CASTELLA MARIS BALTICI XII 123

“In the Shadow of the Crescent …”THE BORDERLINE CASTLES DURING THE HUNGARIAN-OTTOMAN WARS IN THE16TH–17TH CENTURIES

„ Im Schatten des Halbmondes …”DIE GRENZBURGEN IN DEN UNGARISCH-OSMANISCHEN KRIEGEN IM 16. UND 17. JAHRHUNDERT

des 16. und 17. Jahrhundert wurden viele mittelalterliche Burgen von bei­den Seiten neu befestigt, einige von ihnen hielten bemerkenswert gut der damaligen Feuerkraft stand, vor allem aber fanden nur kleinere Umbauten stand, die in Abhängigkeit zur verfügbaren menschlichen Kraft und dem finanziellen Hintergrund standen. Nur sehr wenige komplett neue Be­festigungsanlagen wurden auf dem Territorium des Bezirks Nógrád ge­baut und unter ihnen kaum irgendwelche richtig modernen Festungen.

Der Bezirk Nógrád gehört zu den von den ungarisch­osmanischen Krie­gen schwerwiegend betroffenen Gebieten. Da es nach dem Fall von Buda sehr bald angegriffen wurde, gab es weder Zeit noch Geld, um neue, mod­erne Festungen zu bauen. Die einzige Lösung war, etwas weniger ver­altete mittelalterliche Burgen wiederzuverwenden und die restlichen zu zerstören, damit sie vom Feind nicht verwendet werden konnten. Im Fol­genden werde ich die bekannten Lösungen für die Reparatur der Verteidi­gungslinie in diesem Teil der sehr instabilen Grenze vorstellen. Während

Maxim MordovinEötvös Loránd University, Institute of Archaeological SciencesMúzeumkrt.4/BHU-1088BudapestHungarymordovin.maxim@btk.elte.hu

Maxim Mordovin

CASTELLA MARIS BALTICI XII

“In the Shadow of the Crescent …”

124

Introduction and historical backgroundThe early modern period in Hungarian history starts with the Battle of Mohács, which took place on 29 August 1526 when the Hungarian army was destroyed by the Ottoman forces and King Louis II died while trying to flee from the battlefield. The ensuing interregnum soon resulted in a civil war between the two elected kings – Ferdinand I of Habsburg and John Zápolya (Fodor 2004:30f.). Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent took advantage of this struggle by attempting to occupy the central parts of the Kingdom of Hungary. In 1541 the capital city, Buda, was taken by the Ottoman army without any fight and was immediately transformed into the seat of the new administrative unit of the Ottoman Empire, the vilayet of Buda (fig. 1). This event was the starting point in establishing the new permanent Ottoman administration in the newly occupied territories. At the same time, this new administration was followed by a huge number of immi­grants arriving, predominantly from the southern Balkans (Hegyi 2003:23ff; Hegyi 2007:233ff.).

The new capital of the occupied territories was endangere d by the surrounding castles from the very beginning and thus it needed to be secured by establishing a new defensive line. Buda was located in the northern part of Pest County and its immediate northern neighbour is the predominantly hilly Nógrád County, which – due its medieval system of land

tenure – was always relatively rich in fortifications (fig. 2). Among the most crucial objectives to secure Buda was to somehow deal with this region, either occupying or destroy­ing its castles. The conquest of Nógrád, at the same time, had a highly significant reason: the proximity of the larg­est mining towns of Northern Hungary, rich in gold, silver and copper. Military activity here restarted in 1544 when huge Ottoman army moved north of Buda targeting Castle Nógrád, the former seat of the county, which actually gave it its name (Hegyi 2007:92–93).

The civil war had just ended, resulting in the partition of the Kingdom of Hungary into a royal part and the Princi­pality of Transylvania (Oborni 2004:165ff.), and there was neither time nor money for the Hungarian side to make any serious preparations to withstand this attack. Thus Nógrád Castle was abandoned before the advancing Turkish troops without any attempt to defend it (Hegyi 2007:751). Two years later, another smaller castle, Szanda, was lost to Ottomans. This one was retaken in 1551, burnt down but rebuilt by the Turkish forces (Hegyi 2007:570).

The year 1552 was among the hardest in the sixteenth century for this region. As a punishment for the secret Con­vention of Nyírbátor between the Habsburgs and Transyl­vania, Sultan Suleiman launched a huge military campaign in Northern Hungary, led by Hadim Ali Pasha. During this campaign a number of fortresses were occupied. However, only one castle was seriously besieged – Drégely. The other

Fig.1.Hungaryinthesixteenthcentury,withtheoutlinesofNógrádCounty.

