this post was submitted on 21 Dec 2024
400 points (97.4% liked)
A Comm for Historymemes
1514 readers
637 users here now
A place to share history memes!
Rules:
-
No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, assorted bigotry, etc.
-
No fascism, atrocity denial, etc.
-
Tag NSFW pics as NSFW.
-
Follow all Lemmy.world rules.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
, the maximum draw weight of an English longbow was significantly higher than a typical recurve bow, with the best longbows reaching draw weights between 150 and 180 pounds, while most high-quality recurves would max out around 60-70 pounds depending on the design and archer's ability; essentially, a historical English longbow could reach considerably higher draw weights than a modern recurve bow. So while you can penetrate some armor while riding around on your pony an Englishman will just knock you off the horse your on from farther than your maximum range with his longbow.
It has nothing to do with modern recurve bows. There is no functional limitation to the draw weight of a composite bow. They had plenty of examples that could hit 70 kg. Composite bow archers can and did produce the same exact results as longbow archers. They often flat out exceeded them with inordinately high draw weight bows. And that makes intuitive sense. Look at a crossbow: a small composite bow with a draw weight so high that humans needed mechanical advantage just to draw them. If you think the English were somehow more professional as archers and stronger than everybody else, you're vastly mistaken.
Look dude. I'm not trying to get overly analytical and in a life and death debate but no that's factually incorrect.
The reason I said modern recurve was because if you try to put excess strain on traditional recurve bows most of them will shatter or delaminate as they are laminate technology.
Yes, both types of bow will fire the same types of arrow. The key difference is the English longbow Men can put a lot more oomph behind his shots than a recurve bow man. I am not saying that the English would draw to 180 ft lb for every pullback I am saying that their artillery pieces could do that.
To put it another way, the theoretical maximum range was much higher on a longbow than the theoretical max range on a recurve bow because you can use double or triple the maximum draw weight on the same arrow.
You seem to be under the impression that there is a fundamental material problem in composite bows that prevents them from being high draw weight. Here's a study examining historical ottoman bows which note that while most average around 110 pounds, they go up to as high as 230 with 140 not uncommon. The glue and laminations did not make them fundamentally unable to reach those high draw weights, it's just dependent on what the draw weight is. A self bow that you overdraw will crack as well. Modern recurves are lighter because they're not meant for slave soldiers raised from children like the Janissaries. Once again, if you think it's a material problem, realize that early Chinese crossbows were constructed with this exact laminating bone glue and sinew technology and could reach draw weights of a truly ridiculous 750 lbs if drawn by both feet by a truly expert crossbowman. They likely looked essentially like a laminated composite recurve attached to a stock with a trigger.
https://www.tesble.com/10.1017/s0003598x0009565x
No, I'm trying to explain to you that one of these devices is meant as an defensive artillery piece to shoot over and beyond fortifications while the other is meant as a very accurate assault weapon to be wielded by mounted Bowman and shot accurately while riding a horse.
Or to put it another way. Yes, you can take a cricket bat to a baseball field and slam a home run with it but it's not meant for that.