Folks today don't like to define things too closely (bows, arrows, aiming approaches, etc.). I guess they're afraid it might make what/how they choose to shoot somehow less worthy of acceptance and admiration (egos are omnipotent). So what some use and call a 'longbow' may be very different than how others might see it. Your question is therefore a matter of which side of the definition line you're standing on.
What I would call a real longbow is essentially the Hill design...small simple low-mass riser, longer heavier higher mass limbs, little to no R/D mechanical advantage save perhaps a bit of limb backset, and no pretense of recurvology in either the design or shooting approach (get ahold of the bow, no target recurve mentality, find your rhythm vs. find your slide rule, etc.). That's not a slam on modern (I shoot them, too) as much as it's a statement that there are real differences between modern and non-modern traditional bows, especially longbows.
The non-modern (Hill design) longbow aspects combine to produce a bow and approach that is admittedly more difficult to learn. And maybe not as 'comfy'. But it rewards your sense of shooting satisfaction like no other approach can. In addition to the nostalgic connection with past pioneers, old-style longbows help put (keep?) the challenge and keep out the too easy/too boring. They make you think less about adoring at the alter of rifle-like accuracy and think more about the simple enjoyment of a bending bow and arching arrow. These are good things.
There's too much overcomplication now. Seems we're losing recognition and the taste for why the idea of longbows and simpler recurves appealed to us to begin with. From plastic caca arrows to lumps of metal machined to look like wannabee compounds, things have approached out-of-hand status and we don't even much notice or care.
A simple longbow and arrow and mindset helps preserve old-school and relieves some of the sting from today's techno-trad fad. That's my take.
Topic: Why a longbow? (Read 1724 times)
