Plumbata

[Brucicus]

Michael:

Thank you for your response.  I am grateful for your critique and would encourage others to voice theirs as well.  I have nothing to hide and am happy to defend myself and my study in this public forum.  It appears I am unique in that regard.

Allow me to address your points individually:

• From my slight acquaintance with reports of earlier experiments, these results indicate that greater distances than previously were achieved with the overarm throw but less satisfactory distances were achieved underarm. I see from the early pages of this thread that a member of Comitatus threw a plumbata 70 m. underarm at his very first attempt and there are reports of 80 and 100 m. being attained. This indicates some deficiency in the underarm tests, either in flawed design of the missile or inadequate throwing technique.
  
  I have seen those claims, or at least some of them.  They all have a few points in common: Not one report gives weather/wind conditions as I do.  I once hit a golf ball over 430 meters.  That is quite an achievement.  When one learns that I achieved that feat with a 50+mph following wind, the achievement is not so spectacular.  I have known athletes who can only be described as 'freakish' in their abilities, so I have no doubt that that capability exists.  I maintain, however, with the superior energy delivery of the overhand method, an individual capable of 70 meters underhand would be capable of 100 meters overhand.  Which brings us to the second point they all have in common: not one of those claims mentions testing overhand (utilizing the proper grip, i.e. on the shaft extending behind the fletching, not the 'pub dart' style).  So we have nothing to compare their claims to.  As such, from a scientific perspective their claims are useless.  My tests showed nothing more than relative performance between the two methods in the given conditions. 
  

         My test happened on specific days with specific wind conditions, all of which I have shared.  Throws were made in opposite directions to equalize the impact enironmental may   have on test results.  I have seen no other testers using that methodology. 
As far as throwing technique, I am happy to provide any bona fide expert in this area with slow-motion videos of the throwers in action.  And my test dart is likewise available.
What other researcher can do the same?  I stand behind my study 100%.

• So far as design is concerned, the device seems nose-heavy. All  the weight is at the front, whereas actual plumbatae have the barb projecting beyond the weight.
  

         It seems to me that having the 'barb project beyond the weight' is another way of saying 'nose heavy', so your point is not apparent to me.

• This brings us to the major problem. No one knows for sure what these weapons were actually like, as evidenced by the various designs that can be found on the net. The surviving metal parts vary in size and weight and for the organic components we have to rely upon educated guesswork. The only ancient description we have is in ‘De rebus bellicis’ in which the Anonymous deals with two improvements to the basic design. It is not entirely clear whether the fletching that he mentions is part of the basic design or one of his improvements, although it is generally assumed that the original weapon was fletched. His improvements consist of adding spikes to the lead weight to form a sort of caltrop and of changing the form of the head from barbed to bodkin to achieve greater penetration. Incidentally, he places the grip for throwing the weapon between the weight and the flights, so what does that do to our experiments? Robert Vermaat has a webpage on how to make a plumbata which may be helpful in creating a replica.
  Forgive my obtuseness, but I am unclear as to the 'major problem' you are elucidating.  If it is the holding method you mention, what were the battle conditions he was dealing with?  We know it isn't long-range harassing fire because a spike-shaped weight is aerodynamically a disaster.  So, assuming the translation is correct to the real meaning of the document, and assuming that 'anonymous' knew what he was writing about, we still don't have any context.  But you say that is 'incidental', so is the major issue still remains hidden to me.  But, since you bring up the historical record, let's talk about that.  We know that two Illyrian (IIRC) legions specialized in using plumbatae in war.  We are told that they are so effective that they are given the descriptors "Jovian" and Herculean".  Historians remain unclear as to why.  Let me posit my theory: If I am successful, I will have attached an image to this post of Jove throwing thunderbolts.  Note how he does that.  Look familiar?  It is not much of a leap to consider that, to a Roman's eye, they look just like Jove doing his thing.  It is not too much of a leap for the Roman's to view the capability to throw darts long ways as 'herculean'  And we know Romans threw overhand because so many images of that remain.  Show me an image of Jove throwing underhand, if you can.  Additionally, Virgil and Gaius Valerius Flaccus (Argonautica 6.83) speaks of soldiers in Hispania throwing the 'cateia' using the 'torquero' method.  'Torquero' is translated as 'to throw wound up', which perfectly describes the overhand throwing motion.  In fact, baseball still calls the initial part of the overhand throwing motion as 'the wind up'.
  
  

[*]I shall continue my response in another post as formatting issues here are driving me nuts and I have already lost two replies to you trying to fix them.  Thanks for bearing with me.    
[*]