Relations between the Turkish Empire, Zaporozhian Cossacks and Crimean Khanate in the first half of the XVII century

After the preparations were completed, the decision to dismiss Mehmet Giray was announced. This was at the same time the declaration of a war, though it was clear that Mehmet Giray would not approve that. The Ottoman army administration beseiging the Crimean capital Bakhchisarai in May 1628, ascribed the Nogay leader Kantemir special functions in the battle. The Crimean-Cossacks forces were defeated in the first battle and fled towards Poland. The sources mention that Poland was an intervening party in the Crimean-Cossacks alliance. Doroshenko assigned by Poland for commanding the Cossacks rallied the allies again and attacked the Ottoman army in great masses. At first, the Crimean troops under the command of Mehmet Giray caught the ascendancy being supported by the Cossacks cannon shooting. Defensive forces under the command of Chanibek Giray and Kantemir tried to go into a close fighting by attacking in masses against the ascendancy of the Cossacks cannonade. This tactics was very reasonable, because in close fighting the advantages of the ascendancy of the Cossacks fire arms would be eliminated. For this purpose, Chanibek Giray and Kantemir's forces attacked the allies. The Crimean- Cossacks forces suffered defeat and fled. Mehmed Giray was injured and soon died. Cossacks Ataman Doroshenko was killed, too. Shakhin Giray fled together with the allies [23, pp. 427-428].

After the Ottoman forces recaptured the Crimea, Shakhin Giray joined the Cossacks in the steppes, and the troops reinforced by Poland maintained their pressure upon the Crimean Peninsula. The Cossacks raids, too, continued in an increasing extention. There was no precise information about, whether Chanibek Giray, who was holding the Crimean throne, received full support from the tribal unity. But it was certain that the relations between the Ottomans and the tribal forces did not gain its earlier reliable level. During and after the Khotyn expedition, the Nogays under the authority of the famous leader Kantemir were ascended by the Ottoman Central authority, and the Shirins at the top of the tribal hierarchy did not accept that new status quo. Kantemir, becoming the only base of the Ottomans in the Northern Area of the Black Sea and the Crimean Peninsula, now turned into an obstacle between the Crimeans and the Ottomans. A simple pretext was enough to reveal their hate and sedition. The Ottoman State completed its preparations for the Iranian front and called Chanibek Giray, too, to attend to the war. At that period the Polish-Cossacks pressure over the Black Sea was very strong. Another situation was, that the Nogays respected the status more, than the other tribal forces. Chanibek Giray did not leave the Crimea for the Ottoman expedition in this juncture, but left his Office. The new crisis between the Ottomans and Crimeans occurred in the following way. The tribal forces reacting on the Khan's resignation blamed Kantemir Mirza for that. While the Khans were losing their prestiges by being dismissed from the throne on insignificate pretexes, Kantemir maintained his function for a long time, and his ñharisma and honour aroused the other tribal forces jealousy.

The crowded Crimean army under the command of Chanibek's kalgai Husam Giray headed for the elimination of the Mansuroglu Ulus constituting the Kantemir Nogays. Kantemir's returning to Istanbul for the presentation of the problem before the Porte caused acceleration of the elimination. Although Inayet Giray, who was appointed as the Khan by the Porte, did not approve the elimination, his resistance to the tribal forces was in no way possible. He would have to resign by losing the trust of the tribal forces. The Crimean-Nogay antagonism turned into a blooded warfare. At a juncture in which the upper level kalgais and mirzas were killed, the Crimean Khan was dismissed. While he was looking for a chance to be forgiven in Istanbul, he was executed. The last event caused an internecine conflict rising to its peak point. The Crimeans were in no way possible to be checked against the Nogays. The Ottoman central authority had to sacrifice Kantemir. The famous Nogay leader was executed [23, pp. 301-306; 28, pp. 389-405].

There is some information that the Cossacks-Crimean alliance had been maintained by 1635. It can be thought that the elimination of Nogay tribes from the Azov hinterland empowered the Cossacks. It was not incidentally that Azov was invaded at that time. This was much connected with the Nogay-Crimean conflict. The great tension the Ottomans had both from the Crimeans, and from the Nogays, made the Ottoman-Cossacks relations gain a new level. Regardless of the consequences of the Ottoman- Cossacks warfare, the Cossacks-Crimean alliance sustained the weight of both of the regional forces by weakening the Ottoman domination all over the region. While the Cossacks were growing stronger against the Ottoman Empire, they become strong against Poland, too. Poland was pleased at the Ottomans' weakening owing to the Cossacks-Crimean alliance. But, from the point of the Cossacks, the alliance with Crimeans removed the danger in the south and made them much stronger position in relation to Poland.

