Kolodziejczyk Dariusz. The Crimean Khanate and Poland-Lithuania (ENG)

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

84 part one—chapter two

the provision that each year the king should send the khan a gi

in cloths worth 15,000 orins, in two installments, by 24 June and

1 November (nos. 8–9); the provision that the khan should not send

too many and too numerous embassies because it caused great detri-

ment to the royal treasury; Crimean couriers were allowed to arrive in

the company of at most two men, while great envoys in the company

of at most 25 men (nos. 10–11); the engagement that the Tatars would

not raid Poland or Lithuania; the transgressors were to be punished by

the khan, their families arrested, and the stolen goods restored to their

owners; if the khan failed to do so, the king was released from send-

ing the gis due for a given year (nos. 7 and 12). e longest clause

no. 3 contained a list of lands to be again “granted” to Lithuania by

Sahib Giray. e list was identical with the one contained in the pro-

posed formula of the khan’s letter, drawn by the Lithuanian chancery

in 1535, and even contained the same errors.

249

It ignored the varia-

tions introduced in Sahib Giray’s document of 1539. Finally, the clause

no. 13 referred to the oath taken by the Crimean envoy, sworn in his

own name and on behalf of the khan, and his engagement that Sahib

Giray would issue a letter of agreement “being in accord with this

dra, but written more broadly.”

250

Having sworn an oath upon the above document in the presence

of the Polish lords councilors in Cracow, Ali Hadji traveled to Vil-

nius, where King Sigismund spent the whole year 1541.

251

ere, in

the royal presence the Crimean envoy pronounced an oath worded

similarly to the oath of Devey Mirza from 1535. Like the former one,

it referred to the khan’s obligations in regard to both kings, Sigismund

I and his son, Sigismund II Augustus. e Crimean envoy engaged

that the provisions of the document, which he had negotiated with

the Polish lords councilors, would be respected by the khan and con-

rmed in his future oath-letter (lyst prysjažnyj). A special reference

249

Cf. Document 27; for the repeated errors, see Document 29, notes 6, 10, 11,

21.

250

See Document 29.

251

King Sigismund arrived at Vilnius on 24 May 1540 and remained there until

19 May 1542; see Antoni Gąsiorowski, “Itineraria dwu ostatnich Jagiellonów,” Studia

Historyczne 16 (1973): 249–275, esp. p. 267. Both documents related to Ali Hadji’s

embassy are undated, but their dating is enabled by a comparison with neighbor-

ing documents registered in the Lithuanian Register and by the fact that Hornostaj

returned from the Crimea in July 1541. Since the Crimean envoy rst negotiated in

Cracow and then took an oath in the royal presence, one must assume that he visited

rst Cracow and then Vilnius.

the crimean khanate & poland-lithuania (1523–1671) 85

was made to Anikij Hornostaj, who had already performed successful

missions in 1520, 1522, and 1534, and was again appointed the great

envoy to accompany Ali Hadji to the Crimea. Apparently having in

mind the fate of Myxajlo Tyškevyč and wishing to spare Hornostaj a

similar experience, the royal court made Ali Hadji swear that the khan

“should not detain the present great envoy, Pan Anikij Hornostaj, or

other envoys and couriers who will come from His Royal Majesty to

His Majesty the Khan; nor should His Majesty the Khan or the beys,

ulans, and ocials of His Majesty commit any ignoble or inconsider-

ate acts to the envoys and couriers of His Royal Majesty, or rob them

or their servants.”

252

Hornostaj and Ali Hadji set out to the Crimea early in the year

1541, apparently provided with a royal instrument that conrmed the

clauses negotiated with the Tatar envoy in Cracow.

