Like the difference between crossbows and longbows, they were superior in some ways and inferior in others.<p>Since they were composite, they were dependent on glue and cord holding them together; they were somewhat more susceptible to weather. They were also more expensive to produce. However, as recurves they had better power with less stacking (force required to hold them at a full draw), and they were also shorter so could be used from horseback, a huge advantage for a nomadic people on the steppes.<p>Your point is well taken, however, that the paper is really only comparing a very limited portion of Europe over a fairly limited amount of time. It&#x27;s an interesting analysis, but I don&#x27;t think it has enough data or broad enough application to make it definitive.