[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Polydamas

I don't understand. Most low tech troops weren't well armoured, and most low-tech armies included large units of archers.

I'm not at all sure about 'most' and 'large'. Missile weapons were useful, certainly, because they allowed a degree of control over the battlefield and the enemy's movements.

But apart from horse archers (who won by harrying until the enemy force was routed), the bow was not usually a battle-winning weapon. Rome certainly didn't field significant archer contingents (yes, I'm aware that they fielded archers, but as a percentile of their total strength, hardly important).

Originally Posted by Polydamas

So the fact that a bow with moderate draw is unlikely to penetrate armour isn't an argument against such bows being used in battle. The prevalence of armour on the late medieval battlefield may have something to do with the high draw weight of contemporary longbows and crossbows, but it may be something else. After all, the warbow wasn't likely to penetrate contemporary armour either ...

A bow with a moderate range has shorter range and is unlikely to penetrate anything, be that armour, thick cloth or incidental debris used as cover.

Originally Posted by Polydamas

There's an article in Barry Molloy ed., The Cutting Edge (2007) on Scythian bows which has a good summary of the physics involved (although it overstates its argument for the effectiveness of bows with a moderate draw). The weight and design of an arrow set limits on the strength of bow it can be usefully fired from, and we have tens of thousands of arrows from military contexts which could not have benefitted from draw weights of 50 kilos or more. An article "Experimental Archaeology" in Antiquity 62 (1988) pp. 658-670 has two replica composite bows (one Late Bronze Age Egyptian and one Early Modern Crimean Tartar) based on examples used in war. Both have draws of under 30 kg.

When you say Scythian bows, do you mean actual TL1 designs or just variations of that shape? Because early composite bows were nowhere close to the quality of later ones.

In any event, Adam Karpowicz believes that Turkish composite bows of 90-160 lb draw were common and I find his research convincing. It is true that in order to benefit from a heavy draw, you generally need a heavy arrow, but the optimum breakpoint is very different depending on the design of bow. A composite bow might use an arrow of only half the weight of a selfbow of the same draw and achieve comparable (or superior) energy.

The lighest examples of warbows he has tested were 67 lb. and that's meant to be used on horseback.