Like the difference between crossbows and longbows, they were superior in some ways and inferior in others. Since they were composite, they were dependent on g

Like the difference between crossbows and longbows, they were superior in some ways and inferior in others. 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. 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's an interesting analysis, but I don't think it has enough data or broad enough application to make it definitive.