One might think that 16 yrs.  is a long time as well.   To others, the blink of an eye.   'Very modern' vs. 'not that modern'...... A couple hundred years compared to a thousand....hmmmm  depends on perspective I guess.   I for one am a bit more interested in what the contemporaries of the slingers and archers of those days had to say.....versus the impromptu musings of the modern teenager.....no matter how bright and 'clever' a lad he may be in some ways! 

I wish to hereby retract my former statement, as it now appears that the statements by English were less 'impromptu' and more 'calculated' than they seemed by all appearance.   Although,  I can make no apology for speaking as the patron that I am.  An optomistic patron at that.    Ergo, I take your observation to have been proffered as complimentary.

The Persians used a composite recurve bow which had a wooden core with strips of horn glued to the back and reinforced with tendon. Its small size allowed them to be used both when mounted and on foot.

The arrows were of cane or reed, with three-feathered flights and triangular sectioned bronze tips. The arrows seem to be of relatively light weight and with their broad heads were more effective against unarmoured targets than for penetrating shield or armour.
The bow string was pulled back with the index and middle fingers of their right hand with the end of the arrow rested between these two fingers. This was the method used by the Scythians and others throughout the Mediterranean. The Greeks however, held the end of the arrow between the thumb and the index finger, and pulled the string back with the end of the arrow. This was not as effective and so limited distance and penetration of the arrow.
The Persians seemed to have relied on long range shooting, their massed ranks and fast rate of fire would blanket enemy troops 8)


Nathan

If you look at that list of record ranges, the longest longbow distance is around 400 yards, less than the range of a sling.  The longbow was considered the premiere long range weapon in Europe. (Crossbows were almost never used for range).  The Turkish or primitive bows are around 250 yards.  Isn't Yurek getting something like 450 yards?

Chris

Quote:
Ancient recurve bows, as some people call them, would often be almost circular when unbraced.  To string them, you must use wooden supports which you tie to limbs and then apply the string.  But once strung, it does not need un-stringing - in fact, it benefits from remaining strung (like a muscle in the body.  The sinew used on the back of the bow IS muscle.  The more you use a muscle, the stronger it becomes.)
  A common misconception is that longbows are merely bows with straight tips.  The English longbow in fact had recurved tips.  And a yew stave, by nature, as soon as it is cut from the tree, bends forward in a shallow C shape, to the back.  (This is known as reflex; a reflex bow is one that is "recurved" all the way along).  This often begins to wear out with use, and so the tips are often recurved as well, ie, bent forward. 
Quote:
Short bows would be a large category; flatbows come under this, as do most native American and ancient Egyptian pre-Hyksos bows.  And even early Han dynasty Chinese bows.  Compound bows are also known as composite bows; it is only the "modern compound bow" which has pulleys.  A composite bow is one which is made of either wood + other materials, like sinew, bone, horn, etc, or entirely of materials other than wood, like antler.  Everyone knows recurve, but many do not know the aforementioned reflex, or deflex, doubly convex, and many other bent wood bows.  Probably the most powerful bow one can make with natural materials is a composite recurved bow, like a Mongolian, Indian, Hungarian, Scythian, Persian, etc style bow. 
A traditional longbow can shoot consistently at around 350 metres.  A composite bow can shoot at least 400 metres, probably more with the right arrows, good conditions (ie, not humid; moisture profoundly affects the workings of a compound bow, as the sinew becomes slack).  I think that a sling can outrange these weapons, but (I don't think at least) consistently, and for the entire duration of a battle.  I think that about four hours of brutal swings would wreck the shoulder blade, whereas archers can carry on for as long as there is ammunition and enemies, if they are well trained and quite fit.  Perhaps a sling can outrange a bow of nearly any type, but I think that the bow is probably more useful in a battle situation.  (Although of course if you had bows and slings working together, the combination could wreck nearly any formation at incredible range and still maintain firepower throughout the course of a battle.)

Yes, longbows had ranges of 100 pounds (at least), but the Mongols often used bows of about 180 pounds.  That is very nearly physically impossible to draw if you have not been brought up with the bow.  But now think of the battle of Agincourt; I like this example.  The English had been marching double time for days.  Most had dysentry - so much so that they fought the battle with their breaches down.  They had been subsisting off oysters, berries, and small amounts of old meat for months, and were incredibly weary.  They got up early in the morning, and their muscles were probably fairly dilapidated by this time.  And yet they fought for a few hours with their bows, and eventually in a melee.

Nathan,
That crossed my mind a while back. Pretty much a question of mass.
There was a show years ago where they were testing a bows against an atlatl. At one point there was a gizmo that mesured impact. On the first test a good reading was taken on the arrow, but the dart went threw the pad and the sensor pad with no reading.  It would be nice to find one of these gizmos and see how glandes of diffrent mass fair.