Expirimenting with Plumbatae and Observations on Their

EXPIRIMENTING WITH PLUMBATAE AND OBSERVATIONS ON THEIR BEHAVIOR By John Emery Submitted to the Faculty of The Archeological Studies Program Department of Sociology and Archeology in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Arts of Archeology University of Wisconsin-La Crosse 2010 Copyright © 2010 by John Emery All rights reserved ii EXPIRIMENTING WITH PLUMBATAE AND OBSERVATIONS ON THEIR BEHAVIOR John Emery, B.A. University of Wisconsin-La Crosse, 2010 This study looked at the behavior of the plumbata, a unique Roman throwing weapon. This was done through the replication of weapon heads, shafts, and flights based off of previous research and through the incorporation of historical pictorial representations. The objective of this study was to include the important element of time and practices that had not previously been accounted for in earlier studies. This study also looked at near exact replication of the weapons based solely from the pictorial representations of historical manuscripts. This had been mentioned by previous researchers but had never been carried out. Basic results were that the weapon does indeed improve in range and consistency of behavior in flight providing increasing smooth flights and a max range of over 200 ft. The result of the picture based weapons was that they did not perform nearly to the ability of the non-pictorial based weapons. iii I would like to acknowledge my Grandfather, without whom, I would not have been able to do most of this study. Thanks to him for his guidance and patience. Next to whom I owe gratitude is John Eagle and his colleagues who provided the groundwork with which I was able to base my studies and to use as a springboard for the next steps. Thanks to Dr. David Anderson and Dr. Joseph A. Tiffany for providing comments, guidance and ideas in my research. Finally thanks to Rev. Deris Rice, Rev. Laura Hoglund and all my friends and family who supported me with encouragements and interest in my work. iv INTRODUCTION: A NEW WEAPON IN THE OLD WORLD The Roman military has always been known for the power and ability of their infantry. As good as they were in close order combat, they always held an even more significant advantage over their foes. That advantage is the training that legionnaires and soldiers had in the effective use of hand launched missile weapons. Throughout most of its military history the army of Rome used specialized javelins to give their infantry an added punch. From the beginning of the republic to the end of the empire, the Romans, almost without exception, armed their main battle infantry with some kind of hand launched missile weapon. While one could write volumes on all the forms of missile weapons with which Rome equipped her soldiers, there is one specific weapon that is of interest to scholars and archeologists. This weapon appears in the historical and archeological record around the fourth century A.D. This weapon has been called by historians and archeologists the “Plumbata” (Bishop and Coulston 2006:200). However, while the archeological remains have been examined and the historical accounts make mention of it, the plumbatae are relatively obscure. Yet even as obscure as this weapon is, there are still many aspects of the weapon that can be studied through an active process of experimentation. By taking what is known, historical accounts, pictorial representations, and the archeological remains, then combining it with reasoned assumptions about Roman equipment, a picture of how the weapon may have looked and behaved in Roman hands can be compiled. This can be used to make a series of experiments that look at the missing elements of the weapon characteristics. Therefore using direction from other studies and information from history and archeology, a series of experiments was designed to study the behavior and characteristics of the weapon. The reproductions based off of archeological remains and pictorial representations of particular head shapes gave a basis to discern how or if the particular weapons differed. The practice and throwing of the weapon consistently over a period of weeks allowed for the element of training and improvement as would have been seen with the Romans. Finally the observation of the weapons in flight gave the best evidence of how the weapons behaved from the point of release to the point of impact, allowing real time examination of this unique Roman weapon. WEAPON AND EQUIPMENT CHANGES AT THE PERIOD OF PLUMBATA EMERGENCE, HISTORICAL SOURCES, AND ARCHEOLOGICAL MATERIAL The approximate time that the plumbata begins to appear is the fourth and following centuries A.D. This period in Roman history saw a steady decline of the greatest power of the Roman military. Rome had been through over a century and a half of political turmoil, rapid imperial successions, military strong-arming, and frequent