Stirling Bridge

[makkyo]

Playing the battle of Stirling Bridge is fun, but I'd like to know how other players have won this battle as well.

[The_Emperor]

I have won this battle in two ways... One more costly than the other.

The first meathod was to defeat the English in a pitched battle up the very top of the hill, it was very difficult to pull off but I did manage to force an English rout, and I did lose a lot of men.

The other meathod (and the one that Wallace used historically) is to run your troops so they are near the bridge on either side... The key is to give them an opening to come into and let them come across. Then when enough of the enemy troops have come over, you close the opening shut on all sides like a clenched fist. Trapping them on your side of the bridge with their own troops clogged up behind trying to come over, and trailing back to the other side of the bridge.

Then you get your archers and crossbows to shoot the enemy on the bridge who are trapped helplessly. But be careful to target troops further back as they may shoot your guys in the back.

Soon enough a rout will begin, do not pursue, instead pull back your men and assume the previous formation. The enemy general will rally his men and charge again, and chances are he will come across himself Killing him will pretty much force another chain rout and you should then be able to storm over the bridge and drive the English from the field.

Using the first technique I lost close to 400 men, and using the latter I was able to win by losing 200 (and 100 of that was friendly fire by my overly-eager archers)... Enemy casualties were always numbering over a thousand http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/ht_charge.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/ht_knight.gif

[FoundationII]

The enemy has more cav, so I got my cav on the top of the hill (if my infantry breaks I have a good chance to pin the enemy down long enough with a downhill charge to rally my troops) and my inf in the forest, their cavalry carged my spears in the forest and routed shortly after, meanwhile his infantry arrived and I got my clansmen to charge them downhill.
I got my cavalry downhill, routed some units who were foolish enough to battle near the forests and hit the enemy in the rear.
Good bye English

[kawligia]

I put the pikemen right in front of the bridge in loose formation. I put all other units near it witht the archers on the banks. If spear units or swordsmen came through first, I sent the Clansmen through the loose formation pikemen onto the bridge, if cavalry came through I would send in spearmen or close the pikemen formation. I think I lost about 200-250.

[The_Emperor]

Oh for those of you who are interested, the link below has a replay of my battle using the second technique

Enjoy

Stirling bridge Battle Replay (http://www.ralphwolf.clara.net/stirling.zip)

It is using VI 2.01

[ichi]

I go to the top of the hill, but not in the woods. I place my spears right on the edge of the woods, to reduce the cav charge and break up their formations, slow em down.

The spears lose some formation bonus being in the trees, but when they are above the cav and right on the edge of the trees they slaughter the cav.

Due to being outnumbered the secret is to use no more than one unit of yours on one unit of theirs, to reduce the chance of getting flanked.

ichi

[The_Emperor]

Ok guys I just fixed the link, it had an extra w in the www http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-embarassed.gif

[Brutal DLX]

Since I wasn't familiar with the actual battle, I discarded the possible move towards the bridge as being too risky. After all, the enemy could send cavalry to mow down your men as they approach the bridge, scattered as they are, initially. (Of course the AI is by and large too stupid to do that but I like to think it being able to do that..)
I just set up on the slopes as described by others and didn't allow them to make a coherent massive attack by using my knights and clanners to ambush the flanks and then retreat before their knights could react.
Once the mass rout happened I pursued them all out and they never had a chance to rally after their general was killed in the process.

[The_Emperor]

Well historically the actual Stirling Bridge was only wide enough to get two mounted horsemen across at any one time, so when Wallace set up on the other side he allowed the English to start crossing over. (and the English over-confident with their superior numbers and troop quality happily came over the bridge)

Falling in on the flanks he decimated the English but with so many English troops pushing up from behind there was no retreat for their forces, and the rest of the English army was forced to watch the massacre unfold with nothing they could do to stop it...

Thats pretty much what happened historically, and the battlefield is roughly where the Rugby Pitch is today.

[Brutal DLX]

So the Scots were all on one side, then?

I suppose the commander of the English was up front or else he could have at least stopped the influx of troops from the bridge and retreated to his side with part of his forces to salvage a draw...
Indeed, to give battle at such a narrow bridge appears to indicate foolishness and/or arrogance.

[The_Emperor]

Quote[/b] (Brutal DLX @ Jan. 20 2004,12:00)]So the Scots were all on one side, then?

I suppose the commander of the English was up front or else he could have at least stopped the influx of troops from the bridge and retreated to his side with part of his forces to salvage a draw...
Indeed, to give battle at such a narrow bridge appears to indicate foolishness and/or arrogance.
According to what I have read, the Earl of Surrey (John de Warenne) was near the back of his army when the carnage happened and Wallace descended on half of his army on the other side of the bridge.

Hugh de Cressingham, Edward’s hated tax collector, was the one who had crossed first leading the charge, and was killed (aparrantly he was the impetuous one who ordered the army to cross in force)

Warenne, who had wisely stayed put, had the bridge destroyed to prevent pursuit and fled to Berwick.

[Brutal DLX]

Ah, I see. So not a really decisive victory then since the better commander escaped and I would assume he could raise some new troops.

[The_Emperor]

Quote[/b] (Brutal DLX @ Jan. 21 2004,10:01)]Ah, I see. So not a really decisive victory then since the better commander escaped and I would assume he could raise some new troops.
You assume correctly, and in less than a year Wallace's army would be defeated at Falkirk. However that time King Edward I was personally in command.

