I have two sides in a conflict, one utilizing a larger, highly trained, military of soldiers and archers. This side is invading (crossing a large body of water, with appropriate logistical hurdles implied) another side which is utilizing an equivlent of muskets but currently has a much smaller standing army.
I want to ensure the musket side is at a disadvantage in the early conflict, but I want the battle to be close. To do this I need to get a better idea of how close muskets are to bow & arrows, in particular, to get an idea of how much I need to skew numeric superiority either way to give the correct level of advantage between the two sides.
So, for example, imagine a fight with 1000 soldiers on both sides. One side is wielding early muskets, about the strength of muskets Europe had when setting up colonies on the New World. The other side has well crafted bow and arrows. Both sides are experienced and well trained with good leadership. Both sides are wearing little if any armor. Which side has the advantage? How significant is this advantage? Finally, how drastically does this change if I the archers are switch with combined arms with both archers and swordsmen (no cavalry) attacking the musketeers?
At first glance one may say muskets, but I'm not certain. My understanding is that early muskets main advantage was logistical, you could train up rank amateurs to competence in a fraction the time it took to develop a good bowman; and it was logistically easier to provide arms for rifles. I'm not certain that in combat muskets were actually superior weapons if logistics and training were not a factor.
I'm looking for historic information: I want this to be as factually accurate as possible. Ideally I'd like answers only from those with actual knowledge about the weapons on historic battles to back their answer with.