Austrian Zischegge/lobstertail pot helmet
 

Started preparing for Christmas already. Obtained this mid-1600s Austrian zischegge or lobstertail pot helmet. It has a one-piece fluted skull with 12 ribs which finish in a small flower shaped crown plate and ring finial. Some say the ring was used to hang the helmet from the saddle, and others say it was to attach field colours for identification. It has a peak with turned edge and sliding nasal bar. There’s a four-lame neck guard with flower edge decoration, and two pierced cheek pieces. This is not standard armoury munitions grade issue and probably belonged to an officer.

Many rivets are missing. Maybe these were gilted and salvaged for value?

I will clean the helmet and try to clear some of the rust gently before giving it a good oiling.

Comments welcome.

The bottom lame in the neck guard is stamped with a letter S and a number 6 or 9. Each cheek piece is also stamped with a number 6 or 9. I think these are batch marks which would be hidden under the buff leather lining.

When I tried the helmet on I discovered that the ”nasal bar” cannot be lowered vertically as the nose is in the way. The helmet is probably a bit small for me (190cm tall) but still I struggle to see how these can be used for nasal protection. It seems to me they are for decoration in Indo-Persian style. Some English civil war lobstertail pot helmets have face guards but they are attached more towards the edges of the pointed peak and not flush with the forehead.

The nasal protection bar was useful to protect the face from a sword blow from an opposing rider. Unless you have a very large nose, this bar should not interfere with the wearer of this helmet.

Prety cool piece. Do the back lames articulate ?

Could it be that the bar, or its holding bracket, was bent inwards due to a fall, or been hit by some accidental (or not) blow ? Have you thought of bending it out a little ?


.

I’m a tall person and the helmet is probably a little small. When I tilted it back a little I could lower the bar to cover the bridge of my nose at least. I have been unable to locate any contemporary graphic material which shows wearers with the nasal guard down. I think it may be more decorative than functional. If the front of the helmet is flush with your forehead then it becomes technically difficult to slide down the bar to cover the nose unless pugfaced. :shrug:

Thank you, Fernando.

The tail consists of lames which are riveted one plate to another. This allows for only a little movement between plates. The plates don’t compress (collapse into each other). I don’t think I ever saw a Zischagge where the plates compressed in such a manner, although the design suggests that this would be the case. On the other hand there is not much need for this since the objective is to protect the neck.

The vendor of a similar helmet provides the following explantation

Type used in the Thirty Years' War and again in the English Civil Wars. This example with distinct evidence of that double service. Form commonly referred to as "Dutch" with ribbed one piece skull, rolled edge visor and cheek pieces, sliding nasal bar and four lame neck guard. Sound and complete with fragmentary line bands. The tail with the center leather secured by domed rivets which pierce the double plate overlap and immobilize the articulation of the neck protection. That modification clearly made during the working life of the helmet and the leather, rivets and gussets showing commensurate age. It is well established that large numbers of lobstertail helmets used in the English Civil Wars of 1642-51 were Thirty Years' War surplus. They were used by Parliamentarians who, unlike the King, had few sources of domestic origin. "Pot helmets" of the period were made with both articulated and non-articulated neck defenses. Both had their proponents and arguments. This helmet, likely as part of a group purchase was modified to respond to the difference in warfare between the two conflicts. Specifically, the Thirty Years' War was a war of sieges while the English Civil Wars were fought in the fields.

Anyone convinced ?

Sounds fine to me, Raf. I was hesitating to propose a high end version in that the back lames were articulated, and you came with a fair enlightening.

Let us not forget that at the time, the men were shorter than today, rare were the people reaching 1m80. Besides when we compare the many breastplates, we can see that they were not big. So I think this helmet was well suited to whoever needed to wear it. And that the nasal bar was also functional, because otherwise they would not have bothered to have a sliding system. That was coming down to the bottom just before going into combat.

I take vendor comments with a pinch of salt, but like to be openminded and keen to enlighten myself.

As far as I’m aware all Zischägge I have seen with laminated neck guards had their plates riveted together where overlapping, which limit the possible movement. This is not a problem as I struggle to see why you would want a fully articulated neck guard as this is not a joint.

