To be fair, I like Adam Karpowicz's work, but on several threads he has shown a consistent bias towards higher bow weights in his calculations from the actual result on bows where dimensions and known draw weight are available. I think there is a certain bias in the warbow community towards trumpeting the heaviest possible draw weights and the heaviest possible interpretations of bows. This may be a justifiable reaction to previous theories (and some extant theories) that heavy bows didn't exist, but it has its own problems. In addition, the sample size of known warbows from periods for which they were actually used is ludicrously small.
The textual evidence is valuable, but I just quoted a source that says 36 pounds as a minimum and you refuse to believe it, but I'm expected to take at face value your quotations of much heavier draw weights as "overwhelming evidence."
Asking for a source isn't refusing to believe. I'm actually familiar with the 36lb figure; I wanted to know where it came from. Thanks for providing a citation. Contrary to your assertion, I've provided lots of sources. They're remarkably consistent across time and space. though I'll grant some uncertainty around draw weight numbers in Ming and Qing China. In addition to Li Chengfen, back in 2005, Stephen Selby supposed said that Qing infantry bows draw 75lbs and cavalry bows 45lbs. However, many period texts suggest otherwise. Mark C. Elliot's
The Manchu Way includes translations and summaries of these sources. He writes that a six-strength bow was considered the minimum for a grown man and ten strength was required to go on hunts. A military report in 1735 cautioned that few of the younger soldiers at a certain garrison were able to handle strength greater than seven or eight with ease, unambiguously indicating that these and higher were desirable draw weights for the field. Because of intense competition to draw heavy bows, the emperor issued a statement describing six strength or greater as sufficient for mounted military use. Elliot estimates each degree of strength as representing 10 catties (5.97kg); some decades earlier 1 li equaled 9 catties, 4 ounces (5.521kg). So the Qing minimum cavalry bow by these sources was 72.9-78.8lbs, and officers worried that younger soldiers weren't able to easily handle bows above 85-105lb - also probably on horseback. Records of military exams do show that significant numbers of soldiers couldn't handle a six-strength bow, but this wasn't considered acceptable and such soldiers received extra training to get them up to standard.
Personally, I'm not sure why our competing ideas can't both be right. People, and bows, would have had great variability, and quite light bows are still capable of killing. Not everyone was focused on penetrating plate armor.
That's all true enough. The late Ming author I mentioned earlier, Yingxing Song, wrote that weak archers - those who drew 78.8lb bows - could still conquer via accuracy. However, he noted the need for strong archers - drawing 157.6lbs - to pierce enemies' chests (implying armor) and shields.
I mean, Chinese sources also list zhugenu as being military weapons, and we all know what light draw weights they have.
Song specifically dismissed them as military weapons for this reason, writing that they were home-defense weapons for keeping off bandits.
So, on the sum of things, I don't think there's anything inherently ridiculous about 50-60 pound bows being used in the context of military archery from pre-modern periods (certainly nothing meriting scoffing lord of the rings references).
That's fair. However, in the Qing army in the eighteenth century, as described above, soldiers who couldn't handle 72.9-78.8lbs received extra training. 50-60lbs wasn't considered enough in that time and place.
In addition, I think the notion of training from a young age is overblown. Men like Mark Stretton who have been training for years, very hard, in a modern society, with the benefit of a modern diet and modern medicine and modern levels of leisure time, probably have achieved all that our medieval ancestors did, and possibly more. Archers were required by law to practice once per week. How many people on this forum practice a hell of a lot more than that? Granted, it's possible medieval archers practiced more as well, but they didn't have the kind of leisure time that we do in the modern western world, so I find it unlucky that they could have crammed as much training into a year as we can.
Elite historical archers literally fought for a living. English archers might have had agricultural responsibilities while not on campaign, but folks like the Manchu bannermen were professional soldiers and part of ruling warrior class. You saw similar arrangements in Egypt, Japan, etc. Professional and aristocratic warriors had all the time in the world to practice shootings, because that's fundamentally what they did. Also, note that it's only rather recently that you find significant numbers of folks drawing 100+lb bows. That wasn't the case a mere few decades ago.