The impact of the victory at Stirling was big, because it was the first battle in Europe where feudal knights were defeated by mere peasantry with spears. (Edward I had most of the Scottish nobles imprisoned at the time, so there were practically no Scottish knights present at the battle).

Medieval Warfare would never be the same afterward.

[Brutal DLX]

It would be interesting to find out whether that battle at Falkirk was actually winnable for the Scots, per se and also if we assume Scottish mounted nobility being present. I'm sure there have been studies on that. Perhaps I'll do a web search...

[The_Emperor]

Quote[/b] (Brutal DLX @ Jan. 21 2004,11:47)]It would be interesting to find out whether that battle at Falkirk was actually winnable for the Scots, per se and also if we assume Scottish mounted nobility being present. I'm sure there have been studies on that. Perhaps I'll do a web search...
Yes its also a shame that Falkirk is not present as a playable historical battle... Hmm, might be a good one to make.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

Quote[/b] (The_Emperor @ Jan. 21 2004,14:15)]
Quote[/b] (Brutal DLX @ Jan. 21 2004,11:47)]It would be interesting to find out whether that battle at Falkirk was actually winnable for the Scots, per se and also if we assume Scottish mounted nobility being present. I'm sure there have been studies on that. Perhaps I'll do a web search...
Yes its also a shame that Falkirk is not present as a playable historical battle... Hmm, might be a good one to make.
What actually happened at Falkirk, then?

[The_Emperor]

Quote[/b] (Big King Sanctaphrax @ Jan. 21 2004,16:24)]What actually happened at Falkirk, then?
From what I know, the English army was divided into three parts.

the front section was commanded by the Earls of Hereford and Norfolk, the central section by Bishop Anthony Bek and the rear by King Edward himself.

The battle opened with a charge by the English knights into Wallace's spearmen. The Scottish cavalry under John (the Red) Comyn, simply turned and rode away from the battlefield without striking a blow. This act is thought to have come about because Wallace was not high born, and couldn't be credited with leading the army in the name of Scotland.

The Scottish Cavalry was charged with protecting the Archers between the formations of spearmen, and those archers were decimated, however Wallace's spearmen did manage to hold their lines.

Edward then advanced with the third section of the English army and using his Welsh and Lancastrian archers decimated the tight ranks of spearmen opening gaps in their formation, the English Knights were able to charge those gaps and the formations collapsed.

Wallace and a small band of followers escaped through Callander Wood, but behind them lay almost the entire Scottish infantry dead or wounded on the field of battle.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

Quote[/b] (The_Emperor @ Jan. 21 2004,18:52)]
Quote[/b] (Big King Sanctaphrax @ Jan. 21 2004,16:24)]What actually happened at Falkirk, then?
From what I know, the English army was divided into three parts.

the front section was commanded by the Earls of Hereford and Norfolk, the central section by Bishop Anthony Bek and the rear by King Edward himself.

The battle opened with a charge by the English knights into Wallace's spearmen. The Scottish cavalry under John (the Red) Comyn, simply turned and rode away from the battlefield without striking a blow. This act is thought to have come about because Wallace was not high born, and couldn't be credited with leading the army in the name of Scotland.

The Scottish Cavalry was charged with protecting the Archers between the formations of spearmen, and those archers were decimated, however Wallace's spearmen did manage to hold their lines.

Edward then advanced with the third section of the English army and using his Welsh and Lancastrian archers decimated the tight ranks of spearmen opening gaps in their formation, the English Knights were able to charge those gaps and the formations collapsed.

Wallace and a small band of followers escaped through Callander Wood, but behind them lay almost the entire Scottish infantry dead or wounded on the field of battle.
Nasty... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-help.gif

[Martok]

The one time I fought Stirling Bridge, I just plain lucked out. I will start by admitting that I'm only a fair battlefield commander--I'm no Patton or Rommel

I had my spearmen and pikemen in a "V" formation at the my end of the bridge (so as to ambush the English once sufficient numbers of them had crossed), with my archers and crossbowmen lined up on either side. I had my clansmen divided into 2 groups a little ways up the hill, with Wallace and his knights sitting amongst them, ready to charge when I needed him.

Well long story short, I didn't use my troops very effectively. I hadn't allowed enough room on my end of the bridge to make my trap truly worthwhile, and was able to slaughter only a few of the Earl's men. Soon enough, he began overwhelming me with sheer numbers.

Basically, what happened next is that I just pretty much threw my clansmen onto the bridge in a desparate attempt to reach the Earl and kill him. They made some headway, but soon stalled on the English end of the bridge just short of the enemy general.

At that point, Wallace charged in and launched himself at Warren. Now I don't know if it was because Wallace's knights were fresh to the battle and the Earl's unit was getting pretty tired by this point, but suddenly William hacked off John's head; and what had been a desparate battle for surival for the Scots, suddenly turned into a complete route of Longshank's army. They ran off the field and never looked back :D

One footnote to all this: While I'm thrilled I won the battle (even if I really can't claim credit ), I do have say one thing. More than any other battle that I've fought, this one convinced me beyond a doubt that a general's death/capture has way too much effect on an army's morale in Medieval. More often than not, it seems to be the single most pivotal moment in any battle. A minor complaint only, but one I have to voice.

[Brutal DLX]

Yes, it is pivotal, it gives a -8 morale malus to the troops, IIRC. That's why players try to raise the valour of their troops in any way possible, especially in MP.
A high valour army will not run but fight on. There are also some units that are immune to the general's death.
So, to be successful, one needs to know how and what troops to employ, and when to throw one's general into the fray.