253

In the summer,

Sahib Giray led a great expedition against Muscovy, but the Russian

resistance and an internal conict between the khan and the Nogay

leader, Baki, prevented the Tatars from crossing the Oka. Accused

of sabotage later that year, Baki was cruelly executed along with his

younger brother, Ak Bibi, but the third brother (and former envoy to

Lithuania), Devey, was spared and in 1563 was to become the Manghıt

qaraçı bey. Not knowing about the failure on the Oka, in July 1541

Hornostaj returned from the Crimea carrying a letter of agreement

issued by the khan (unpreserved). Sigismund promptly ordered the

starostas of Čerkasy, Kaniv, and other border commanders to respect

the newly reached peace and not let the cossacks raid the Crimean

lands.

254

Simultaneously, he notied the Lithuanian councilors of exor-

bitant tribute demands of Sahib Giray, who was not satised with the

conditions negotiated with Myxajlo Tyškevyč in 1539. e king warned

that a possible breaking of the peace by the khan might coincide with

the extinguishing of the armistice with Muscovy.

255

In 1542, Sigismund resolved to prolong the peace on both fron-

tiers. In March, an armistice with Muscovy was extended for another

252

e text of the oath has been recorded and is preserved; see Document 30.

253

A reference to that document can be found in the khan’s instrument from 1542;

see Document 31, n. 12.

254

Metryka Vjalikaha Knjastva Litouskaha. Kniha 28 (1522–1552). Kniha zapisau

28 (Kopija kanca XVI st.). Edited by V. Mjanžynski and U. Svjažynski (Minsk, 2000),

pp. 53, 70, 92, 98–102.

255

Ibidem, p. 87.

86 part one—chapter two

seven years.

256

Almost simultaneously, Konstantyn Ratomski was sent

to the Crimea. He returned in the early fall, accompanied by a Tatar

envoy, Biybalush, who carried a new letter of agreement.

257

e docu-

ment, shaped again as a traditional yarlıq, began with a list of lands

“granted” to Lithuania. e list was composed carelessly: some of the

localities were registered twice while others, ommitted at the begin-

ning of the yarlıq, were added at its end. Moreover, the clause granting

lands to Lithuania was erroneously confused with the one engaging to

restore to Sigismund the lands captured by Muscovy. In result, Sahib

Giray promised to restore to Sigismund such towns as Kiev and Luc’k

that had never been lost. Nevertheless, the list from 1542 was more

complete than the one from 1539.

258

e following clauses regarded

as usually the remission of past wrongs, the security of trade, and the

promise to keep friendship. Invoking the clause negotiated in 1541,

Sahib Giray conrmed that the king would be released from send-

ing gis in a year when a Tatar raid occurred without compensation.

In regard to the annual gis, the khan provided that the king should

send him London cloth worth 13,000 orins, and in addition 2,000

orins in cash. e clause repeated the provision of the yarlıq from

1539 and not the one negotiated with Ali Hadji in Cracow in 1541,

whereas according to the latter the whole gi was to consist of cloth.

Moreover, the khan insisted that aside from the regular gi, three sets

of nine gis

259

should be sent yearly to him, and customary gis should

be also sent to his beys, servants, wives, sons, and daughters. e docu-

ment contained a warning covered in the form of an engagement that

“if [the king] sends us [the said gis], then in that year we are not to

bring damage [to him, his states, castles, and villages].” Sahib Giray

also rejected the eorts of the royal diplomacy to limit the number of

Crimean envoys coming to Poland-Lithuania:

As regards the qaraçıs, they have each 20,000 or 30,000 servants and they

used to send envoys and couriers; should we now reduce their number

[i.e., the number of their envoys]? ey used to send envoys in the times

256

Kolankowski, Zygmunt August, wielki książę Litwy, p. 188.

257

See Sigismund’s solemn response to Biybalush, dated 12 October 1542, pub-

lished in Russkaja Istoričeskaja Biblioteka, vol. 30, cols. 81–84.

258

In comparison with the latter, only Smolensk and Byryn were missing, while

Luc’k, Radogošč’, Brjansk, and Starodub were reentered.

