I want to apologize, I know that "medieval times" could be considered to be beyond vague, but my knowledge about the different time periods is very limited. The reason I'm asking this is because in fiction, whether its novels, movies or tv series, the most intimidating opponent the hero can face, is usually a tall, brutish warrior towering over him.
Even though such an opponent would certainly be stronger on average, strength usually isn't the deciding factor in melee combat. Speed is. That's why all those oversized swords we see in fantasy stories would be a significant disadvantage in real life.
But with Archery it's a little bit different. Wouldn't an extraordinarily tall, strong person be able to use a much, much more powerful bow? Not just because of physical strength alone, but simply because how much further he could pull back the bowstring, considering his arms are much longer?
Wouldn't an extraordinarily tall, strong person be able to use a much, much more powerful bow? Not just because of physical strength alone, but simply because how much further he could pull back the bowstring, considering his arms are much longer?
Reading this feels like a conflation of two related things that don't equate to what you seem to be suggesting, so let me try to untangle this.
The "power" in a shot mostly depends on two things:
Thus, if a person were to draw a bow back further than another (such as through an overdraw anchor, or by having longer arms), the bow would have more "power" as there is a longer power stroke to accelerate the arrow.v
It doesn't mean that a taller person can use a stronger bow. The use of stronger bows is dependent on the user's strength, not the length of their arms. If anything, you have mistaken the cause/effect of power due to draw length. In practice (at least in modern archery), a taller person would have to use a weaker bow in order to draw to their length. A taller person is not inherently a stronger person and would not inherently use a "stronger" bow. Likewise, if needed, a bowyer could simply make a stronger bow for a shorter person.
It's worth nothing that the most thorough manuals on archery in this time period (such as Roger Ascham's Toxophilus, Arab Archery and Gao Ying's Way Of Archery) do not make any specific mention of height being a requirement to be proficient in the use of the bow, but training and technique. Gao Ying, for example, is particularly critical of archers who have not trained correctly and are incapable of drawing a heavy bow or achieving a full draw, which is due to incorrect technique, not height.
Having mentioned Gao Ying, it suddenly occurred to me that you specifically mentioned Europe in your question. I'm not sure why you're isolating medieval Europe from any other era or style of archery.
In summary, you wouldn't create a unit of archers consisting of tall people for a slight percentage of increased arrow velocity. Remember that in a battlefield situation, one archer being a foot taller than another archer isn't going to dramatically effect their shot accuracy and power, especially as their equipment wasn't uniform anyway. It's not a physical attribute that you would normally associate with archery or combat effectiveness in general. After all, a taller person has a longer reach, therefore they would be at an advantage when using a sword or spear, but extraordinary height clearly did not provide any advantage to an army or turn the tide of a battle.
The solution to solving the issue of reach in an infantry clash wasn't to recruit taller people, but to make longer spears. The same applies to archers: you got more skilled archers using stronger bows, not taller archers.