CASTELLA MARIS BALTICI XII 125

Maxim Mordovin

fortresses were abandoned and emptied after the fall of the first one. Some clashes took place in Ipolyság (Šahy)1 and Ba­1 In this paper I use the historical names of the castles and settle­

ments, giving their present­day official name in brackets.

lassagyarmat also. The fierce defence of Szécsény lasted for a single week but then it was set on fire and also left to the Turks. The last two castles to fall into enemy hands in 1552 were Hollókő and Buják. Their garrison withstood the at­

Fig.2.NógrádCountywithinnineteenth-centurybordersshowingthecastlesmentionedinthetext.

CASTELLA MARIS BALTICI XII

“In the Shadow of the Crescent …”

126

tacks for just a few days (Dávid & Fodor 2005:597). During the expansion of the Ottoman Empire the whole southern part of Nógrád County was annexed. In the same year two even more significant fortresses of the Kingdom also fell into the hands of the enemy forces: Temesvár (Timişoara) and Szolnok (Csortán 2003:187). Two more years were needed to continue the invasion northward and to seize two more places: Salgó and Fülek (Fiľakovo). The importance of this region is very clearly visible as the three largest castles – Nógrád, Szécsény and Fülek (Fiľakovo) – of the county be­came seats of the newly organized Ottoman administra­tive units – called sanjaks – of the occupied territory (Hegyi 2007:106).

Still, the conquest did not end in 1554. After the situa­tion on the further borders was consolidated, local Ottoman leaders invaded the remaining part of Nógrád County and in 1575–1576 captured the last three main castles, Somoskő (Šomoška), Divény (Divín) and Kékkő (Modrý Kameň). These events did not change the already arranged organiza­tion of the region. The newly captured territories were at­tached to the sanjak of Fülek (Fiľakovo) (Hegyi 2007:84; Agócs 2009:19).

All these losses finally made the Habsburg side reorga­nize its own military administration. A new central office was founded in 1556, which was responsible for the defence of the eastern part of the Empire, namely the Kingdom of Hungary, and administered the Military Frontier. This was the Court Council of War (Hofkriegsrat) (Regele 1949:15ff.). The “de­fensive line” managed by this office became a very complex and densely articulated castle network stretching from the Adriatic region to the borders of the Transylvanian Principal­ity. This network, about 1,000 km long and 30–80 km wide, consisted of 100–200 large and more than 2,000 small forti­fications. This line was not at all stable (Czigány 2004:57). While the Ottoman territorial divisions represented both the military and civil administration, the Court Council of War was independent of the existing local counties and consisted of the generalates (Generalität). Each of these generalates was created at the most significant fortress of the particular re­gion and had several secondary castles subordinate to it. Al­together five generalates were established with seats in Kassa (Košice), Érsekújvár (Nové Zamky), Győr, Nagykanizsa, Za­greb and Karlovac. Those parts of Nógrád County which were not yet occupied by the Ottomans in 1556 belonged to the Generalate of the Mining Towns with its seat at Érsekújvár (Nové Zámky) (Czigány 2004:54).

By the end of the sixteenth century the Habsburg Em­pire appeared to be strong enough to undertake a protracted war in Hungary. This was the so­called Long War or Fifteen Years War, which started in 1593 (Fodor 2000:297–301; Tóth 2000:129ff.). In the case of Nógrád the only and, at the same time, most notable events took place in the winter of 1593. The royal troops led by two prominent generals, Miklós Pálffy

and Cristoph von Tieffenbach (or Teufenbach), making use of the fact that the Ottoman troops did not fight in winter, relatively easily recaptured almost all of the castles of the county, including Divény (Divín), Kékkő (Modrý Kameň), Fülek (Fiľakovo), Somoskő (Šomoška), Nógrád, Szécsény, Drégely, Salgó, Hollókő, Balassagyarmat (Tóth 2000:143ff.). Some of these fortifications were seriously damaged during these fights and had not been rebuilt – for example Salgó and Szanda.

