A lecture by Dr. László Töll, PhD: Heavy Cavalry on the Mohács Battlefield
My main field of expertise is the history of the development of medieval armor. In a way, this is a special area, as there are not too many armor historians even among arms historians, due to the relatively limited research opportunities. On the other hand, it is a topic of interest to a narrow circle.
I placed these pictures side by side for a reason. On the left, you can see an image of an Ottoman Turkish heavy cavalryman, and on the right, a corresponding European heavy cavalryman from the period. And as we can see, they do not really differ from each other. And if we look at their overall mass, their actual armament, it is also practically identical.
As it is, generally, we European historians, and the European archaeological society in its thinking as well, frame the conflict between the two worlds’ military forces as a duel between light cavalry and heavy cavalry that lasted well into the 1600s.
And thus, the question can be raised: Is this true, and if so, in what form? And very often we portray it as if the Turks, the opponent standing against us—who absolutely defined our history, our thinking, and our consciousness—did not even possess heavy cavalry. Well, this is simply not true. In fact, they also had heavy infantry, but the application of this type of weapon—or rather, this type of troops according to modern terminology—was very different.
Whether modern military terminology can be applied to these eras is not advisable. Primarily, historians with a military background tend to force modern military terminology onto older contexts, trying to match and understand the period’s way of thinking through it. In this form, this approach most often does not hold up. There are certain medieval armies that can be described to some extent using modern military terminology. For example, the Mongols belonged to this category, and partially even the Ottoman Turks, or among ancient civilizations, for instance, the Assyrians. But these terms must be handled very cautiously, including the categories of troops, and what it really means to be “heavily equipped.”
According to my concepts, we can call those heavily armed, whether cavalry or infantry, who are covered from head to toe in iron. And this covering serves the same purpose as ballistic vests do to this day: it increases combat survivability. It does not provide complete invulnerability or imperviousness on the battlefield. That is a legend. Rather, it can enhance combat survivability, even by orders of magnitude.
Just think, for example, if someone has practiced any combat sport or been in a bar fight—a person gets hit in the nose, their eyes immediately well up with tears, and the fight is over. So, it’s only a cinematic legend that a person can be kicked in the face multiple times and then continue fighting. A helmet or even a nose guard can protect from this, or similarly, the role of handguards on swords: the slightest blow to the hand or fingers immediately renders them useless.
So, the human body is very vulnerable, and it doesn’t necessarily require a severe injury leading directly to death or paralysis. Even simple pain shock can make continuing the fight impossible, which in turn induces panic, and so on. The rest we already know.
Therefore, armor increases endurance—I, like others, often refer to this as enhancing battlefield stamina. Obviously, it comes at a cost, but in this case, the financial investment increases the chances of winning the battle. It’s another question what the technical exception is and how these men, whom we dress in this iron, are employed. But it is, by the way, a very impressive sight.
In Hungary, Ottoman heavy armor, as far as I know, exists solely in the Déri Museum. I worked there for 10 years. And this janissary armor—it was a mirror armor—could be viewed for a long time in the permanent exhibition of the National Museum. This is from the Déri collection, meaning it was purchased in Vienna by Déri Frigyes, the famous art collector. And it is an original piece. It bears the Kali mark, the stamp of the Ottoman arsenal.
We are discussing the period of 1526. The question is often raised: let’s first talk about the Hungarian side—in what kind of armor could they have taken the field during that era? No armor, nothing of the sort, has been uncovered from Mohács. As far as I know, not a single piece of metal has been found to prove that armored troops participated there, even though it is certain that they were used. The reason for this is that these items were valuable; they were collected. So, it is not true that the metal couldn’t be reused—it was gathered, sold, melted down, or perhaps even taken to Istanbul as a trophy of victory. Therefore, these suits of armor had many possible paths after the battle.
The invested labor also inspires the user to either repurpose or preserve them. In our period, we refer to European armor craftsmanship—using the old, elegant term, we call armor makers “armorers.” Two main stylistic schools dominated. One is the German, the other the Northern Italian. What you see here are examples of the German style—these are so-called Gothic armors.