The Cossacks appointed Taras Triasylo as their Ataman just in the Crimea after Doroshenko's death in the last battle in 1628. Meanwhile, another ataman - Hryhory Chorny emerged under the authority of Poland. After Taras removed Hryhory by integrating the Cossacks bound to him, he launched a revolt against Poland. It is claimed that that last revolt was different from the former ones considerably, because of the peasants constituting the majority of the attendants, rather than the Cossacks being native insurgents [22, p. 68]. It is seen that the Cossacks became a social power, and they reached the level of representing the southern Ukrainian population at that stage. Hrushevsky is in the opinion of the said public movement, that began under the leadership of Taras, was a new and important stage in the Ukrainian history [13, p. 262].

Poland constantly needed the Cossacks badly, especially for the two following reasons: it was not possible for them to struggle against the Turks and Moskovites without a support from the Cossacks [9, p. 212]. Poland was violently suppressing the Cossacks rebellions, killing its leaders, due to the Ottoman pressure. Another reason for Poland having implemented a high level of violence against the rebels was, that the rebels threatened Poland itself. Sulima was one of the atamans who was killed in this way [40, p. 167]. This kind of contradictions were among the elements making necessary the Cossacks-Crimean alliance. There is an information in sources, that this kind of alliance continued at the time of Pavliuk's atamanship proclaimed after Sulima's [9, p. 224].

The revolts carried out under the leadership of atamans like Pavliuk (1637) and Ostrianyn (1638) were severely suppressed. The suppression of these revolts made Poland looking stronger, but it weakened that country socially. The events, carried out under the national identity of Ukraine, were impossible to be controlled with the help of the traditional policies of Poland. Consequently, Ukrainian independence movement emerged under the leadership of Bohdan Khemilnitsky.

Bohdan Khemilnitsky, too, started his negotiations with the Ottomans, but turned towards Moscow finally. In fact, the movement initiated by Khemilnitsky in 1648 and transformed by the Treaty of Pereyaslav (1654) to the vassality of Moskow was the same, as the one which was started in the time of Vishnevetsky. The political structure of Ukrainian population had been an undisputable necessity, since the end of the Kievan Period. The Ukrainian population did not have the geographical opportunities, which were available when the great empires came into existence. But the leaders, having estimated the conjuncture in the course of history, saw their permanent task in founding autonomous political bodies similar to Wallachia or Moldavia.

This aspect, from the point of view of the Crimean Khanate, had the same characteristics, the Cossacks problem had. The Crimean Khanate was in a perpetual struggle to change its status relatively the Ottomans in a more autonomous direction, than the one that Mehmet II designed according to the vassalage concept. The effort to represent the political heritage of the Golden Horde was always suppressed by decisive measures undertaken by the Ottoman central authorities. The period of the Cossacks-Crimean cooperation, which is the subject of our presentation, constitutes the time when the said social dynamics more clearly exposed itself.

Ñïèñîê âèêîðèñòàíèõ äæåðåë

1. Baçbakanlik Osmanli Arçivi, Düvel-i Ecnebiye, 55 / 1.

2. Baçbakanlik Osmanli Arçivi, Mühimme Defteri, XLVII, 214 / 503.

3. Baçbakanlik Osmanli Arçivi, Mühimme Defteri, XLVII, 219 / 516.

4. Baçbakanlik Osmanli Arçivi, Mühimme Defteri, XLIV, 171 / 352.

5. T. C. Baçbakanlik Devlet Arçivleri Genel Müdürlügü Osmanli Arçivi Daire Baçkanligi, LXXXIII Numarali Mühime Defteri (1036-1037 / 16261628), Özet - Transkripsiyon, indeks ve Tipkibasim. - Ankara, 2001.

6. Allen W. E. D. The Ukraine: A History / W. E. D. Allen. - Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1940.

7. Berindei M. La Porte Ottomane Face aux Cosaques Zaporogues 1600-1637 / M. Berindei // Harvard Ukrainian Studies. - 1977. - Vol. I. - Num. 3. - P. 273-307.

