I'm just surprised that the fist cam mechanism was developed for crossbow triggers in 600BC, with the first pulleys being older than that, yet the first compound bow was only invented in the 1960s. Imagine how the history of warfare would've changed if someone went "hey, let's put these on the bow".
Material science just wasn't there. There WERE compound bows, but only in the sense that the bows were made of compound laminates composed of horn, glues, and wood. Mongols got really good at this and could produce very small bows with ridiculously high draw weights (150-200lbs) for their horse archers. What they couldn't do is get a string small enough to work through pulleys like modern compounds. That required modern synthetic fibers that ancient tech just had no equivalent.
Takes the same amount of effort to draw, but the energy needed to hold and therefore aim is substantially less.
They normally refer to 'let off' in the specifications. 75% let off means that with a 100lb bow, once you get to a specific point in the draw, you're only holding 25lbs.
I have to think this is a materials problem, not an ideas problem. even if it were possible with wood and medieval iron or steel, a bow that costs way more than typical ones faces the classic weapons innovation bottleneck. cool concepts that are too complicated and expensive to arm a regiment end up novelties in a noble's hunting weapon collection.
I'm just surprised that the fist cam mechanism was developed for crossbow triggers in 600BC, with the first pulleys being older than that, yet the first compound bow was only invented in the 1960s. Imagine how the history of warfare would've changed if someone went "hey, let's put these on the bow".
Material science just wasn't there. There WERE compound bows, but only in the sense that the bows were made of compound laminates composed of horn, glues, and wood. Mongols got really good at this and could produce very small bows with ridiculously high draw weights (150-200lbs) for their horse archers. What they couldn't do is get a string small enough to work through pulleys like modern compounds. That required modern synthetic fibers that ancient tech just had no equivalent.
Makes sense, the material science for the string fibres wasn't there. Thank you for providing that context and information.
What makes compound bows better? I don't understand how wheels make it easier/more powerful
The camshafts help distribute the weight of the draw allowing you to hold it longer with less strain on the arms.
Takes the same amount of effort to draw, but the energy needed to hold and therefore aim is substantially less. They normally refer to 'let off' in the specifications. 75% let off means that with a 100lb bow, once you get to a specific point in the draw, you're only holding 25lbs.
I have to think this is a materials problem, not an ideas problem. even if it were possible with wood and medieval iron or steel, a bow that costs way more than typical ones faces the classic weapons innovation bottleneck. cool concepts that are too complicated and expensive to arm a regiment end up novelties in a noble's hunting weapon collection.