259

On the Turco-Mongolian custom, according to which a gi should have con-

sisted of nine objects, cf. Document 31, n. 15.

the crimean khanate & poland-lithuania (1523–1671) 87

of our ancestors and fathers, we cannot reduce their number. As you

have the Lithuanian and Polish lords at your side, so they are their peers

at our side.

Nevertheless, the khan consented that unlike his family members and

qaraçıs, other Crimean subjects as well as their envoys would not be

entitled to royal gis and provisions. e document, addressed to

King Sigismund and his son, Sigismund Augustus, was corroborated

by a reference to the oath sworn by the khan, his son and qalga Emin

Giray, as well as other retinue members.

260

Sahib Giray probably learned about Sigismund’s reconciliation with

Muscovy before he issued his yarlıq. at would explain the mistreat-

ment of Ratomski in the Crimea, raised by the king in his response to

Biybalush.

261

In November 1542, Sigismund sent a courier to the khan,

explaining the reasons of his decision. Apparently trying to appease

the ally’s irritation, the king notied the khan that a new Lithuanian

great envoy, Venclav Mykolaevyč, had already set out along with the

royal gis, and asked that he be given a Tatar escort on his way from

Čerkasy to the Crimea.

262

e fact that since 1539 the khan did not include Majak, Kačybej,

and Dašov (or else Očakiv) in his donation yarlıqs issued for Lith-

uania, reected a major change in the equilibrium of power on the

northern Black Sea shores that occurred aer 1538. Following his

Moldavian campaign of 1538, Sultan Suleyman converted the Mol-

davian castle of Tighina on the Dniester river into the Ottoman for-

tress of Bender. In the years to follow, Bender would become a center

of an Ottoman province (sancak) and the furthest northern strong-

hold in the region facing Poland-Lithuania, and in the 18th century

260

See Document 31. e yarlıq, preserved in Polish translation, is dated in the

Muslim year 949 A.H. (17 April 1542–5 April 1543) and simultaneously in the Chris-

tian year 1545 (the second dating is apparently wrong). A more precise dating is possi-

ble thanks to the preserved royal response to the Crimean envoy, issued on 12 October

1542 (see n. 257 above). Hence, we can assume that the envoy probably departed from

the Crimea in late August or early September 1542.

261

Russkaja Istoričeskaja Biblioteka, vol. 30, col. 83.

262

Ibidem, cols. 84–88. Mykolaevyč should be probably identied with the author of

a famous description of the Crimea, known under the pen name of Michalon Lituanus;

see Jerzy Ochmański, “Michalon Litwin i jego traktat o zwyczajach Tatarów, Litwinów

i Moskwicinów z połowy XVI wieku,” Kwartalnik Historyczny 83 (1976): 765–783; cf.

also Mixalon Litvin, O nravax tatar, litovcev i moskvitjan. Edited by A. Xoroškevič

et al. (Moscow, 1994), pp. 14–25. For the original Latin edition of his treatise, see

n. 26 above.

88 part one—chapter two

also Russia. Consequently, Suleyman also claimed the lands extend-

ing between the lower Dniester and the lower Boh, garrisoning the

Tatar fort of Djankerman (i.e., Očakiv) with Ottoman troops. In 1542,

Suleyman urged King Sigismund to conduct a common demarcation

and commissioners were appointed by both sides, but the demarca-

tion failed due to mutual mistrust.

263

For yet another century, until

the rst successful Polish-Ottoman demarcation of 1633, the disputed

area was formally claimed by all parties concerned: Poland-Lithuania,

264

the Crimean Khanate, and the Porte, although the royal side tacitly

accepted the river of Kodyma, being the right tributary of the Boh,

as the real limit of its inuence.