8. Çerçi Faris. Künhü'l Ahbar'in II. Selim, III. Murad ve III. Mehmed Devirleri. III. / Faris Çerçi. - Kayseri : Erciyes Üniv, 2000.

9. Ãîëîáóöêèé Â. À. Çàïîðîæñêîå êàçà÷åñòâî / Â. À. Ãîëîáóöêèé. - Êèåâ : Ãîñïîëèòèçäàò, 1957.

10. Halim Giray. Gülbün-i Hanan / Ed. Osman Cudi. - Istanbul : Necm- i ²stikbal Matbaasi, 1909.

11. Hezarfen Hüseyin Efendi. Telhîsü'l - Beyân fî Kavânîn-i Âl-i Osmân / Ed. Sevim Ilgürel. - Ankara : TTK, 1998.

12. Howorth H. H. History of the Mongols from the 9th to the 19th Century. / H. H. Howorth. - New York ; London, Longman, Green and Co, 1880. - Vol. II.

13. Hrushevsky M. A History of Ukraine / Transl. into English,

O. J. Frederiksen. - New Haven : Yale University Press, 1941.

14. Inalcik Halil. Osmanli-Rus Rekabetinin Mençei ve Don-Volga Kanali Teçebbüsü (1569) / Halil Inalcik. - Ankara : Türk Tarih Kurumu Basimevi, 1948.

15. Inalcik Halil. Han ve Kabile Aristokrasisi: I. Sahib Giray döneminde Kirim Hanligi / Halil Inalcik // Emel special issue. - 1983. - 135. - P. 51-73.

16. Inalcik Halil. Power relationships between Russia, the Crimea and the Ottoman Empire as reflected in the Titulature / Halil Inalcik // The Middle East and the Balkans under the Ottoman Empire, Essays on Economy and Society / Halil Inalcik. - Bloomington : Indiana University Turkish Studies and Turkish Ministry of Culture, 1995.

17. Kâtip Çelebi. Fezleke. Vols. I-II / Çelebi Kâtip. - Istanbul : Cerîde-i Havadis Matbaasi tab'i, [N.d.].

18. Kolodziejczyk D. Ottoman-Polish Diplomatic Relations (15th - 18th Century) / D. Kolodziejczyk. - Leiden ; Boston ; Köln : Brill, 2000.

19. Lassota, Erich von Steblau. Habsburgs and Zaporozhian Cossacks. The diary of Erich Lassota von Steblau 1594 / Transl. into English: Orest Subtelny / Ed. Lubomyr R. Wynar. - Littleton: Ukainian Academic Press, 1975.

20. Magocsi Paul Robert. A History of Ukraine / Paul Robet Magocsi. - Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1996.

21. Manz B. F. The Clans of the Crimean Khanate / B. F. Manz // Harvard Ukrainian Studies. - 1978. - Vol. 2. - No. 3. - P. 282-309.

22. March G. P. Cossacks of Brotherhood - the Zaporog Kosh of the Brotherhood / G. P. Lang. - New York : P. Lang, 1990.

23. Mustafa Na`imâ Efendi. Na`imâ Tarihi. Vol. II. / Mustafa Na`imâ Efendi - Istanbul : Matbaa-i âmire tab`i, [N.d.].

24. Ostapchuk V. The Ottoman Black Sea Frontier and the Relations of the Porte with the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Moscow 16221628 / V. Ostapchuk. - Michigan : Harvard University Press, 1989.

25. Öztürk Yücel. Osmanli Hakimiyetinde Kefe (1475-1600) / Yücel Öztürk. - Ankara : Kültür Bakanligi, 2000.

26. Öztürk Yücel. "Kirim Hanligi" / Yücel Öztürk // Türkler, Vol. 8 / Ed. Hasan Celâl Güzel, Kemal Çiçek, Salim Koca. - Ankara : Yeni Türkiye Yayinlari, 2002. - P. 480-513.

27. Öztürk Yücel. Dimitriy Ivanoviç Vishnevetsky ve Faaliyetleri / Yücel Öztürk // Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi. - 2003. - Sayi: 9. - P. 95-140.

28. Öztürk Yücel. Özü'den Tuna'ya Kazaklar / Yücel Öztürk. - Istanbul : Yeditepe Yayinevi, 2004.

