Hi !

This picture is from a Marble monument to György Serédy (1549) located in St Egidius Church in Bardejov, Slovakia(which was a part of kingdom of hungary in the middleages/renaisance).

http://www.hung-art.hu/kep/zmisc/faragvan/163_sz/seredy.jpg

Is the helmet worn by the man of the çiçak/sishak/Zischagge type? thanks

Not quite a fully-developed Zischagge, but an ancestor of that type. In more general terms, it's a burgonet.

The nasal bar is a feature on zischägge-styled helms. I would say that it's very much an East-meets-West quality.

[ Linked Image ]
Hussar zischägge of the early 18th century. (Polish Army Museum, Warsaw)

[ Linked Image ]
Winged helmet of hussar style, early 18th century. (Polish Army Museum, Warsaw)

West meets East, form meets function, everyone profits :)

As an aside; the nasals are supposed to slide up and down on those, correct?

M.

Hungarian weapons and armor show very much eastern influence from the beginning of the 16th century onwards. From the battle of Mohacs (1526) until the re-taking of Buda (1686) by the Holy League, Hungary was partly occupied by, and constantly fighting the ottoman empire. The knights have indeed vanished shortly after the battle of Mohacs, partly because many of the nobility have fallen there (even the king did), and partly because knightly tactics were not effective against the ottomans. Gunpowder also did its share.

The return to the (mainly) light cavalry style warfare did of course bring with itself many influences borrowed from the ottomans, as the Hungarians skipped some 500 years of development in this field.

Also a piece of trivia: the word "sisak" in Hungarian translates to "helmet" in english.

EDIT: sorry, I didn't see this

Quote:

As an aside; the nasals are supposed to slide up and down on those, correct?

Yes, they are usually held in place by a screw on the forehead, as you can see in the second pic posted by Nathan.

Hi.

Nice to see someone versed in the history of my homeland. Most of your points are valid, however some I disagree with.

Quote:

It is not true that the whole of hungarian nobility fell at Mohacs , otherwise there would be no Royal Hungary afterwards!

I didn't say the whole, I said many of them. In fact, Royal Hungary almost ceased to exist shortly after the battle of Mohacs. Cca. half the country was gradually occupied by the ottoman empire, The western part of the remaining half fell under Habsburg rule (this part was the continuation of Royal Hungary), the eastern part became the Transylvanyan Principality.

Quote:

Next , I find the "uselessnes" of western knights agains ottoman cavalry as not really true.

How else do you explain then, that all through the middle ages, every 200 or so years some light cavalry based army came and ransacked Europe? The Huns (~700's), the Hungarians (900's), the Tatars (1200's) and the Ottomans (1500's). Sure, a knightly army can be used against them to good effect, but only with a decent tactical advantage to start with. Very good at defending fortresses, not so good out on the field. The eastern type army has to have restricted movement. Hunyadi's win at Beograd is a great example. They won on boats on the Danube, they repelled an attack on the walls, then they sandwiched the ottomans between the Danube, Hunyadi's men and a nearby crusading army.

To be back on topic, the skipped 500 years of evolution I meant of light cavalry armor specifically. The Pescheneg's and the Cumins were the same type of unarmoured cavalry as the Hungarians when they came to Europe. The Hungarian sabre that was in use in the 16-17th cent. for example can be traced all the way back to our nomad ancestors (they pretty much just prolonged the crossguard), but almost all the armor is of western or Ottoman origin.