius Targetus). With 4 meters between lines we are looking at huge, loose formations that complicate the process of quick reassembly.
Conclusion
Frankly, I see no advantage that the underhanded throw offers for combat at extreme range, and I therefore conclude they were not thrown in that manner for this battle situation.
Plumbata implications: If I were to develop a plumbata specifically for long distance attacks it would have a long wooden shaft (by plumbata standards) and a shorter than standard (yes, I know there are no real plumbata "standards") metal shank leading from the weight to the arrowhead. Why? In an overhand throw the length of the shaft essentially extends the length of your arm, i.e. your leverage, just as an atlatl does. The farther out you move the center of mass, the more energy it develops when thrown. The shorter metal arrow shank moves more mass closer to the end of the dart, thereby maximizing energy potential (and distance) in a tradeoff for some penetration depth capability.
Enemy at Medium Range
As the adversary approaches to a distance just outside of pilum/franziska/javelin range, archers stationed to the rear of the Roman formation may find it difficult to bring the enemy in battery for direct fire due to not being able to find a safe shooting lane, or in some cases may lose complete sight of the enemy due to the nature of the terrain, enemy fire, and/or the archers' positioning. The same impediments may make their plunging fire difficult and ineffective as well. In this situation, the overhand thrown plumbata can essentially, as Vegetius alludes, replace archers. At medium distances the Romans would have tightened their formations in anticipation of a charge, ruling out en masse underhand throws. Direct, aimed fire as well as high-arced plunging fire are both quite attainable with the overhand throw at medium distances, from formation, so that one-two punch mentioned above could still be delivered. While en masse throwing would predominate this battle phase, I believe that, at this distance, it was quite possible that certain individual enemy targets were prioritized for 'sniping'. (As an aside, I expect accuracy tests at all distances using overhand delivery will surprise those of you unfamiliar with the method. We'll see.)
Conclusion
Lobbed (underhanded) throws from the rear of the Roman formation were certainly a possibility, but they would need a fair amount of space to launch them, thus keeping their numbers and their potential effectiveness low. As that method offers no particular advantage and only disadvantages, I do not believe that underhand throws were used in that battle situation.
Plumbata implications:
Designing darts for this situation I would end up with a dart shorter than the above, but with a longer metal arrowhead shaft and more added weight. Distance isn't the main concern, it's accuracy and impact that matter now. The heavier weight makes up somewhat for the dart's shorter length, and the shorter length also helps in en
masse throwing from formation. The lengthened arrowhead shank is for enhanced penetration
This dart would also suffice in meeting the requirements of a plunging fire missile: A high arcing throw expends much of its energy in the ascension. For it to be effective as a weapon of war it must recapture as much of the spent energy as possible via the fall to the target. The extra weight allows the dart to accelerate downwards towards terminal velocity faster than a lighter one, resulting in higher impact and more penetration.
Enemy at Close Range
As the adversary closes to within pilum range and then on to the press of spear-against-shield, both overhand and underhand methods have their place.
In a close Roman shieldwall formation, I believe that a version of the overhand throw that I describe as a 'flick' may have been used. The 'flick' is simply an abridgement of the complete, proper overhand throw, but eliminating the initial reach-back and subsequently eliminating the need for a follow through. The 'flick' is accomplished by grasping the dart on the shaft behind the fletching (true for all methods mentioned here) so that the dart is pointed up.) Facing the enemy, raise your throwing arm so that your elbow is the same height as your shoulder, then simply snap your arm forward and flick the wrist toward your target. Basically, it is the same motion as pub darts, but because you are holding it by the shaft behind the fletching (like holding an ice cream cone)... and because the dart's mass is out towards the other, pointy end, enough energy is developed to get off a quick, accurate (in a Roman context) strike that might dissuade your not-so-friendly Goth buddy 5 meters away from continuing to try and puncture you with his spear. With timely communications, second, third and maybe fourth lines could, I conjecture, coordinate on the spot to keep up timely, deadly, harassing fire literally into the faces of their enemies.
At the same time as the front ranks are engaged, the rearmost ranks would be lobbing plumbatae underhanded onto the enemies back ranks. In this situation, these plumbateers could be formed more tightly side-to-side (but still trying to be far enough away from the ranks in front) because the underhand lob is a close-up precision throw and the proper technique for that throw keeps your throwing hand close to your body throughout the delivery. It's the bocce ball toss. Testing has shown that this is the most precise way to hit nearby targets. As distances grow, however, accuracy quickly diminishes. But for close-in plunging fire this is the way to go. And I imagine it would be very effective. One can deliver high arcing shots via the overhand throw AND achieve more height than with the underhand method, but accuracy is lost and, speaking personally, even as a young man, because it requires a sharp torso tilt and suffers from a lack of horizon for orientation, I got dizzy trying to do it more than a few times. Others are more stalwart than I am, I am sure.
Conclusion
Both throwing methods, adapted to the short distances involved, offer unique capabilities that would be of great value in this battle situation. I have no doubt that the lobs occurred, but the 'flicks' are just supposition based on my knowledge of throwing and belief that necessity is the mother of invention was as true under the Romans as it is today.
Plumbata implications:
The best dart, to my mind, for the close-in, direct, "flick" attack would need to be short for ease of use in close quarters. It wouldn't need much weight added to it because it doesn't have far to go and it is not expected to deliver a forceful impact. I can only speculate what an optimal arrowhead and shank design would be. I think it would probably be just a more delicate version of the others.
For the plumbatae lobbed underhanded into the enemy's rear, I would think that they would be given substantially more weight and that the wooden shaft would be somewhat more substantial to allow better purchase on the grip so to avoid friendly fire due to sweaty palms/poor throws and to withstand the higher forces that the additional weight brings into play.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I hope this make sense. Any thoughts the community wishes to share gratefully accepted. I don't intend for this list to be inclusive of all battle situations. More just capturing a string of thoughts.
Goodnight