The next seventy years were relatively peaceful in this border zone. Although the unfortified villages were always targets of the Turkish raids, no castle siege is known from this period. Almost all of the castles were subject to recon­struction and modernization. In some cases the scale of the rebuilding and improving of the fortifications was really impressive. However, all these efforts proved to have been in vain when in 1663 the new Ottoman campaign reached Nógrád. After the fall of Érsekújvár (Nové Zámky), the cen­tral fortress of this generalate, the network of border castles in Southern Nógrád collapsed. Most of the fortresses were simply emptied and the forces retreated north of the River Ipoly. Of the two former sanjak seats, Nógrád was aban­doned and Szécsény was set on fire by its captain. The Otto­man administration was re­established very quickly, miss­ing only the Fülek (Fiľakovo) region compared to its six­teenth­century state. This status quo lasted for the next two decades. Strangely enough, the changes and the liberation of Nógrád were the consequence of a new, even more mas­sive Ottoman attack, which targeted Vienna, the capital city of the Habsburg Empire in 1683. The long siege of Vienna ended in the disastrous defeat of the Ottoman forces, caus­ing panic among the military garrisons of the Turkish border castles. This panic reached its peak when the victorious hero of the siege, John III Sobieski, King of Poland, was crossing Nógrád on his way home and his Cossack troops suddenly attacked Szécsény. The local Ottoman garrison surrendered in two days, as did several other castles in the surroundings (Pálmány 1986:16ff.).

CastlesinNógrádCountyNógrád County had always been relatively rich in castles since the thirteenth century. By the mid­sixteenth century fourteen such fortifications remained, the origin of which can be traced to the late thirteenth century (Pálmány 1989:22ff.). The most important and the largest among these was Nógrád Castle. Located in the western part of the county, the castle was built above a fortified city – oppidum. The situation of Fülek (Fiľakovo), Szécsény and Balassagyarmat was similar. All of them consisted of a medieval castle and a more­or­less fortified town. The remaining ten sites all were irregu­lar stone castles built on rocky crags and hills. Among three

CASTELLA MARIS BALTICI XII 127

Maxim Mordovin

others, one was erected as a lower fortification in the village of Drégely, gaining its new name – Drégelypalánk. Two others in Divény (Divín) and Gács (Halič), in contrast, were con­structed already in the seventeenth century as comfortable private residences (Pisoň 1973:126; Plaček & Bóna 2007:128).

By the time when Buda was taken by the Ottomans, all of these castles were in the hands of the Church or in private property. Nógrád belonged to the bishopric of Vác (Nováki et al. 1979:68), and Drégely to archbishopric of Esztergom (Genthon et al. 1954:179). Castles Ecseg, Hollókő, Szécsény and Somoskő (Šomoška) were in hands of the Losonczi and Országh families (Maksay 1990:503; Kozák 2006:190–191; Mordovin 2013:12; Plaček & Bóna 2007:297). The Bebek family owned Fülek (Fiľakovo) and Salgó but the last one was sold to Farkas Derencsényi in 1548, just a few years before its loss to the Ottomans (Agócs 2009:18; Feld 2005:109–110). Balassa was another dominant family in the county, with cas­tles in Gyarmat, Divény (Divín) and Kékkő (Modrý Kameň) (Maksay 1990:495; Plaček & Bóna 2007:108, 208). They con­structed the late Renaissance residence beneath the old cas­tle of Divény in the 1670s (Pisoň 1973:126). Buják Cast le was in hands of the Báthori family, which was amongst the most powerful in the kingdom (Genthon et al. 1954:155; Mak­say 1990:502). The landlords of Szanda, the Lónyai family – were also highly influential in Northern Hungary (Maksay 1990:517).Fig.3.HollókőCastle,groundplan(afterKozák2006).

Fig.4.HollókőCastle,viewfromthesouth.Photo:M.Mordovin2009.

CASTELLA MARIS BALTICI XII

“In the Shadow of the Crescent …”

128

Fig.5.NógrádCastle,groundplan(afterTomka2005).

Fig.6.NógrádCastle,Renaissancegate.Photo:M.Mordovin2010.

CASTELLA MARIS BALTICI XII 129

Maxim Mordovin

After the Long War the tenure system in the county changed. Some of the families died out and their property was inherited by others. The most important such family was Forgách, who gained Szécsény and Gács (Halič). The last one was chosen by them to build a huge, splendid modern fami ly seat situated at a more secure distance from the Otto­man territories than Szécsény, incorporating the remains of an earlier fortification (Plaček & Bóna 2007:128).

Despite the private character of the tenure of these forti­fications, most of them were ranked as “frontier castles” in the royal orders and decrees in 1550s. This meant that the peasants of the castle domains were obliged to work on the reconstruction or modernization of such places as Szécsény, Drégelypalánk. However, this decision came far too late. Even the efforts of the owners were not enough to carry out sufficient alterations and to prepare these fortifications for modern warfare with its use of heavy artillery. The conse­quences of this unpreparedness were manifested during the first Ottoman campaign in the 1540s–1550s.

