If Napolean had horse archers would he win all of Europe?

originally posted by: makemap
a reply to: LABTECH767

Ya, but could you imagine Napoleon using Horse archers to counter Calvary? Shoot twice or three times as fast before they are able to charge in allowing his foot soldiers to stay in line. During that Era no one was using armor anymore. Plus the musket men will have so much trouble reloading and running away from the horse archers after first shot and attempting to retreat.

If you saw the last samurai battle. That reload speed.
Who said Napoleon will only use Horse Archery, use a combination with he musket men.

Napoleon did bring back spear cavalry and heavy cavalry did wear breast plates and metal helmets.

Horse archers just wouldn't be practical when you can have riders with pistols and don't require lots of training.

I'm sure he would have used horses archers just like he used polish troops but they wouldn't be French and he wouldn't have a lot of them

originally posted by: JDmOKI

originally posted by: makemap
a reply to: LABTECH767

Ya, but could you imagine Napoleon using Horse archers to counter Calvary? Shoot twice or three times as fast before they are able to charge in allowing his foot soldiers to stay in line. During that Era no one was using armor anymore. Plus the musket men will have so much trouble reloading and running away from the horse archers after first shot and attempting to retreat.

If you saw the last samurai battle. That reload speed.
Who said Napoleon will only use Horse Archery, use a combination with he musket men.

Napoleon did bring back spear cavalry and heavy cavalry did wear breast plates and metal helmets.

Horse archers just wouldn't be practical when you can have riders with pistols and don't require lots of training.

I'm sure he would have used horses archers just like he used polish troops but they wouldn't be French and he wouldn't have a lot of them

Didn't pistols in that era werevery inaccurate and took a long time to reload.
You can't compare Natives to European. Native had stone age junk by the time Europeans made it to America.

originally posted by: makemap

originally posted by: JDmOKI

originally posted by: makemap
a reply to: LABTECH767

Ya, but could you imagine Napoleon using Horse archers to counter Calvary? Shoot twice or three times as fast before they are able to charge in allowing his foot soldiers to stay in line. During that Era no one was using armor anymore. Plus the musket men will have so much trouble reloading and running away from the horse archers after first shot and attempting to retreat.

If you saw the last samurai battle. That reload speed.
Who said Napoleon will only use Horse Archery, use a combination with he musket men.

Napoleon did bring back spear cavalry and heavy cavalry did wear breast plates and metal helmets.

Horse archers just wouldn't be practical when you can have riders with pistols and don't require lots of training.

I'm sure he would have used horses archers just like he used polish troops but they wouldn't be French and he wouldn't have a lot of them

Didn't pistols in that era werevery inaccurate and took a long time to reload.
You can't compare Natives to European. Native had stone age junk by the time Europeans made it to America.

Inaccurate weapons of the time were made accurate with volley fire and a horse is a bigger target. Also focused artillery on a group of horses crushed them and were saved for flanking and decisive moments.

US cavalry had a huge advantage against the Indians but they also had lever rifles. I'm not sure but I don't see horse archers changing the battle field or having a big impact and I'm no expert.

He was undone by his lust for power and to be accepted into "Royalty" in Europe. He wanted to be on par with all the princes and nobility. That led him to overextend himself, befriend the wrong type of people and women who were secretly trying to gain intel and subvert him.

a reply to: makemap

The problem with horse archers is they require an insane amount of skill and they are hard to train up. Its much easier and it takes less time to train cavalry. So yes if he gained horse archers he may have had an advantage but it was cheaper and quicker to train up cavalry...

originally posted by: PaulAtriedes
a reply to: makemap

The problem with horse archers is they require an insane amount of skill and they are hard to train up. Its much easier and it takes less time to train cavalry. So yes if he gained horse archers he may have had an advantage but it was cheaper and quicker to train up cavalry...

Yes, but not really. Most of the infantry weren't moving troops like the mongols would need to shoot.
Could you imagine his calvary during Waterloo was using bow and arrows shooting a rain of arrows on square formation infantry. We all know Square formation hadn't worked out well for the Romans against the Parthians or Mongols and they had shields. These British troops don't even have armor.

a reply to: makemap

He might have, Napoleon wasn't half as short as history made him out to be. Everyone at that time, in that part of the world was relatively the same height, men were, on average. People are just taller as the norm now.