This is actually a modern technical term; it wasn’t used in the period. The German style was the one commonly employed at the time. Its main regions were in Southern Germany and the territory of present-day Austria. Nuremberg, Augsburg—these are the primary armor-making districts. There are others as well, in smaller towns, while in Northern Italy, Milan and Venice, for example, were major arms manufacturing centers.
A very interesting observation was made by a famous German arms expert, Rezenstein: the locations of armor workshops actually coincide with the best European automobile manufacturing centers. And he is, in fact, correct in this. Obviously, the expertise, urbanization, access to raw materials, and commercial hubs align, and the comparison to automobiles holds up. It’s quite peculiar.
These are magnificent suits of armor. Those who created them, especially the one on the right, are considered by historians to be the work of Lorenz Helmschmied, one of the greatest armorers of all time. His honorable name in Hungarian is “Sisak Kovács Lőrinc.” We regret to say he was not Hungarian, although we like to consider everyone Hungarian. His works are regarded as the poetry of steel architecture. It’s worth noting that they are almost sculptural in nature.
A question often asked, especially by women, is whether men with such slender waists actually existed. The answer is that corsets were very frequently worn under these suits of armor; these were not made for combat purposes. They did produce combat armor of this type—the one visible on the right, by the way, appears somewhat bulkier, so its execution, its aesthetic execution, is different, but it is nonetheless very elegant.
On the left side, we are looking at armor commissioned for an emperor, so it is exquisite. The other one, however, is a combat armor. The immediate question that arises is whether one could move in these suits of armor and what they protected the wearer from. In practice, they offered a high degree of protection against practically all contemporary hand-held bludgeoning weapons. They provided nearly 100% protection against arrows—unless they slipped through the gaps, which was almost negligible. They also offered protection against crossbow bolts, and essentially, a well-constructed armor like this had to be literally beaten off by a person with a mace, tearing apart the components that held the armor together.
So, penetrating such a metal plate—1 to 2, sometimes 3 mm thick—by human strength alone was extremely difficult. These were made of the finest tempered steel plates, the best of their kind. The cheapest versions, of course, were made of lower-quality iron plates, but even piercing those was very challenging. Therefore, wearing such armor provided immense protection and instilled tremendous confidence on the battlefield.
What you see here on the other side are manifestations of the North Italian style. The North Italian masters pursued a slightly different path regarding defensive mechanisms. The quality of steel was practically identical between the two schools. However, the forging techniques and processes differed. Modern metallographic examinations have revealed that the old smiths possessed astonishing material knowledge, which they naturally kept secret. Under penalty of death, it was forbidden to export this knowledge. Those sent to work in other countries, for example, as gifts, were bound to secrecy. They were even killed, possibly by assassins, if they shared these skills without authorization.
Experts know how difficult it is, for example, to temper a steel plate. It is much harder than tempering a sword. Its shape is entirely different. It demands knowledge that was passed down from father to son without written records. Transferring this skill was akin to passing on the secrets of, say, oil painting techniques. However, we Hungarians didn’t really engage with this much, because the art of armor-making did not exist here—it was essentially unnecessary, or it was a forgotten craft. Later, during the Turkish era, there was no need for these heavy suits of armor.
These are quite robotic-like suits of armor, by the way. They also provide excellent protection. In my opinion, Italian armor is slightly better in terms of defense. And another thing you should know is that, contrary to legends, these suits of armor are not excessively heavy; their mass isn’t too great. Their maximum weight is around 20-22 kg, and underneath, they might also wear a chainmail hauberk, which could be about 10 kg. So, the individual carried around 30 kg with them, and these were athletes trained to peak Olympic-level fitness.
If we were to suddenly go back in time and see a knight from that era wearing period armor, we would be surprised by him. These were short men with narrow hips and broad shoulders. So, one must imagine very lean, hardened, slender individuals with low body mass, low body fat percentage, and extraordinary fitness. For example, one of the tricks was to climb a ladder leaning against a wall while suspended from its inner side. This is similar to when I used to train, doing multiple pull-ups from a seated position on a rope. So, that certainly requires fitness.