The architectural and archaeological investigation of these castles is very uneven. This situation is aggravated by the fact that this territory now belongs to two countries – Hungary and Slovakia, which has influenced the method­ology of their research. Nearly all of them have already been excavated but only very few publications are available. The main consequence of this very often is the lack of precise dating of particular architectural details or parts of these forti fications. Sometimes the verification of the contempo­rary (sixteenth–seventeenth centuries) military plans and sketches is also dubious. Therefore the existence of some walls and bastions shown on the archival plans cannot be proved.

Fig.7.DrégelyCastle,groundplan(afterMajcher2005).

Fig.8.DrégelyCastle,aerialview.Photo:Civertan.

CASTELLA MARIS BALTICI XII

“In the Shadow of the Crescent …”

130

Remodellingandadaptationofthe castles in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuriesThere were several ways of reacting to the danger of the Otto­man expansion. The easiest solution was not to do any thing. Seemingly this was the case at Hollókő (fig. 3–4; Kozák 2006:197), and probably at Ecseg during the whole period. Some repairs took place in Hollókő, focusing most of all on the inner buildings (Kozák 2006:197). There are no known traces of any attempt to modernize Nógrád Castle before 1544 (fig. 5; Tomka 2005:121f.).

Most of the sites, however, had been at least slightly modi­fied, gaining palisades or one or two circular cannon towers. A circular bastion was added to the southern end of Drégely Castle yet before the Ottoman attacks. The castle suffered serious damage during the 1552 siege and was repaired soon after by the new owners, but no new stone defences or forti­fications were constructed. Most probably the only modifica­tion during the Ottoman occupation was the fortification of the two lower plateaux with palisades south and north of the castle (fig. 7 & 8; Dávid & Fodor 2007:597; Majcher 2005:121; Hegyi 2007:775). A kind of palisade must have been built by the Turkish forces on the northern side of medieval castle in Kékkő (Modrý Kameň) in the second half of the sixteenth century (fig. 9–10; Plaček & Bóna 2007:208). Yet before the mid­sixteenth century the western, weakest side of Szanda was reinforced with a semicircular structure, probably a can­

Fig.9.KékkőCastle(ModrýKameň),groundplan(afterPlaček&Bóna2007).

Fig.10.KékkőCastle(ModrýKameň),aerialview.Photo:Civertan.

CASTELLA MARIS BALTICI XII 131

Maxim Mordovin

Fig.11.SzandaCastle,groundplan(afterFeld2010).

Fig.12.SzandaCastle,viewfromthewest.Photo:M.Mordovin2012.

CASTELLA MARIS BALTICI XII

“In the Shadow of the Crescent …”

132

A similarly significant lower part was constructed in Salgó. The lower castle was finished in the 1540s but soon after modified again. The “modern” feature of the new part was an oversized pentagonal bastion datable to the 1550s, almost as big as the whole medieval castle. This bastion seems never to have been finished and thus could not play any role in the castle defence (fig. 15; Feld 2005:109ff; László 2009:96ff.). A similar bastion­like structure can be observed at the south­eastern corner of Kékkő (Modrý Kameň). This must have been part of the restoration work carried out between 1609 and 1612. The ground plan of the castle suggests that this bas­tion belonged to a more complex bastion system, northern details of which were later incorporated into the corner tow­ers of the still existing château. This outer ward included the palace wing (fig. 9–10; Plaček & Bóna 2007:208).

The third way to improve the medieval fortifications was to rebuild them completely. Since the sixteenth century the period between the realization of the immediate threat of the Ottoman attack and the attack itself was too short, there was simply no time to carry out any more significant, planned re­construction. After the first Turkish campaign the castles of Fülek (Fiľakovo), Somoskő (Šomoška), Divény (Divín) and most probably Szécsény were seriously altered. Visible traces of these alterations remained only in the first three. The new structures of Fülek (Fiľakovo) completely incorporated the medieval rock castle. The sixteenth­century reconstruction was completed in several steps. A massive semicircular, multi­storey cannon tower was attached to the southern side of the medieval outer walls in 1542 (fig. 16). Then, still in the 1540s, the castle was expanded southward with a new lower part surrounded with thick walls and reinforced by two penta­gonal, also multi­storey cannon towers on the angles (fig. 17). Judging by the written sources and the similar towers from Eger and Sárospatak, these towers might have been planned

Fig.13.BujákCastle,groundplan(afterFeld2010).

