r/Archery • u/Lillith_Vin • 1d ago
Reality and Fiction
Bowyers of Reddit! Arrow slinging enthusiasts... I require your aid, your experience! Your knowledge!!!
I'm a writer, it's what I enjoy doing and I try and do my own due diligence as much as I can for what I write about. In a new fiction piece a group of characters are renowned for their rather bonkers archery. It's not quick, and agile, and full of finesse, quite the opposite, it's ridiculous, and obscene, and powerful.
The weapons being written about are large recurve bows made of metal. A kind of alloyed steel chosen for the appropriate physical properties. From some shallow digging I originally set the draw weight to 200 pounds. I know this is Ridiculous, my own bow in my younger years was only 55, but what are your thoughts? As well as any practical knowledge about how strong a shooter would have to be, how quickly they'd tire, etc.
Another large problem I've run into, knowing how arrows behave in the air, is how to properly design the arrows. Nothing has to be perfect in fantasy of course but I'd love to be as close as possible. Suspending disbelief is hard and the closer to truth you are, the less you have to suspend it.
4
u/Barebow-Shooter 1d ago
Steel or metal bows are very small. Bows by their nature are not large--that makes them inefficient. A quick search for metal bows brings up this history:
https://www.bow-international.com/features/the-history-of-metal-bows/
Here is a video on the English longbow that talks about how effective these are against armor. It also shows you how demanding heavy bow are to shoot:
1
u/Lillith_Vin 1d ago
I appreciate these and I'm watching the second now. Historically I saw that metal and horn bows were small. I made the decision for longer arms to increase the draw length to lower the draw resistance. And a big part was because I couldn't find any measured ancient bows that had the kind of draw strength I was hoping for, and I wanted to make them a little unwieldy. No normal person could ever use a weapon like this and for certain, these shooters aren't what anyone would call normal physically.
Since it is a fantasy novel I have to find where reality completely breaks down as opposed to what could be... Plausible or believable if that makes sense.
3
u/bikin12 1d ago
Horse bows have draw lengths up to 34 inches are your characters giants? That's pretty much drawing way behind a normal humans ear. For accuracy think you need to rethink your premise.
1
u/Lillith_Vin 1d ago
That's entirely possible. The bow in question here would be somewhere between 64 and 70 inches so it's certainly large and not meant to be used from horseback. There will be No horse based archery with this weapon at all.
From the video linked by barebow above it seems 200 pounds is not only not impossible but quite reachable though the shooter tires very quickly, and a 300 pound draw conveys the same kinetic energy as a gunshot. Just like many stories feature weapons far beyond the scope of normalcy like 8 foot long swords being swung around like toys. I wanted to approach the bow with a similar mentality. What's the absolute maximum such a weapon could be pushed to by a martial, experienced, strong shooter and what would be needed to go beyond it. I'm not aiming for perfect realism. Just believable realism.
I'm trying to write a weapon that to my knowledge has never actually been made and I believed this reddit where archery enthusiasts gather would be a good place to have this discussion. Any insight you can grant me from the possible to outright silly would be helpful. As well as less obvious things like, what muscle groups tire the fastest, and how it feels. I can hardly describe an exhausted shooter's pain without knowing where the pain is.
And yes these characters are on average taller then 6'5"
2
u/bikin12 1d ago
Well Joe Gibbs is pretty much the guy when it comes to drawing heavy bows I don't know anyone else that draws as heavy as him. When it comes to metal bows I think you might have to invent some new metal or use some composites because a big long steel bow would loose so much of its potential energy in the draw to propel the heavy limbs forward. There's a reason no one that I know of use steel bows they just aren't efficient. You need light limbs for efficient bows.
2
u/Lillith_Vin 1d ago
That I didn't know. I had made assumptions because of the metal arms of crossbows and certain siege weapon designs. You've given me another place to dig and I appreciate it. Joe Gibbs states that a 200 pound wooden bow wouldn't be uncommon in a medieval time period which is actually a horrifying thing to say if you think about it.
