OK. I get you now.So I'd have to say that a recurve is more accurate for that reason. Also, being shorter, its more flexible in use. The mongol archer did not need so much power because he had a horse (to get nearer) and he was shooting at people with much less developed armour. The longbow archer needed more range and more power to shoot a heavier warhead. An arrow half an inch (13mm) and up to 33 inches long, with a heavy metal head takes a lot of shooting. Put another way, at short range (10 metres) I can shoot a fibreglass arrow more accurately with a 15 - 20 lb bow than a 40 lb bow because its so much easier to draw and hold. At the same range with a heavy war arrow I need the heavier bow because the lighter one simply does not have the power to accelerate the arrow fast enough.
Is this true for the same size bows? I know a long bow will be more powerful in that it can send a heavier arrow further. But if you had a recurve just as long, wouldn't it be more powerful?So recurving, like compound bows, gives you more speed (not power) in a shorter bow with more controll.
OK. I know now why I was thinking different than you. I am not looking at draw weight but that is a good way to compare. I was instead thinking about bow length and what one could expect from each bow. I could still be wrong though.Whereas a longbow of the same draw weight will shoot a heavier arrow further because it has more "torque".