Fig.14.BujákCastle,aerialview.Photo:Civertan2012.

non tower (fig.11–12; Feld 2010:221, 231). Buják Castle was enlarged by a new lower castle encircling the medieval core. This part was supplemented with an enormous circular bas­tion defending the earlier entrance (fig. 13–14; Feld 2010:229).

CASTELLA MARIS BALTICI XII 133

Maxim Mordovin

by the Italian military architect, Antonio da Vedano. The in­ner buildings and the last sections of the new curtain walls were finished by 1551 (Plaček & Bóna 2007:119; Šimkovic & Agócs 2008). The appearance of a smaller castle in Somoskő (Šomoška) had likewise completely changed. The triangu­lar medieval structure was covered by new, thick walls on its southern and northern sides and was given three enormous circular cannon towers on the corners between the 1550s and the 1570s (fig. 18–19; Plaček 2009:93–94). This is the only case where these modifications helped to keep the castle at

Fig.15.CastleSalgó,groundplan(afterFeld2005).

least for two decades longer than the neighbouring Salgó and Fülek (Fiľakovo). Somoskő (Šomoška) at the same time played an important residential role for the Losonczi family in the mid­sixteenth century. This is well represented by the rich Renaissance refurbishment of the new inner buildings of the castle (Feld 2005:111). Between 1557 – after the fall of Fülek (Fiľakovo) – and 1575 the small medieval castle of Di­vény (Divín) was incorporated into an extensive remodelling which included the construction of double curtain walls. Two triangular bastion­like features were added to the south­

CASTELLA MARIS BALTICI XII

“In the Shadow of the Crescent …”

134

ern and northern side of the inner defence line (fig. 20–21). This spectacular alteration, however, did not help to with­stand the short siege in 1575 and the castle fell into the hands of the Turks (Plaček & Bóna 2007:107–108). According to the results of the very few but mostly unpublished excava­tions in Szécsény, its medieval castle, now incorporated into a baroque château, was also rebuilt in the sixteenth century but the extent and the details of these works are unclear (fig. 22; Mordovin 2013:14–15).

After the first liberation of the county the situation com­pared to the first half of the sixteenth century changed signi­ficantly. Many castles started to be rebuilt, strengthened and adapted for the warfare of the day, with the trend toward purely military alterations. However, due to permanent lack of a proper financial background, this building activity lasted several decades and often the first phases of the new defences were considerably different from the last. This can be clearly observed in the case of Nógrád. The medieval core of the forti fication at the beginning of the seventeenth century was surrounded by a new curtain wall reinforced with at least four circular cannon towers, two of which have partially survived. However, already in the 1620s the modernization of the cast le was continued according to a different plan, constructing pentagonal bastions of the so­called Italian type. Two such bastions and the entrance defences were completed between 1622 and 1639. It seems that originally – in the 1630s – two

Fig.16.Fülek(Fiľakovo)Castle,groundplan(afterŠimkovic&Agócs2008).

Fig.17.Fülek(Fiľakovo)Castle,south-westerncannontower.Photo:M.Mordovin2010.

CASTELLA MARIS BALTICI XII 135

Maxim Mordovin

Fig.19.Somoskő(Šomoška)Castle,viewfromthesouth-west.Photo:M.Mordovin2009.

Fig.18.Somoskő(Šomoška)Castle,groundplan(afterPlaček&Bóna2007).

CASTELLA MARIS BALTICI XII

“In the Shadow of the Crescent …”

136

Fig.20.Divény(Divín)Castle,groundplan(afterPlaček&Bóna2007).

Fig.21.Divény(Divín)Castle,sixteenth-centurysouth-easternbastionandtheremainsofthemedievalcoreofthecastle.Photo:M.Mordovin2010.

CASTELLA MARIS BALTICI XII 137

Maxim Mordovin

Fig.22.Szécsény,thecastleandthefortifiedtown(afterMordovin2011).

more bastions were planned to be built but their construc­tion did not even begin (fig. 5; Tomka 2005:123).

The damage caused by the last siege in Fülek (Fiľakovo) was repaired shortly afterwards. Around 1600, after these extensive repairs, a new outer ward was attached. This ward was closed from the south by a new thick wall with two circu­lar cannon towers on the angles. The south­western tower also included the new gatehouse (fig. 16; Šimkovic & Agócs 2008:24f.). The complete reconstruction and modernization, however, started only in the mid­seventeenth century. The extensive fortification works were hastened after Szécsény was lost once again to the Ottomans in 1663. At this time the castle was enlarged with a huge lower pentagonal forti­fication strengthened by Italian­type bastions on the angles. This part of the castle was built mainly of earth and timber using stones only to reinforce the curtain walls (Plaček & Bóna 2007:116; Šimkovic & Agócs 2008:24). All these works helped to defend Fülek (Fiľakovo) for almost twenty years after the occupation of Southern Nógrád by the Ottomans. The castle was besieged for the last time in 1682. It withstood for more than a month before surrendering. It was blown up afterwards and never rebuilt again.

