Are light infantry a viable choice?

[KillerMongoose]

In my experience, light infantry is quite superior to riflemen, they're extremely versatile. They shoot better than line and guard infantry and they can still hold their own in melee, and light infantry aren't completely helpless to cavalry like riflemen. If you use your light infantry properly then they can become your most valuable asset on the field. And I've fought off riflemen with light infantry before in both linebattles and commander battles, they're very good at it because they can spread out like riflemen and they're very good shots and they reload faster than riflemen, unless you're too far away for your muskets to be accurate, most of the time light infantry will beat rifles. The rifle is rather overrated in my opinion, the somewhat better-ish accuracy is not enough to compensate for the slow reload and lack of any practical use in melee. I'll take light infantry over riflemen any day.

[Ryan1]

yes imo light infrantry and skirmishers are the best

[Archduke Sven]

Right, well in battles i think skirmishers are much better since there are not many rules restricting you, many people have rules for light infantry like max 3 man spacing, you have to stand up etc.

Quality vs. Quantity, the rifleman can fire more well aimed shots while the light infantryman will spew out a couple more less accurate shots.

Bayonet vs. Rifle butt or sword bayonet ; You should not need to have a bayonet, if you are operating out of distance from any other component of your team you are doing it wrong as a commander. Also, you can block perfectly fine with a rifle as with a musket. Remember that riflemen and lights support the line infantry, not the other way around.

There are tons of incompetent commanders who think they are their own army and everything works around them, and stay at the back of the map doing nothing and eventually gets isolated and killed by cavalry, it doesn't matter if you have a bayonet or not, if you don't kill enough of them with bullets you will die. Period.

In the historical aspect, light infantry were easier to train and supply and required less able men. However skirmishers required a certain kind of man that was hard to find in many countries ( The French had good luck with this ).

If you do rifles right, you will do better than someone doing light infantry wrong and vice versa. It's about their use, not their armament, organization etc.

If the light can only bring the same amount of men as the rifles and they go against eachother, considering they are of equal skill, the rifles will win.

But as with most things in life this is very situational.

[KillerMongoose]

Remember that French skirmishers were essentially light infantry, they used muskets rather than rifles and to be honest I don't think that hindered them in any way, there was a quote by I believe a Prussian commander and it basically said that France owed its victories to its light infantry. And being a skirmisher requires a man to be able to crouch down and shoot quickly and accurately and run if the enemy gets too close, they weren't the commandos we see in Sharpe.

Also using light infantry as "support" would not be fully appreciating their usefulness, they make great aggressive troops to harass the enemy and get them to go/do what you want them to do. In commander battles I've used my light infantry to push the enemy back and into a position where my allies can surround and hammer them. I've also used my lights to lure enemies into traps. Light infantry should be used aggressively, that's where they become useful. And the reason I pointed out the option of bayonet for light infantry is because it makes them a lot less vulnerable to cavalry, extending their lifespan and usefulness.

[TheBoberton]

Alright, I need to jump in here again, because something is bothering me.

Skirmishers and light infantry are the same thing.
Riflemen are light infantry, light infantry are skirmishers, and skirmishers can be armed with either muskets or rifles. They all received similar training, and they were all deployed in very similar manners.

Please, for the sake of being historically correct about this, don't say that France's 'skirmishers were essentially light infantry', because that's like saying the UK's guards were essentially shock troops, or their light dragoons were essentially cavalry. Redundancy is unnecessary here.

"For battle prepared in their country's just cause.."

[Archduke Sven]

Alright, I need to jump in here again, because something is bothering me.

Skirmishers and light infantry are the same thing.
Riflemen are light infantry, light infantry are skirmishers, and skirmishers can be armed with either muskets or rifles. They all received similar training, and they were all deployed in very similar manners.

Please, for the sake of being historically correct about this, don't say that France's 'skirmishers were essentially light infantry', because that's like saying the UK's guards were essentially shock troops, or their light dragoons were essentially cavalry. Redundancy is unnecessary here.

"For battle prepared in their country's just cause.."

 Light infantry and skirmishers are not the same...

Light infantry are the cross-trained in Line Infantry tactics and Skirmisher tactics, but are not particularly good at either one. I would say only the Early French armies had Light Infantry who truly mastered both arts, deploying in line formations at twice the speed but still retaining the independence of a skirmisher. But they most frequently fought in a line formation unlike the skirmisher who mostly fought in skirmish order.

The best comparison i have is that of Dragoon to a Chasseur a Cheval. The Dragoon is mounted infantry while the CaC is recognized as a horse skirmisher, and its big brother is the Carabinier ( Or Cuirassier ) which is shock/heavy cavalry.

You see the same organization in a Chasseur ( Light Infantry ) regiment : Carabinier ( Grenadier ) 1 Company ----> Chasseur ( Light Infantry ) 4 Companies ----> Voltiguer ( Skirmishers ) 1 Company.

