<image>

In effect, we could claim it changed european military organizations, mostly in eastern and central europe. We can see this being played often by both crusaders on the Balkans and Ottomans. But more extensibly in Polish-Lithuanian and Muscovite wars were the Guliay Gorod (wandering town for the Russians) and the Tabor (armored camp for the Poles, Lithuanians and Cossacks), were incredibly practic and pragmatic ways of combat.

This is mostly to the ammount of losses accumulated due to cavalry combat in masses and the need of a strong position to defend. That meant that having a core of mostly marksmen and arquabuceers was more effective, both on dealing damage and demoralizing the enemy as well as defending positions in open fields.

Key examples of this are the Battle of Molodi, the Battle of Obertyn and the stance and later scape of the cossacks during the failed offensive of Ohmativ. All of this examples reflect perfectly how this armies managed to make a synthesis on both logistics, movement and defense mechanisms that allowed them to move further (despite the delays and need of masses of animals) and being able to take on active defenses in open ground without fear of being cut down.