There are some world record shots as well that open the mind to certain possibilities. The hand held bow world record to my knowledge is something like 1.2 kilometers? It's what gave me the idea of going this direction. Far from dissuaded I'm finding this to be an immense amount of fun to puzzle out.
2
u/bikin12 23h ago
Flight archery is a whole different kettle of fish they use super light arrows to achieve distance but they wouldn't be very helpful in penetrating armour for instance. Look on YouTube for arrows penetrating riot shield. The reason they can do that is tip design and the combined energy of speed and mass of the arrow. A heavy bow HAS TO shoot a heavier arrow otherwise it will self destroy from the energy released. The energy in a perfect bow arrow system would transfer 100 percent of the energy released to the arrow. That of course does not happen. But if you shoot too light an arrow it will destroy the bow. Look up dry fire bow. Many horrific examples. As to what muscles to draw any bow you should use your back muscles. To draw a war bow you have to use your whole body. There's a recent video from Tods Worksop that shows Joe Gibbs teaching an Olympic spear thrower how to draw heavy bows. He amazingly draws a 115 lbs bow after 8 shots. To compare after 3 years I shoot a 60 lbs Asiatic bow using thumb draw.
2
u/Arc_Ulfr English longbow 22h ago
What is really interesting is that Ottoman flight bows tended to be heavy draw weights using light arrows. They would do the equivalent of making a $5000+ bow with 150+ lb draw weight in order to shoot an insanely light arrow a few times (at most) in order to set a distance record.
Still no good for armor penetration, even if you ignore the fact that the bows would only last a few shots; the lighter the arrow, the lower the efficiency and therefore lower kinetic energy.
2
u/bikin12 23h ago
This guy makes steel bows from old car springs they really aren't very efficient. He does some fun projects thoughHawkeye bow and no the flicking out the bow is unfortunately not real. A bow has to be strung.
1
u/Lillith_Vin 23h ago
thank you so much for that information. It's been a rabbit hole for sure. For an older weapon they're far from simple and the particulars get very involved as far as physics.
I wish I had the talents to be a bowyer myself so I could just inflict gruesome self injury testing my own terrible ideas for this project but alas!
There are old stories of particularly heavy draw bows made of animal horn that are particularly interesting but it's hard to find anything that's not very vague and no actual usage I can see. Watching Joe draw a war bow for certain wasn't the stance I expected a shooter to use either, that was illuminating in and of itself.
2
2
u/DrawingThoreau 22h ago
Other than the made of metal aspect which it doesn't seem like you are tied to from reading the other posts, manchu bows seem like it could fit what you are saying in terms of inspiration
they are about the size you are saying, shoots the largest and heaviest arrows by quite a bit, up there in terms of longest drawlength, and i think theres a record of them reaching 240lbs (not an expert and can't confirm how valid that is or if the conversion from record is correct)
and thats with this world's limitations, if it is a fantasy world without that restriction there's nothing stopping hornbows such as the manchu design or otherwise to be made of some dragon sinew and horn or whatever other fantastical creatures you got that make for supernatural material
1
u/Lillith_Vin 22h ago
Looking up Manchu bows which I didn't know existed until today has been very interesting. Thank you for the post!
2
u/Knitnacks Barebow (Vygo), dabbling in longbow, working towards L1 coach. 15h ago
Target recurves of ordinary humans are commonly 68-70".
2
u/Arc_Ulfr English longbow 23h ago
Steel is an extremely inefficient bow material. You don't want that for your archers, given that it will deliver so little of the energy they put into drawing it, and anyways it is unnecessary as draw weights can get up that high without it. For example, here is a yew longbow of 240 lb draw weight, here is Joe Gibbs trying to bring it to full draw, and here he is shooting a small 180 lb Tatar bow (note: he can shoot a 200 lb bow relatively easily). Natural materials are perfectly capable of being made into bows that are so high in draw weight no human can shoot them.