Some Zischägge have leather straps attached with rivets around the sides and through the middle of the laminated neck guard. I think this is generally believed to have held the lining in place, but I guess it could also have enabled full articulation of the laminated neck guard if the lames were originally only riveted to the leather straps and not each other. But I’m not convinced unless someone can show this was the case.

This may well be the case. The helmet does look a little small on me and if it contained padded lining it would have been worn by someone smaller. If the forehead then was 1.5cm or so from the front of the helmet the nasal bar could probably have been lowered.

When I examined the helmet again today I found the number 1 stamped on the back of the top of the nasal bar, and the number 3 stamped on each of the top three lames of the neck guard. The numbering on the lames and the cheek pieces is very delicate and barely visible. I found them by using a torch light to shine on the inside at different angles. Jim posted an excellent article back in 2017 from the Park Lane Arms Fair, Spring 2005 journal, "What Do Armourers Marks Mean?” by Chris Dobson, master armourer.

The inside of the helmet appears to have been blackened but you can still see pitting and marks from metal impurities and the smith’s hammer work.

The fluted skull, flower shaped crown plate and lobed top edges on the back lames makes the helmet different, although these features are by no means unique for Zischägge of the time (possibly Hungarian?).

Good you find some marks; always a great thing.

Yes marks can add to the authenticity of the piece, and increases the connection with the humans behind it.

Here is another 3

Some say this is an option to make a difference between wealthy or ranked owners and ordinary troopers equipment. I have even seen (here ?) a neck guard in one entire piece but with pronounced canelures, "possibly" to visually pretend articulated features

Maybe i am talking nonsense but, allow me to show the lower neck guard of a close helmet, just for the sake of how the lames do articulate; not so much, but they do articulate indeed, as i have personally checked. The side rivets are 'spaced' to allow for pivoting of the leather controlled center :o .


.

Thank you Fernando for making an important point. The center leather strap , if present is their to help control the articulation of the lames. The rivits securing the leather are not the same as the decorative dome headed rivits on the outside of the lames. These are normally quite high up towards the top edge of the lame often in conjunction with a central peak to the lame . Since the lames have to overlap if the dome headed rivits were used to secure the leather strap then they would have to pass through both overlapping lames in which case they would not articulate. Their are plenty of examples of Zischagges with single piece tails embossed to simulate articulated tails. These are normally rigidly fixed to the helmet and shorter so as not to interfere with the movement of the head. Longer tails are articulated for the same reason. That is the longer tail provides better protection to the neck without inhibiting movement.

Yes, I think the Zischägge with solid plate neck guards (ridged to imitate lames) are munitions grade. The heavier ones are probably siege helmets.

Then you have the Zischägge with laminated neck defences (”lobstertail”) which also come in many shapes and forms. Some are more basic and were probably issued to troopers, or stored in armouries like Graz. Some, for princes and commanders, are incredibly decorated with engravings and lined with velvet. The Zischagge I posted with a fluted skull and some decorative elements, but without engravings, appears to be somewhere in-between for an officer.


Thank you for this! I’m not so familiar with medieval armour and keen to learn more. I understand that for plate armour to articulate you need special rivets that allow movement and/or leather straps to hold the lames in place. As I argued previously I struggle to see the need for Zischagge lobstertail neck guards to articulate a lot as we don’t bend our necks backward (or necks break) so question how mobile these were. The helmet which I posted has laminated neck guard but no lining or leather straps remaining. Many rivets are missing and I think these may have been gilded and ”recycled.” The plates have been riveted together which has largely immobilised the lames. The rivet holes are circular. I don’t know the extent to which the lames articulated when the helmet was first produced.

The attached pictures show: 1) neck guard simulated lames, 2) lobstertail neck guard articulating lames, 3) Zischägge types and 4) from Eduard Wagner’s ”European Weapons & Warfare 1618-1648” (1979).

The neck guard i showed doesn't move that much, nor should all others ... i think. I guess a little contraction is enough to allow the user to look upwards.

Nice images. I gather that the drawings in 3) show the effect of an 'abnormal' articulation capacity; i would say artistic's freedom. But i know nothing ... and am not to be trusted :o .