Therefore, these men, who wore such armor, were prepared for it their entire lives to hold their own on the battlefield in this kind of gear. This training had to start from childhood—a modern person could hardly endure it. And that is why they achieved legendary fame. So, these suits of armor were not only expensive but also ensured battlefield survivability and were one of the guarantees of victory.
And our period has another distinctive characteristic. The two styles, in fact, began to blend from the very start of the 1500s. This has a purely commercial reason. A German buyer, if he wanted Italian-quality armor—perhaps because he was on a diplomatic mission there—but said he didn’t like the appearance of Italian armor, the Italians would manufacture their quality for him in the German style. This was called alla Tedesca in the period. So, this appears to be a German-style suit of armor, showing just how robust and different it is from the previous ones. Its execution is robust, yet despite that, it is elegant, a very beautiful German armor. However, its protective mechanism is different, and its shoulder guards (pauldrons) are much larger. This is characteristic of Italian armor.
The Italian guild system itself operated differently. There, it wasn’t tied to a single master but to families. The organization was different. This was the foundation of modern large-scale industry. And it wasn’t just the Italian linen or cotton textile industries that established these mass production methods—the arms industry did so as well, and it began precisely then. So, this type of division of labor existed, but what ultimately shaped the form of European armor that reached the Battle of Mohács was a war.
This was the era of the Italian Wars, initiated by Charles VIII over the Neapolitan throne, which ultimately pitted him against the Pope and the Italian city-states. The essence is that this rapidly escalating, large-scale war, drawing military masses from across Europe into this region, brought with it their armaments and inspired armorers from Southern Germany, Austria, and Northern Italy to create new types of armor. They did so by observing everything together.
And there, on the battlefields, the opportunity for testing was readily available. So, the possibility for trial existed, and an entirely new type of armor emerged, born from the fusion of the two styles. Both sides began manufacturing it. This represents a very specific kind of, let’s say, constructive creativity—when masters see the best forms and simply assemble what proves effective on the battlefield, giving rise to this unified design.
One of the most famous depictions of this is Lotz Károly’s Portrait of a Knight, which art historians have begun to explore as possibly representing Louis II, though this is not proven. However, numerous iconographic references attempt to support this. He is, by the way, holding a Landsknecht sword, which lends credence to the idea of its origin. On the right side, we have a depiction by Georgius—or rather, from St. Nicatius—of an unknown military saint, of which there are several with this name. This refers to someone who suffered martyrdom at the Battle of Hattin. And it is clear that this new type of armor does not resemble either of the earlier styles to the untrained eye, but in my view, as someone who works with this, it is evident that it is actually assembled from elements of each type.
And to confirm this in practice, here are three such armors, which the history of armor, or rather arms history, essentially considers iconic pieces of this type. The most famous is the one on the left, the armor attributed to Ulászló (Władysław)—our Ulászló. Current research now holds that it did not belong to Ulászló but was likely the property of one of his nobles. It bears a monogram on the armor. It is not considered ornate enough for a nobleman’s armor, let alone a ruler’s. Though, as a combat armor, it is fine. And if you look closely, it features the Italian rounded type of armor. The smaller shoulder guards indicate German stylistic influences. The helmet, for example, is clearly Italian. So, essentially, we are looking at a mixed style, assembled from various influences.
On the right side, we have one of the most famous examples from the German Deutsches Historisches Museum. These are the so-called mixed-type armors, which could also be referred to as general-purpose armors. And from around 1505–1510 onward, they began to dominate the battlefields across Europe. This type was produced universally everywhere. Therefore, it is this kind of armor that likely appeared on the Mohács battlefield. And it is very interesting that the greatest arms historians have also taken note of this.