265

In regard to the lands extending

further eastwards, the Lithuanian authorities gathered testimonies of

aged local inhabitants, who maintained that since the times of Semen

Olelkovyč, who had ruled in Kiev in the years 1454–1470 as a prince

subordinate to King Casimir, the ancient border had reached as far as

the Dnieper crossing of Tavan’, where ferry incomes had been equally

shared between the Lithuanian ruler and the “tsar of Perekop,” i.e.,

the khan (u Tavanja perevozy byly Vašej Mylosty Hospodarskoje na

poly s perekopskym carem), and then further eastwards as far as the

upper Donec.

266

Within the “Muslim” zone, extending southwards

from the border, the Porte was satised with a sort of an Ottoman-

Crimean condominium. e Ottomans controlled major strongholds

and their immediate neighborhood, leaving the steppe to the Tatars.

In the aforementioned yarlıq from 1539, Sahib Giray retorted to the

263

Gilles Veinstein, “L’occupation ottomane d’Očakov et le problème de la frontière

lituano-tatare 1538–1544,” in: Passé Turco-Tatar présent soviétique. Études oertes

à Alexandre Bennigsen. Edited by Ch. Lemercier-Quelquejay, G. Veinstein, S. E.

Wimbusch (Louvain-Paris, 1986): 123–155. For obscure reasons, Polish historical

maps still depict the area between the lower Dniester and the lower Boh as being

Ottoman since 1526 and refer to it by an anachronous name of Yedisan, deriving from

a Nogay tribe that settled in the area a century later.

264

In 1569, Lithuania was forced to cede its southern palatinates of Kiev and

Braclav to Poland, hence an Ottoman-Lithuanian border turned into an Ottoman-

Polish one.

265

Cf. Kołodziejczyk, “Inner Lake or Frontier? e Ottoman Black Sea in the Six-

teenth and Seventeenth Centuries,” in: Enjeux politiques, économiques et militaires

en mer Noire (XIV

–XXI

siècles). Études à la mémoire de Mihail Guboglu. Edited by

F. Bilici, I. Cândea, and A. Popescu (Braila, 2007): 125–139, esp. pp. 127–130.

266

See the entry headed “Hranyca knjazstvu lytovskomu z zemleju tatarskoju per-

ekopskoju, Očakovom, Belym horodom y zemleju Voloskoju,” in Lietuvos Metrika

(1540–1543) 12–oji Teismų bylų knyga (XVI a. pabaigos kopija) (Vilnius, 2007), p. 82.

the crimean khanate & poland-lithuania (1523–1671) 89

royal request that he should prevent any Muslim raids of Poland-

Lithuania, arguing that if the evildoers “ee to Akkerman, Očakiv, or

Azov, or if a raid against your state is committed by the cossacks from

these castles, then we have no power to conscate [their captives and

spoils] and send back to you, because these castles belong to the Turk-

ish emperor.”

267

A somewhat ambivalent attitude towards the very concept of ter-

ritorial rule was best expressed in a letter by Sahib Giray, sent to the

Polish king in 1548. When asked to prevent his subjects from graz-

ing their herds in the royal lands on the rivers Boh and Synja voda

(Synjuxa), the khan retorted: “this land is neither yours nor mine, but

God’s; whoever is stronger, will keep it.”

268

Aer the treaty of 1542, for the remaining years of Sahib Giray’s

reign his diplomatic relations with Vilnius and Cracow were less

intensive. While Poland-Lithuania again extended its armistice with

Muscovy (1549), the khan focused his attention on the east. Aiming

to subdue the northern Caucasus and the lower Volga, he led several

campaigns against the Circassians,

269

invaded Astrakhan (1546–1547),

and fought the Nogays. Aer the death of Safa Giray (1549), he also

tried to secure his control over Kazan. His ambitious plans resulted in

a conict with Sultan Suleyman, especially when Sahib Giray refused

to assist the Ottomans in their campaign against Persia. e khan’s

fate was sealed by gossip of his plan of annexing Ottoman Caa. In

1551 Suleyman invested Devlet Giray, Sahib’s nephew who resided in

Istanbul, and sent him to the Crimea, providing him with Ottoman

troops and artillery. Sahib Giray was murdered along with his sons,

and the new khan ascended the throne.