According to the present­day state of research, all com­pletely new fortifications were built by the Ottoman forces. In

most cases this concerned the construction of new ramparts around towns in the sanjak centres, as at Fülek (Fiľakovo), Szécsény or Nógrád. It is hard as yet to decide without ar­chaeological excavations whether these ramparts had any medieval foundations. The only more­or­less investigated place is Szécsény (fig. 22). Probably the development of the other sites could have been similar. According to the written sources the landlord of Szécsény had permission and even orders to fortify the settlement situated around his cast le (Pálmány 1989:63). Further regulations were given by the diet after the fall of Nógrád to modernize and strengthen Szécsény. In the latter case it is not clear whether the order concerned the castle or the city defences (Mordovin 2011:158). However, the excavations in 2005–2010 showed no traces of urban fortifications datable earlier than the Ottoman occu­pation. Furthermore, the evaluation of the wooden posts from the earliest phase of the ramparts carried out by András Grynaeus gave 1562 as the earliest date. The Ottoman fortifi­cation of Szécsény presently is the best­known such example in Nógrád County. This was timber­and­earth architecture very typical of the sixteenth­century Hungarian­Ottoman Wars. It consisted of several rows of posts, the inner two lines of which had a wattle structure filled up with rammed earth and clay (fig. 23). Parapets and cannon platforms were set on

CASTELLA MARIS BALTICI XII

“In the Shadow of the Crescent …”

138

the top of the ramparts. The outer arrangement of such forti­fications could have differed. In Szécsény the palisade was stabilized using a splay embankment. This solution appears on many contemporary military plans, for example in case of Tokaj or Szatmár (Satu Mare) (Détshy 1995; Domokos 2006:53f.). Only the two gate towers – southern and north­eastern – were built of stone; the remains of the southern one can still be seen.

The ramparts in Szécsény were damaged during the fight­ing in 1593 but the repairs began soon after. Several royal de­crees ordered villains from the neighbouring region to the fortification works in the first half of the seventeenth century (Oborni 2011:12–13; Mordovin 2011:158). The new castellan, István Koháry, initiated a complete reconstruction of the ur­ban fortifications after 1647. These works, however, hardly can be called “modernization” because the architectural de­tails were really out of date and obviously were not suitable to withstand the attack of heavy artillery. In the period from 1640 and the second Ottoman conquest of the city in 1663 the eastern part of these works was completed. The new ur­ban ramparts consisted of two circular, multi­storey cannon towers situated on the north­eastern and south­eastern cor­ners (fig. 24). These towers were connected by straight walls only 90–100 cm thick with loopholes and parapets on the top (fig. 25). Both the towers and the wall had stone founda­tions but were built of brick. This type of military architec­ture was typical of the first half and the middle of the six­teenth century. Its appearance in Szécsény a century later is very surprising and hard to understand. This situation is

Fig.23.Szécsény,excavatedremainsoftheurbanfortifications(afterMordovin2011).

Fig.24.Szécsény,circularcannontowerinthenorth-easterncornerofthecity.Photo:M.Mordovin2012.

CASTELLA MARIS BALTICI XII 139

Maxim Mordovin

Fig.25.Szécsény,remainsoftheloopholesinthecitywallbuiltinanineteenth-centuryhouse.Photo:M.Mordovin2011.

Fig.26.Drégelypalánk.Drawingfrom1639byJohannleDentu.

CASTELLA MARIS BALTICI XII

“In the Shadow of the Crescent …”

140

even less comprehensible when we compare this out­of­date architecture of one of the most important frontier castles with the very modern ground plan and arrangement of the château in Gács (Halič), built at the beginning of the seven­teenth century (that is, several decades earlier). This can only mean that the appearance and display of a private residence was much more important than the proper modernization of a border castle serving the community.