Thank you for clarifying this Raf. Can you confirm if the overlapping lames are riveted together at the far left and right sides or are they just hanging free on the leather straps? The attached first two pictures seem to show that the lames are riveted together at the far sides. Do they use tracking rivet holes to allow extra movement?

Can you show how much movement these articulating lames allowed in the lobstertail neck guard? Do you think many lobstertail neck guards were immobilized in more recent times for restoration purposes?

The last picture shows a solid plate neck guard with simulated lames which nevertheless also has leather straps on the inside even though it doesn’t have any lames to articulate. :shrug:

I wish I could get my hands on a few of these Zischägge now to investigate :) . I can’t remember properly, but seem to recall that the lobstertail neck guard lames just rattle a bit when you handle them. Never paid them much attention in the past to be honest. But maybe the Zischägge in pristine original condition do have wonderfully articulating lames. Something to look out for when I get the opportunity to handle one next! :p

Sorry to be picky but I think its important when posting reference examples to stick to ones where the authenticity is well established. Their are some good examples on this site , but also ones where legitimate questions have been raised. Attached images are from a well established supplier located in Lithuania. To avoid confusion these are modern copies.

A small note on sliding nasal bars. Many could be worn with the bulbous part at the top, then inverted to provide more facial coverage before entering battle.

I suspect the OP's nasal was, in use, a bit straighter & bent later in life. It may be possible to rotate it if the wing screw is removed so the small protruding stud at the base will fit through, acting as a grip when down, and a stop to keep it from falling out when up. I also suppose that the missing rivet holes may have been for attaching a liner and or aventail of sorts.

Point taken. Those modern copies you posted look extremely well made. I’m a bona fide history enthusiast with a curious mind who is slowly amassing a small armoury of military antiques. I was not aware that any reference examples I posted had legitimate questions raised about their authenticity?

Yes I think the missing rivets must have been used to hold leather straps for articulating lames and the lining. I just wonder why so many rivets are missing. There are marks around the holes from washers as well. If the studs were of precious metal they may have been salvaged at some point.

That reproduction example in the lower image of post #24 with that arcuated (empty) space towards the center, seems to fully suggest this is the functional articulated version.

Here is a good reference example originally posted by Cerjak on this site. Note that the rivits that articulate the tail (the outer rivits ) are not the same as the rivits securing the lining band on the articulated section.

Besides the possible function the leather straps perform in controlling the articulation, one must consider that, one lame itself can not roll up more than to a limited point, as it meets the upper lame.
Does this make any sense ?


.

Nice graphic. Perhaps you need to add a blind ( decorative } rivit head at the point of your red arrow to make it clear that the rivit head you see on the outside of the tail isn't the same as the one securing the leather . Except at the top and bottom of the articulated section. Although the center strap isn't strictly speaking necessary the assumption is that the springiness of the leather helped the lames to fold in an orderly fashion and not get stuck or rattle around.

This is great. I feel I learned so much about a hitherto neglected part of an object from my perspective. Now I know more what to look for when I next handle armour, especially Zischägge.

For some relaxation, let me show how an artist views a functional nasal bar.

.

And in case you don't fancy such solution, you can always opt for the hinged three bar version, like this 1640 harquebusier real thing.
(British National Army Museum)

.

When looking through ”Armourers’ Marks” (1959) by Dudley S Hawtrey Gyngell I noticed how armourers in Innsbruck, Austria in 16thC used their initials (one or two letters) as maker’s marks.

My helmet is marked with a Gothic ”S” on the bottom lame on the neck guard which is probably the maker’s mark from Innsbruck, Austria or elsewhere in the Tyrol.

I saw some interesting and relevant pictures in Peter Krenn and Walter Karcheski’s “Imperial Austria, Treasures of Art, Arms & Armour from the State of Styria” (1998).

The first picture shows armour for an infantry or light cavalry officer, 1555-21, probably made in Innsbruck (Austria). Of interest here is the lobed edges/heartshaped rounded crenelations on the top of the armour plates which is similar to my zischägge. There are also brass rivets (presumably removed from my helmet).