So, there is no question here of this being my own idea. Even much greater and more accomplished arms historians from as early as the 1920s noted that within a remarkably short span of years, the older armors I showed were replaced by these types of armors. The armorers on both sides responded so swiftly to the challenges of the battlefield and hand-to-hand combat that the shift occurred almost with today’s industrial speed. These weapons flooded Europe, and from the very beginning of the 1500s until the 1560s–70s, these types of armor dominated the European battlefield, providing significant protection to those who used them.
Of course, the highest quality and decorated armors came at an enormous cost, and these were also mass-produced, at least partially, for common soldiers. Those were of much poorer quality—the steel itself was inferior and undecorated. Unfortunately, very few of these common armors have survived; they were thrown away. They simply did not inspire their users to preserve them. They weren’t beautiful enough, and their material quality didn’t justify it either.
These are the suits of armor that have survived, and it can be said that these noble armors were custom-made for individuals, much like modern tailors. They were crafted to fit the wearer’s measurements, allowing perfect freedom of movement. One could even perform jumps or somersaults in them, however strange that may seem.
So, while one might think they moved as clumsily as sometimes portrayed in films—like in Excalibur—there is no question of such robotic movement. In reality, these weapons allowed nearly complete mobility on the battlefield. One couldn’t swim in them or easily crawl out of mud, as the unfortunate example of King Louis II demonstrates, since it would drag a person down. But essentially, they permitted every other kind of movement.
Just consider that the descendants of medieval cathedral builders were not so foolish as to give their soldiers weapons that would get them killed on the battlefield. That’s an impossibility. One could even get up from the ground unaided and mount a horse. There’s no truth to the idea of being hoisted up by a crane. A trained knight would approach his horse, place one foot in the stirrup, swing up, and ride off again if he fell. So, there was no problem with this—these medieval legends are simply untrue.
And it is very interesting that contemporary depictions also confirm that these were real, existing items. Here, for instance, is our Emperor Maximilian in one such portrayal, conversing with his father—specifically, the elder Weisskunig from Theuerdank—about launching a campaign against King Matthias. This drawing is, in fact, a perfect study of arms history.
It shows a hussar standing at ease, a stradiot cavalryman, and a heavily armored knight. And look—the two figures on the right are perfectly matched. This brings us to what we might call the concluding part of our presentation: namely, that today, arms historians and archaeologists consistently refer to this type of armor from this period, which I have been discussing, as Maximilian armor—that is, armor linked to Emperor Maximilian.
So, the question arises: why is that? The reason is that in arms terminology, “Maximilian armor” or “Miksa armor” refers to the type of armor you saw earlier, but densely fluted—entirely covered with these very tight ridges. On the one hand, they decorate it; these armors are truly magnificent in person. Here you can see the Italian [version], and here are the Maximilian armors.
This is important because Hungarian arms history was flooded with this style—it’s practically all we recognize, even though in reality it represents only a portion of the armors shown earlier. This was also, so to speak, a fashion trend. Beyond functionality, they are elegant, stiffen the plates, and incidentally imitate the civilian and military attire of the period.
So, this armor is always a style-conscious form as well. It’s not just functional; it must be elegant. Just as modern soldiers also like to look sharp, the armor expresses this. You can see several variations of this style, and it was named after Emperor Maximilian because he was a well-known arms enthusiast, and the Weißkunig is a perfect propaganda piece.
Maximilian dedicated much of his life’s work, among other things, to enhancing his own prestige. And these works, for example, portray his life as if he personally participated in the creation of the armor. Here is Susenhofer, one of the greatest armorers of all time, and in his workshop, as we can see, he is practically giving instructions. He, by the way, claimed to be the apprentice of Konrad Seusenhofer, the other famously great armorer, which wasn’t true, but that’s how it was presented.
And since this armor-making became intertwined with Emperor Maximilian’s name, in the 19th century, these armors were automatically labeled with it—interesting how the term “Maximilian” in arms history came about. In the period itself, this term wasn’t used; they weren’t even aware of it. It was a French historian named Gilé, who was employed at the Hermitage, who prepared the catalog there. Based on the idea that these armors could be linked to Emperor Maximilian, he arbitrarily inscribed on them—on top of the existing depictions—that we should call these “Maximilian armors.”
