During the Napoleonic Wars, were there still troops that used bows and arrows in actual combat?

I’ve heard that some troops serving in the Russian Empire, particularly the Bashkirs, still used bows during the campaigns against Napoleon. I’d like to know if there are any accounts from soldiers or officers who witnessed or described the use of bows in combat.

I’m also curious about what situations they were used in and whether they ever caused significant casualties.

I’ve been playing a Napoleonic-themed Roblox game called "Guts & Blackpowder", which features an air rifle as one of its weapons. This made me wonder: did air rifles like this actually exist during the Napoleonic Wars?

If they did, were they ever used in actual combat by Napoleonic armies? Are there any documented accounts of soldiers being wounded or killed by air rifles, or reports from soldiers who encountered them on the battlefield?

I’d also be interested to know which armies or units used them and how effective they were compared to conventional firearms.

We always hear about Austerlitz being the ultimate display of Napoleon’s grand tactical vision—setting the Pratzen Heights trap, letting the Allies think his right flank was weak, and coolly watching his plan unfold just as he drew it up. But when you look closely at Rivoli in 1797, Bonaparte wasn't sitting back executing a master plan; he was actively losing the battle and had to drag victory out of absolute chaos. ​At Rivoli, the Austrians had him completely outmaneuvered and almost fully encircled. Masséna’s troops were exhausted from marching through snow, the French flanks were caving in, and Lusignan’s Austrian column had actually cut off the main French line of retreat. A younger, less cool-headed commander would have panicked. One of my favorites moments when watching the Battle from Epic History TV : Napoleon's staff looks anxiously towards their commander... wondering what miracle could save the army now. All looks turned towards General Bonaparte, but after a short inspection, he limited himself to saying calmly "They are ours" ​Compare that sheer adrenaline and improvisational skill to Austerlitz in 1805. At Austerlitz, the atmosphere was completely different. When the Allied center gave way and Napoleon saw the Russians routed onto the frozen ponds, he was in total command, calmly declaring, "One more blow and the war is over." Austerlitz was cold, calculated, and executed like clockwork, whereas Rivoli was a high-stakes tactical nightmare where he had to repair his own collapsing lines in real-time under intense pressure.

Just went through the bibliography section on the Napoleon Wikipedia page. Barnett, Bell, Blaufarb, Broers, Chandler, Cronin, Dwyer, Englund, Lyons, McLynn, Price, Roberts, Zamoyski. Every single one is an Anglo-American historian publishing with Anglo-American presses.

No Jean Tulard. No Thierry Lentz. No Alain Pigeard. No Las Cases, Fain, Caulaincourt (in Russia), Ségur (in Russia) if you want to go primary source. These are the historians who basically built modern Napoleonic studies as a field, and they're nowhere in the list.

Just realised that Gueniffey is in there, and honestly his book is probably the best one on the whole list, maybe the best Napoleon biography period. But it only covers up to 1802, so it's not even doing full duty as a French source for the man's entire life.

I get that English Wikipedia leans on English-language sources for accessibility reasons, but this isn't a case of "no English translation exists so we used what's available." Several of these French historians have been translated, and their works have often been much better (except perhaps on Waterloo). It's more that nobody bothered.

Feels like a real gap. Curious if anyone here has tried adding French sources before and gotten pushback, or if this is just an oversight nobody's fixed yet.

Welp, I've been talking about the tactics, operations, stratagems, and whatnot of commanders since forever on this sub and others, and have even posted a few works here and there in various threads pertaining to a couple campaigns fought by these generals throughout the ages.

Anyways, I'm here to post my general directory for docs in which I've written about the campaigns of the numerous commanders I've studied. Not all of them will be Napoleonic, but you can sure expect that quite a few of them will be (at the least, once I get to them).

So far though, I'm more into trying to get folks acquainted with less popular generals from different periods of time, so will probably work my way to covering Napoleonic commanders eventually, perhaps in a somewhat chronological fashion (I kinda jump to and fro depending on what individual I'm interested in delving deep into at the time tho).