29. Öztürk Yücel. Erdel-Eflâk-Bogdan Olaylari ve Dimitriy Vishnevetsky / Yücel Öztürk // Türklük Araçtirmalari Dergisi. - 2005. - 17. -P. 55-95.

30. Öztürk Yücel. Osmanli Devleti'nin Rusya'ya Yönelik Di§ Politikasi ve Türkiye-Moskova Iliçkileri (16 ve 17. Yüzyillar) / Yücel Öztürk // Türk Di§ Politikasi (Osmanli Dönemi). Vol. II / Ed. Mustafa Biyikli. - Istanbul : Bilirnevi Basin Yayin, 2008. - P. 217-280.

31. Peçevi Ibrahim Efendi. Peçevî Tarihi, Vol. II / Ed. Bekir Sitki Baykal. - Ankara : Kültür ve Turizm Bakanligi Yayinlari, 1999.

32. Pritsak O. Kievan Rus' and the Sixteenth-Seventeenth Century Ukraine / O. Pritsak // Rethinking Ukrainian History / Ed. Ivan L. Rudnytsky. - Edmonton : Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies, 1981. - P. 1-28.

33. Selanikî Mustafa. Tarih-i Selanikî. Vol. I / Ed. Mehmet Ibçirli. - Istanbul : Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi, 1989.

34. Quelquejay Chantal Lemercier. Un condottiere lithuanien du XVIe sicle: Le Prince Dimitrij Vilneveckij et l'origine de la Sec Zaporogue d`- apris les Archives Ottomanes / Chantal Lemercier Quelquejay // Cahiers du monde russe et sovietique. - Vol. 10. - Num. 2. - 1969. - P. 258-279.

35. Refik Ahmet. Açik Deniz Meselesi ve Azak Muhasarasi / Ahmet Refik // TOEM. - 1926. - 16. - P. 261-275.

36. Ridvan Pashazâde. La Chronique Des Steppes Kiptchak, Tevârih-i De§t-i Kipçak du XVII. Siècle (Ms. Istanbul, Topkapi Sarayi, B. 289). Edition Critique avec la traduction francaise / Ed. Ananiasz Zajaczkowski. - Warsawa : Panstwowe Wydawn. Naukowe, 1966.

37. Schamiloglu Uli. Tribal Politics and Organization in the Golden Horde: PhD Thesis / Uli Schamiloglu; Columbia University. - New York, 1986.

38. Seyyid Mehmed Riza. Es-Seb'ü's-seyyâr fî ahbâr-i mülûki't - Tâtâr, Süleymâniye - Ragip Pasha, Number 1016 / Seyyid Mehmed Riza. - [á.ì.â.]: [á.â.], [á.ð.â.]

39. Uzunçarçili Ismail Hakki. Osmanli Tarihi. Vol. III / Ismail Hakki Uzunçarçili. - Ankara : Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1983.

40. ßâîðíèöüêèé Ä. ²ñòîð³ÿ çàïîð³çüêèõ êîçàê³â / Ä. ßâîðíèöüêèé. - Ëüâ³â : Ñâ³ò, 1991. - Ò. 2.

References:

1. Baçbakanlik Osmanli Arçivi, Düvel-i Ecnebiye, 55 / 1.

2. Baçbakanlik Osmanli Arçivi, Mühimme Defteri, XLVII, 214 / 503.

3. Baçbakanlik Osmanli Arçivi, Mühimme Defteri, XLVII, 219 / 516.

4. Baçbakanlik Osmanli Arçivi, Mühimme Defteri, XLIV, 171 / 352.

5. T. C. Baçbakanlik Devlet Arçivleri Genel Müdürlügü Osmanli Arçivi Daire Baçkanligi, LXXXIII Numarali Mühime Defteri (1036-1037 / 16261628), Özet - Transkripsiyon, Indeks ve Tipkibasim. - Ankara, 2001.

6. Allen W. E. D. (1940) The Ukraine: A History / W. E. D. Allen. - Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.

7. Berindei M. (1977) La Porte Ottomane Face aux Cosaques Zaporogues 1600-1637. / M. Berindei Harvard Ukrainian Studies. - Vol. I. - Num. 3. - Ð. 273-307.

8. Çerçi Faris (2000). Künhü'l Ahbar'in II. Selim, III. Murad ve ²²². Mehmed Devirleri. III / Faris Çerçi. - Kayseri : Erciyes Üniv.