Often, ancient and medieval societies didn't really measure or record draw weights, so finding a comprehensive sample of them is difficult at the best of times. Even the surviving bows usually need to be reproduced in order to get even a loose estimate of their draw weight, since a 500 year old bow is not going to have the same draw weight that it did when new. Fortunately, however, the Qing Dynasty (China, 1644 to 1912) did keep meticulous records of draw weights, both testing what all of their archers were capable of shooting and holding competitions which tested both accuracy and strength. There are plenty of 100-200 lb bows both in records and surviving, and at least one recorded example of an archer shooting a monstrous bow (240 lb, like the big longbow in the first two videos I linked).
1
u/Lillith_Vin 22h ago
240 pounds good god! that's impressive just from a muscular standpoint! I'll check all of these links. Thank you for taking the time!
4
u/Setswipe Asiatic Freestyle 23h ago
First, bowlers are those that make bows, archers are those that shoot with bows.
Now onto your main topic. You don't want heavy bows. Metal is not good material. A bow's efficiency is greatly dependent on the weight of the moving parts (usually limbs). It takes energy to move these and if they were heavier for no reason, it would steal energy. That's why bows are laminated from different materials you glue together things that perform better with compression on one side and resists it on the other in order to cheat the natural effectiveness of the materials on their own.
1
u/Lillith_Vin 23h ago
I'm aware, I asked for bowyers because I know some bowmakers are likely here, and would have insight a shooter wouldn't. I was addressing both.
The other question I'd ask then since i've heard this from more then one person now about the weight of the bow arms. Are there historical materials that could bridge the 200-300 pound draw range without drifting into the potential energy ranges that metal arms have. Since a bows arms act like simple springs, the energy put in by the shooter by drawing the bow back is released into the arrow. Potential energy becoming kinetic energy. Wood has limitations because it lacks strength. people have mentioned laminates and composites. I assume they're probably similar or even the same thing. Is there anything that exists in that range already? because this is really interesting.
1
u/Setswipe Asiatic Freestyle 18h ago
I'm not sure what you mean by potential energy ranges. I don't think you're understanding of the physics is quite there. It's not the shooter's energy being put into the arrow, it's the bow's energy. The archer affects the bow, the bow affects the arrow. That's why you get different performances on different types of bows despite having the same exact poundages. The clearest example is compound bows vs trad bows.
Strength of the bow has nothing to do with the energy it has or ability to give. make a slingshot using rubber vs aluminum as the strings, which will yield more energy into the projectile? clearly the rubber. aluminum, despite being a very maleable metal, is not elastic enough and takes too much energy to move when compared to the materials you wish to use.
One final thing you probably didn't consider is that extra poundage or energy does not equate to extra distance. The energy needs to go into a heavier arrow to accept the extra energy. Without it, the bow will explode because the energy didn't leave the system. That's why you get the same performance in distance and speed relative to the same bow type. A longbow perform roughly the same regardless of poundage. This is in comparison to other types, like tatars, self-sticks, mongols, comounds, etc.
1
u/Setswipe Asiatic Freestyle 17h ago
I forgot to comment about the historical part. I'm going to sidestep the point entirely and make sure you know what it is you really need to ask. You have to ask yourself why you want a 200-300 lb bow. Longbows would be made at heavy weights, but I don't think they reached that range, and they are the ones that would 'fight' against heavily armored opponents. If you're on horseback and fighting unarmored opponenets (mongols), there's no need to go that high. Why use such a tool? War and fighting is about the economics of getting the weapons slightly better than your opponents. There's no need to train more than you need to and fatingue yourself more when there's no target that would warrant such a heavy bow.
1
u/Lillith_Vin 8h ago
Sure. part of the situation involved in the story is a difference in how war is waged between countries, with some focusing on use of magic, and the other not having access to magic at all. it's not easy to kill a fighter who can boil your blood with their mind up close so it's safer to do such a thing at distance and these individuals do wear a mixture of heavier scale and chain. There's also just a simple rule of cool here. And while a lot of people like to nitpick my choice of words, a reality in writing is that conveyance of skill and strength is often shown through abnormal tool usage as much as feat or deed.