267

See Document 28.

268

Bo est to zemlja ny tvoja, ny moja, odno bozskaja: xto mocnejšyj, tot sobe oderžyt’;

see Kniga posol’skaja, vol. 1, p. 42; cf. Syroečkovskij, “Muxammed-Geraj i ego vassaly,”

pp. 7–8, and Kolankowski, Zygmunt August, wielki książę Litwy, p. 286.

269

On the problematic dating of these campaigns, cf. Aleksandr Nekrasov,

Meždunarodnye otnošenija i narody Zapadnogo Kavkaza (poslednjaja četvert’ XV—

pervaja polovina XVI v.) (Moscow, 1990), pp. 107–109.

90 part one—chapter two

e reign of Devlet Giray (1551–1577) and the problematic

anti-Muscovian alliance

In September 1551, in his rst foreign military campaign, Devlet Giray

conquered and burned the Lithuanian castle of Braclav.

270

e raid

surprised its inhabitants, but it was not as unexpected as it might have

appeared. Although Poland-Lithuania was ocially on peaceful terms

with both the Crimean Khanate and the Porte, in the 1540s Polish and

Lithuanian border commanders committed numerous raids into the

Muslim territories, abducting people, horses, cattle, and sheep. ese

raids were typically presented as a defensive measure and just revenge

for the Tatar raids, but they were also quite protable. Besides, some

of them were inspired by the pro-Habsburg faction in Poland, whose

members believed that Cracow should join Vienna in its anti-Ottoman

war. e peak of this raiding activity was reached in the years 1548–

1549, when Suleyman was campaigning against Persia and Sahib Giray

was busy with the Nogays and Kazan. ese events coincided with the

death of Sigismund I in 1548. Although the old king had prudently

included his son in his treaties with both Muslim neighbors, aer his

death it was expected that Sigismund Augustus would solemnly recon-

rm his father’s friendly intentions. As the young king procrastinated

with sending a great embassy to Istanbul while the border raids con-

tinued, the Porte encouraged the Tatars to attack Poland-Lithuania

without openly breaking the peace. e rst Tatar raid occurred

already in 1549, led by Sahib Giray’s son and qalga, Emin Giray. e

second one, directed against Braclav, was headed in person by the new

khan, Devlet Giray.

271

e crisis in the mutual relations proved temporary. Late in the

year 1551, Devlet Giray sent his envoy, Biytak, son of Abdurrahman,

who swore in the khan’s name to keep peace, provided that the king

would send annual gis in the amount that used to be sent to Sahib

Giray. In reply, Sigismund Augustus dispatched his courtier, Alek-

sandr Vladyka, who carried 2,000 orins in cash, 394 pieces of Eng-

270

See Jerzy Ochmański, “Organizacja obrony w Wielkim Księstwie Litewskim

przed napadami Tatarów krymskich w XV–XVI wieku,” Studia i Materiały do Historii

Wojskowości, vol. 5 (1960): 349–398, esp. pp. 363–364.

271

Cf. Dziubiński, Stosunki dyplomatyczne polsko-tureckie, pp. 184–186, 198 and

202; idem, “Polsko-litewskie napady na tureckie pogranicze czarnomorskie w epoce

dwu ostatnich Jagiellonów,” Kwartalnik Historyczny 103 (1996), no. 3, pp. 53–87, esp.

pp. 60–63.

the crimean khanate & poland-lithuania (1523–1671) 91

lish cloth, and additional three sets of nine gis. In his letter, issued in

May 1552, the khan conrmed that he had received the royal gis

though he complained that the cloth was rotten and the additional

gis of low quality. While he expected future gis to be more t-

ting, he added in consolation that his family consisted of merely four

wives, two sons, two daughters, and his mother, in comparison to

the two wives, six sons, and six daughters of Sahib Giray, hence the

royal treasury would save on extra presents. In addition, Devlet Giray

urged the king that—for the sake of peace—future great envoys should

bring suitable presents for the khan’s twelve councilors and ocials,

his eight trusted servants, and six qaraçı beys.