The other new fortification built by the Ottomans is Drégelypalánk. This one was constructed in 1575 in the vil­lage beneath the ruinous but still inhabited medieval castle of Drégely, surrounding the remains of a former parish church. The structure of the stronghold is reflected in the name of the village. Palánk is the special contemporary term used in Hungarian and Turkish for fortifications built of earth and timber like the one in Szécsény. The castle was known as Bügürdelen in the Ottoman sources. It was destroyed shortly after the Long War (Hegyi 2007:775). The Ottoman struc­ture was repaired after 1593 and remained in use at least until 1663 (see Oborni 2001:94) when it was finally burnt down and destroyed (fig. 26). Its remains disappeared without trace, be­ing completely built into the modern village. Some sporadic details could have been observed during rescue excavations in 2011. A foundation ditch of the rampart was found with traces of the wattle structure.

The origin of the urban fortifications in Balassagyarmat is dubious. There are no published archaeological data and Fig.27.Balassagyarmat,groundplan,c.1660,JohannleDentu.

Fig.28.Balassagyarmat,aerialview,c.1660,JohannleDentu.

CASTELLA MARIS BALTICI XII 141

Maxim Mordovin

no possibility for an archaeological dating of the site. Accor­ding to the written and pictorial sources the medieval cas­tle was set on fire and destroyed in 1552. Its ruins were dis­mantled by the Ottoman military in the sixteenth century (Dávid & Fodor 2005:598). After the recapture of the region in 1593 the remains were reconstructed and modernized. The whole settle ment was surrounded by modern ramparts built of earth and timber, strengthened with Italian­type pentago­nal bastions on the corners (fig. 27–28). This illusory up­to­dateness did not help to withstand the new Turkish attack in 1663 and the castle was once again destroyed.

The lower castle in Fülek (Fiľakovo) seemingly fits into the sequence of the sixteenth­century Ottoman ramparts but it is not yet proved by archaeological evidence. A similar situation can be imagined in the case of urban fortifications appearing on contemporary sketches of Nógrád.

A special example must be mentioned to end with. There is one, not too significant castle in the county which lacks in written sources from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The castle of Ecseg was most probably built in the late thir­teenth century and last appears in the sources at the end of the fourteenth century. According to the historical research based mainly on the written evidence, the castle must have been abandoned in the Middle Ages, perhaps being tem­porarily reused by the Hussites at the end of the fifteenth century but then surely dismantled. However, some recent archaeological research – carried out precisely during the

Fig.29.ChâteauinGács(Halič),groundplan(afterPlaček&Bóna2007).

Fig.30.ChâteauinGács(Halič),aerialview.Photo:Civertan.

CASTELLA MARIS BALTICI XII

“In the Shadow of the Crescent …”

142

Fig.32.FortifiedmanorhouseinDivény(Divín),palacebuilding.Photo:M.Mordovin2010.

Fig.31.FortifiedmanorhouseinDivény(Divín),groundplan(af-terPlaček&Bóna2007).

writing of the present article – showed clear evidence of the occupation and siege of the castle in the 1680s in the form of Ottoman and Habsburg coins, lead bullets and musket balls.

Despite the dangerous and turbulent period and the bor­der zone character of the region, two splendid new modern residences were constructed in the northern part of Nógrád in the seventeenth century. One is the above­mentioned châ­teau in Gács (Halič), built on a prolonged hexagonal plan with projecting pentagonal and quadrangular bastion­like towers on the angles. There must have been an outer line of purely military fortifications, which did not survive (fig. 29–30). The construction of this fortified residence took place in the relatively peaceful period between 1601 and 1612 by Sigismund Forgách, the owner of Szécsény (Plaček & Bóna 2007:127–128).

The other residence founded by János Balassa in 1670 was situated beneath the medieval stronghold in Divény (Di­vín). This one was rather a fortified manor house providing more comfort for its owner than the old castle above. The manor house was surrounded by massive rectangular forti­fication with pentagonal bastions on the angles (fig. 31–32; Pisoň 1973:126).

CASTELLA MARIS BALTICI XII 143

Maxim Mordovin

ConclusionBriefly concluding the results of the investigations, it seems that there was no systematic and methodical building up of the frontier strongholds. The building activity and moderni­zation attempts were random, inconsistent and occasional. In most cases these construction efforts lacked proficiency and a proper financial background. Even the crucial well­planned fortresses had not been finished. The only successfully mod­ernized medieval castle in the county was Fülek (Fiľakovo). The fact that it withstood the Ottoman campaign in 1663 proves this well. All the other sites were usually abandoned in the event of danger, without any fight, any serious attempt to withstand the enemy or after just a short siege. Regarding the architecture it is clearly visible that both sides used the same castles and used similar techniques. In this period the most widespread architectural solution was the construction of earth­timber ramparts or smaller palisades. However, the adoption of modern western military architecture can be ob­served on the Hungarian side of the border, even though the results of these modifications were less than acceptable. Sum­marizing the effectiveness of the building and construction activity carried out on the frontier castles of Nógrád County, the fact is that the local strongholds withstood enemy at­tacks only when the enemy did not really want to take them.

