med. sieges

[VAE VICTUS]

medieval sieges, were they long and drawn out? im reading Cassells history of warfare, and they make it seem that the main weapon of sieges at that time(i guess early period, not sure) was starvation.

and how could knights get their horses to charge into a wall of spears?did they put blinders on them or what? it would seem that a horse wouldnt be too eager to kill itself. also, would knights have done that? i mean horses are expensive...

was light cavalry bunched with the infantry, or did they support the knights?

[Peasant Phill]

I can answer the charge question.

Normally a horse is unwilling to charge a solid object (a spearwall appears solid to a horse), a war horse, however, can be trained to ignore its instinct and trust it rider.
It is trained by letting it charge a wooden plate or something similar which is flattened a moment before the horse would hit it. Because of the positioning of the eyes, the horse can't see directly in front of it and thus 'believes' it ran through the wooden structure. After enough training the horse trusts its rider and will charge at something that appears solid to the horse if the rider wants it.

[conon394]

Peasant Phill

Maybe, but as an operative military tactic/cavalry training method I can't say that I've ever heard of such a strategy being used. In general if spear/pike/bayonet infantry won't break, buckle or run, a cavalry charge is simply going to fail.

[Hurin_Rules]

I'd recommend Randall Rogers' book, Latin Siege Warfare in the Twelfth Century (Bradbury's The Medieval Siege is to simplistic, IMHO).

Also, if you want to read some real accounts of medieval sieges, the De re militari website has hundreds of english translations of medieval accounts of battles and sieges:

http://www.deremilitari.org/

(Click on the 'primary sources' section for medieval texts in translation, and the 'books and articles' for modern historians' writings. In the latter, I'm sure you'll probably find your answer).

IMHO, medieval sieges tended to be brief. Few commanders had the resources to maintian large armies in the field for more than a few months (the term of service of medieval vassals was usually only 40-60 days, and while mercenaries could be hired, they were expensive). If you read the histories of Orderic Vitalis or other contemporary chronicles, the vast majority of sieges were only a month or two long. Exceptions would include the siege of Antioch during the first crusade (about a year long, 1097-8) and the emperor Henry IV's siege of Mantua (11 months) in 1090-1.

Walls were very difficult to reduce, although the introduction of the counterweight trebuchet allowed some commanders to break them down more easily (if you had the money, wood and expertise to make them).

[matteus the inbred]

Light cavalry depends on whose army we're talking about. Certain types of light/medium cavalry were there to support knights, not just on the battlefield but as servants later. Squires, valets, coustilliers etc. often formed (certainly in later Burgundian armies) a reserve behind the knights, and could fight in support or provide fresh horses.
Other kinds included scouts, foragers, reivers, hobilars and the like, who would probably not be placed in the battle line at all as they were not really equipped for it; if used they would take part in the pursuit, but their main job was to harass and scout. Exceptions include Edward IV's use of 200 mounted spears at Tewkesbury in 1471. A more typical use would be the French party who raided Henry V's baggage during the battle of Agincourt, who sallied from the local castle and may have been mounted. Some medieval armies mounted their infantry as a temporary measure; English 100YW armies sometimes used nags to get their archers around quickly when on a chevauchee (large scale raid) and Harold Godwinsson also used Huscarles on horseback on at least one occasion. Mounted crossbows were used throughout Europe.
I can't think of any situations where light cavalry was deliberately used or deployed with infantry though, as to tie them down to an infantry formation would rob them of their greatest tactical advantage of mobility.
Except possibly in Eastern European and Asiatic armies, which often used lots of light cavalry but not much/no infantry. We have loads of 'Mongol and similar' experts in the Org and hopefully one of them will answer this much better than I could.

Any of this seems a bit vague, I'm going to check a few books this evening and try and find a bit more info!

[Aenlic]

By the late 13th and early 14th century, however, sieges became much shorter due to those very same counter-weight trebuchets and other advanced siege engines. It wasn't unusual for fortified towns and castles to surrender within just a few days if no outside help arrived to break the siege. In some instances, towns surrendered at the mere mention of siege engines.

This was because the newer siege engines made sieges much more destructive. Edward I used his massive siege engines to great effect in Scotland. The aptly named Warwolf trebuchet brought several Scottish castles to surrender which were previously considered impregnable, such as Caerlaverock and Urquhart and Stirling. Even though the basic design was invented by the Chinese 1000 years earlier, the trebuchet came into its own in the high middle ages. Just a few 200-300 lb. stones hurled into your walls from beyond archer range was enough to bring most castles and fortified towns to surrender. The big limiting factor, of course, was having the skilled engineers to build it and a supply of local wood sufficient for the task. Castles and fortified towns in areas without a large supply of timber, like deserts, were much safer... until the advent of cannon, anyway.

[Oaty]

Dismount! It all depended on the resistance they faced. The stronger the force the harder it is to assault but the quicker they can be starved. But most of the time the reason they were in the fortification was that there forces were insufficient. forcing either a costly assault if not well planned or starvation.

[matteus the inbred]

Here we go, some examples of light cavalry directly supporting foot;

German medieval armies often deployed mounted crossbows (and later, mounted handgunners) in direct support of pikes, something which I've done in MTW games as well. These in turn were supported by light lancers, protecting both the handgunners/crossbows and the flank of the pikemen.

It's quite likely that Italian condottieri armies of the 14th/15th centuries also did stuff like this.

Arsuf 1191; since the knightly formations including rear supporting turcopoles and other light cavalry, you could argue that they were deployed in support of the infantry too. Howver, in reality, it was the infantry supporting and protecting the cavalry until they could charge.

Byzantines; throughout the 'theme' period and prior to Manzikert in 1071 cavalry and infantry (mainly infantry archers) could co-operate closely in support of one another.

Not much to go on though, it just wasn't common, and frankly not many Western European medieval armies had a lot of light cavalry that actually fought in the battleline.