How strong must the warrior be to wield such a weapon and how much time was spent honing the technique required. The end goal is always entertainment but because this civilization does not have access to magic and would not use it even if they did, the more mundane the weapon design, the better. So the focus is more on shots made at respectable ranges (200m+) with considerable physical impact. Yes I am fully aware most arrows do not kill their targets this way, they cut or pierce a vital point like the heart or sever arteries and muscle tissue based on head design, but that's not 100% true. Impact from crossbow quarrels can be heavy enough to cause considerable hydraulic shock in a target and still benefit from a cutting head design. This marriage of the two from a hand drawn bow was what I was hoping for because it's rarely ever done and would be admittedly cool, and because the puzzle of how to do it is interesting in it's own right.
As I've been criticized above about physics i'll also point out i'm more then aware of the various properties of levers and springs, and that when I talk about a shooter imparting their energy it is not a literal commentary on the math involved, but on the flowchart that would be used to represent the final result.
[Shooter's Draw (kinetic) -> Bow Arms (+potential) -> Shooter's Release --> Bow Arms to String (potential energy release) -> Arrow (Kinetic energy translation) -> Target Impact ]
the energy exists in a closed system with the initial Input being from the shooter. No it is not the Shooter's energy in the arrow, but there is no release of potential energy from the bow without the shooter's draw. So, that's where the math starts.
This can be further simplified, and often is, like this.
[Shooter's Draw (k) -> Machine (bow1-p) -> Arrow release (k) -> Target]
It's not meant to encapsulate the actual mathematics of the bow or the arrow, but only to show the steps the energy takes to reach the end destination. You could also get more involved here with the physics by talking about energy lost during flight via drag and gained by gravity if there's any difference in arc travel, and further energy lost during the archer's paradoxical wobble through the air like the worlds angriest, pointiest, air-fish.
1
u/Lillith_Vin 8h ago
Anyway, the end goal here is not to fight a long battle, but to remove a single, very dangerous, well protected target from the battlefield. I suppose if I had to find any more modern comparison to make that wasn't simple, bow is to crossbow, it could be marksman rifle is to amat rifle. Why would you need .50 BMG? because 5.56 isn't imparting enough energy to the target. From a writing standpoint it's also entirely acceptable to just do something ridiculous in hopes of inspiring a bit of awe and wonder in the reader. It's a fantasy piece, not a dissertation on the practical application of steel based archery ya know?
the more people have been helpful here about why using metal wasn't done more often the more i'm starting to understand the limitations of the material and some of it stems from a shooter's limitations. Others from unexpected areas were SEEFAB's actual success with metal bows in the 1900's and it seems from everything I can find, they only fell out of favor because synthetic materials quickly eclipsed them. From all accounts they weren't poor bows at all but quite effective.
I'd ask you a question in turn. If you could hand draw a 600lb crossbow, wouldn't that simply be a 600 lb steel bow? The links provided by many people here have given me a great deal of useful information and I couldn't be happier. The conversation itself is also enjoyable and i'm hoping that everyone else has likewise clicked these links just to sate curiosity and experience a part of archery history that seems to have been mostly forgotten. Believe me, if this fictional setting had fiberglass or carbon fiber it wouldn't be a discussion but alas, they don't. This all started from a hope I could find a rarely used, mundane material for the weapon who's limitation was on a normal person's strength, rather then some fictional, convenient supermetal like mithril for the literature. What if these warriors Could draw a 300, or 400, or 500 pound bow? What would that look like on a target? I cannot imagine wood would survive those kinds of draw weights, and if they would i'd love to see them just because it would be cool!
1
u/Setswipe Asiatic Freestyle 7h ago
First the shooter's strength is irrelevant and isn't part of the equation. It does nothing to add to the arrow. If the archer was much stronger the extra strength doesn't carry over. The archer is there only to draw the bow. You don't calculate the energy wasted in carrying gasoline to the car as part of the output of the engine. It's just the engine outputting energy.
Second your take on 200+ meter ranges isn't realistic. As stated, bows perform within the dame range of its own type of bow. Any kind of bow operates effectively up to about 40 meters. Target shooter's shoot to 100 as a challenge without combat. You can volley fire beyond that, but that's not really what this conversation is about. The extra poundage doesn't really give extra distance.what it gives is stopping power and the ability to use heavier arrows.
