Renatus, please reread my comments. The 'mystification comment comes in reference to the plumbata construction. I am well aware of plumbata construction.
And, as stated later: That NO ONE knows what they looked like supports my argument as much as it detracts.
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.
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'.
See, you got the statements mixed up.
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.
Your critique was that my test dart was 'nose heavy' then you propose making it more nose-heavy. Logical consistency would be nice. I get your point that mine didn't have the sharp pointy thing. Can you support your contention that it would have made a difference. Perhaps a discussion on the physics?
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. If by vaguely intellectual, you mean build and tear down strawmen, then I shall analyze your responses so as to learn from a master. Please point out to me anywhere that I have claimed that America has 'refined the technique of ball throwing'. If my arguments are tripe, yours are a haggis gone off.
I use the term 'proper' as a way to differentiate between those who throw overhand in the pub-darts style from those who throw overhand by gripping from the rear shaft. I may not've been consistent in that application. I would have to reread my posts.
Humans do certain things like walk, run, throw, swim in certain ways because our bodies are built in certain ways. We didn't invent throwing. We haven't developed some super new way of throwing that I am trying to retrofit on the Romans. And I challenge you to point outMy point that the current European milieu is not throwing oriented due to the nature of their major sports. Throwing is a skill set not widely-attained in Europe. Americans are broadly trained in throwing - baseballs, footballs... and so we view things like plumbatae from a different perspective. Throwing a spear is the same motion as I describe for throwing the plumbata. It is the rearward grip and resultant wrist snap at the release that delivers the final burst of power to the plumbata. Please leave your strawmen for the maize field.
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. Because he is depicted throwing a thunderbolt, not a plumbata.
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. Thank you for the reference. Does that translation qualify as definitive proof, or are historians still debating and are historians still unclear?
Indeed you did - with the fallacious argument that I have endeavoured to expose. Well, I guess you failed. But good effort.
Best regards,
Bruce
Renatus:
I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that the obsession with distance may be badly distorting our approach to this subject.
This is worthy of discussion. I would first say that, if directed at me, to say that I am obsessed with distance is not correct. I tested both distance and accuracy. I am sitting on the accuracy results because I intend to reveal them when the time is right.
One need not have to choose between accuracy and distance. Any military commander would want a weapon that can reach the enemy before the enemy can reach him. Can we agree on that? Any military commander would want that weapon to be reasonably controllable so as not to represent a danger to friendly troops. Can we agree on that point? Any military commander would want a weapon that possesses enough energy to inflict serious damage to the enemy, yes?
And, as stated later: That NO ONE knows what they looked like supports my argument as much as it detracts.
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.
(01-06-2019, 02:32 AM)Brucicus Wrote: 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'.
See, you got the statements mixed up.
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.
Your critique was that my test dart was 'nose heavy' then you propose making it more nose-heavy. Logical consistency would be nice. I get your point that mine didn't have the sharp pointy thing. Can you support your contention that it would have made a difference. Perhaps a discussion on the physics?
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. If by vaguely intellectual, you mean build and tear down strawmen, then I shall analyze your responses so as to learn from a master. Please point out to me anywhere that I have claimed that America has 'refined the technique of ball throwing'. If my arguments are tripe, yours are a haggis gone off.
I use the term 'proper' as a way to differentiate between those who throw overhand in the pub-darts style from those who throw overhand by gripping from the rear shaft. I may not've been consistent in that application. I would have to reread my posts.
Humans do certain things like walk, run, throw, swim in certain ways because our bodies are built in certain ways. We didn't invent throwing. We haven't developed some super new way of throwing that I am trying to retrofit on the Romans. And I challenge you to point outMy point that the current European milieu is not throwing oriented due to the nature of their major sports. Throwing is a skill set not widely-attained in Europe. Americans are broadly trained in throwing - baseballs, footballs... and so we view things like plumbatae from a different perspective. Throwing a spear is the same motion as I describe for throwing the plumbata. It is the rearward grip and resultant wrist snap at the release that delivers the final burst of power to the plumbata. Please leave your strawmen for the maize field.
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. Because he is depicted throwing a thunderbolt, not a plumbata.
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. Thank you for the reference. Does that translation qualify as definitive proof, or are historians still debating and are historians still unclear?
(01-06-2019, 02:32 AM)Brucicus Wrote: I replied to Kavan's question. The answer lies there.
Indeed you did - with the fallacious argument that I have endeavoured to expose. Well, I guess you failed. But good effort.
Best regards,
Bruce
Renatus:
I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that the obsession with distance may be badly distorting our approach to this subject.
This is worthy of discussion. I would first say that, if directed at me, to say that I am obsessed with distance is not correct. I tested both distance and accuracy. I am sitting on the accuracy results because I intend to reveal them when the time is right.
One need not have to choose between accuracy and distance. Any military commander would want a weapon that can reach the enemy before the enemy can reach him. Can we agree on that? Any military commander would want that weapon to be reasonably controllable so as not to represent a danger to friendly troops. Can we agree on that point? Any military commander would want a weapon that possesses enough energy to inflict serious damage to the enemy, yes?