ReferencesAgócs, A. 2009. A füleki vár évszázadai. Fülek.Csortán, F. 2003. Ottoman Architecture in the Vilayet of Temesvár. In:

Gerelyes, I. & Kovács, Gy. (Eds), Archaeology of the Ottoman Period in Hungary. Budapest.

Czigány, I. 2004. Reform vagy kudarc? Kísérletek a magyarországi katonaság beillesztésére a Habsburg Birodalom haderejébe 1600–1700. Budapest.

Dávid, G. & Fodor, P. 2005. “Az ország ügye mindenek előtt való”: A szultáni tanács Magyarországra vonatkozó rendeletei (1544–1545, 1552). Budapest.

Détshy, M. 1995. A tokaji vár története. Tokaj.Domokos, Gy. 2006. Újabb adatok a szatmári erődítmény építéstörténe­

téhez az 1660–1670­es években. Castrum 4.Feld, I. 2005. Salgó vára. Somoskő vára. Castrum 1.

Feld, I. 2010. A középkori várak kutatása Nógrád megyében. In: Guba, Sz. & Tankó, K. (Eds), “Régről kell kezdenünk...” Studia Archaeologica in honorem Pauli Patay. Szécsény.

Fodor, P. 2000. Prelude to the Long War: Some Notes on the Ottoman Foreign Policy in 1591–1593. In: Güler, E. et al. (Eds), The Great Otto-man Turkish Civilization. I. Istanbul.

Fodor, P. 2004. The Simurg and the Dragon: The Ottoman Empire and Hungary 1390–1533. In: Zombori, I. (Ed.), Fight Against the Turk in Central-Europe in the First Half of the 16th Century. Budapest.

Genthon, I. et al. 1954, Nógrád megye műemlékei. Budapest.Hegyi, K. 2003. Balkan Garrison Troops and Soldier­peasants in the

Vilayet of Buda. In: Gerelyes, I. & Kovács, Gy. (Eds), Archaeology of the Ottoman Period in Hungary. Budapest.

Hegyi, K. 2007. A török hódoltság várai és várkatonsága. I–III. Budapest.Kozák, E. M. 2006. A hollókői vár kutatási eredményei. In: Kovács, Gy.

& Miklós, Zs. (Eds), “Gondolják, látják az várnak nagy voltát...” Ta-nulmányok a 80 éves Nováki Gyula tiszteletére. Budapest.

László, E. 2009. Die Burg Salgó. Castrum 10.Majcher, T. 2005. Drégely vára. Castrum 1.Maksay, F. 1990. Magyarország birtokviszonyai a 16. század közepén 1.

Buda pest.Mordovin, M. 2013. Szécsényi vár a kora újkorban. In: Gálcsik, Zs. &

Guba, Sz. (Eds), Szécsény évszázadai. Szécsény.Nováki, Gy., Sándorfi, Gy. & Miklós, Zs. 1979. A Börzsöny hegység őskori

és középkori várai. Budapest.Oborni, T. 2001. Nógrád vármegye nemesi közgyűlési jegyzőkönyveinek

regesztái 1597–1603. Salgótarján.Oborni, T. 2004. From Province to Principality: Continuity and Change

in Transylvania in the First Half of the Sixteenth Century. In: Zom­bori, I. (Ed.), Fight Against the Turk in Central-Europe in the First Half of the 16th Century. Budapest.

Pálmány, B. 1986. Végvárak Nógrád vármegyében a török kiűzése és az újratelepítés korszakában (1663–1703). Nógrád Megyei Múzeumok Évkönyve 12.

Pálmány, B. 1989. A Kacsics­nemzetség várépítő és uradalomszervező törekvései Nógrádban a 13–14. század fordulóján. In: Horváth, L. (Ed.), Várak a 13. században. A Magyar várépítés fénykora. Budapest.

Pisoň, Š. 1973. Hrady, zámky a kaštiele na Slovensku. Martin.Plaček, M. & Bóna, M. 2007. Encyklopédia slovenských hradov. Bratislava.Regele, O. 1949. Der Österreichische Hofkriegsrat 1556–1848. Wien.Šimkovic, M. & Agócs, A. 2008. Fülek vára. Várkalauz. Fülek.Tomka, G. 2005. Nógrád vára. Castrum 1.Tóth, S. L. 2000. A mezőkeresztesi csata és a tizenöt éves háború. Szeged.