Third, the difference between a 600lb bow vs steep bow is that a device holds the tension in a crossbow for future use whereas the archer has to do it in a bow. That makes the crossbow easier to aim and slower to fire multiple shots.
Fourth, there really is no difference in the extra poundage when moving from 200+ lb bows. As stated, the range doesn't change. Also, dead is dead. You can't get any deader from a 65 lb bow shot at the heart than a 300lb bow shot at the heart. That's why I asked earlier why you want such heavy bows. It's pretty pointless in the evolution of arms race advancement.
1
u/Lillith_Vin 7h ago edited 7h ago
How is the shooter's strength irrelevant? if the shooter isn't strong enough to Draw the bow, then the bow doesn't fire the arrow. If the shooter is only capable of drawing the bow to 80% rather then full, then the input of kinetic energy was insufficient to activate 100% of the potential energy in the arms of the bow. This matters when calculating the difference between various impact energies like when a shooter becomes tired, and is no longer drawing at full capacity.
second. 200 meters is Very realistic, that's something i've already verified with shooters on ranges, in person. Is it something a normal person would try when getting closer is usually more efficient? No, but if that's not an option.... that question answers itself. Both with hand drawn bows and with crossbows with modern crossbows in higher ranges reaching 500 yards accurately on target. The higher the draw of the bow, the flatter a trajectory you can expect to reach those ranges due to higher projectile speed within the material limitations of the arrow vs the bow.
Third, if you think there's no different in the force delivered by bows of different draw strength you're welcome to go and try and kill a deer with a 15 pound bow. Sure, it might be possible, but you'd be stupid to try and the deer isn't wearing armor. If what you say is true, why do war bows fall into the 100 to 200 pound ranges? Instead of just 50? The targets in question here Are wearing armor, armor that needs to be struck hard enough to penetrate it and deliver impact beyond the armor. So yes, impact force matters here, a lot. This brings into question bow design, arrow design, and the advanced understanding of energy transfer from impact. do you need to penetrate armor for instance if you're hitting so hard you're breaking bones underneath it? What kind of bow would you need to achieve that result? Certainly not 25 pounds, or 50 pounds, or even 200 pounds. It would need to be heavier. How much of that energy is lost in flight? We don't know, there aren't any 500 pound draw bows around. But there are 500 pound crossbows and they'll happily hit harder then any drawn bow out to half a kilometer. Accurately. If a shooter was strong enough to draw the same mechanism by hand, then it's the same application of force as the crossbow. The shooter would have to be far above the norm in terms of physical strength. Thank god it's a fantasy novel. These are assassins in the novel, not line soldiers trying to use this in a pitched battle, but a single, precise, high impact shot to remove a threat to their fellows safely. Before you ask, no, this world doesn't have crossbows, and a society that had people who could draw to a crossbow's weight wouldn't bother inventing them until later. Why bother? Tom over there can draw 600 pounds already?
Fourth. Dead is not Dead. Sure there's no difference in the effect of most projectiles if your accuracy is 100% lethal every time, but that's in a vacuum. Reality doesn't work that way and not every arrow will find the heart just like not every bullet will find the brain. The more force transferred to the target allows you to achieve the same result with less reliance on perfect accuracy. And before you argue this has already been ballistically proven over, and over, and over again. More energy transferred into the target is better, and yes, there is hydraulic shock associated with different projectiles fired from bows, crossbows, and arm actuated siege weaponry.
0
u/Setswipe Asiatic Freestyle 6h ago
First, it's not relevant to the calculation of energy transferred. The issue of whether I've is strong enough for the view itself isn't the argument here. That's not relevant to the discussion.
Second, realistic in hitting a target, sure. Ask any hunter what they are able to hit at s game vs what they would actually shoot deer with and you'll get two different numbers. You don't have infinite arrows and don't have the luxury to miss. Shooting will reveal your position and you won't have the luxury of continued fire. In talking about what you would expect in a believable scenario of combat, not ideal conditions. 200m is not believable. Why not just get closer (more on that in next paragraph)?