Im not sure if you completely know what you are speaking of, because anyone who has a good idea of the infantry units of this time know the is a distinct difference between light infantry and skirmishers.

[TheBoberton]

Has it occurred to you that the light infantry regiments of France were only so in name? They were almost exactly the same as the line regiments, but were capable of deploying more quickly and were considered Napoleon's finest 'normal' troops. The real light infantry of France went by a name that you put into your post yourself. The Voltigeurs were the light troops, not the Chasseurs, nor the Carabiniers. They were named 'light infantry' solely to permit the conscription of smaller men, and in order to encourage an esprit de corps within those regiments. "We're better than them, we're the light infantry, follow me!"


Now let's look at the British army, which deployed light infantry regiments itself.. all of which were made up of skirmishers.. the same with the Rifles.. both of which fought in line when necessary.. Should we then state that the British light infantry and rifles weren't skirmishers?


Light infantry/skirmishers deployed in line when necessary, and fought in open order when necessary, as their orders dictated. Fighting as light infantry and line were not mutually exclusive by any means.

[Archduke Sven]

Has it occurred to you that the light infantry regiments of France were only so in name? They were almost exactly the same as the line regiments, but were capable of deploying more quickly and were considered Napoleon's finest 'normal' troops. The real light infantry of France went by a name that you put into your post yourself. The Voltigeurs were the light troops, not the Chasseurs, nor the Carabiniers. They were named 'light infantry' solely to permit the conscription of smaller men, and in order to encourage an esprit de corps within those regiments. "We're better than them, we're the light infantry, follow me!"


Now let's look at the British army, which deployed light infantry regiments itself.. all of which were made up of skirmishers.. the same with the Rifles.. both of which fought in line when necessary.. Should we then state that the British light infantry and rifles weren't skirmishers?


Light infantry/skirmishers deployed in line when necessary, and fought in open order when necessary, as their orders dictated. Fighting as light infantry and line were not mutually exclusive by any means.

Excuse me, did you just call Chasseurs line infantry and that their sole purpose was to give short men an Esprit de Corps? Like i would usually take hours to find information to try to help someone learn about Chasseurs and their exploits and uses as Light Infantry, but you... It be like trying to make an oak tree wave its branch to me.


Also, you have been genius enough to contradict yourself, you said that the Chasseurs, light infantry were not the same as skirmishers '  The Voltigeurs were the light troops, not the Chasseurs (...) '. Thanks for proving my point, GG.

Concerning your English ' light infantry ' and rifles, they both fought in line but these ' Light ' regiments hardly ever fought as skirmishers.

French Gen. Foy writes: "Several regiments of the line, such as the [British] 43rd, the 51st, the 52nd etc., are called light infantry regiments. These corps, as well as the light companies of the battalions, have nothing light about them but the name; for they are armed and with some slight change in the decorations, clothed like the rest of the infantry. It was considered that the English soldier did not possess sufficient intelligence and address to combine with the regular duty of the line the service of inspiration of the sharpshooter."


I will be staying  ON Topic from now on, sorry for boring the rest of you.

[TheBoberton]

Unlike General Foy, I recognise that the uniform and 'intelligence' don't make the troop. They were employed and trained as light troops, and did a damn good job as them as well, given that they 'did not possess sufficient intelligence' for the job. Just because you say that your enemy's light troops aren't smart enough, or dressed properly for the job, doesn't mean that they aren't what they are. The British light infantry regiments were made up entirely of 'light companies', and were created for the sole purpose of having an administrative unit that could do the skirmishing for large portions of the army.

Politics and nationalism are a helluva thing when it comes to reports. Perhaps you'd have us rely solely upon the British accounts of Waterloo, and completely disregard the Dutch. I mean, a bunch of generals agreed that they did nothing, right?

Also, you have been genius enough to contradict yourself, you said that the Chasseurs, light infantry were not the same as skirmishers '  The Voltigeurs were the light troops, not the Chasseurs (...) '. Thanks for proving my point, GG.

Has it occurred to you that the light infantry regiments of France were only so in name?

You can continue to call Chasseurs light troops all day, but the fact remains that the 'light infantry' regiments were simply line troops with better uniforms, and were organised in exactly the same way as the line, albeit with different names involved. Don't get me wrong, I think the French light regiments are awesome, but we should not portray them as something they were not, despite their name.

[Kator Viridian]

Has it occurred to you that the light infantry regiments of France were only so in name? They were almost exactly the same as the line regiments, but were capable of deploying more quickly and were considered Napoleon's finest 'normal' troops. The real light infantry of France went by a name that you put into your post yourself. The Voltigeurs were the light troops, not the Chasseurs, nor the Carabiniers. They were named 'light infantry' solely to permit the conscription of smaller men, and in order to encourage an esprit de corps within those regiments. "We're better than them, we're the light infantry, follow me!"


