Talk:Plumbata

Dispute
There is something seriously wrong with this article.

The article seems to suggest that Mattiobarbuli are lead sling bullets. Compare with Sling (weapon).

What Vegetius actually says:


 * THE SLING


 * Recruits are to be taught the art of throwing stones both with the hand and sling. The inhabitants of the Balearic Islands are said to have been the inventors of slings, and to have managed them with surprising dexterity, owing to the manner of bringing up their children. The children were not allowed to have their food by their mothers till they had first struck it with their sling. Soldiers, notwithstanding their defensive armor, are often more annoyed by the round stones from the sling than by all the arrows of the enemy. Stones kill without mangling the body, and the contusion is mortal without loss of blood. It is universally known the ancients employed slingers in all their engagements. There is the greater reason for instructing all troops, without exception, in this exercise, as the sling cannot be reckoned any incumbrance, and often is of the greatest service, especially when they are obliged to engage in stony places, to defend a mountain or an eminence, or to repulse an enemy at the attack of a castle or city.


 * THE LOADED JAVELIN


 * The exercise of the loaded javelins, called martiobarbuli, must not be omitted. We formerly had two legions in lllyricum, consisting of six thousand men each, which from their extraordinary dexterity and skill in the use of these weapons were discinguished by the same appellation. They supported for a long time the weight of all the wars and distinguished themselves so remarkably that the Emperors Diocletian and Maximian on their accession honored them with the titles of Jovian and Herculean and preferred them before all the other legions. Every soldier carries five of these javelins in the hollow of his shield. And thus the legionary soldiers seem to supply the place of archers, for they wound both the men and horses of the enemy before they come within reach of the common missile weapons.

These two sections from De Re Militari are actually consecutive.

Leaden sling bullets are common archeological finds, and have been know for a very long time.

When Vegetius describes the loaded javelins, called martiobarbuli he clearly means something quite different to sling amuniiton. Peter Connonlly's book "Greece and Rome at War" has an illustration of a find from Wroxeter identified as the head of plumbata and a reconstruction of the complete weapon: a fletched dart with an iron head weighted with lead. The reconstruction seems entirely consistent with Vegitius' description.

Gaius Cornelius 18:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Botteville 20:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC) Gaio suo. Si vales, valeo. Thanks for taking a hand. Come to think of it, I like your source's interpretation better. I think you are probably right. So, there are 2 things to do to switch to it. First is to reetymologize the name. Second is to distinguish between darts and slings. I presume that because you didn't change it yourself you left it for me to do, but you wanted to inform me of this other view. All right. I hope you don't mind if I use some of your language as it seems fairly eloquent. I don't feel comfortable using the quote without knowledge of its copyright, but if you know it is OK to put it in, maybe you should. It doesn't take much space. I'm moving the sling material to the sling article with its reference. You can check the new articles and please do make any changes you see fit. If it passes, please remove the accuracy dispute. The public ought not to see these things for too long and we need to get on as the subject is large. By the way what do you think we should do regarding the main Military history of the Roman Empire article? See discussion on that page.


 * Oh, that is very much better! Thanks. I really was not sure, but I do know a bit about the sling having written that article. I have read through Military history of the Roman Empire and I think there are some problems, but it is just too big an article for me to even think about taking on. When it comes to Roman history, I have been slowly working on items for Category:Ancient Roman legionary equipment - as well as anything else that happen to take my fancy of course - see my user page. By-the-way, that Vegietius source is handy because it is way out of copyright. Gaius Cornelius 23:17, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Multas gratias tibi ago. I like to move around to avoid getting hung up on one article, so I am moving on now. "I need a vacation." But, "I'll be back." When I do I hope to be able to fix the "Military History" to some degree if no one has fixed it. I plan to move to the right name and then break out special topics of the Roman army. There are a lot more topics that ought to mentioned there too. Meanwhile, "stick around."Botteville 00:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

No pictures available?
Are there no photos available of the darts in question? I've never run across any photograph or even drawing of darts as weapons in any book I've read and I don't remember ever seeing them displayed in a museum. If they were really a significant weapon in use by the legions then I think an image or two along with a description of the method of use would be helpful. --Molon Labe 22:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * There is a picture in Greece and Rome at War and there is a photograph at the bottom of the first external link - but these are all copyright. I suspect that these are both images of the only extant example. I think there are a few sculptural representations. Otherwise, the Vegetius quote says pretty much all that is known about them. Gaius Cornelius 16:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah. Interesting.  I've heard of darts being used as an ancient infantry weapon, but unlike various javelins, thrusting spears, swords, axes and the like, I've never actually seen a photo or even a depiction of one before.  If only one dart has been found compared to the large number of other weapons that have survived to the present day then I would imagine that the things couldn't have been all that common a weapon.  --Molon Labe 23:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Survival is not necessarily a good guide to how common something was in the past. Because they survive only in favourable conditions, all iron objects are pretty rare. Prestigious objects may be unrepresentively common because they get looked after, are used as grave goods or are sacrificially buried. The plumbata would have been a low status weapon of the common soldier and it is surprising how rarely such things survive - even from much later times. Gaius Cornelius 08:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I would love to provide some pictures, both from my own archive and from De Rebus Bellicis, which seems to be in the Public Domain. Robert Vermaat, The Netherlands (86.95.49.153 14:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC))

Size
How big are these things? 216.255.165.198 (talk) 15:34, 28 September 2019 (UTC)