Speculation? Me? I know it’s annoying....I have rejected my college training. 
Heh, that's my problem I'm still in University.
Although I have read some of them and find them fascinating, I do not place any value on the sagas. The earliest copies we have were written well after 1066 (mostly during the 13th century) and reflect contemporary fashion (and bias).
True, there are biases and anachronistic elements in the sagas and they were written post-fact. However they were written down from oral traditions and familial history, particularly among the Icelanders, was of utmost importance to the Norse. These were not novels, but a stylised representation of history.
I do not consider the age of the holmegaard bow to be an issue in this discussion. How old is the holmegaard design? Is that one artifact the measure of the age of that technology? How old is the longbow design? Which design do you think predates the other? The holmegaard may have indeed been a lost technology, and many examples of lost technology exist, but technology tends to be lost when the need is lost. What caused the loss of the need for well-made bows?
The holmegaard bow is considered to be about 9000 years old. The Meare Heath bow about 6000 years old. The longbow design is thought to be 10000 years old, the flatbow is much older than the longbow and clearly there was an overlap in the tiem frame of their use but one design eventually replaced the other - this doesn't happen without good reason.
About the Hedeby bow: I do not consider it to be a “true” longbow (from the persepective of a bow maker) other than the fact that the bow is long (192cm). And there are SEVEN bows: one complete and six fragments....which means we can only be sure of the length of ONE of the bows. Further, all have side nocks and all have tips that are bent toward the belly side!. The complete bow appears to be reflexed (although we can’t be sure) and the tips do not taper to a point. The bow also does not appear to have a weight of greater than 90lb. Finally, the performance of the Hedeby bow would be quite different from a “true” longbow that we are all familiar with: in terms of limb vibration, dry fire speed, and early draw weight.
I shoot a Hedeby replica and the tops of the limbs are somewhat deflexed. As to whether it is a "true longbow" depends upon your definition of a long bow: According to the BLBS pretty much anything but the Victorian longbow isn't a true longbow. Many warbow enthusiasts would tell you that the Mary Rose type is the only "true longbow". Pip Bickerstaffe says that to the medieval archer a longbow was any bow that is not a crossbow
.
Along with my Hedeby replica I own a victorian style, horn-nocked, target longbow and the way they shoot isn't much different but the hedeby bow certainly is cruder and feels it. They aren't nearly as dissimilar as say a recurve and a longbow or a longbow and a flatbow.
And, if I may, a few questions:
You may
.
What evidence do you have to support the idea that the flatbow is not superior to the longbow? Have you researched the latest advances in selfbow construction? Many things have come to light in just the last few years.
Personal experience mainly. As much as I love the history of the longbow and the feelings the weapon evokes I would be to admit it as inferior if I thought it was. A compound and recurve are, for example, technically superior and I have no illusions about that.
I've shot flatbows, including a Meare heath replica as well as Native American replicas, and have found that at heavy weights stacking is a real problem whereas it wouldn't be with a longbow. Scientifically speaking a flatbow may be more efficient in storing and releasing energy but in use I find a longbow much preferable. I find it more stable, the extra length makes for a superior weapon and has a much greater presence in the hand. Also I think the longbow design is better at handling heavy weights, ever hear of a 200lb flatbow?
Do you have to draw a composite bow with a thumb ring? Is that the only method of shooting such a bow?
Do you know for a fact that the bows depicted in the Bayeaux Tapestry are not composite bows of some sort?
The asiatic draw pretty much requires a thumb ring with draw weights past 35#, I've tried without and it's painful. You could of course use a mediterranean draw but for proper distribution across the shorter string the asiatic draw is ideal.
The English bows seem to be very much longbows. A Breton archer depicted though does have a recurve bow, but it looks like a piece of wood that has been heat treated not a composite.
How many long bows have been found buried with their Viking owners?
The majority of viking age graves are accompanied by arrowheads, one can only assume there were bows and shafts also which must have rotted. Wood is an easily perishable material, the right conditions are required to preserve it which explains why no bows survive from the High Middle Ages when their usage was most prolific.
Horn on the other hand is hardy, a lot of drinking horns, cups, bowls, jewelry, et cetera have been found. Why no composite bow limbs in grave finds if they were the ultimate bow for the vikings?
Do you dismiss the influence of Roman archery on the Vikings (or the Saxons, or Franks)?
I'd say the Romans drew more influence from the Germanic peoples in archery than vice versa, they preferred heavy infantry and seemed to have disdained archery more than anything. The Germanics however were quite esteemed archers and valued it as both a tool for hunting and war. The English didn't care much for the bow during the earliest middle ages, and used it only on a small scale (much to the surprise of the Normans who ran out of arrows at the Battle of Hastings, having expected some to be fired back). So, yeah, I'm pretty dismissive of it, the Romans borrowed most of their weaponry and military ideas from the cultures they came into contact with.
Do you fart in the general direction of composite bow archers?
Not at all, I just fail to see it as a superior bow on foot (see my earlier comments on stacking, stability, and the advantage of length). Mounted yes, on foot no. As for the flatbow it has its positives and negatives but, generally speaking, the longbow was a military-oriented improvement.