Now let's look at the British army, which deployed light infantry regiments itself.. all of which were made up of skirmishers.. the same with the Rifles.. both of which fought in line when necessary.. Should we then state that the British light infantry and rifles weren't skirmishers?


Light infantry/skirmishers deployed in line when necessary, and fought in open order when necessary, as their orders dictated. Fighting as light infantry and line were not mutually exclusive by any means.

Excuse me, did you just call Chasseurs line infantry and that their sole purpose was to give short men an Esprit de Corps? Like i would usually take hours to find information to try to help someone learn about Chasseurs and their exploits and uses as Light Infantry, but you... It be like trying to make an oak tree wave its branch to me.


Also, you have been genius enough to contradict yourself, you said that the Chasseurs, light infantry were not the same as skirmishers '  The Voltigeurs were the light troops, not the Chasseurs (...) '. Thanks for proving my point, GG.

Concerning your English ' light infantry ' and rifles, they both fought in line but these ' Light ' regiments hardly ever fought as skirmishers.

French Gen. Foy writes: "Several regiments of the line, such as the [British] 43rd, the 51st, the 52nd etc., are called light infantry regiments. These corps, as well as the light companies of the battalions, have nothing light about them but the name; for they are armed and with some slight change in the decorations, clothed like the rest of the infantry. It was considered that the English soldier did not possess sufficient intelligence and address to combine with the regular duty of the line the service of inspiration of the sharpshooter."


I will be staying  ON Topic from now on, sorry for boring the rest of you.

Light detachments actually fought like skirmishers providing a screen for the rest of the battalion when deployed onto the field, the 52nd was often attachments with the 42nd and the 95th during quite a lot of fights previous to waterloo (Hence why the 42nd and 52nd later merged just before WWI and were renamed "Ox and Bucks light infantry"). The 52nd whilst fighting as line in waterloo and behaving as so would no doubt of had its own light detachment to act as skirmishers, as the 95th were elsewhere on the field.

Light infantry had a whole battalion much like the 95th but as so would have its own detachment as skirmisher forces ... also please check your source of a "French officer" and his biased.

[Archduke Sven]

You can continue to call Chasseurs light troops all day, but the fact remains that the 'light infantry' regiments were simply line troops with better uniforms, and were organised in exactly the same way as the line, albeit with different names involved. Don't get me wrong, I think the French light regiments are awesome, but we should not portray them as something they were not, despite their name.

Skirmishers and light infantry are the same thing.
Riflemen are light infantry, light infantry are skirmishers, and skirmishers can be armed with either muskets or rifles. They all received similar training, and they were all deployed in very similar manners.

...

Really? What are you trying to say here man?

Also you call French Light regiments for Line but the British ones are skirmishing super heroes. Furthermore, skirmishing is all about individual intelligence and initiative, whereas the French constantly pressured enemy skirmishers and line, most German and British regiments tended just to stand still and hold ground, just listening to orders.

I Believe a French General knows a lot more about skirmishing than you or I, so i highly suggest you stop acting like you know more and then criticizing him.

However, the fact that i used General Foy's explanation of British Light Regiments is because i generally prefer French sources as i find them to be a lot more honest. Additionally, i could use British sources too if you prefer, but i used his explanation because i thought it fit my argument very well 


Just so we can finish this off, i think we can both agree that Skirmishers are NOT the same as light infantry

[TheBoberton]

...

Really? What are you trying to say here man?

That the French light infantry regiments, designed in exactly the same fashion as the line weren't 'proper' light infantry, and the British light infantry regiments, that were designed in order to provide a skirmish

Also you call French Light regiments for Line but the British ones are skirmishing super heroes. Furthermore, skirmishing is all about individual intelligence and initiative, whereas the French constantly pressured enemy skirmishers and line, most German and British regiments tended just to stand still and hold ground, just listening to orders.

I never said the British were 'superheroes'. I said they were decent, because they were trained that way, but they weren't anything groundbreaking. The French were, as I've stated many times to anyone who's spoken to me for more than a few minutes, the greatest skirmishers of the era. However, skill doesn't change what they are. The French navy, terrible as it may have been, was still a navy.

I Believe a French General knows a lot more about skirmishing than you or I, so i highly suggest you stop acting like you know more and then criticizing him.

Perhaps about the actual act of skirmishing, yes. (Though that's doubtful, as he was an artillery officer. Somewhat like asking a ship's captain how to fly a rocket.) However, when it comes to actually looking at the classification of units from the era, we have the advantage of being able to actually look back and compare the armies of the day to each other.

However, the fact that i used General Foy's explanation of British Light Regiments is because i generally prefer French sources as i find them to be a lot more honest. Additionally, i could use British sources too if you prefer, but i used his explanation because i thought it fit my argument very well 

Please, provide a British source that says that British skirmishers weren't skirmishers. I'd love to read the words of an officer who was even more detached from reality than the average general-grade officer.

Just so we can finish this off, i think we can both agree that Skirmishers are NOT the same as light infantry

I'm afraid we can't.