Third/fourth, I didn't say there's no difference in draw strength, I said in relation of other bows. Yes, there is a difference in power but it's useless if you don't need it. There's a reason why you hear about heavy weight bows in European vs it not being a big thing in asiatic. Europe had a bigger emphasis on armor that had to be dealt with, mounded archers of the Steppe didn't need to deal with that. And despite the fact that they had heavier war bows to deal with armor, it wast the European bow that created the largest continual empire, it was the Mongols and ther asiatic bows on horseback. The Mongols used the bow far more effectively at a lesser weight. They didn't need to address the armor issue and didn't add extra poundage for the bow for no reason. They solved the issue of accuracy and power loss over distance but by brute force of aging heavier bows, but by the more effective tactic of using mobility. Again, why make a heavier bow? What problem are you trying to solve?
1
u/Lillith_Vin 6h ago
The problem of fighting magic users wearing armor, Not other archers and not foot soldiers. it's a fantasy novel. They are assassins, they are waiting for an opportune moment to fire one time, to overcome a mixture of magical and physical defenses normal people do not have. Justifying their need isn't the problem, finding a somewhat grounded solution to the question posed, is. You can assume these shooters will not be stressed by someone bearing down on them when trying to use the weapon. Or in needing to fire more then 1 or 2 shots in the entire battle. A specialist tool is for special problems. Not all around use. Why would an assassin sent to kill a single target, or maybe two, without them knowing they're under immediate threat, need to rely on mobility? Assuming they want to avoid the repercussions at all. Maybe the benefit of killing their target is more valuable then their own life. Why does mounted archery keep coming up? I've said more then once that mounted archery will not play a part in this question @.@
Armor matters here, Horses do not. A heavier draw is required. I can see you're less interested in the actual basis of the question, and more in just being consistently negative. I didn't ask why couldn't this be done, I asked how it Might be achieved, if you can't think in that vein, politely excuse yourself. You're not being helpful, you're just being negative.
0
u/Setswipe Asiatic Freestyle 5h ago
You've been asking for grounded use of archers and I've been giving the information for that. I can't presume what would and would not work with the interactions of your fantasy world, so I can't justify any of that. But ehat I've said has even true and will continue to be true even in your world. You still definitely need to justify the need because if you don't, then why are they doing it. Nothing is ever done for no reason, to do so would break the verisimilitude of the world you're creating.
To be clear, I put no assumptions on the performance of your warriors. Their ability to fight Dora not change the physics I'm talking about. An arrow flying for 200m would be in the air for an extended period of time and would have issues because of it. Not only the obvious factors of a projectile being affected by wind, particulate and other factors in the air, but the very obvious problem of how much lead time you'd need to make that shot. Your archers would have to dral with an arrowin the air for 2-4 seconds moving slower than the speed of sound. They would have heard the arrow being fired. Deer have been marked to jump in reaction to the shot and dodge by reaction. It's part of the reason why I said hunters don't shoot that far. Compound it with issues of magic users and their senses and its not very believable.
My mentioning of horse archery isn't about horse archery itself, it's about the example it gives in problem solving. You're missing th point entirely by focusing on it. Weapons are created to solve problems. The Mongols created used horses to solve the problem of frame l range and armor with horses. They ran when they met armor and tired out the opponents. They stretched the lines and baited combat on their terms and their ranges of fire. They did not choose stronger bows because their was a better solution. If you want to have a world where a faction uses super heavy bows, you need to invent a problem that requires it. One where the reader won't just say 'why don't they just use this other simpler solution'?
→ More replies
1
u/TraditionalBasis4518 22h ago
Maybe spend less time on the bow , and use your imagination on the arrow: it could have a rocket assist, an explosive head, be steerable or heat seeking after launch.
1
u/Lillith_Vin 21h ago
I'm consulting with an aerospace engineer about the aerodynamics of some very odd arrowhead designs i've found. He thinks i'm a mental case but we'll find something brilliant yet!
