Gladiator-Braveheart Force substitution page

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

As many of you know, the Starwars vs. Startrek debate is pretty much finished. All but the most irrational Trek fans admit that the ST universe would be crushed by the SW universe. Unfortunately for us this leaves us with little to discuss in terms of versus combat between the two sides. What I hope to do is revitalize the excitement of the versus battles by writing some force substitutions for both historical and fictional battles. I’m doing this not only because its fun, but also because I’m sick of reading pages of nitpicking for the remaining Vs. threads in the forums. (An example being the “true” meaning of 10 seconds of dialogue and 10 seconds of SFX in regard to the Vorlon Planet Killer).

The other night I was watching Braveheart and after watching the battle scenes I couldn't help but to compare them to the battle scene at the beginning of Gladiator (which I saw a few nights before that). This, of course, got me thinking as to who would win if the various armies faced each other in open combat. After some consideration I decided to use the Battle of Stirling for the force substitution.

Thinking over the best possible method of presenting the battles I decided to use the same excellent format Mike did for his force substitutions in the many ST vs SW battles he wrote up, which can be found here http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/index.html . (Give credit where credit is due) However, due to the nature of the combatants (historical and pre-industrial) only some of the rules are applicable verbatim, others must be modified, and one rule must be added. The Rules are:

1. Equal intel: both sides have as much data as their enemies' would have. Meaning that if we substituted a Roman Legion for the Scots, they would know as much of Medieval English tactics and "technology" as the rebelling Scots would. The same idea would apply in any other sort of substitution.

2. Neither side can use lost technology, or technology that was not readily available to them (no Chinese gun powder for example).

3. Neither side can use the other sides technology........ to an extent. I’ll allow simple things, but no "advanced" items such as Medieval stirrups for Roman cavalry.

4. Both sides technology works.......... really hard to find a problem with this one. Stabbing, slicing, crushing, impaling, and burning are all very well established and reliable methods of killing human beings.

5. The "visiting team" has resources which are appropriate to the battle and their capabilities. For example, if we substitute a Roman Force of 10,000 men for a Scottish force of 10,000 men then the Romans will have all the equipment, supplies, and weapons such a Roman force would have even if the Scots did not have the equivalent available to them at the original battle.

6. Since this is a Braveheart vs. Gladiator force substitution we will be treating what we see in the films as Cannon and history itself as the “expanded universe”. (As odd as it may sound) If what we see on screen directly contradicts what we know about a battle historically, we’ll use the information we have on screen. The factor most influenced by this decision will be the number of combatants. For the number of combatants, I’m going to use the historical figures, simply because I’m not inclined to count all the extras involved in these scenes. If no solid figures are available or easily findable I’ll use my “best guess” using the proportions we see on screen as a base. I’ll let you know when I’m guessing by typing BG after my best guesses.

Mike's description of the visiting team is also usable with some slight modifications.

1. The "visiting team" is in an idealized condition, ie- at the height of its strength, without having to worry about enemies in its own territory. The English don't need to worry about the French Kings, and the Romans don't need to worry about um…… other Romans.

2. The teams don't get to use any characters with "special powers". I'll allow the teams to keep their leaders if they would have been present for that battle. (Scots get keep William Wallace for Falkirk, Romans get Maximus for Germany, etc.) However, I don't want this to devolve into a situation where the leaders turn into Super Warriors or "Thrawns" (for lack of a better term) who can single handedly turn the course of a battle with their martial prowess and/or divine strategic ability.

On a side note, I think these rules are good ones, and that if anyone else wishes to do this type of analysis with other historical forces they are free to use these rules as long as they give credit to Mike for his original rules and credit to me for the modifications.

Battles of Braveheart

Battle of Stirling (Bridge)

English Objective: Eliminate the Scottish threat, either through negotiation or military confrontation.

English Assets

50,000 Infantry
1,000 Heavy Cavalry* (BG)
500 Bowmen (BG)
1 Cocky English Commander (in both canon and real history)

Scottish Assets

10,000 Infantry
300 Horsemen* (BG)
1 William Wallace

This battle was inaccurately depicted in the movie Braveheart.

(As depicted in the film the English Heavy Cavalry are equipped with long lances while the Scottish Horsemen use slashing swords.)

Real History

In actual history the Battle of Stirling was fought on a narrow bridge. An English force numbering 50,000 infantry, with cavalry support was defeated by a much smaller Scottish force of 10,000 men. As usual, stupidity played an enormous role in determining the outcome of a battle. The English tried to force the their way across the narrow bridge, which bridged the two banks of the Forth River, and they ended up be slaughtered as they crossed into a natural chokepoint. Eventually, their army was routed. The sad part of this whole affair was the English knew their was a natural ford a few hundred feet upstream where 60 men could cross shoulder to shoulder at the same time.

“Canon” History

*A Scottish rebellion was provoked by the unjust murder of the wife of William Wallace.