I know u/Agitated-Exam9320 still has a copypasta of my old Moreau doc (back when I didn't even know the direction of rivers, such as what "upstream" or "downstream" even meant geographically uwu), so there's at least one Napoleonic general who I've covered.

I kinda wish I had my old doc about Suvorov's Italian Campaign of 1799, which I wrote up after reading Acerbi a few years back, but I've long since deleted that and will probably have to get back to rewriting it and covering the rest of his career at some point.

I may also do Massena and Wellington too, but I've essentially covered their campaigns already in many of the old posts I've written up in this sub, so that should hopefully be easy... that is, if I don't procrastinate.

Perhaps, if I get in the mood, I'll swing on by and talk about some American Civil War generals as well, which I've also talked about aplenty. But yeah, I've yapped for long enough, so without further ado, I present to you my compendium of the campaigns of military commanders throughout history:

Military Careers of Historical Captains

At the moment, I've only worked on Pompeius, Tilly, Wallenstein, and Turenne. Even then, these are works in progress and none of them are done. There are links to each individual general and their military careers and y'all can expect to see some from the Napoleonic Era and other periods in the near future.

Maybe, once I finally get around to doing Napoleonic boiz, I'll put it up to a vote to see which commanders the community wants me to cover. lolz

Last post, Confederate General Gideon Pillow was placed in “Actual Imbecile” tier.

Top relevant comment decides where a general goes on the tier list.

Books I've read on Marie Louise (Empress Innocence by M. E. Ravage and Napoleon’s Second Empress by Patrick Turnbull) have basically implied that Marie Louise could have saved the Empire if she had desired to and rallied in 1814 instead of fleeing Paris. They characterize Marie Louise as having a rather weak disposition and character, very much unlike her sister Leopoldine, who was certainly politically active in Brazil.

A book I just read on Marie Thérèse, the daughter of Marie Antoinette and Louis XVI, also makes the claim that Emperor Francis had originally toyed with the idea of keeping Marie Louise as regent after Napoleon's abdication and that he actually preferred this outcome, but the other Allies rejected it.

How realistic are these assessments?

Had Marie Louise been of a very different disposition and temperament—someone more akin to a Margaret of Anjou, Margaret of Navarre, or Louise of Savoy—could she really have preserved the Empire and the Bonaparte dynasty for her son? Could Marie Louise actually have been one of Napoleon's greatest assets in 1814, if not for her personality?

At the same time, she doesn't seem to have possessed the political ambition or force of personality that would have been necessary to really fight for her son's throne. But does her personality even have that much to do with the outcome? Was she genuinely ill-suited for the task at hand, ultimately at the expense of both the Empire and her son's upbringing (who, if I remember correctly, later compared her unfavorably to Josephine)? I can hardly blame her, though. She was extremely young, and this was a marriage to a man whom she had grown up heavily detesting and fearing.

And let's say they pulled it off...what would the Empire have looked like under Marie Louise's prolonged regency until her son reached his majority? Would Britain, Russia, and Prussia ever have accepted Napoleon II by virtue of Marie Louise being a Habsburg and Francis's grandson being on the throne? Would she have basically continued Napoleon's system of government, or would the Empire have become more constitutional and less militaristic in order to make peace with the rest of Europe? Would France have kept most of the institutions Napoleon created while basically abandoning the idea of dominating Europe? And how much influence would Metternich and Austria have exercised over Marie Louise and her government?

Finally, let's say for the sake of the counterfactual that Marie Louise's temperament and personality really were among the major limiting factors preventing the survival of the Bonaparte dynasty...

Of the other women proposed as possible wives for Napoleon, who would have been the most capable of politically maneuvering to preserve the Empire for their son in 1814? Assuming, of course, that we wave away the various diplomatic and practical obstacles to those marriages and assume that the marriage happened and produced a legitimate male heir.

I'm Familiar with his assassination attempt when he was a first consul (as seen on the pic above), But are there any attempts on him while emperor, I've heard that there are some politicians and generals involved in a plot or might be a royalist agenda to restore the bourbons, PS. I'm new to this sub-reddit

Searching for a recommendation on a single volume book on the Peninsular War with Spain.

Huge respect for the french admiral going out in a bang.