272

Along with his letter,

Devlet Giray sent a new instrument of peace and asked the king to

swear a solemn oath “according to the Christian law” in the presence

of the khan’s great envoy, Dervish Mehmed Mirza, son of Bulghaq.

On 29 August 1552 Dervish Mehmed, accompanied by a second envoy

named Kantemir, arrived at Danzig (Gdańsk) and was received at a

solemn audience, attended by the king and his Polish and Lithuanian

councilors.

273

e khan’s instrument of peace, issued in May 1552, typically began

with a list of lands “granted” to Lithuania. In comparison with Sahib

Giray’s yarlıq from 1542, a few localities were missing while some

others, which had been listed in the older yarlıqs, were reentered.

274

Four important Ukrainian castles: Ovruč, Žytomyr, Vinnycja, and

Kaniv were registered for the rst time, which proves that the doc-

ument’s author aimed to update its contents. e following clauses

regarded the khan’s engagement to restore to Lithuania its lands lost

to Muscovy, the mutual forgiveness of past wrongs, and the security

of merchants and envoys. Devlet Giray reiterated his promise that no

damage should ever be done to Poland, the Grand Duchy of Lithu-

ania, or the Ukraine.

275

Unlike his predecessor, who explained in 1539

272

On the number of qaraçıs, cf. n. 110 above.

273

All the above information is contained in the khan’s letter sent along with the

instrument of peace; see Kniga posol’skaja, vol. 1, pp. 60–63. e envoy’s father, Bulghaq,

should be probably identied with a prominent courtier (içki bek) of Sa‘adet Giray;

cf. Malinovskij, “Istoričeskoe sobranie,” p. 415. Perhaps Dervish Mehmed should be

identied with the future leader of the Külük clan (?); cf. Document 41, n. 2.

274

Radogošč’, Starodub, and Brjansk were missing while Sokolec’, Byryn, Vicebsk,

and the lands along the Dnieper were reentered.

275

. . . obejum pan’stvam, Ljackomu y Velykomu Knjazstvu Lytovskomu, abo na

Ukrayne; the original meaning of the Slavic word ukrayna/ukraina is “frontier,” but

in the given context it already refers to the geographical region—the Ukraine.

92 part one—chapter two

that he could not prevent the inhabitants of Akkerman, Očakiv, and

Azov from raiding the royal lands because they were Ottoman sub-

jects, Devlet Giray invoked his authority to do so, granted directly by

Sultan Suleyman, as:

His Majesty, the Turkish emperor, allowed me to keep a tight rein on

these cossacks and restrain them from such acts; even if I punish them

for their transgressions, then His Majesty, the Emperor will not reproach

me for this.

In return for all these favors, the king was obliged to send each year, by

1 November, his gis in exactly the same amount as stipulated by the

yarlıq from 1542. Like Sahib Giray in 1539, Devlet agreed to limit the

number of Crimean notables entitled to send separate embassies to

the king; these were: the khan, his wives, the qalga sultan and other

Giray princes (i.e., the sultans), three qaraçıs, and two mirzas—the

sons of the above qaraçıs.

276

e document was corroborated by a sol-

emn oath, sworn by the khan, his son and qalga Ahmed Giray, as well

as other retinue members.

277

A major factor that prompted Devlet Giray to reconcile with

Sigismund Augustus aer the pillage of Braclav was the imminent dan-

ger coming from Moscow. Ivan IV skilfully benetted from the inter-

nal conicts in both the Kazan and Crimean khanates and resolved to

annex the lands on the middle Volga. Devlet Giray tried to prevent

this, but his raid of Muscovy in the summer of 1552 proved unsuc-

cessful. On 2 October 1552 Kazan succumbed to the invaders and the

khanate ceased to exist.