*Scottish Nobles managed to lead a rag tag army to face the professional English army. Their purpose was to negotiate for more land to add to their hereditary estates.

*The Scottish commoners were cowed by the very sight of the English army and saw no point in dying for the Nobles. Indeed, the Scottish army was on the verge disintegrating when William Wallace arrived and rallied the commoners by appealing to their freedom.

*Upon seeing that their army would not desert them the Scottish Nobles attempted to negotiate terms, but were foiled by Wallace who provoked a battle with English by demanding unreasonable terms, including that the English Commander should stick his head between his legs and kiss his own arse.

*The Battle of Stirling itself was fought on a flat plain. The battle begins with the Scots giving the English a stern anal taunting. The English respond with a salvo of arrows, after which the Scots throw another anal taunting at the English. The English respond with another salvo of arrows followed by a Heavy Cavalry charge.

*The English Cavalry seemed to have an enormous advantage over the Scottish infantry whose horsemen seemed to have deserted them.

*The English Cavalry charged the Scottish infantry line, but are caught completely off guard and are eliminated when the Scots raise a wall of long wooden pikes at the last possible moment of the charge.

*The Scottish infantry then charged the English infantry and engaged them in battle. Meanwhile the Scottish horsemen, who seemingly retreated from battle, attack the English in the rear, killing their archers and trapping the English force.

*Caught between the two Scottish forces the English army is completely annihilated.



Could the Romans have defeated the Scots?

*First of all it should be noted that this sort of battle would probably never have happened if the Romans were in charge of England. The Romans had a judicial system separate from their military commanders and did not have noblemen with the “Right” of Prima Noctas, these two factor alone would probably have prevented the Wallace rebellion from ever occurring. If the Scots did rebel, the Romans probably could have contained the Scots in Scotland by using Hadrian’s wall as a check to any invasion. A pitched battle would only have occurred if Scots managed to get through Hadrian’s wall.

*Assuming that the Scots did rebel and face the Romans in a pitched battle we must state what forces the Romans would have for the battle. Since we’re looking at the Romans at the height of their power they would have had 3 legions in Britain. Two of these legions were in Southern Britain and the third Legion was stationed in York.

* I’m going to assume that the Romans will have enough time to gather 2 legions for the battle and that the battle will occur on the same ground we see used for the Battle of Stirling. This means that the Romans would have approximately

12,000 Heavy Infantry
240 cavalry (equipped with the swords seen in Gladiator, instead of the Lances the English had)
100 artillery pieces (of the types seen in Gladiator)
1000 archers (BG-)

*It is likely that William Wallace would have ruined any chance of negotiation by provoking a fight with the Romans in the same fashion he did with the English. However, after the initial anal taunting the battle would have likely take a completely different form.

*The Romans respond to the Scots by opening fire with archers and artillery. Unlike the English, the Romans do not stop firing after the first salvo but rather keep the Scottish infantry under constant fire while their Heavy Infantry advance.

*Upon seeing the Roman missile attack the Scots kneel and raise their shields at a 45 degree angle to block the Roman arrows. Unfortunately for them their small shields are not up to the task of blocking the continuous Roman arrow fire. At this point they are taking heavy casualties from the arrows, ballistae and Greek Fire the Romans are throwing at them. After a full minute of bombardment Wallace realizes that the only hope the Scots have for winning, at this point, is to charge the Roman line.

*Meanwhile, the Roman and Scottish Cavalry have engaged. Both forces were sent to attack the opposing forces in the rear but have instead run into each other. The engagement seems even at first but eventually the Scottish Nobles manage to route the Roman Cavalry simply due to their numerical advantage.

*Back on the main battlefield the Scots are rapidly closing the distance between them and the Roman Heavy Infantry. The Scots are still losing people from the archer and artillery fire but not nearly at the same rate that they would have had they held their ground. Even after the brutal bombardment the Roman archers and artillery gave them a full 6500 angry Scottish Highlanders manage to meet the Roman Heavy Infantry in open combat. However, in this case fortune favors the Romans. The large Roman shields and tight Roman formation are perfect for blocking the slashing attacks of the Scots, while their short stabbing Gladius, is the perfect weapon for exploiting the openings that such slashing attacks present. Combined with the fact that the Roman’s outnumber the Scots almost two to one means that the Scottish highlanders are defeated quite rapidly.

*The Scottish Cavalry ride into the rear of the Rome line just in time to witness their army at the end of its slaughter. Wisely, the noblemen either surrender or retreat rather then face the whole of the Roman army in a hopeless showdown.

Romans win vs. the Scots

I’m posting this portion of the force substitution before doing the rest because I want to see what feed-back this gets, specifically I want to see how popular this is going to be and how much people enjoy it. If I think the demand is there I’ll write up the English vs. the Romans. If not I’ll just play the scenario out in my mind and save myself the trouble of typing. Anyway, please feel free to comment.