Quote Originally Posted by daigaku View Post
If we go for the somewhat higher values (which are not unrealistic at all), and take into consideration the skeleton deformations, NO modern "longbow" gets near the strength of those in the past.
Any proof/tests or it's actually what you think? Are you aware that a bow don't have to be tested by a men? It can be mechanically drawn which gives you perfectly measurable and repeatable results. It's even easier for a crossbow because it has only two states: ready/loaded and free (sorry for the lack of technical terms). I'd be sceptical if it'd be one or two tests but I've read about several tests methodology (for example made by US and British army) and the most of them confirms what you can find in wikipedia. Denying all those tests without any reasonable proof is not so wise.

Quote Originally Posted by daigaku View Post
Not wanting to go too deep into historical research, but the outcome of quite some battles in the 100years war telling their story of efficiency.
I think it's exactly the same situation like you saying that crossbow is useless. Tactic and terrain advantage is the key. English have been using the longbow properly/efficiently on a massive scale and that's how the myth of a super bow was born. Like wiki says:

Modern tests and contemporary accounts agree therefore that well-made plate armour could protect against longbows. However this did not necessarily make the longbow ineffective; thousands of longbowmen were deployed in the English victory at Agincourt against plate armoured French knights in 1415. Clifford Rogers has argued that while longbows might not have been able to penetrate steel breastplates at Agincourt they could still penetrate the thinner armour on the limbs. Most of the French knights advanced on foot but, exhausted by walking across wet muddy terrain in heavy armour enduring a "terrifying hail of arrow shot", they were overwhelmed in the melee.

Less heavily armoured soldiers were more vulnerable than knights. For example, enemy crossbowmen were forced to retreat at Crecy when deployed without their protecting pavises. Horses were generally less well protected than the knights themselves; shooting the French knights' horses from the side (where they were less well armoured) is described by contemporary accounts of the Battle of Poitiers, and at Agincourt John Keegan has argued that the main effect of the longbow would have been in injuring the horses of the mounted French knights.