Plumbata

[Renatus]

Brucius and I had a rather spiky exchange of views earlier in this thread.  To some extent, this may have arisen out of a misunderstanding.  Brucius seemed to have been of the opinion that Europeans were somehow disqualified from experimenting with plumbatae because, unlike Americans, they did not have a tradition of engaging in sports that involved the throwing of balls.  I am not qualified to speak on mainland European sporting traditions but he may  have a point if he were referring only to continental  Europeans.  However, he does not take account (or, if he does, he does not give it sufficient emphasis) of the fact that there is one European country in which there is a sport as demanding as baseball in the throwing of balls, in terms of distance and accuracy.  I am speaking, of course, of the UK and cricket.  He can be forgiven for not knowing that at school sports days, particularly in junior schools, there is an event of throwing the cricket ball, although here it is distance, rather than accuracy, that is the object.  Throwing balls, therefore, is not alien to all Europeans.

Another bone of contention was whether it is correct, in throwing the plumbata, to grasp it behind the flights.  I argued that the statement in De rebus bellicis that there should space for the fingers 'above' the flights meant that it should be grasped between the flights and the lead weight.  However, it is necessary to look at the Anonymous' use of language.  In describing the plumbata tribolata he mentions the point, looking like a hunting spear, 'above which' (supra quam) is the lead in which the spikes are fixed.  He then mentions the flights which he says are 'in  summa . . . parte ' (literally 'in the top part') of the weapon.  Finally, he mentions the space 'above' (super) the flights for the fingers.  Translated literally, the section describing the position of the flights reads awkwardly and translators have adopted different ways of getting round it.  Ireland reverses the Latin and has 'at the lower end', while Thompson (whose translation Brucius seems to be using) dodges the issue and has 'at the other end'.  What the Anonymous seems to be doing is visualising the weapon being held vertically, point downwards, so that the lead weight is 'above' the point, the flights are at the upper part and the grip is 'above' them.  The illustrations, although probably several removes from the original, show a slight projection of the shaft behind the flights. 

I was highly sceptical of reconstructions of the weapon that placed the grip behind the flights, as I saw this as being based on modern preconceptions of how the weapon should delivered.  However, having looked closely at the Latin, this seems to be what the Anonymous is describing after all.  There remains only to consider whether the weapon was thrown overarm or underarm.  I am firmly of the overarm school.  Lobbing it underarm into the rear ranks of the enemy may cause disruption there but that is not how the Anonymous or Vegetius seem to envisage it being used.  The Anonymous speaks of it being thrown at short range, while Vegetius says that it is used to wound the enemy or his horses before they get to close quarters or even within the range of normal javelins.  Short- to medium-range accuracy seems to be the order of the day.