The Tatar military art of war in the early modern period: an example of asymmetric warfare

Gliwa, Andrzej

doi:2450-8462

Pobierz

Tytuł: The Tatar military art of war in the early modern period: an example of asymmetric warfare

Abstrakt:

The present analysis of military operations carried out by Tatar Hordes in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries has shown that these operations were basically shaped by asymmetric actions. Their main characteristics were secrecy of action up to the moment of attack, use of information-and-intelligence warfare struggle instruments, a total character of operations taken against civilians, their material resources and economic infrastructure, with use of terrorist tactics and means of psychological impact that aimed at intimidating the community under attack. The actions of Tatar Hordes were primarily focused on non-military aspects and took advantage not only of classic military tools but also a combination of political measures and instruments as well as those typical of economy, these including a variety of economic and demographic pressures. Pursuing asymmetric action was in the hands of the Giray (Gerey) dynasty one of the most important tools enabling them to efficiently achieve their political goals in the international arena and to support the economic development of the Crimean Khanate through permanent transfers of slaves and tangible property of various sorts.

Bibliografia:

Baranowski Bohdan, Chłop polski w walce z Tatarami (Warszawa, 1952).
Fisher Alan W., Crimean Tatars (Stanford, 1978).
Gliwa Andrzej, Kraina upartych niepogód. Zniszczenia wojenne na obszarze ziemi przemyskiej w XVII wieku (Przemyśl, 2013).
Gliwa Andrzej, ‘The Tatar-Cossack Invasion of 1648: Military actions, material destruction and demographic losses in the land of Przemyśl’, Acta Poloniae Historica, cv (2012), 85–120.
Górka Olgierd, ‘Liczebność Tatarów krymskich i ich wojsk’, Przegląd Historyczno-Wojskowy, viii, 2 (1936), 185–295.
İnalcık Halil, ‘The Khan and the Tribal Aristocracy: The Crimean Khanate under Sahib Giray I’, Harvard Ukrainian Studies, iii–iv (1979–1980), 445–66.
Kaldor Mary, New and Old Wars. Organized Violence in a Global Era (Stanford, CA, 1999).
Khazanov Anatoly M., ‘Nomads of the Eurasian Steppes in Historical Retrospective’, in Nikolay N. Kradin, Dmitri M. Bondarenko, and Thomas J. Barfield (ed.), Nomadic Pathways in Social Evolution (Civilizational Dimension, ed. by Igor V. Sledzevski et al., 5, Lac-Beauport, 2015; 1st edn – Moscow, 2003), 25–49.
Kizilov Mikhail, ‘The Slave Trade in the Early Modern Crimea from the Perspective of Christian, Muslim, and Jewish Sources’, Journal of Early Modern History, xi, 1–2 (2007), 1–31.
Kołodziejczyk Dariusz, ‘Slave Hunting and Slave Redemption as a Business Enterprise: The Northern Black Sea Region in the Sixteenth to Seventeenth Centuries’, Oriento Moderno, lxxxvi, 1 (2006), 149–59.
Majewski Ryszard, ‘Z problematyki walk z Tatarami w pierwszej połowie XVII wieku’, Sobótka, xxx, 2 (1975), 231–41.
May Timothy, The Mongol Art of War. Chinggis Khan and the Mongol Military System (Yardley, PA, 2007).
Murphey Rhoads, Ottoman Warfare 1500–1700 (New Brunswick, 1999).
Ostapchuk Victor, ‘Crimean Tatar Long Range Campaigns. The View from Remmal Khoja’s History of Sahib Gerey Khan’, Journal of Turkish Studies, xxix, 1 (2005), 271–87.
Smith Rupert, The Utility of Force. The Art of War in the Modern World (New York, 2007).
Wójcicki Kazimierz W., ‘Tatarzy’, Biblioteka Warszawska, i (1842), 153–83.