I've come across this dichotomy a few times recently...the pros/cons of using mounted infantry that dismounts to fight versus "true" cavalry. It's my understanding that dragoons were used as a precursor to "unconventional forces" - raiding, skirmishing, and the like. Is this the case? And what advantage, if any, would they have over a truly mounted force? I'm looking primarily at Western Europe and possibly the US, 1700-1900 or so.
The dichotomy of Dragoon versus proper cavalry comes from the multipurpose role of the Dragoon. A Dragoon serves not as cavalry several times but more as mounted infantry, having some training as cavalry and some training as infantry. They would be armed with cavalry muskets (short versions of infantry muskets but without the extreme shortness of cavalry carbines). However they were also given straight swords like heavy cavalry like heavy cavalry so they were armed for their multipurpose role.
The best example of their multipurpose role is in the Peninuslar War during the Napoleonic Era. French Dragoo s would be the main cavalry force as they could be mounted for distance but dismount to fight partisans.
However I cannot say that I have seen Dragoons used for raiding and skirmishing as that is usually the domain of light cavalry. For context, light cavalry is often seen as a type of cavalry made of light men on light horses, mainly as Hussars or Lancers. These light cavalry forces would harass the enemy and act as scouts but often Dragoons would be attached to Light Cavalry regiments for the purpose of making the Hussars be able to stand up against other enemy cavalry.
Sources will come when I get home.
Thanks all