Would light infantry/skirmisher Archers in Napoleonic warfare

>>32533058
no

Considering the fact napoleon himself employed all those successfully.

No

>>32533058
Yes

File: Apache.jpg (66KB, 792x556px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 792x556px

>>32533058
You tell me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeGtPxLwkuk

File: 1418471268563.jpg (97KB, 650x721px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 650x721px

Used properly shouldn't light and mobile skirmishers/riflemen fuck up regular line infantry every single time except when the latter have formation defense and/or immediate support from artillery or cav?

>>32533264
You mean rifle regiments?

>>32533058
10000 peasants with muskets > 1000 trained from birth bashkirs

>>32533088
What?
>>32533127
The only ones still using armor at the time were heavy cuirassier cavalry.
>>32533058
Hardly. Archers have problems hitting the thin lines of infantry at distance. They were also not available for most of the powers involved. Russian cossacks and other light cavalry had a few bows; but pistol and carbine cavalry was far more common, probably for a reason.

>>32533058
No.

Napoleonic warfare was about shock and awe in decisive battles, not about skirmishes.

>>32533416
>The only ones still using armor at the time were heavy cuirassier cavalry.
Because a flintlock musket is so far beyond a bow and arrow it's not even funny.

Even the Indians knew it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyrPzy6y_IA

>>32533058
Short answer, the musket was effective at greater ranges than the bow. Yes, the musket was horribly inaccurate but that was what volley fire was for.

>>32533416
>Russian cossacks and other light cavalry had a few bows; but pistol and carbine cavalry was far more common, probably for a reason.
Russian irregular national cavalry and cossacks were all equipped with firearms. Expect Bashkirs. After rebellion in 1735-1740 guns and blacksmiths were banned under death penalty for them.

>>32533264
Only so long as you're willing to accept that said skirmishers would break and run the minute a line regiment got close.

>>32535444
kind of the point of skirmishers, hit and run.

>>32535481
You can't outrun a horse

>>32533264
"fuck up" Is not really what gonna happen with Napoleonic era firearms capability. But nevertheless skirmishers could achieve favorable exchange against line infantry. And msott armies used such skirmishers. Impression of Napoleonic infantry as only standing blocks exchanging salvos is quite wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltigeur
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jäger_(infantry)

>>32533264
Are you that knob from /his/ who stubbornly refuses to understand why tactics were how they were? Because you can fuck off if you are.

No, because "line infantry" and "skirmishers" aren't single plays of a simple game of rock-paper-scissors, they're part of a complex, intermingling system of multiple different troop types, together with strategic and logistic considerations.