civil wars. As if this was not enough, Rome simultaneously suffered from barbarian raids and incursions on her boarders. Only the ascension of Diocletian brought a much needed respite; but once he retired, Rome slid back into periods, albeit less frequent and intense, of political and military strife (Southern 2006). By the time of the plumbata‟s appearance, at least archeologically, the Roman military had seen a great decline. The historian Vegetius mentions the abandonment of armor because of “negligence and sloth” (Phillips 1944:25). While this is probably not a universal and should not be taken uncritically, it does signify the idea that change has occurred to the once greatest military force in the world (Elton 1996: 110-114). 2 The changes of the attitudes of the soldiers, at least mentioned by Vegetius, are not just inherent in the camp. There were changes on the field of battle that were to have far greater reaches in the military capability of Rome. In many ways, cavalry was superseding the infantry and the infantry were less and less the principle arm on the battlefield, being relegated to support roles (Phillips 1944:2). The Plumbata, because of its presumed range, (Eagle 1991) may reflect tactical desire or necessity for added range on the part of the battle line infantry. While there were several other types of hand thrown ranged weapons (Elton 1996:108) the plumbata is unique. One peculiarity is that the weapon has a comparatively small head in relation to other contemporary weapons such as the spiculum, or the much more famous throwing weapon, the pilum (Elton 1996:109). Of the various ranged weapons of this time, it appears that the plumbata is used as a longer ranged weapon, thrown at a comparatively longer range, with several, Vegetius mentions, being thrown in succession (Phillips 1944:24). Upon Exhaustion of the light weapons, the “common missile weapons” (Phillips 1944:24) are then released. Therefore, from a principle historical source it appears that the plumbata is a kind of iron drizzle, before the steel rain. Historically, there is comparatively little written about the plumbata. The few sources that are available mention only briefly the weapon. One important source is the Historian, Flavius Vegetius Renatus. He has already been spoken of several times, but he is an important figure in both the study of the plumbata as well as later Roman military history. His statement on the weapon is brief, but it provides insight as to the impetus of the so called “loaded Javelin” which he also calls “Martiobarbuli” (Phillips 1944:23). As an important aspect of his statements about the weapon, he notes their use by the famous Illyrian Legions that became distinguished mainly by their “extraordinary dexterity and skill in the use of these weapons” (Phillips 1944:23). 3 Not only does this provide a historical mentioning of the weapon, it also gives a possible historical indication as to the appearance of the weapon, prior to archeological findings. Vegetius mentions that the particular Illyrian legions “supported for a long time the weight of all the wars and distinguished themselves so remarkable that the Emperors Diocletian and Maximian on their ascension honored them with the titles of Jovian and Herculean and preferred them before all the other legions.” (Phillips 1944:23). If Vegetius‟s statement about the Illyrian legions is relevant to his discussion of the weapon, then it is possible that it could place it back into the late third century A.D. or even the mid third century A.D., significantly prior to the archeological finds. However, given its placement, it could only be an implanted anecdote about the prowess of these particular legions. Whether or not his statement about the legions is relevant to his discussion about the loaded javelin is more a matter of textual criticism. But, because he does place that statement within the contexts of his discussion of the weapon, the statement should at least be noted and given consideration. Vegetius, for his discussion on the relative importance of the weapon, does not provide any dimensions as to the build and composition of the weapon. For that, there is the fourth century A.D. De Rebus Bellicis, written by an anonymous author (Elton 1996:118). De Rebus Bellicis is a manual on warfare and aspects of warfare ranging from military finance, field equipment, navy, and even strategy (Hassall and Ireland 1979). Like Vegetius, De Rebus Bellicis‟s discussion on the plumbata is relatively short. Unlike Vegetius however, the anonymous author gives specific details as to how the weapon should be built. In the translation, it mentions two different types of Javelin. The first mentioned, and probably most damaging, is the “tribolatae” (Ireland 1979:10). Tribolatae is translated as the 4 “Caltrop” javelin (Ireland 1979:30). This, according to the specifications of De Rebus, is the most complex.

Load more