Since this term stuck, Hungarian arms literature also refers to almost every such armor as “Maximilian,” which, by the way, is not entirely accurate. I should add that in English or German terminology, these are called “fluted armors” or Riefelharnisch. And what you should also know about these is that, in my opinion, King Louis II likely wore either this type of armor or the kind I showed earlier. Ironically, these armors, which were designed to protect him on the battlefield, likely would have saved him even in hand-to-hand combat. To harm him, the armor would have had to be completely dismantled to reach his body and kill him.
However, as I mentioned earlier, when it comes to swimming, or especially being stuck deep in mud—or worse, having a horse fall on you—if that happened, there was very little chance of extracting yourself. The heart races, adrenaline floods the system—it’s a kind of physical torment that can kill a person even sooner than necessary. There are indeed examples of others dying in armor in similar ways, dragged down and perishing. I believe Prince Sanino died like this. At the same time, of course, these same suits of armor saved many others. And just very briefly, in closing, regarding what techniques the old armorers were capable of:
On the right, you can see an armored horse. It’s likely that King Louis himself also rode a similar one—that is, a horse in armor. Of course, the horses had to be armored as well. And to show what they were capable of, look at the bottom. Here is a face helmet belonging to Maximilian’s armor. The Germans actually call this a Kostümharnisch—a type of armor that gives the helmet a very distinctive, almost theatrical appearance. Many depictions from this period have survived. For example, the Elector of Brandenburg is portrayed in magnificent Maximilian armor. And on the right here, you can see a complete suit of armor, which is on display at the Kunsthistorisches Museum.
We no longer have time to delve into infantry armor. We’ll just quickly touch on the fact that foot soldiers also received such armor.
Here you can see an artistic rendering, showing that the Turks also possessed heavy cavalry, but they did not deploy it in large formations, nor did they use plate armor as we did. Instead, they primarily used mail armor. And it’s also important to know that heavy infantry were present within the Janissary corps as well—these are often forgotten.
This is because the public consciousness is still dominated by Gentile Bellini’s famous painting of a Janissary. In my opinion, this is actually one of the only authentic portrayals of a Janissary, since Bellini was a guest of Mehmed the Conqueror in Istanbul for four years, and he personally observed and drew this image there. These figures must have been quite fearsome during that brilliant era.
And so, in conclusion, just a brief note: as an arms historian, I always strive to dispel legends—something I still notice persists today regarding armor, whether about its weight, practicality, or prevalence. So, armor was used in the East just as in the West, though not in the exact same way, but it was certainly present there as well. The key difference is that the Ottoman cavalry did not employ the kind of close-order massed charge that was so fearsome in the West. Instead, they deployed these armored units in hand-to-hand combat, where they proved highly effective. This was, of course, referred to as Dsebedsi cavalry or armored cavalry.
Their numbers were also smaller than those of the Europeans. And they did not use full plate armor. They could have produced it, but they chose not to. Simply put, there was no need for it. The structure of their army was different.
And finally, to truly conclude without dragging it out further: heavy cavalry is never passive—it does not defend. It is only deployable when ordered to charge. It is good for nothing else. And what truly carries away—or sweeps aside—heavy cavalry itself is the effect of firearms. When firearms became capable of effectively halting these charges, it essentially precipitated the decline of armor as well.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDi2gMxB44Y
Dear Readers, I can only make this content available through small donations or by selling my books or T-shirts.
Please, support me with a coffee here: https://www.buymeacoffee.com/duhoxoxa
You can check out my books on Amazon or Draft2Digital. They are available in hardcover, paperback, or ebook:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/198020490X or at https://books2read.com/b/boYd81
My work can also be followed and supported on Patreon: Become a Patron!http://Become a Patron!
Become a Patron! Donations can be sent by PayPal, too: https://tinyurl.com/yknsvbk7
https://hungarianottomanwars.myspreadshop.com/all
Subscribe to my newsletter here: https://tinyurl.com/4jdjbfkn