I'd suggests muskets and rajtars, because these guys are relatively numerous while being disciplined.
I've actually read a fair bit about nomadic armies, and from what I understand, there's no period where they're more vulnerable than this. A huge part of the strength of a nomadic force comes from their maneuverability and ability to choose terms of engagement. But when they're bagged down with loot trains and attacked, these strengths turn to weaknesses, and suddenly the nomads find themselves put on the backfoot.[] Give it a few days, and then head south to try and intercept them when they're weighed down by slaves and loot.
By the way the Wild Fields would start way down South, after passing the treacherous Dniepr Rapids (Porohy), where the Cossacks have their base (Sicz). They were called that for a reason, since almost nobody lived there, because this was by far the most dangerous and lawless region of Ukraine. No wonder the Cossacks, runaway serfs and other scoundrels loved the place, since they were untouchable there, besides the locals and raiding Tatars.the prelude-lands to the Wild Fields – you're met with only a few emissaries' greetings, and fewer noble fighters willing to sign on.
Good old Chmiel later on agreed to let the Tatars plunder, loot and raid Ukraine to their heart's content in order to maintain the alliance, while after the battle of Batoh he actually paid them so that he could take their Polish prisoners and put them to the sword. Some survived only because their Tatar captors disguised them as one of their own in order to not give them up (they did so for the expected ransom of course for richer nobles, but still).Pretty much any alliance with Crimea necessitated a provision in regards to them getting the pick of the hostages: Khmelnytsky needed to negotiate with Tughai Bey to let him release those prisoners that agreed to join the uprising.
I suppose he knew when and who to target for recruitment, because in some campaigns he recruited many prisoners, including not just turncoat soldiers, but some competent administrators like Vyhovsky and Niemirycz. There is a somewhat conspiracy-tier theory that Niemirycz was covertly the co-organizer of the whole Khmelnytsky war together with the Ottomans and was biding his time to see if the whole Cossack Ukraine project stabilizes enough to reveal his true allegiances and prepare it for his eventual goal of adding a third narod to the Rzeczpospolita.Good old Chmiel later on agreed to let the Tatars plunder, loot and raid Ukraine to their heart's content in order to maintain the alliance, while after the battle of Batoh he actually paid them so that he could take their Polish prisoners and put them to the sword. Some survived only because their Tatar captors disguised them as one of their own in order to not give them up (they did so for the expected ransom of course for richer nobles, but still).
I absolutely agree, that he recruited many prisoners to his cause and not all of them were Ruthenians. Cossack lifestyle had a certain appeal and many nobles were happy to tag along. Unfortunately this changed in later years and both sides started to eliminate each other without bothering to look for turncoats.I suppose he knew when and who to target for recruitment, because in some campaigns he recruited many prisoners, including not just turncoat soldiers, but some competent administrators like Vyhovsky and Niemirycz. There is a somewhat conspiracy-tier theory that Niemirycz was covertly the co-organizer of the whole Khmelnytsky war together with the Ottomans and was biding his time to see if the whole Cossack Ukraine project stabilizes enough to reveal his true allegiances and prepare it for his eventual goal of adding a third narod to the Rzeczpospolita.
(Edit: obviously the Ottomans had different motives for supporting Chmiel)
I would agree, but the musketeers are explicitly called out as being 'of varying quality, origin, and motivation.' That to me means 'mercenaries loyal to themselves first.'I think far more than raw numbers we need reasonable reliable troops. The type not to run wild against a feigned retreat.
Varied some are and some aren't. I choose to believe it averages outI would agree, but the musketeers are explicitly called out as being 'of varying quality, origin, and motivation.' That to me means 'mercenaries loyal to themselves first.'
[X] Five hundred Lipka/Christianized Tatars.
[X] A large company of German and Crownlander rajtaria – around three hundred men.
[X] Move at forced-march pace to try and find them at once.
As mentioned before, they are descendants of Tatar exiles, POWs and expatriates, that were settled in the Commonwealth in the ages long past. Lithuania had many villages populated with such people and in exchange for the land given to them they had to fight for the Grand Dukes. Such hamlets also exist in other places, like Podolia. Most are still Muslim and speak Ruthenian or Polish as their native tongue (they would assimilate very quickly). Indeed, Lipkas were granted privileges and had the rights of... nobles. Yes, that's right. Poland and Lithuania were very generous to Muslim Tatars and such settlers could become nobles in exchange for loyalty. They didn't have political rights (so no offices, Sejmiks or Sejms for them), but would gain them the moment they convert to Christianity, yet most never did. They had their own aristocracy as well. Some bore the title of Mirza, Bey or Knyaz (due to being descended from Golden Horde aristocrats or even Genghis Khan himself).Actually I'm curious now, how and when did these Lipka/Christianized Tatars happen, why and how did they join the PLC? Are they actually Tatars or they got named that way because they spoke a Turkic language and are actually Cuman/Pecheneg/Kipchak?
As mentioned before, they are descendants of Tatar exiles, POWs and expatriates, that were settled in the Commonwealth in the ages long past. Lithuania had many villages populated with such people and in exchange for the land given to them they had to fight for the Grand Dukes. Such hamlets also exist in other places, like Podolia. Most are still Muslim and speak Ruthenian or Polish as their native tongue (they would assimilate very quickly). Indeed, Lipkas were granted privileges and had the rights of... nobles. Yes, that's right. Poland and Lithuania were very generous to Muslim Tatars and such settlers could become nobles in exchange for loyalty. They didn't have political rights (so no offices, Sejmiks or Sejms for them), but would gain them the moment they convert to Christianity, yet most never did. They had their own aristocracy as well. Some bore the title of Mirza, Bey or Knyaz (due to being descended from Golden Horde aristocrats or even Genghis Khan himself).
The very name Lipka is a late addition and comes from the way the Crimean Khans addressed the Grand Dukes of Lithuania (Lipka being a bad translation of Lithuania) as the Great Khans of Lipkas, styling them as another Tatar Khan (due to having them as his subjects). For all intents and purposes, the Lipkas are culturally almost the same as regular Ruthenians, which explains their lasting loyalty, yet they still practiced the skills of their ancestors. Since we are using this terminology consistently, I would leave it be, but the term Lipka would come into use in the XVII century. Before that, they would be simply called Lithuanian, Polish or Hospodar Tatars.
As for any other nationals, I can tell you, that the people of Caucasus that came to Poland/Lithuania also had their own units and traditions (so long as they had some separate cultural identity), that even had a lasting impact on the military of the PLC. The Lithuanian Petyhorcy (Five Mountain Men) medium cavalry started as a unit of Circassians and in time their battle kit would become a prestigious standard in the army, behind only the Winged Hussars.
Fun fact: Muslims in the PLC were forbidden from building minarets (towers, from which a man would call people to prayer), therefore there is a local tradition, that the muezzin does his job while simply walking through the streets.