Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="mmadsen" data-source="post: 201737" data-attributes="member: 1645">The Mighty Composite Longbow stats do seem most appropriate -- but what then is a generic Longbow?&nbsp; An English longbow most certainly was not a composite bow.&nbsp; It was a &quot;self&quot; bow, made from wood, not a composite bow made from wood, horn, sinew, and glue.I've read 75 to 100 pounds, with much stronger bows in use to -- up to 150-pound pull.&nbsp; Certainly &quot;mighty&quot;.The modern contraptions with pulleys and whatnot are compound bows.&nbsp; Like a good recurved composite bow (better, in fact), they provide more total energy for the same peak pull, since they don't go from roughly zero resistance at the start of the pull to very high resistance at the end of the pull.And evidently their constant archery practice was enough to warp their skeletons enough to make them obvious to forensic researchers.Anyway, a good archer isn't a tiny wisp of an elf.&nbsp; A good archer is a big manly man.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="mmadsen, post: 201737, member: 1645"] The Mighty Composite Longbow stats do seem most appropriate -- but what then is a generic Longbow? An English longbow most certainly was not a composite bow. It was a "self" bow, made from wood, not a composite bow made from wood, horn, sinew, and glue. I've read 75 to 100 pounds, with much stronger bows in use to -- up to 150-pound pull. Certainly "mighty". The modern contraptions with pulleys and whatnot are [i]compound[/i] bows. Like a good recurved composite bow (better, in fact), they provide more total energy for the same peak pull, since they don't go from roughly zero resistance at the start of the pull to very high resistance at the end of the pull. And evidently their constant archery practice was enough to warp their skeletons enough to make them obvious to forensic researchers. Anyway, a good archer isn't a tiny wisp of an elf. A good archer is a big manly man. [/QUOTE]

Verification