In 1553, the reconciliation between Poland-Lithuania and the

Crimea was conrmed by a new formal treaty between Cracow and

Istanbul. Unlike in 1533, when the Ottomans had hesitated to include

the khan in the treaty, regarding him as a sovereign ruler, the ‘ahd-

name of Sultan Suleyman, issued in 1553, stipulated that the khan

was obliged to keep peace in return for “customary payments” (Tur.

276

e yarlıq from 1539 listed four qaraçıs and eight mirzas. It is worth noting

that in his letter to the king, Devlet Giray named six qaraçıs entitled to receive royal

gis, but apparently only three of them, the beys of the Shirins, Manghıts, and Barıns,

were entitled to send their proper embassies; cf. Kniga posol’skaja, vol. 1, p. 61, and

n. 110 above.

277

See Document 32.

the crimean khanate & poland-lithuania (1523–1671) 93

‘adetler) sent from the royal side.

278

An analogous clause was inserted

to the royal instrument of peace, sent to Istanbul in 1554, yet with

one notable dierence: the royal chancery regarded the gis delivered

to the khan as a stipend (Lat. stipendium) paid in return for Tatar

military assistance.

279

e clause regarding the annual payments for

the Crimean khan would reappear in all subsequent Polish-Ottoman

treaties until the end on the 17th century and provoke repeated dis-

putes in regard to its interpretation. It was abolished only in 1699 by

the Karlowitz Treaty.

280

e conquest of Kazan encouraged Ivan IV to further his expansion

along the Volga. He supported a Nogay malcontent, Ibrahim, against

his older brother, Yusuf. In 1554, Ibrahim killed Yusuf and took the

rein of the Nogay horde, declaring his loyalty to Ivan. In the same

year, Russian troops entered Astrakhan putting on its throne a new

khan, Dervish Ali, who acknowledged Muscovian suzerainty. Devlet

Giray reacted by raiding Muscovy and defeating a Muscovian army at

Sud’bišči in June 1555. As Ahmed Giray perished in the battle, the post

of qalga was given to another son of Devlet, Mehmed Giray.

281

Later

on, Devlet Giray persuaded the new khan of Astrakhan to expel his

Russian advisers, but it only resulted in the nal Muscovian annexa-

tion of the khanate in September 1556.

282

e Russian march along the Volga resulted from the conscious

policy of Ivan IV, who already in 1547 adopted the title of tsar, devel-

oping an expansive imperial ideology. Muscovian aims to control the

fertile lands on the Volga and the trade routes leading to Central Asia

278

“Henceforth, as long as the customary payments [‘adetler], which used to be

given since olden days, are paid on time by the king to the Tatar khan, [and] as long

as the king does nothing contrary to the treaty, no meddling or interference, harm or

damage should be done to the dominions and subjects of the king by the khan and

the Tatar army; in such a manner that when a damage is done by the Tatars, they

will be punished according to my noble order;” see Kołodziejczyk, Ottoman-Polish

Diplomatic Relations, pp. 240–241.

279

Caesar Przekopecensis durante hoc foedere nulla damna ditionibus nostris inferre

debebit. Nos vero stipendium solitum, ut nobis contra hostes nostros assistat, dare illi

debebimus; see ibidem, p. 245.

280

Cf. Kołodziejczyk, “La Res Publica polono-lituanienne était-elle le vassal de

l’Empire ottoman?,” in: Studies in Oriental Art and Culture of Professor Tadeusz

Majda. Edited by A. Parzymies (Warsaw, 2006): 125–136.

281

I.e., the future khan Mehmed II Giray (r. 1577–1584); on the campaign of 1555,

see Vinogradov, Russko-krymskie otnošenija, vol. 1, pp. 95–97.

282

On the last years of the khanate of Astrakhan, see Zajcev, Astraxanskoe xanstvo,

pp. 151–170.