The second picture shows armour for a hussar: cuirass, mail shirt and Hungarian-style helmet (zischägge), 1590-1600, made in Graz. Interestingly the helmet skull is fluted. This type of helmet originated in Turkey/Ottoman empire known as cicek and was adopted in Eastern Europe in 16thC and Western Europe in 17thC.

The third picture shows an interior view of the Landeszeughaus Graz (armoury) with another classic medieval hussar outfit on the right, again with a fluted helmet. The fluted area helps to absorb stun impacts by maces and war hammers popular in Eastern Europe and the Ottoman empire.

Victirix, that's a beautiful zischagge / burgonet.
I wonder why the neck protection on most of these helmets was composed from several lames, as opposed to a single piece of metal. It's certainly more time-consuming, more expensive to produce laminated armor than beat it out of a single piece.
Being that the articulated movement of the lames is unnecessary, my questions are:
Does laminating make the neck-piece stronger than a one-piece construction?
Does it make it lighter?
Does it make it easier to repair than one-piece construction?
What other benefits are to the laminated construction vs. one-piece?

One possible reason, in my opinion, is that lamination allowed for a better dispersion and/or absorption of force when struck, attenuating the kinetic energy applied to the neck piece, whereas the one-piece neck protection would not have that "give", and would transmit the force to the helmet body, potentially with a fatal result.

I’m not a professional expert on these matters but merely an amateur enthusiast with a curious mind. I have asked myself similar questions concerning these zischägge. Some general observations include: 1) these helmets were worn by light cavalry which were used for speed, aggressiveness, surveillance etc so they probably needed lighter kit which allowed for greater movement rather than thick armour, and 2) interestingly hussar cuirasses also tended to be created with overlapping lames so that was the technique used, which might have been similar to Ottoman and also Byzantic methods. I think the Ottomans were less keen on full plate armour suits and preferred mail, perhaps partly because of heat/ventilation considerations.

The lamination of the neck guard doesnÂ’t make it stronger but probably allows it to be lighter by using thinner lames which overlap rather than a large sheet of metal which needs to be thicker and heavier. The lamination makes it easier to tilt the head back to look high upwards towards mountain crests or castle towers. In the case of the cuirass it might be easier to produce with lames and require less artisan skills, and in addition it could be altered to fit the wearer.

Other possible reasons could be, as you suggest, that the lamination would absorb some of the shock if struck whereas a solid piece would force the head backwards if impacted. I had the curious idea that one could lie down to sleep with the laminated zischägge, which surely must not be relevant. But it would be relevant that a laminated neck guard might be preferable if thrown off the horse and landing on your back which might break your neck if you had a solid neck guard. I’m sure there are practical reasons for the laminated neck protection, even with the questionable need to bend one’s neck.

Extremely well put, Victrix :cool:.

Plate armour evolved from integrating little plates into chain mail, or making armour with overlapping scales or lamellae, then Brigandines made with small but easily made plates. Fabricating large pieces of consistent High Carbon steel into large shaped plates, and heat treating them came last.

It is very expensive and time-consuming to make and fit a suit of full plate and keep it not only light enough to wear, and flexible enough to fight in, while not letting those pesky Welsh/English rostbifs poking arrows though it into your expensive flesh.

Mail, scale, lamella armour, and brigandines are easier to make and fit. - and don't require as much work to adjust as you get older and put on a pound or two. And are good enough for the Hoi Polloi and peasants. (And even lower status knights and men at arms.)

Mail is boring to make, drawing wire, winding it on a mandrel and cutting it into rings, or punching washers for 1/5 of the rings, flattening the cut wire ends or the whole ring, and punching the ends for rivets, then assembling in mind-numbing regularity while carefully riveting the ends closed is a job for the slaves, in any case, or at least the peons. Good plate takes more skill and expertise. Only the very richest and most politically powerful could afford full articulated and highly decorated plate proof against longbow, crossbow, and sword/axe and lance.

But not against some slovenly low class smelly peasant hooking you off your expensive horse, knocking you on your back and poking a cheap ballock dagger thru your eye slit.