2
u/bikin12 13h ago
I'm gonna take a chance and mention Voldemort for archers here.... https://youtu.be/ZsMUdlnlaTI?si=fw4vImbMYINqf4nG I don't really know but every time his name is mentioned everyone gets really perturbed so ill just leave a link to his video. Its like mentioning Gerber in a knife community
2
u/Lillith_Vin 9h ago edited 8h ago
Gerber makes excellent knives, do people really get bent out of shape about it?
Edit: What is this mad sorcery! He's an arrow wizard hahaha! that is absolutely bonkers!
-11
u/NockBreaker 1d ago
You sling rocks, not arrows.
Fix your grammar. A group of characters are renowned, not "is renowned".
5
u/Lillith_Vin 1d ago
I rarely inspect my reddit posts so closely but all the same, edits made. Not a big deal but do you have anything to say about the bows?
As for "Slinging"
to sling is to propel Anything through empty space by means of motion or mechanism. Sure it's informal but far from incorrect usage of the word.
0
u/NockBreaker 23h ago
Well you're the writer. If you want to use a device like an atlatl to sling darts or potentially arrows, by all means.
Its your story. You're already going into the realm of fantastical so why worry about accuracy or misrepresentation? Make cyberpunk steam-powered arrow launchers or go all high fantasy and craft arrows with crystallised dragon tear tips.
/shrug
5
u/nusensei AUS | Level 2 Coach | YouTube 23h ago
Bear in mind that steel crossbows are a thing because they have very short power strokes, so the metal doesn't need to be that flexible and move that much.
For bows, wood is by far the superior material. Adding composite materials can make up for weaknesses in wood, such as poorer compressive strength (in which case a material like horn is used with sinew). Wood is lighter and more flexible, and different parts of the wood have different properties. The renowned English longbows made made from the heartwood and sapwood of yew - the heartwood being better at compression, the sapwood under tension.
In comparison, steel does not perform well under tension and is much heavier, resulting in a bow that could potentially be more powerful, but will be slower as the mass of the bow will take more time to accelerate.
It shouldn't be surprising that fantasy worlds will build up mythical qualities in the wood used to create bows rather than replace the material with metal. It's easily possible to build a 200lb bow with real world materials; it's more that it's implausible for a normal human to shoot one with a desired outcome.
For comparisons in human strength, the more documented war bow shooters are individuals like Joe Gibbs and Mark Stretton. In War Bows by Mike Loades, he recounts Stretton's "mad minute" test to verify claims of speed. Stretton was on a 130lb bow and barely managed 10 shots in one minute, after which he cited that he could not do 20 in two minutes, given the level of fatigue. Loades - an older an less experienced shooter on 70lb - could do about 8 shots in a minute, so his conclusion is that a fit and trained archer could reasonably sustain 6-8 shots.
That is a conservative and realistic figure. Most average archers could easily spit out 8 shots in 30 seconds with light bows without trying anything special.
Shooting heavy bows is both an exercise in strength and technique. A strongman could probably pull a 150lb bow, but would struggle without the proper alignment that comes from training technique. The bulk of the hold comes in aligning the bones to hold the weight, the muscles being developed to be strong enough to move into position under the bow's weight. Quite a few of us here are pushing into the 100lb war bow pathway but aren't necessarily big bulky people. See Justin Ma 131lb
You haven't asked a specific question about arrows, but I'll leave something to consider. A heavier bow doesn't necessarily project an arrow further. There is a complex balance between transfer of energy, mass of the arrow and drag.
The general principle is that the really heavy bows are designed more to penetrate armour at closer distances, where the arrow hasn't lost much of its speed and will shoot with less arc.
Part of this is because the arrow needs to be heavier for the bow to be shot safely. If the arrow is too light, the limbs accelerate too quickly, effectively dry-firing the bow.
Bows intended for long-distance shooting (e.g. flight archery) tend to be more moderate in draw weight and shoot lighter arrows with narrower profiles (very small fletchings, placed at the very end of the arrow) to reduce drag. An extreme example of this is the "baby arrow" used in the Korean tong-ah.