Archers are weak, Swordsman are strong... Not.
EDIT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3OIjpLSaYQ Guy teaches HEMA. And is fairly knowledgeable in the field. Explains it better than I do. So I will let it speak in place of my sloppy explanation.
63 Comments
The effective weight of the sword is not 3 lbs thou because of the centripetal forces and the torque applied when you swing it, is probably a tad more but I feel too lazy to do the math
normal long/recurve bows aren't anywhere close to 70-150 lbs. warbows weren't even 150 lbs.
and you're using most of the muscles in your upper body to draw the weight of a bow, so it doesn't really require that much muscle to do. your argument is very confusing anyway, who cares if a toddler could lift a sword?
You're forgetting that any moderately long sword is going to have a center of mass way out from the body of whoever's swinging it, so it's going to have a large moment of inertia and really want to throw around whoever's trying to operate it. This problem is only exacerbated for longer weapons like J4's spear or a halberd. Certainly using a bow requires notable strength, but add onto the mass and length of a sword the heavy armor a melee combatant's going to have and you need some serious muscle to be running about a battlefield without just collapsing 30 seconds into a fight.
Comparing sword weight with draw weight is an entirely faulty argument.
Its the force you put behind the swing; not the weight of the sword. The weight of the sword just adds momentum and increases the strength and minimum force required to use it efficiently.
That's why swordsmen are generally shown as stronger than bowmen.
Being more muscular does very little for a bowman who could already efficiently use his weapon, especially if his strength is capable of more than what his draw weight allows.
Being more muscular for a melee weapons specialist of any kind drastically improves their combat ability, even if its just a hulking brute swinging a mass of iron/wood around.
Because in video games, why would you pick someone who has to get close to deal damage when you could pick someone who can stay far away and deal it Melee needs more defense to make up for the lack of range, so they don't die before they can even get to someone who shoots, backs, shoots, backs and so on
OP is pretty biased. I strongly doubt OP has ever lifted a sword before. I've played around a lot with all types of bows, and they weren't heavy to fire with. I dunno what type of sword you have, maybe a plastic sword.